The White House press office premptively blames Boehner's dubious ability to deliver Republican votes for a tax rate hike as the key obstacle to avoiding the fiscal cliff.
Left unmentioned until the very end is the dubious ability of Obama to deliver enough Democratic votes:
That 2011 showdown between Mr. Obama and Congressional Republicans over increasing the nation’s debt limit hurt both the recovery and the public-approval ratings of both sides, but especially Republicans, who lost seats in the House and Senate. The $1 trillion spending-cuts deal that ended that fight followed the collapse of the Obama-Boehner talks for a $3 trillion deal to stabilize the growth of federal debt.
This week the president and speaker took direct control after staff-level talks bogged down late last week, largely over what one person close to the White House called “the big 2”: Republicans’ demands that Mr. Obama agree both to a slow increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, to 67 from 65, and to a new formula that would reduce cost-of living increases for Social Security.
Mr. Obama has balked; he opposes both ideas and faces heavy pressure from unions and other progressive groups to reject them. But his stance is undercut by the fact that he had tentatively agreed to both proposals in last year’s secret talks, in return for Mr. Boehner’s support for raising taxes on high-income earners.
The president and his aides have told Mr. Boehner and his team that both proposals would be a hard sell to other Democrats, people close to the talks say.
I don't think the Republicans have a monoply on intransigence.
What, no new jokes about the Tan Man's tan? Anything coming from the WH is disgusting and stinks.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | December 12, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Rush says its a trap.
They over the cliff and everyone's rates go up because of Republican intransigence which gets the blame. Then in a heroic gesture, Obama introduces legislation to cut the taxes for the 98% or middle class. Dares the Republicans to vote that down and for a little sugar adds money to Defense taken away with sequestration.
This is another reason why I am still in favor of the Jim Ryan modified by Tom Collins legislative fix or non-fix. Everyone vote present. Let Obama have everything and then stand back and watch the economy disassemble. Not our problem. This is what happens in a Democrat designed economy. Of course, if Boehner knows this about the trap to destroy forever the Republican party then he also knows there is only one way out - make him own it, lock,stock and barrel.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | December 12, 2012 at 01:37 PM
They *go* over the cliff.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | December 12, 2012 at 01:38 PM
JiB, I'm not clear on why it makes a difference if the Reps go along with it now or go along with the 2013 tax cut for the 98 percent. Either way we end up in the same place. Higher tax rates on the "wealthy" that raise no revenue and that stifle growth. I'd still rather take a stand. The Republicans will be blamed no matter what, so may as well speak the truth.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 12, 2012 at 01:56 PM
Wait...Wait... the NYTimes reports, that the Fiscal Cliff stalemate is because Emperor/SunGod BarryI can't deliver Senate votes for a Entitlement/tax rate deal. Zut alors! how can this be? this is the SunGod with the Mussolini like pose. he can do ANYTHING according to the NYT, how can he not get some lousy craven Dem Senators to vote the way he wants. MUST BE THE HOUSE REPUBS FAULT-- I blame Boosh!
Posted by: NK | December 12, 2012 at 02:02 PM
I'm with JimmyK spend cuts first. The truth shall set you free!
Posted by: NK | December 12, 2012 at 02:03 PM
All the pundits claim the Reps are hog tied because they will get the blame.
Two things we have noted here before:
They will get blamed no matter what is done or what happens. Period.
Secondly this election showed that "blame" is fleeting and does not change votes anyway. There was not a single Rep vote on Obamacare, Stimulous Plans or other bad bad things. Nobody voted for any Obama budget. Reps in the House did approve a budget but nobody in the Senate picked up on it.
In this last election there was enough blame on matters that poll badly which blame could plainly be tied to Dems and they were elected again anyway.
So who cares about blame?
Posted by: Old Lurker | December 12, 2012 at 02:10 PM
"...But his stance is undercut by the fact that ..." he's transparently dishonest and untrustworthy in any negotiation, and his response to reasonable counter-proposals is to publicly lie about them.
