If reports filtering out of Washington are to be believed there is a fair chance that a compromise will be reached sometime over the next three days that will head off the most unpopular aspect of the impending financial crisis: across the board tax increases for all Americans. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the compromise which may be crafted between the White House and the leaders of the House and Senate will avoid dealing with the spending cuts mandated by the sequestration process including devastating decreases for the nation’s defense.
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have given every indication that they think it is in their interest to see the nation head over the fiscal cliff making any sort of compromise appear like a last minute rescue no matter how unfortunate its terms might be. Most Americans are of the opinion that any deal that would limit the scope of a tax increase is better than no action at all. They are right about that but the fact that it appears impossible to do anything about spending either in the short term or the long right now represents a massive failure on the part of the government. While up until now much of the public still appears to be blaming the mess on recalcitrant Republicans who oppose any tax increases, the unwillingness of the president and Senate Democrats to budge on entitlement spending even in the shadow of potential disaster may eventually lead to a shift in opinion.
If some sort of narrow deal is reached in the coming days, it will make it all the more necessary for Republicans to be even more determined to do something about spending in January. It is at that point that an overconfident President Obama may discover that once he has his long sought after tax hike on the wealthy, the GOP stand against more government spending may start looking a lot more reasonable to most Americans.
The president has been able to demagogue the issue of the rich paying what he says is their fair share and thereby avoided being held accountable for the massive increase in the national debt on his watch. Yet once taxes cease to be the sticking point, it will be difficult if not impossible for him and his party to use the soak-the-rich theme to evade a discussion about how to pay for out-of-control entitlement spending.
House Speaker John Boehner seemed to lose control of the Republican caucus last week in a battle in which conservatives opposed to a tax increase on anyone were numerous enough to prevent his Plan B compromise from passing. That was a blow to his prestige and leadership. But in the coming weeks he could recoup his losses as a united GOP will have the chance to stand up to the Democrats on entitlement reform.
It is that prospect of a new debate in which he will no longer be able to rely on the hoary claims of fairness that Obama rightly fears. It can only be hoped that there are enough Democrats in the House and the Senate who are sufficiently concerned about the impact of the fiscal cliff on their constituents in order to override the desire of the president and Reid to send the country over it.
"the unwillingness of the president and Senate Democrats to budge on entitlement spending even in the shadow of potential disaster may eventually lead to a shift in opinion."—How, if no one (other than the tiny portion of the electorate that watches Fox or reads the WSJ) knows that Dems are unwilling to budge on entitlement spending? Obama and his media have finally answered the age old question: if a tree falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it, did it really fall: Now know for sure: No, it did not really fall. n
The Main Stream Media seem to have become so openly biased for Obama and the Democrats it is hard for me to see them ever blaming the Democrats for anything; ever again. They remind me of a propaganda branch of the Democratic Party.
please stop calling Social Security and Medicare "entitlements". They are insurance programs that used to have dedicated tax revenues before the bipartisan theft to pay for the immoral Bush43 tax cuts. n nyou just had to have Romney, Mr. MassHealth, in 2012. n nmeh.
Social security is basically a Ponzi scheme – Paul Krugman himself once said so. Medicare's funding has been out of whack for decades beginning when the first decade of revenues undershot the costs by a mile, typical of government analysis. They are definitely not insurance programs as any insurance company attempting to operate in a manner similar to the way the government operates these would be put out of business by regulators and their executives arrested.r nr nAnd people keeping their own money is not immoral; stealing it to buy votes is.
The theft was initiated in the Clinton Administration, I believe, when the Democrats decided to borrow and spend Social Security receipts for other government projects. n nWho would ever have though this could get out of hand and lead to fiscal irresponsibility? (/sarc)
You don't understand the meaning of "entitlement" in government speak. Payments/benefits that are required by existing law are "entitlements," that which must be provided for in an appropriations bill is not an "entitlement." "Entitlement" is the correct term for Social Security and Medicare. And it makes no sense to say that "dedicated tax revenues" were there before "the bipartisan theft to pay for the immoral Bush43 tax cuts," since those programs are still getting the same "dedicated" tax stream. The Bush43 tax cuts didn't involve any lowering of the payroll tax, that came later and is supposed to revert to the previous rate if nothing is done.
Actually, the "theft" was initiated by Reagan when he set in motion increased FICA taxes that exceeded Social Security expenditures, thus recreating the fiction that, rather than being a pay-as-you-go program, the excess revenues were both being spent and being saved for future use.
The passive voice here: "House Speaker John Boehner seemed to lose control of the Republican caucus last week.." n nis precious. n nBless your heart.