There may be a last-minute compromise reached today in the negotiations over the fiscal cliff, but not if President Obama has anything to say about it. Even as Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were believed to have led the effort to have the structure of a deal in place for the two houses of Congress to vote on later today, the president emerged to make a statement that seemed geared to scuttling the negotiations.
In a campaign-style event, the president spoke of a possible accord between the two parties that would avert the immediate effects of the fiscal cliff being reached. But the bulk of his remarks were devoted to goading the Republicans into backing away from any deal. Not only did he gratuitously insult the GOP about their stands on the budget to the great amusement of the hand-picked audience of supporters, he also made it clear that the tax increases in any compromise would just be the start of what he hoped to accomplish. Even worse, he implied that spending cuts, especially the entitlement reform that is necessary for any long-term solution to the nation’s problems, are not really on the table as far as he is concerned.
Given the tone of his comments and the timing, Republicans should be forgiven for suspecting that his real purpose was to send the country over the cliff in the belief that only the GOP would be blamed for the disaster.
The president obviously thinks the very last moment before a fiscal catastrophe that would raise taxes on all Americans and impose devastating cuts in defense is a good time to mock the idea of spending cuts and to threaten further taxes. The only possible motivation for this is to convince suspicious Republicans that any give in their position will not be met even part of the way by the Democrats. In other words, if even now the president is unprepared to contemplate entitlement reform, then it is difficult to make the argument that they should do the responsible thing and compromise.
Through last year’s debt ceiling crisis as well as the fiscal cliff talks, the president has always behaved as if he thought he had nothing to lose by engaging in class warfare demagoguery. Since going over the cliff means raising more taxes and feeding the government beast that he seems uninterested in restraining as well as cutting defense spending, why shouldn’t he try to incite the GOP to refuse to agree to a deal?
But for him to behave in this manner on the very eve of the crisis while leaders of both parties are struggling to construct a makeshift measure that will get the nation past midnight is telling.
This is not just the confident manner of a re-elected president, but the contempt of a man who believes he doesn’t have to listen to anyone but himself. This may presage future fights over taxes in which he thinks he will continue to have the whip hand over the GOP. But the law of unintended consequences may eventually catch up with him. Though his soak-the-rich rhetoric resonates with many Americans, they also understand that entitlement reform is in the best interests of the nation and that raising taxes on millionaires won’t balance the budget. Few outside the hard left really believe, as Obama seemed to say today, that America only has a tax problem, not a spending problem.
If in the coming months and years these irresponsible tactics catch up with the president, we may look back on his behavior today and see it as the turning point in the debate. The Greeks had a word for the kind of behavior President Obama demonstrated today: hubris. His second term may well be blighted by it.
"Through last year’s debt ceiling crisis as well as the fiscal cliff talks, the president has always behaved as if he thought he had nothing to lose by engaging in class warfare demagoguery." nWell, why the heck not? It got him re-elected. n"This is not just the confident manner of a re-elected president, but the contempt of a man who believes he doesn’t have to listen to anyone but himself." nHe doesn't! At any rate, leaders like Obama always feel contempt for those they lead, especially in democracies. And of course they do – in order to pull the garbage Obama has pulled, you have to understand what a bunch of fools your supporters are. He knows they'll be with him to the end. He also understands how useless are those millions who didn't bother to vote – the idiots who actually believe there is no difference between the D's and R's. Well-deserved contempt, I'd say. n"Few outside the hard left really believe, as Obama seemed to say today, that America only has a tax problem, not a spending problem." So what? That didn't stop his re-election.
The re-election of Barry Obama. I still can't believe it. A man who will kick this debt down the street, and not do anything to fix it. n nWe are toast.
Thank you so much for writing this article. I listened to the President's speech this morning and it sickened me. At a time when America needs real leadership from the Oval Office we end up with a petty Huey Long clone to our mutual peril.
“I listened to the President's speech this morning and it sickened me.” n nGad! What an awful way to start the New Year, but at least you had sufficient stomach to listen to it. n nOne of my New Year’s resolutions is to swear off listening to Obama talking – it is for my health, mind you. n
Once again, Bathhouse Barry is Lucy Van Pelt holding the football, and the GOP is good ol' Charlie Brown. n nLet it Burn.
Rogue. Lets just go over that Obama cliff. I would rather not have a bad bill signed, than to have no bill. n nJust say no.
I agree 100%…Let it Burn.
All I know is that Barack Hussein Obama is giving the American people his middle finger. That I know. He will blame the GOP no matter what, and he is the one that refuses to CUT SPENDING. n nWhat if we all ran our budget like the president runs his budget?… humm
So let me see if I have this right: nThe Republicans are reluctant to raise anyone's taxes because they say it would hurt the economy, so they want to balance the budget by cutting spending; nThe president has says that he wants to balance the budget by a "balanced combination" nof spending cuts and taxes on the "rich" and he won't agree to anything unless Republicans let him raise taxes on the rich; The Republicans appear to be willing to give the president his tax increases on the rich in order to get spending cuts and avoid going over the dreaded "fiscal cliff"; nSo the President goes on TV and says that he won't agree to any spending cuts; but he's still willing to take the tax increase, even though he's going to ask for even more taxes on the "rich" next year and if the Republicans don't let him keep these tax increases without any spending cuts, every thing that results from going over the "dreaded fiscal cliff" will be all their fault. nWhat's wrong with that? Sounds reaonable to me.
