Cassandra Syndrome

[essentialsaltes]

Not that it's an insight of freaking genius, but recall my description of the fundamental problem preventing a fix to the deficit problem:

a crude-yet-eerily-accurate picture of our political parties shows that one side of the aisle is "Think of the Children" (do not want to cut expenditures) while the other is "Read My Lips" (do not want to raise revenue). All too often the 'compromise' is:

Hey, everybody (i.e. the electorate) likes services. Let's keep services!
Hey, everybody (i.e. the electorate) likes tax cuts. Let's cut taxes!

High fives all around the Capitol.

So our recent compromise in Washington is to continue the Bush tax cuts for all (not increasing revenue) while extending unemployment benefits (increasing expenditures). The net cost of the compromise package is estimated at $900 billion with a b.
It'd be nice if any new spending were counterbalanced by additional revenue. Oh wait, Obama signed that into law in February, but it will be one of the first victims of the compromise.

At least some people understand how tragic it is to extend unemployment benefits without a means of paying for them, though she doesn't seem to connect that tragedy with her happiness at the continuance of the tax cuts.

It'll be interesting to see how many on either side of the aisle have the intestinal fortitude to oppose the compromise.

Comments

[aaronjv.livejournal.com]

Happy to add $900 bil to the deficit, but the GOP is freaking out (read: denying) on the "How do we pay for it?" on health benefits for 9/11 responders (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/nyregion/10health.html?hp).

I don't believe in evil, but Republicans are about as close as they come.

[ladyeuthanasia.livejournal.com]

It seems the Dems have finally grown a spine and are opposing the tax cuts. It's weirdly sad that they'll rebel against the President, but they won't stand up to Repuglicans. It's like punching your brother when you're mad at Dad. (Not that I'm disagreeing with them, mind you.)