The latest CNN/ORC poll finds a plurality would blame congressional Republicans if no agreement is reached before the U.S. hits the so-called fiscal cliff:
Forty-five percent surveyed in a new CNN/ORC poll said they would blame congressional Republicans if there is no agreement, with 34 percent pointing the finger at Obama.
Two-thirds say the U.S. would experience serious problems if the combination of tax rate increases and automatic spending cuts expected in January take effect.
One in four says the country would experience a crisis, with 44 percent expecting major problems if a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff is not found. One in four says the fiscal cliff would cause minor problems, with 7 percent saying there would not be any consequences.
Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe their personal situation would be affected if the U.S. fell over the cliff.
Republicans will go into the negotiations at a disadvantage, since they have more of an incentive to cut a deal to avoid public backlash. But is the public more likely to blame Republicans because it disagrees with their positions, or because it has come to associate the party with obstructionism? Maybe a little of both. According to exit polling, a plurality of voters favor tax hikes for Americans making over $250,000 a year. But over the last three years the GOP has also been branded, unfairly, as the party of no compromises. I say unfairly not because Republicans are particularly open to compromise, but because Democrats are just as rigid. In fact, a growing number of liberal Dems claim they’d rather jump off the fiscal cliff than make concessions:
A growing bloc of emboldened liberals say they’re not afraid to watch defense spending get gouged and taxes go up on every American if a budget deal doesn’t satisfy their priorities.
Here’s what these progressives fear: an agreement that keeps lower tax rates for the wealthy, hits the social safety net with unpalatable cuts and leaves Pentagon spending unscathed. In other words, they’d rather walk the country off the cliff than watch President Barack Obama cave on long-held liberal priorities. …
If tax rates snap back to the higher levels from the 1990s and painful budget cuts start to hit the Pentagon, these Democrats — led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray — believe they would wield more leverage over the GOP to enact a budget compromise on their terms. And with a January deal, Republicans would technically avoid violating the no-new-taxes pledge that most of them have signed because they would then be voting to cut taxes.
Liberals see little downside to this scenario. Going off the cliff would trigger devastating defense cuts, which the left would love. And when tax rates would go up across the board, the public would blame the GOP for failing to reach a deal. But don’t expect to hear the media bemoaning destructive Democratic brinkmanship anytime soon.
I heard an interview with MD Rep. Andy Harris on a local radio station. I have no idea of the political inclinations of the anchor, but she asked him if he would compromise. I don't recall his response right now. (I think he kind of dodged the question.) Many people out there are like that anchor. The narrative they've been fed is that there could a be a deal if only Republicans wouldn't defend the rich. But this ignores what really happened before, as Bob Woodward (no Republican) reported. Congress and the Senate had agreed to a deal. It was the President who torpedoed the deal by demanding further tax hikes. nUntil, unless the administration's bad faith is exposed and publicized, the (unfair) perception will be that Republicans are to blame.
Going off the cliff would trigger devastating defense cuts, which the left would love. And when tax rates would go up across the board, the public would blame the GOP for failing to reach a deal. n nI think that's spot on. The public – or a majority of them (I think it would be more then 45%) – would view the GOP's unwillingness to raise taxes on the rich as the cause of the failure. n nWe've seen this repeatedly in polls. The public wants spending cuts over taxes increases (except for the top earners) but when asked what to cut they say foreign aid or some small part of the budget. When asked about cutting the big programs – and problems – they oppose the cuts. n nThe Republicans have a very very bad hand right now. They need to agree to tax increases on the wealthy and then shift the debate about obstructionism to the liberal's unwillingness to address entitlements. Until then, they are against the wall.
I entirely agree. When the Dems had a bad hand they let Bush have his way with taxes that led to fiscal irresponsibility that led directly to Obama. The public has to get over their perception that it was all Bush's fault before the Republicans can be believed again. So they have to see where unimpeded Dem ideas will take us. Not very happy about this conclusion but there is no use hiding our collective head in the sand.
I'm not against tax increases if they automatically expire within a few years and are used solely to pay off the debt. Tax increases may be anti-growth but they can be justified in a limited number of cases. However, it is unlikely that Democrats would accept a temporary tax increase and said tax increase – temporary or not – wouldn't be used to pay off the debt.
The Democrats who want to go off the fiscal cliff count their chickens before they roost. When 120 million Americans are forced to write checks to the IRS (or pay with credit cards) because of Alternative Minimum Tax, those 120 million will be uberpissed. Just remember, federal withholding on your paycheck does NOT take into account any AMT. Therefore, the withholding tables will keep about 120 million Americans underpaid through 2013 when they file on April 15, 2014. Most Americans are used to receiving refunds. When they have to pay, it will be a bad day for all politcians. What else happens in 2014? All of Obamacare goes into effect. 2014 will not be a fun year for Democrats if they let tax rates on the middle class go up, allow 120 million Americans to be affect by AMT, and millions more penalized for Obamacare. If you are a Dem, you want a deal now, not down the road.
