I am not saying that this was President Obama's intention. However, the fiscal cliff statement that the President just made appears to have turned off the House republicans enough to make this deal impossible.
more below the squiggle:
So, there would not be any cuts in this small "deal". It would raise taxes only on those making over $400K individually and $450K as households. It would preserve the tax cuts for those who make less. It would extend unemployment compensation. There is a debate over delaying the sequestration.
The President did say repeatedly that he will insist upon a balanced approach that increases revenue in a balanced way through asking the wealthy to pay a little more if spending cuts are to be pursued.
Cantor's lead spokesguy // RT @dougheye: If Obama's goal was to harm the process and make going over the cliff more likely, he's succeeding.from looking and listening
— @edatpost via HootSuite
RT @JakeSherman: a top McConnell aide --> RT @HolmesJosh: Potus just moved the goalpost again. Significantly. This is new
— @samsteinhp via TweetDeck
What the Dems get:I am weighing many factors and glad that President Obama is the one leading our party.
--52 week extension of unemployment benefits
--Capital gains increased from 15% to 20%
--Estate tax raised to 40%
--personal exemption phase-out for high-earners
--Earned Income Tax Credit (5 year extension)
--Child tax cre/dit (5 year extension)
--Colllege tax cr/edit (5 year extension)
What the Republicans get:
--Top marginal rate increase to $450,000 (from $250,000)
How is this a cave?
Factors include :
Without a deal:
No unemployment compensation for those unemployed
Automatic sequestration cuts take effect
Tax hikes on the middle class
With a bad deal :
We already will have tax increases on the wealthy no matter what - so why accept a deal that does not already presuppose that reality. It will take place in mere hours.
We will lose leverage because we give into hostage negotiations.
We will face cuts in the future that will hurt the middle class and seniors and the poor.
We will not get as much revenue as we need.
And in the future, we will have to deal with the debt ceiling issue soon.
11:46 AM PT: After Jan 3, Boehner might put this deal up for a vote but probably not since it will not be supported by a majority of the majority party . He certainly will not do it before then because he will not want to jeopardize his speakership
@ezraklein: Obama isn't making it easier for R's to vote for this deal. But WH probably thinks that if R's kill it, they get all the fiscal cliff blame.FiredUpinCA
gives us this :
The Myth of the Obama Cave-In
Obama didn't wave the white flag in 2010. He turned a face-off over the Bush tax cuts into an opportunity to enact a second stimulus that he otherwise could not get past Senate Republicans.[...]
The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers for two years and would reduce estate taxes for the wealthy (a move many Democrats couldn't stand), but it also included a payroll tax cut, a child tax credit, additional unemployment insurance, renewable energy grants, and other stimulative measures. A White House chart noted that Obama had won $238 billion of stimulus in return for yielding on $114 billion in high-income tax cuts.
12:45 PM PT: the republicans would not be in that much worse shape after the tax cuts expire. They can simply put forward a bill to cut taxes on everybody making less than $500K and dare Democrats to vote against it. Revenue bills must originate in the House unless the Speaker chooses to take steps to alleviate that necessity.
President Obama and Democrats may actually do what they say- not pass (or in the President's case - veto) bills that are not balanced. He would say we got those tax cuts for free. That was the middle class. Or were you really opposed to those tax cuts for the middle class and only supported tax cuts for the wealthy. So, the President and Congressional Dems can stop any bills that simply cut spending without raising new revenue. And they can win that battle politically as well.
Therefore, BBB's position (which simply assumes the contrary) is probably incorrect. Not saying that his view should not be considered, but simply that in my estimation it is far from conclusive.