Fiscal Cliff

I'm such an innocent.

Mostly they're interested in winning reelection and not giving up control of their respective chambers.

In other words it is all about them....which is why I say throw them all out, kill off both parties, and let's start over.

Have EVERYBODY in the House and the Senate be a lawyer? Are you mad? You really want 535 lawyers making all the decisions? Good gods, NO.

ABC’S AMY WALTER: Perhaps it’s because I’m a parent to a six-year-old, but the only way to make sense of the fiscal cliff shenanigans is to put it in child rearing terms. If there is no consequence for bad behavior, then the bad behavior will continue. Think how many times you have heard (or said) “if you don’t stop this right now then X will happen.” When X doesn’t happen (the car doesn’t pull over, dessert is still served etc), the child learns that he or she can indeed get away with breaking the rules. In Washington, the only real consequence is losing an election. And, since both sides believe they won in 2012 (Democrats held the White House and Senate despite high unemployment; Republicans held the House despite sky-high disapproval ratings), neither side sees a real downside to letting the country fall off the fiscal cliff. A frustrated public, a declining Dow — these are not the consequences that will spur either side to action. It’s only when defeat, real lasting defeat is felt, that compromise will happen.

At [today's] meeting, Obama is expected to make what the White House considers a scaled-back offer — one to raise taxes on income over $250,000, extend jobless benefits, delay defense and domestic cuts and patch the Alternative Minimum Tax, sources say. Raising taxes at that level is a non-starter for Republicans, who want far more in spending cuts.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-lawmakers-predict-no-deal-out-of-wh-meeting-85565.html#ixzz2GN8PWQPQ

What spending cuts do the House Republicans get if we go over the cliff other than the cuts that they clearly don't want?

In the spirit of at least talking about uncomfortable things, here’s a look at five key questions surrounding sequestration:
Who’s in charge?

Introducing Jeffrey Zients.

He’s a multimillionaire former CEO with a pedigree in making government more efficient. For the purposes of the fiscal cliff, he’s also the acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, meaning he’ll be the one making many key decisions and writing critical guidance memos explaining what the government agencies should do if sequestration starts.

While White House aides have insisted for months that they weren’t planning for this scenario, Zients has been told to get started — just in case. That’s meant sending warnings to budget officers and legal counsel across the government ordering them to start crunching their own numbers ahead of the fiscal cliff deadline.

One of Zients’s toughest calls will involve how much wiggle room to give agencies when they apply the across-the-board cuts to their programs, projects and activities.

Most agencies will want considerable discretion to decide what’s best for them within each of those broadly defined categories. But it’s far from clear that OMB will let them have it.

How specific will OMB and the agencies be?

Zients is likely to issue a report as early as Jan. 3 — the day after sequestration would take effect — explaining a good bit about implementation of the spending cuts.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/sequestration-where-will-the-cuts-hit-85385.html#ixzz2GNENwH6U

What spending cuts do the House Republicans get if we go over the cliff other than the cuts that they clearly don't want?

I think it's pretty clear that both sides in this impasse have calculated that their respective situations will be better without an agreement.

What spending cuts do the House Republicans get

None.

Oh.... OK. I wondered how they would have a better situation. It appears they won't. But don't let my simple question stop you from attacking me for no reason.