I thought this was obvious, but apparently not: The prospects of fiscal measures to bolster the US economy in the event of a 2023 downturn are pretty dim.

At least one notable investor suggested over the weekend that both monetary and fiscal policy would swing into action should the world’s largest economy fall into recession in the back half of this year. That’s probably accurate on the monetary policy side of things, particularly if inflation is materially lower by then. But as that investor knows all too well given his penchant for highlighting culture wars flashpoints on social media, the US is a hopelessly divided nation.

Democrats outperformed virtually all expectations in the midterms, but it wasn’t enough to keep the House, and as discussed in admittedly caustic terms here last week, some House Republicans aren’t what one might call practical types. If I’m honest, though, so-called “fringe” GOP’ers likely wouldn’t be the main obstacle to fiscal policy changes to combat a recession. Republicans of all sorts pretend to be budget hawks when a Democrat is in the Oval Office and/or when fiscal stimulus doesn’t involve cutting taxes. That’s not an attempt to be derisive. It’s just a fact. Since the early 80s, Republicans have shown no regard for the deficit when tax cuts are on the table, but habitually insist on fiscal discipline when Democrats bring up demand-side stimulus. Meanwhile, some (and by that I mean two) key Democrats have demonstrated their reluctance to toe the party line when it comes to government spending as long as inflation is elevated.

Given all of that, market participants would be ill-advised to expect a countercyclical fiscal response to a prospective recession. “Divided control would make it harder for Congress to respond to a downturn, and any recession that might occur would likely be far milder than the downturns that led to substantial fiscal responses in 2008-09 and 2020-21,” Goldman said, in the course of suggesting that “substantial fiscal policy changes” are unlikely in the new year.

“Instead, we would expect a debate on fiscal stimulus next year to end similarly to 1990-1991, when divided government thwarted White House attempts at fiscal support,” the bank went on to write, before pulling in the debt ceiling debate. “Congressional Republicans are apt to seek some type of spending cuts in return for an increase in the debt limit [but] we expect President Biden to reject attempts at negotiation, and we would be surprised if Congress approved more than half as much fiscal restraint next year as it agreed to in 2011.”

The implication is that although a meaningful fiscal expansion is unlikely, pretensions to fiscal restraint are likely to be muted as well. The Kyrsten Sinema “I’m an Independent!” side show notwithstanding, Democrats’ thin majority in the Senate stands.

Of course, gridlock is good for markets, or so says conventional wisdom. And if 2023 is defined by a sharp drop in inflation, a mild, late-year recession and the return of Fed accommodation, we’ll hardly be in uncharted waters. In many ways, that’d represent a reversion to the post-financial crisis mean. Subpar growth with inflation low enough to give the Fed plausible deniability for easing and monetary policy as the “only game in town” due to fiscal inaction, is familiar territory. That sort of conjuncture bodes well for markets, but poorly for Main Street.