|Boots and Sabers Blog|
|Hot Air Blog|
|Jim Ott's Hot Air Report|
|Media Research Center|
|Real Clear Politics|
|Wall Street Journal|
|WisPolitics Budget Blog|
Barack Obama was against raising taxes in a recession before he was for it.
The tax hikes the President is now requesting will hit job creators the hardest, and they will inevitably lock down.
(h/t to The Gateway Pundit)
Not that it matters, because the GOP is utterly failing at the basics of negotiation. From Breitbart:
As President Barack Obama begins his campaign for tax hikes, Republicans are losing the political battle over the “fiscal cliff”--but not because Obama won re-election. Rather, they are losing for three reasons that have little to do with the election: first, they have no good alternative to negotiating; second, they have accepted Democrats’ frame for the debate; and third, they have failed to mount a broader media and cultural strategy.
No alternative. Success in negotiation depends on having a good alternative to talks--what negotiating experts call a Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Having a good BATNA means you have credibility when you threaten to walk away from a deal; your opponent will have to offer you better terms to keep you at the table. Each side should therefore work to improve its own BATNA--and worsen that of its opponent.
The sequester agreement in the Budget Control Act of 2011 was meant to create a bad BATNA for all--entitlement cuts for Democrats, defense cuts for Republicans. For most Republicans, more defense cuts--on top of previous Obama cuts--are unacceptable. But many Democrats--most recently, Obama advisor David Plouffe--agree, in principle, on the urgent need for entitlement reform. The BATNA hurts them less than Republicans.
That gives Democrats additional leverage. And do not be fooled by the vigorous protestfrom the left that greeted Plouffe’s comments. That is more a “good cop-bad cop” tactic than a real objection, a way of demonstrating to Republicans that Obama’s hands are tied and that he cannot afford the political cost of deep concessions. It is also a way of signaling that Obama may see a political upside in quashing a deal--unlike Republicans.
Let's be frank, the debate didn't start this month, it was the Democrat platform through the election season dating back to the primaries. Making a tax hike acceptable public policy because it was about "fairness" and not proper management. And Republicans utterly failed at turning this around and observing the real impacts herein.