If John Boehner Is Required To Give Up the Republicans' Most Cherished Pledge to Their Constituents, Why Does Harry Reid Feel No Heat To Do The Same Regarding the Democrats' Most Cherished Demogoguery?

Robert Samuelson asks "Who's not bargaining in good faith?"

Actually, only one side is even bargaining at all. Obama of course put up an absurd "offer" that was a walk-back of all the commitments he made to voters during campaign season. He had repeatedly claimed, in campaign season, he was willing to cut spending; his "offer" contained no cuts.

The "cuts" are a combination of cuts already made -- the $900 billion already agreed to -- and the "cuts" in military spending for wars we're not fighting in Iraq and soon Afghanistan. These aren't "cuts" to current spending -- it's assumed we won't be spending them, because we won't be.

Furthermore, he claimed repeated in campaign season that of course he was willing to look at entitlement reform; he claimed he just wanted it to be part of a "balanced approach." Well, he's more or less got the "balance" he wanted -- a tax hike on the rich -- but is no longer willing to entertain entitlement reform.

Meanwhile, Obama's demands on taxes have gone from:

$400 billion -- the figure Boehner agreed to before the debt ceiling battle, which Obama blew up by upping the ante after Harry Reid demanded he do so.

$800 billion -- the figure Harry Reid demanded, so that Republicans would refuse, and so he wouldn't be required to sell any entitlement reform.

$1.6 trillion -- the new figure, again created precisely so that Republicans can't accept it, thus putting off any need for actual reform.

Double, double, toil and trouble.

This is what America voted for. I'm in a DIAF frame of mind.

posted by Ace at 03:13 PM

| Access Comments