The question is, is Mr. “I won’t negotiate” Obama using the notion of increased revenue as a way of blunting the demands from Republicans (and the American People who hate Obamacare), or is he simply demanding new revenue, ie, taxation, like he’s done before? I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the latter. We’ve seen multiple times that when a deal is almost in place President Stompy Foot demands much more, scuttling the deal
(NY Times) Be skeptical. Be very, very skeptical.
That was the reaction from nearly all corners to the talk of convening yet another round of bipartisan negotiations to reduce the nation’s long-term debt. The idea has resurfaced as a way of resolving the standoff between President Obama and the Republican-controlled House over reopening the government and increasing its legal borrowing limit, perhaps for months or even just weeks.
But even if the current talks soon resolve the immediate impasse, which did not look likely on Saturday, any renewal of negotiations for a long-term fiscal plan will run into the same underlying problem that has doomed efforts for the past three years.
Republicans refuse to raise additional tax revenue, and until they do, Mr. Obama will not support even his own tentative proposals for reducing spending on fast-growing social benefit programs, chiefly Medicare. During a White House meeting with Senate Republicans on Friday, he reiterated that the two go hand in hand, according to people who were there.
There you have, the NY Times, the “paper of record”, has said it. Obama’s default position is “increase taxes”. Though writer Jackie Calmes does write something silly about “Mr. Obama and Democrats say some of that revenue must be used to pay down the debt.” Would that be the almost $7 trillion in debt they’ve run up in….counting…less than 5 years since Obama took office? They have no intention of using increased taxation to do anything but fund pet projects and interest groups, along with increasing dependency on Government. Debt reduction? Good luck with that.