The President Set as a "Balanced" Goal 3:1 Cuts to Revenue; Now He Says He'll "Compromise"... Down to 2:1

Sexton has a post which appears wonky but the point is simple enough.

Obama set a ratio of $3 in cuts to $1 in tax increases as a "balanced approach." And, by the way, this "balanced approach" was his own opening offer -- not his compromise with Republicans. This is what he claims he set out as his own ideal.

But, as we continue to negotiate, Obama keeps moving the goalposts. Now he only offers two dollars in cuts to one dollar in tax hikes -- and claims this represents a compromise.

A compromise, perhaps, but not with Republicans -- it's a compromise of Obama's own tax-and-spend proposal with the even more tax-and-spend proposals of the hardcore liberal wing of his own party.

We have long contended that Obama....

1. Lies in his public utterances to appear more moderate than he is, whereas, in his confidential political negotiations, reveals himself to be a hardcore liberal.

2. Constantly shifts the goalposts in a left-wing direction, even away from his own public declarations, which were themselves liberal, but not as leftwing as his actual goals.

Well, now we have proof-- We have the actual math of the situation. Obama comes out with a 3:1 opening offer and, in the course of negotiations, moves further to the left (and not to the center) to propose 2:1.

And Republicans are the ones who won't compromise, huh?

posted by Ace at 04:40 PM

| Access Comments