Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Negotiating In Bad Faith

Obama is planning a “media blitz” tour to decry the horrors of the “sequester,” a set of spending cuts which he signed into law last year and for which he is now blaming the Republicans. He now says the cuts are "not smart," "not fair," and that "people will lose their jobs," despite the undeniable fact that he signed them into law last year.

He goes on to say that the proper approach is a "balanced approach" debt reduction plan that includes revenue increases in the form of eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy as well as spending cuts.

Does no one remember the tax increases that occurred in January? There was a tax increase on the rich in income taxes and a tax increase on the middle class when the payroll tax cut was dropped. That was part of a two-part deal; the "balanced approach" between revenue increases and spending cuts. Spending cuts could not be agreed upon at the time, so it was agreed that spending cuts could be deferred in order to get the tax issue accomplished at the first of the year.

Now Obama is saying again that he wants a "balanced approach" between revenue and spending cuts. The tax cuts in January were not balanced. It was revenue increase and the spending cuts were deferred, and when it comes time to deal with the deferred spending cuts he renews the "balanced deal" approach. You have to be kidding me.

Not to mention that Obama swore in his reelection campaign the he would not allow taxes to be increased on the middle class. They increased the first of this year; about 1% on the rich in income taxes, and 2% on the middle class when the payroll tax cut expired. Not only did he raise taxes on the middle class, he raised them more than he did on the rich. No one is talking about that.

Back to the "sequester." That specifically was part of a three-part deal; an increase in the debt ceiling, revenue increases, and spending cuts. Obama signed off on that deal, and the spending cuts in the "sequester" were very specific at the time. Obama got the debt ceiling increase. He got the revenue the first of this year. He got the "sequester" postponed twice, and now he insists that it should not be imposed at all.

Why does Obama make a deal and then, having gotten the part of the deal that benefits him, claim that the part that is bad for him is wrong and should not be done? Let's say my neighbor and I agree to mow each other's lawns. After he mows mine, am I not obligated to mow his? Or can I say that mowing his is hard work and tiring and I'm just not going to do it?

I don't like the sequester either, but that's what Obama agreed to. I thought at the time that it was not a smart deal. I recognized that Obama was counting on the other side "blinking." He thought that when it came time to do it that the other side would back down. Well, he guessed wrong. He bluffed and they called his bluff. But that's on him. He made the deal and now he’s trying to blame them for it.

When you bluff and your bluff is called you lose.

1 comment:

bruce said...

Except the Rubs will call the bluff and they will look bad and probably lose. It doesn't matter in politics that you back up what you say or keep your word or whatever, it what you can get away with (usually by painting the other side as assholes - usually works best if you are hugely popular).

Government sucks. And we keep voting it in there.

Post a Comment