JUST OVER three weeks remain before we reach the edge of the fiscal cliff, and in the perverse logic of how Washington functions these days, everything appears to be right on track. Disaster looms in the form of the cliff’s $607 billion of tax increases and spending cuts set to take effect at year’s end. Unless Congress acts to stop it, the Congressional Budget Office says, the country will slide back into recession. Cable news stations are running countdown clocks. Both sides are bickering and pointing fingers, taking turns being “outraged” and “saddened,” and generally acting out the Kabuki ritual that presages every big Washington deal.
Most people don’t seem very worried. Markets rose this week. Citizens aren’t freaking out over the impending tax hikes. And the deal likely to be struck seems obvious, even beneficial: higher taxes on the rich in exchange for long-term entitlement reform to bring the budget back into balance.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
Gosh, another pundit who is ready to declare that if the Republicans would just accept the tax hike, the problem would be solved. This is beyond silly; it is journalistic malpractice. Static revenue scoring suggests that raising the top marginal rate from 35 to 39.6 would generate about $85 Billion per year, when we have a deficit of over $1 Trillion. The only way to solve the deficit, is through spending cuts. The GOP will go along with some symbolic tax increases; but they will only do so if the President can lay out exactly what programs he will cut in return. HE has failed here, but no mention by this writer.
Entitlement reform can be delayed, but must be addressed in 2013. It is up to the president to lead here, and he has shown he is incapable of being a leader.
It's not a cliff. It's a slope.
And a supermajority of Americans will blame the GOP if no deal is reached.
Richmond12, as did Mittens and as does the congressional Republicans, just misses or avoids the point of hiking tax rates: the rest of us are going to pay for the mess still being sorted out from the 2007 recession and 2008 bank blowup ... and most of us dont feel like bearing ALL of the cost ... never been to kindergarten??
it is called sharing. it is what we do with social obligations and communal duties. just because Mittens thought that his charitable duties were Mormon dues and that most of us are deadbeats, doesnt make it so. wake up, read the month old election results. special treatment for the Super Wealthy got voted down. duh.
I thought this was a good view on the problem:
The Democrats want to raise revenue and the Republicans want to reform entitlements. Those goals would seem to be easily reconciled — just do some of each, or even lots of each. But it only seems that way because we don’t often think about why the parties want these things. Simply (and surely somewhat too simply) put, the Democrats want more money so that the entitlement system doesn’t have to be reformed, while the Republicans want to reform the entitlement system so that the government doesn’t have to take more of the country’s money or take up even more of the economy. That means that doing some of each, let alone lots of each, doesn’t give both parties what they want, it gives both parties what they are desperately trying to avoid.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334824/bargaining-and-its-limits-yuval-levin#
When the brainwashed masses living in fly-over country feel the hit right to their paychecks-I mean they really feel that hit-Omph! and Ouch! and then Obama proposes to lower their taxes, and that proposal is blocked by house Republicans because it won't include the rich-wow...that's when the fun really starts.
The buck stops with Obama - or it should. Four more years of the inability to build consensus - why, America!
"higher taxes on the rich in exchange for long-term entitlement reform to bring the budget back into balance."
But Obama has not proposed any cuts or reforms
republicans continue to be hammered by the MSM (shocking) for not wanting higher taxes that will do absolutely nothing to help. Yet, the MSM fails to call out the dems (shocking) on their refusal to include any entitlement reform or spending cuts - which is where the problem begins. Pathetic
What's so surprising is the near unamimity of the conviction that the R's are solely to blame for the Cliff that has been constructed by the D's. The D's have failed to produce a budget for a couple of YEARS, without being called out on this illegality. Contrary to well-publicized belief, it's NOT "w's" deficit, it belongs squarely to the guy that's been in office for 3 years.
The R's are being smeared because they won't accept obama's terms that demand new taxes from the Repubs, but refuse to include real spending cuts. Such a deal.........Redirect your wrath, folks.
Actually the cliff was a joint venture. When you lose an election that means you lost the argument.
The increase in the deficit in the Obama years is simply due to the necessary stimulus required to stave off depresion. Obama is a moderate democratic, much like Clinton (maybe a little less so). But I don't think he originally ran as someone who would greatly increase government spending. The Republicans these days follow dogma in all their walks of life. This includes things like Evolution (they don't believe), global warming (they don't believe), and no increase in taxes (read my lips). They simply follow dogma. And everythign is religion to them (want to raise taxes? -- then you are the antichrist).
love all my "dislikes" but no counter points. guess it's hard when the facts are not on youpr side.
Rand Paul's idea is a good one.
Besides you and a few other folks no one likes Rand Paul or the Libertarian idea of "every man for himself" America. It's just not sellable.
So "begolfing" my friend believes that both parties have this underlying cynical view of what they desire and what they desire in no way reflects what the American people want. I always have this problem with the idea that one party wants more of our tax money in order to enrich govt. as if they get something from it. While the other party wishes to impoverish govt. so that who knows what.
Actually the Dems. are trying to protect the very same programs the American people seem to want. Now perhaps "begolfing" doesn't want them but the majority of the people do. Now it would seem the "conservative" approach would be well if the vast majority of Americans, which it is a vast majority, want these programs then we should have to pay for them. But no, there approach seems to be we don't care if you want them, we know better and we want to end them. Politcally we've already seen how that plays out.
So how about some maturity here. Raise the taxes as they should be. The federal tax revenues are the lowest they have been in 50 years, increase revenue to pay for what folks want. Want to reform entitlements, go right ahead. However, the political reality is you'd better do it in a fashion that the American public desires. Otherwise, repeat the election of 2012.
If you can't figure that out I can't help you.