The only other point I would make is that 45% blaming Republicans is no big deal. That 45% is probably the Democrat base. Who cares if the Democrat base blames Republicans and if the GOP base blames Democrats? When that number gets over 50%, let me know. Until then, Republicans should ignore the pressure to cave from pundits and media.
An additional problem, it seems to me, is that the debt still remains an amorphous issue to most voters. They don't see the consequences of it right now. Interest rates are still quite low, inflation is not great but not terrible. So, where's the problem with the debt? People don't see it, it's still a future danger to many of them. n nSpending cuts – if enacted – will be felt immediately. The press will be quick to do stories – real and exagerrated – about the suffering of those on Medicare/Medicaid et cetera. n nIf it's "real people getting hurt versus a vague debt problem" we know who will win and lose that argument.
“[D]on’t expect to hear the media bemoaning destructive Democratic brinkmanship anytime soon.” n nThe reason the “public” will blame the GOP for fiscal cliff talks’ failure is because the media will handle the issue like any other issue; namely, in such a way as to lead the public to believe that anything that does not go swimmingly is the fault of the GOP, for example, by interviewing [far] more liberal than conservative politicians and "experts", and in the latter case interviewing them more critically and even hostilely. n nLet’s have some truth here for once. n nIs it the GOP’s fault the Obama administration has been spending money at an unprecedented rate deliberately and without restrain for the past four years? n nIs it the GOP’s fault the Obama administration has not managed the Republic’s affairs with a budget for the past four years? n nIs it the GOP’s fault the Obama administration has racked up unprecedented deficits for the past four years? n nIs it the GOP’s fault the Obama administration has done not one da*n thing to rein in government spending for the past four years? n nIs it the GOP’s fault the Obama administration has aggravated our nation’s entitlement mess as much as possible, and done nothing to ameliorate it except drag out completely irresponsible sophomoric MediScare BS? n nI could go on but why bother. All of these things have occurred in spite of Republican efforts and suggested solutions to prevent them n nI contend that if the majority of the nation say the the answer is ‘yes’ to these questions, it is because the majority of the nation has allowed the media to mold their thinking – it is sometimes called Kool-aid – and has failed to think for themselves. n nThe Democrats and Obama in particular have been destroying the US Constitution. Has that garnered any attention in the media? Has the media decried the “Imperial Presidency”? Of course not. That expression and that complaint are reserved for when Republicans are in office. n nWake up folks. You are watching the end of the Republic. That is the real story. n nDon’t expect to hear the media cover that anytime soon either.
I do not believe it is crazy to describe our country as similar to a banana republic. The MSM is propaganda tool of the soft totalitarians. We are doomed unless this situation is reversed in the very near future.
If only then VP Cheney had NOT said "deficits don't matter"…and if only then Fed-chair Greenspan had NOT been forecasting budget surpluses "as far as the eye can see"…if only then The Hammer DeLay had not been so effective that he handed Pelosi her playbook… n nFace it: the GOP tried to 'starve the beast', but then we got the Pelosi Party, trapped in amber, circa 1967. n n
Watch Kelly Ayotte. Articulate, female, and not from a particularly conservative state (New Hampshire, aka "Northern Massachusetts"), she already has been saying this for a while and is in a position to push it. n nThe wild card here is that half the cuts are non-DOD — and I hear that unemployment is the first to go. So as much as the left will like the defense cuts, there are going to be a lot of upset layabouts who are going to be upset about their loss of unemployment benefits.
"A republic – if you can keep it." At some point Americans have to man up and take responsibility for their (our) country. If blaming Republicans now for the fiscal mess feels good, so be it. Who cares. We can't keep fighting off stupid forever. nThree weeks ago I still had faith in my fellow Americans. Now – I'm ready to give up. Polls like this only increase my pessimism. nAt any rate, I think Republicans should quit worrying about public perceptions, do the right thing and do the best they can at getting the message out. Sure, the media will largely ignore it or will so muddle it that many people won't "get it", but what other options are there? Looking for the political angle that does the least damage seems futile. Will the same media eager to embarrass Republicans give them any credit for compromise? Of course not. Liberal Dems are ready to plunge into the abyss because they know Republicans will take the political hit. Good grief – how in the world do we compete with that?
What the article says about Republicans getting the blame is surely true — but wouldn't it also be true that if the Republicans accept whatever Obama, Reid, and Pelosi want … and it doesn't work, that they will get the blame because it wasn't enough or they waited too long or they're all racists or something? That is, anything bad that happens — as things stand — will be blamed on Republicans. What I think that should mean is that the Republicans need to stand for what they think will benefit the whole country and then, not just take their medicine, so to speak, but actually TRY to convince the country. What's the point of there even being a Republican party if all Republican office holders must kowtow to any Democrat on any point (for the express purpose of keeping their high paying jobs, then — right, even at the expense of the American people)?
Well said. It's what I was trying to say above. You say it much better.
The fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington essentially present what can be described as a bi-lateral monopoly problem wherein both sides must negotiate with each other or else each face the fiscal cliff which is their best and only alternative to a negotiated agreement. The recent liberal enthusiasm for diving off the fiscal cliff partially reflects a new found hubris following the 2012 election (excepting the increasingly erratic Paul Krugman) but also partially a sense that they have a stronger bargaining position, but more importantly that they suspect, perhaps rightly that the fiscal cliff is on the whole less punitive to their side.
