Fiscal Cliff No No’s- No Compromises, No Deal

All government – indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment – every virtue and every prudent act – is founded on compromise and barter.

Edmund Burke (1727-1797), Second Speech on Conciliation with America (1775)

December 7,  2012 -  As we near the fiscal cliff, President Obama  has taken a no compromise position.

·         President Obama says No to entitlement cuts, and No deal unless taxes are hiked on “The Rich.”  Obama views the economy as a “zero-sum game.” The sum of the economy, in his mind,   is a static system fixed in favor of the so-called rich.   If one raises taxes on the rich, one can then lower taxes on the rest of us. He unilaterally rejects the notion that a dynamic growing economy, triggered by investments and hiring by the rich,  will generate increased tax revenues and prosperity for all.   Given the ideological rigidity,  Obama refuses to negotiate, even talk to the opposition or to his business council. Because of this mindset and his belief that his 51% election victory is a mandate ,  he is unwilling  to deal with the fiscal realities -  a faltering economy, spiraling debt ,  a history of  lower government  revenues when one increases taxes, automatic sequester cuts,  and the debt-ceiling time bomb.  Obama  rejects the argument that taxes  deprives  the rich of incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners, and investors and  cripples the economy.  In the words of Peter Schiff, author of The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy (St Martin’s Press, 2012),  Obama’s “policies will satisfy the instincts of those who want to ‘stick it to the rich.' Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well."  Obama’s quest to soak it to the rich and to spend more on entitlements  has been joined by organizations like AARP (“AARP opposes all Medicare Cuts,  U.S. News, Dec.1), whose royalities and commissions from Medicare-related insurance sales are AARPs chief revenue source. 

·         Speaker Boehner is said  to be playing a weak hand because the GOP lost the election  when he asks Obama to compromise by limiting the tax rise from $160 billion to $80 brillion or by doing  such things as placing a surtax on those making over $1 million rather than those pulling down $250,000 most of whom are small-business owners or physicians with small practices.  Rather than sitting  down to negotiate a compromise face-to-face, President Obama is out campaigning denigrating his opponents and showing a willingness to step off the cliff so he can blame the GOP. One cynic noted Obama forgets that government produces no jobs, seldom innovates,confiscates wealth, and is inept at providing economic leadership. This cynic provided me with this definition of ineptocracy, which I do not necessarily agree with when it comes to the Obama administratio,, " Ineptocracy (in-ep-to'-cra-cy) - a form of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers."

Tweet:   President Obama insists taxes on the rich are non-negotiable,  apparently reading his 51% election victory as a mandate to do what he wants.