Best proposals for GOP action: n nFrom the DiploMad Blog: n n"My humble suggestion for the flailing GOP, here it comes: DO NOTHING. n nAdopt the Obama tactic, and announce it as such, of voting "PRESENT." Sit on your hands. There are going to be tax increases whether you oppose them or not. Let the Dems suddenly realize they are to be the sole producers of the great 2013 bomb. Watch them scramble and weave and dodge . . . and begin to fight among themselves. Keep your powder dry until 2014. n nUPDATE: I left out my one proposed positive action: offer an "extra special" tax on Hollywood actors and studios. Any actor, director, producer, screenwriter, etc. who makes more than one million dollars on a movie, must pay an additional 25%; any studio that makes movies overseas to avoid US taxes and union wages, and take advantage of foreign subsidies, must pay an extra 25% on its GROSS. I am sure the Hollywood crowd would be very appreciative of the opportunity to contribute more to society." n nFrom Victor Davis Hanson: n n"If Obama wishes revenue, then why not slap surtaxes on sports, movie, and concert tickets to the point that Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, and LeBron James may have to pay a little more of their fair share? Why not go after the hyper-salaries of nonprofits’ executives? If Obama wants “taxes on the rich,” perhaps he should start with new surcharges on the well-paid executives of government-subsidized or tax-exempt entities such as PBS, NPR, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Tides Foundation…if we are to go over the cliff, then Republicans might suggest that they cannot save those all of us who live in blue states, and so will concede that Californians and New Yorkers should not get their 10 percent–plus state-income-tax deductions at the expense of others, mostly in red states, whose state taxes are so much lower. If someone chooses to live in Menlo Park or the Upper West Side, then why must others subsidize his $1.5 million mortgage?…Republicans should make the argument against all sorts of tax-evasive compensation. Why do many professors get tax-free tuition waivers for their children? Surely if a well-paid professor can have his children receive sizable reductions in tuition, he should pay taxes on that perk. Do we really wish to subsidize the lifestyle of the Elizabeth Warren household? Universities should not be able to create Byzantine tax-avoidance programs for administrators, who have become veritable CEO grandees without the stigma of belonging to the 1 percent….What do Tom Daschle, Timothy Geithner, John Kerry, and Hilda Solis all have in common? As Obama cabinet appointees or would-be appointees, they sought to avoid the sort of taxes that they advocate as necessary and patriotic for others." n nThe GOP should be mopping the floor with these clowns.
yet the stock market ignored his staged event. I could not handle the unserious tone. n n n
“yet the stock market ignored his staged event. I could not handle the unserious tone." n nI have not lost faith in market economics – as opposed to state managed economies – but this refutes the notion that anyone should rely upon the stock market for assessing good management. n
I'm not one of those with a dislike for Mr. Obama; after all, his profession tends to bring out the worst in people as well as the best. But today's demagogic performance by him had me gritting my teeth. n nHe has a deeply cynical and ugly side that is alarming. Almost Nixonian. n nHe's not a bad man but he's not a very good one either. n n
He is a bad man, Exhibit A: how he treats other people. Exhibit B: the never-ending Will to Power.
And I'm not one to excuse politicians for being jerks. Not all pols are "bad people", but the ones who are are very, very bad. I happen to think that Obama is a "bad man". If anyone was still questioning that, his comments yesterday regarding the deaths in Benghazi should have convinced them. "Sloppiness" – yeah. He's a total jerk.
I fear you have not been paying attention for the last four years but then again you are not alone.
"Almost Nixonian." n nGood point; though I would say Nixonian and then some.
<<<34 hours after posting, the box still says "submit comment". So here goes again>>> n nThe Late President Obama has contempt for any deadlines. He was 14 minutes late for his own speech today. He was 8 minutes late for his announcement of John Kerry as future Secretary of State. He was 48 minutes late to the Newtown vigil. He was 30 minutes late to his 5/19/12 speech on the middle east, as well as speeches on 5/27, 7/10, 8/8, 9/19, 10/21 and 12/16. He can't even arrive on time for his State of the Union appearances (which are the ONLY item on his schedule that day). n nHe was also TWENTY YEARS late on paying off his Harvard parking tickets, and reportedly took THREE YEARS to NOT produce a book on race for which he was advance $125,000. On the other hand, he WAS on time to his speeches on March 6, When it comes to the time of others, clearly Obama is not doing his "fair share"
excellent MUST READ article about him by By Oleg Atbashian, at American Thinker
All bubbles burst, there are no exceptions. nThe over-inflated Federal Government can not be sustained when 46% of all spending is borrowed money. nThe Federal spending Bubble will burst and in this Presidential term.
I agree with your anger at Congress, but that doesn't excuse a President who has yet to submit a serious budget and shows absolutely no signs of leadership. Presidents can, you know, lead. This one has not.