Posted by: boatbuilder | December 12, 2012 at 02:18 PM
I just wish Boehner and the GOP leadership had the balls to stand up to Obama and the Dems.
We're already falling off the cliff, debt wise. The sooner we hit bottom, the sooner we can fix things.
All this other BS is merely delaying the inevitable.
Posted by: fdcol63 | December 12, 2012 at 02:47 PM
Per fdcol63-- the problem isn't the Fiscal Cliff, the problem is the DEBT. From ZeroHedge, the Federal Gov't and it's Ponzi Partner BenB's FOMC, is racking up debt at $1.5TRILLION/year rate-- $1.4TRILLION/year. This is utter madness: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-12/us-rakes-nearly-300-billion-deficit-first-two-months-fiscal-2013
Posted by: NK | December 12, 2012 at 03:52 PM
The problem isn't even the debt.
The problem is spending.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | December 12, 2012 at 04:11 PM
This is the scum that make up the Dem/LegacyMedia team-- women beaters, frauds, and crooks-- the family Moran and the media who cover for them: http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-morans-son-pleads-guilty-to-assaulting-girlfriend/article/2515783#.UMjzFrY89CZ
Posted by: NK | December 12, 2012 at 04:37 PM
Is this Patrick Moran the same one involved in voter fraud? If so the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. He probably thinks "Hey it works for dad. Why not for me." It really is just sad.At this point I say ,go over the cliff and start to save money.
Posted by: maryrose | December 12, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Much of the same went into this;
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/12/politifact-awards-lie-of-the-year-to-truthful-romney-ad/
Posted by: narciso | December 12, 2012 at 05:12 PM
The 05:12 link is a pure example of leftist propaganda spreaders at work. Never believe anything they say. They lie-every time.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/12/12/politifact-misses-the-lie-of-the-year/
"Not for the first time, PolitiFact is just wrong."
"Obama lied about how four Americans lost their lives, repeatedly and with enthusiasm. He sent his ambassador and Secretary of State out to lie. His spokesman lied. They all lied. It was one, huge, and obvious lie that has not been fully exposed to this day."
"But there may be a bigger lie out there, bigger in the sense that it has been going on longer and includes even more liars. If there is to be a “Lie of the Year,” it has to begin with NBC’s edit of the George Zimmerman 911 call."
Posted by: pagar | December 12, 2012 at 05:46 PM
BTW, Obama plans to use all new tax revenues for new spending.
The joke may be on him because an increase in taxes will probably lower revenues.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | December 12, 2012 at 05:50 PM
pagar:
They need to settle the Zimmerman case because it is a sham. USA Today has a front page article: about Trayvon. Now that they have his school records a more truthful and accurate story will reveal itself. He must have done something to get that long of a suspension or he is a repeat offender.
Of course on Benghazi the number of lies told and how it had no effect on the election will always be a mystery to me.
I think the bar was irrevocably lowered after Clinton's escapades.
Posted by: maryrose | December 12, 2012 at 05:53 PM
The new tax revenues need to be used to pay down the debt.
Posted by: maryrose | December 12, 2012 at 05:55 PM
"The new tax revenues need to be used to pay down the debt."
IMO, that is not going to happen during the Obama regime.
Posted by: pagar | December 12, 2012 at 06:04 PM
Speaking of the new tax revenues derived from having the rich pay their fair share, which was established for all time as the rates paid during the Clinton administration, has there been any mention of whether those rates will reflect the new taxes imposed in Obamacare (the 3.8% investment income/0.9% ordinary income taxes on "the rich")?
Posted by: bgates | December 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM
Speaking of new taxes.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/how_much_taxation_would_fund_current_spending.html
Taking every thing from every body apparently would not be enough to satisfy the Obama regime. Because once you take 100% away, there is nothing left.
Posted by: pagar | December 12, 2012 at 07:42 PM