It’s “fiscal cliff” time of year, and everyone in Washington is either foretelling doom on Jan. 1 or forcing confidence that the doom will work to his or her advantage. The PostScript bunker is a very, very nice place to be when contemplating the cliffness of it all.
Unlike the Oval Office, argues Marc Thiessen in his Monday column. Thiessen says straight doom or diluted doom will amount to a political disaster for the president and Democrats. Conventional wisdom says the clifftuation is a win-win for the Dems, but Thiessen says no — that the plummeting people will crush them when/if America hits bottom and that doing so will doom Obama’s presidency.
In the comments to Thiessen’s column, Alisha Dale writes that she is hoping for doom. She says THIS catastrophe might finally force our fearless leaders to maybe fear the people:
Over the river and through the woods, right off the cliff we go – Both parties OWN this mess! I look at the fiscal cliff as a welcomed reset to the whole mess. Hopefully, it will rip the scab off the nonsense that’s been going on in Washington for decades and we can get rid of the lifers who have made a career out of lying to the American people for decades!
Adam_Smith also doesn’t think the disaster would be quite so disastrous, but for different reasons:
It will be a crisis to go over the fiscal cliff but I believe that the president has many options for managing the crisis. In the short term, many cuts can be taken slowly while some spending can be sped up. Meanwhile, the president has the bully pulpit as well as leverage over some Congress members with respect to how or whether funds get spent or cut in their districts. Of course, Obama might not have enough conviction, as was the case in the past, to prevail in a contest of hardball. Marc is betting on that and is doing his part to scare the president away from making the attempt. Time will tell.
JohnKrats is eager for the Democrats to absorb the political impact of the cliff dive:
Jump. It’s Obama’s and the Democrats’ deal. Let them have it.
giffordj wants more specifics about the House speaker’s offer before he’ll consider it a compromise:
Facts not in evidence: “… when House Speaker John Boehner agreed to $800 billion in higher taxes for the rich in the form of limits on deductions and loopholes.” What limits on which deductions? Which loopholes will close?
You give Mr. Boehner full face-value credit for a shapeless proposal that has no face (and therefore no value).
dsilc001 reacts to Thiessen’s citation from exit polls that only 47 percent of voters agree with raising tax rates on income above $250,000:
Given American attitudes toward fairness, I’m surprised that 97% of Americans aren’t in favor of raising taxes on the top 2%. “Let someone else pay for my stuff.”
tjhogan says there’s something wrong with that stat:
Thiessen’s comment that only 47% support more taxes for the wealthy is a distortion of his own Fox poll. The exit poll asked the question do you support increasing taxes for all — 13%, only for those making $250,000 or more — 47%, no tax increases for anyone — 35%.
PostScript crunched the numbers, and tjhogen seems to have a point. According to the poll cited, 60 percent are in favor of raising taxes on the rich. It’s just that 47 percent want it ONLY for the rich (search for “rates”).
On the plus side, 5 percent of responders didn’t choose any answer, and we can only assume it’s because at that very moment they got jobs. Hooray!