This is mistaken for a number of reasons. First, the fiscal cliff was designed to be a ham handed and punitive measure that would scare both sides into a settlement. Liberals have assumed that after going over the cliff, despite the fact that they would still have to negotiate with the GOP again, Obama would be able to single handedly demagogue and attack the GOP into submission over issues that they find objectionable. But one of the things the Democrats ignore is that while it is true that Obama got 51% of the vote running a rather left-wing campaign by American standards, the reality is that when voters cast ballots for candidates and parties, they are basically buying a basket of positions and candidate qualities, some of which they may not like but that they cannot alter or exclude. While this may not make a difference to most liberals and conservatives, who find the two party system to their liking, libertarians, true moderates and weak independents , the real swing voters, find voting a lukewarm process. Making Obama expend some political capital on higher taxes would be a good way to find out how important it is to his conception of who is as a letader and what his candidacy was about, however, while Obama has n
been an excellent campaigner for his own candidacy, he has largely been a failure at promoting his own largest initiatives, including ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, the Stimulus Bill etc. His personal popularity has consistently outstripped his ratings on policy, and may explain his entire margin of victory. Furthermore, Obama will be getting a short honeymoon, will quickly become a lame duck, may face the second-term curse, and will almost certainly face the “sixth year itch.”
Therefore, the expectation by liberals that Obama's charisma and will to power will save the day is optimistic and not based on past history. Second, as even some liberals admit, Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on 95% of income earners during the '08 campaign was chimerical campaign rhetoric. One seriously has to wonder if and when the Bush tax rates expire in 2013 whether there won’t be further adjustments. This is especially true when Obama does not cut spending in any meaningful way domestically, doesn’t reform entitlements and doesn’t reform the tax code in a fundamental way. I don’t believe for a second that Obama is some now reformed fiscal conservative who cares about deficits. I think he wants to raise taxes for ideological reasons. Nevertheless, if Obama doesn’t raise taxes further down the line, he will have to cut spending somewhere or else the U.S. will continue to have horrendous and historic annual deficits. Therefore, going over the cliff creates a "jump ball" for both parties, rather than a "teed up" ball for Obama to hit out the park.
Third, the only way to resolve a bi-lateral monopoly style negotiation fairly is to basically give both sides 50% and call it a day. If Obama and the Democrats want tax increases on certain tax brackets, then the GOP may as well draw up a wish list of spending cuts and entitlement reforms and tell conservatives, yes we increased taxes, but we cut domestic spending substantially. That’s all you can expect in this scenario. nThe liberal extremists like Paul Krugman who want to go other the cliff in an effort to extract further concessions from the GOP are as bad as the alleged conservatives they constantly whine about and they don't understand either economics or how negotiations work. The truth is that this is a social waste and a futile effort. Both sides basically must go 50-50 or else face the cliff. And the American people won’t reward the party that decided to go over the cliff because they didn’t get their way. n
I seem to get the sense that even some Republicans and some conservative commentators forget what the real source of conservative distrust with the Democrats over taxes is. I’ll ignore for the moment the real concerns regarding the effect on the economy, the fact that once the Democrats discover a revenue spigot they never turn it off, and the fact that taxes remain one of the GOP’s most compelling issues, one that tends to unite rather than divide social conservative, national security conservatives and economic conservatives and that gets significant numbers of indys and moderates on board. I’m not that old, and I don’t want to date myself, but conservatives in the 1980’s and early 1990’s were rubbed the wrong way by deals that Reagan and Bush I did with House Democrats that frontloaded tax increases, and then backloaded spending cuts, that oftentimes were less than agreed or never materialized. n
The deficit reduction deal that George Bush reached with congressional Democrats in 1990 is a classic example. Bush raised taxes while not even making a dent in spending. And while the NYTimes gave Bush favorable press for one of the only times of his entire political career, the result was that his approval ratings among conservatives and Republicans took a nosedive that, once the Persian Gulf war bounce receded, doomed his re-election. And for his trouble, Clinton pounded Bush in 1992 for breaking his “no new taxes” pledge from 1988. nExperiences like this one, where the Democrats get exactly what they want, while GOP leaders achieve nothing leads to a nasty opinion. n
But Obama is not a deficit hawk and his alleged plan to reduce the deficit is not balanced. America ought to look to what is happening in Democrat controlled states, like my home-state of Connecticut, to find out what the Obama-Biden future will look like. nThe Malloy supremacy enacted the largest tax increase in Connecticut history. He jacked up the top marginal tax rate, the top corporate rate, the sales tax and a plethora of sin taxes, excise taxes, and, of course, the death tax. Despite a flurry of tax increases, we now face a project shortfall of over $350 million that grows daily. After not cutting spending significantly or forcing concession from the state most powerful lobby, the public employee unions, he has promised not to raise any further taxes. That’s funny, I that solution to a deficit was further tax increases. n