The GOP is outraged because Obama won’t do their work for them. They are outraged because he offers them fewer concessions than he did BEFORE he won a second term. How dare he not be a patsy!! How dare he begin negotiations from a posture of strength! The GOP approved the deal that created the “fiscal cliff.” Fine. Here’s how we work this: we go over the cliff. Taxes go up, spending goes down. It would be like hitting a reset button. Then the two parties would go about raising spending, but not to the former levels, and cutting taxes, but not to the former levels. The GOP would then claim that the Democrats were wholly responsible for all new non-defense spending, and claim credit for all new tax cuts, even though the net results of the whole procedure would be higher taxes, and lower spending. The Democrats could likewise deny responsibility for the outcomes that displease their base. The whole thing would be deeply dishonest, but that’s politics these days. In the 18th century they had an interesting way to get a decision from a jury: lock the twelve of them up without food or drink until they came to a unanimous decision. Let’s take six from each party and lock them in a room until they cut a deal. I’d let them have food and water and necessary medicine, but nobody gets out of the room or goes into it until they have a unanimous plan. If they haven’t done it in a week, then you can cut off their food supply, two days later you stop allowing them water. Who knows? Might work.
The GOP is outraged because Obama won’t do their work for them. They are outraged because he offers them fewer concessions than he did BEFORE he won a second term. How dare he not be a patsy!! How dare he begin negotiations from a posture of strength! The GOP approved the deal that created the “fiscal cliff.” Fine. Here’s how we work this: we go over the cliff. Taxes go up, spending goes down. It would be like hitting a reset button. Then the two parties would go about raising spending, but not to the former levels, and cutting taxes, but not to the former levels. The GOP would then claim that the Democrats were wholly responsible for all new non-defense spending, and claim credit for all new tax cuts, even though the net results of the whole procedure would be higher taxes, and lower spending. The Democrats could likewise deny responsibility for the outcomes that displease their base. The whole thing would be deeply dishonest, but that’s politics these days. In the 18th century they had an interesting way to get a decision from a jury: lock the twelve of them up without food or drink until they came to a unanimous decision. Let’s take six from each party and lock them in a room until they cut a deal. I’d let them have food and water and necessary medicine, but nobody gets out of the room or goes into it until they have a unanimous plan. If they haven’t done it in a week, then you can cut off their food supply, two days later you stop allowing them water. Who knows? Might work.