Free Markets, Free People

Obama’s “tax negotiations” are no such thing

Obama has strained to make everyone believe he is open to “negotiations” on the tax rates in dispute that are leading us inexorably to this “fiscal cliff” everyone is talking about.

The word “negotiate” implies compromise.  You give a little, he gives a little, you reach a deal neither really likes but both can live with.

He has no intention of giving anything.  Why should he?  He can’t run for a third term.  He has nothing to lose if he stands his ground.  Nope, the only one’s who have anything to lose in this one are the usual deer-in-the-headlights suspects.  And, of course, Obama has someone else to blame:

By taking an absolutist line, he’s basically gambling that Republicans will be more reasonable than he is and will blink. But if they don’t blink and we go over the cliff, from his point of view so what? Mr. Obama then has an excuse to blame Republicans if there’s another recession. Meanwhile, he pockets the higher tax rates that take effect on January 1 anyway, and he can then negotiate a budget deal next year without having to make any tax concessions.

He pleases his left wing for which higher tax rates are a secular religion, while pinning one more defeat on Republicans. Lest you think this is a conservative fantasy, it’s more or less the tax cliff strategy that Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington advocated on Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” and that labor leaders lobbied for at the White House on Tuesday.

So, as we wander toward Taxmageddon, fear not, either way it goes, Obama figures he wins.  So why try?


Why negotiate?


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to Obama’s “tax negotiations” are no such thing

  • Well, according to Lil’ Dick Trumka, the whole thing is a myth.  We have PLENTY of money for EVERYTHING.  There is not fiscal cliff.  Nope.
    So, maybe it is time for the BOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooosh “tax cuts for the rich” to simply expire, and not be reinstated for anybody.  Show the idiots who voted for Obama, Pelosi, and the other liars just how much THEY were benefiting from the across-the-board reduction rates Bush implemented.
    Go a step FURTHER, and burn down every form of corporate welfare, including ag. subsidies.  Down to the ground.  Leave the Deemocrat kill zone really open, and demonstrate who is the “party of the rich”.

  • Since the game is rigged, and the GOP will lose no matter what, then they shouldn’t play.  Vote “present.”  Let the Democrats OWN everything.  Don’t negotiate and let it all go.  Congress built this. Congress is now seeing that their bluff has been called. Its time for them to see that games like this WILL bite them in the ass.
    I say let every single tax that Obama wants raised…let it.  Vote “present.”  60 million Democrats and 10-12 million no-show deserter Republicans wanted this.  Let them have it good and hard.

    • It’s hilarious that the ones who will take it in the ass are, what, 75% Republicans?
      Civil War II? (But how would it be organized and by whom?)

      • Civil war?   I’m just saying let the deal that Congress made during the earlier clusterf##k is now staring them in the face.  They made this bed. They get to lie in it. And the GOP went along with the fake deal last time. Now they are trapped.  If they fight it again, they lose. If they win, which is doubtful, they’ll lose, and so they shouldn’t play.
        Instead of boxing their opponents…they should use political aikido and let the Democrats slam into the wall.

  • Eh, it’s what the country voted for, Obama has a mandate, ask him.
    I see us standing as thralls. Straining under the chains.  The disaster is afoot: stifle your spirit and to these plans cry “let it burn!”

  • Obama won the election.  Negotiating is process where the give-and-take is dependent upon who has power (which is called, in political parlance, ‘negotiating from a position of power’).  But, what about fairness—which seems to be asked in your query into the definition of ‘negotiate’?  But, as I recall,  I believe I once heard you belittle the concept of political ‘fairness’.  No one is completely satisfied with a compromise.  At worst, the end of negotiation results in face-saving for those who give up the most, especially after a period of bluster, when they they thought they held all the winning cards.  How impotent the conservatives are—they couldn’t even keep their promise to make Obama a one-term president (even with all the money and attempts to disenfranchise Democratic voters), even with a lousy economy.

    • “Maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of White House, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign–a White House that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate.”

      Barrackah Hussain Obama, The Audacity of Hope

  • Drop the mortgage interest, property tax, and state income tax deductions. Expose taxpayers to the full impact of their political choices. I live in CA so this would hit me but since my income has been falling over the last few years, it will whack the young ignorant ones harder. Dump the AMT as well.

  • Did anyone actually expect Obama to negotiate if he won?

  • Obama has never been involved in a bi-partisan process in his life.  Why start now?  Does he even know how?