Let’s understand President Barack Obama’s strategy in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. It has nothing to do with economics or real fiscal reform.

This is entirely about politics. It’s Phase 2 of the 2012 campaign. The election returned him to office. The fiscal cliff negotiations are designed to break the Republican opposition and grant him political supremacy, something he thinks he earned with his landslide 2.8-point victory margin on Election Day.

This is why he sent Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to the Republicans to convey not a negotiating offer but a demand for unconditional surrender.
House Speaker John Boehner had made a peace offering of $800 billion in new revenues. Geithner pocketed Boehner’s $800 billion, doubled it to $1.6 trillion, offered risible cuts that in 2013 would actually be exceeded by new stimulus spending, and then demanded that Congress turn over to the president all power over the debt ceiling.

Boehner was stunned. Mitch McConnell laughed out loud. In nobler days, they would have offered Geithner a pistol and an early-morning appointment at Weehawken. Alas, Boehner gave again, coming back a week later with spending-cut suggestions — as demanded by Geithner — only to have them dismissed with a wave of the hand.

What’s going on here? Having taken Boehner’s sword, and then his shirt, Obama sent Geithner to demand Boehner’s trousers. Perhaps this is what Obama means by a balanced approach.

He pretends that Boehner’s offer to raise revenues by eliminating deductions rather than by raising rates is fiscally impossible. But on July 22, 2011, Obama had said that “$1.2 trillion in additional revenues … could be accomplished without hiking tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process.” Which is exactly what the Republicans are offering today.

As for the alleged curative effect on debt of Obama’s tax-rate demand — the full rate hike on the “rich” would have reduced the 2012 deficit from $1.10 trillion to $1.02 trillion.

That’s a joke, a rounding error.

Such nonsense abounds because Obama’s objective in these negotiations is not economic but political: not to solve the debt crisis but to fracture the Republican majority in the House. Get Boehner to cave, pass the tax hike with Democratic votes provided by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and let the Republican civil war begin.

It doesn’t even matter whether Boehner gets deposed as speaker. Either way, the Republican House would be neutered, giving Obama a free hand to dominate Washington and fashion the entitlement state of his liking.

This is partisan zero-sum politics. Nothing more. Obama has never shown interest in genuine debt reduction. He does nothing for two years, then spends the next two ignoring his own debt-reduction commission. In less than four years, he has increased U.S. public debt by a staggering 83 percent. As a percentage of GDP, the real marker of national solvency, it has spiked from 45 to 70 percent.

Obama has never once publicly suggested a structural cut in entitlements. On the contrary, he created an entirely new entitlement — Obamacare — that, according to the CBO, will increase spending by $1.7 trillion.

What’s he thinking? Doesn’t Obama see looming ahead the real economic cliff — a European-like collapse under the burden of unsustainable debt? Perhaps, but he wants to complete his avowedly transformational social-democratic agenda first, and let his successors — likely Republican — act as tax collectors on the middle class (where the real money is) and takers of subsidies from the mouths of babes.

Or possibly Obama will get fiscal religion and undertake tax and entitlement reform in his second term — but only after having destroyed the Republican opposition so that he can carry out the reformation on his own ideological terms.

What should Republicans do? Stop giving stuff away. If Obama remains intransigent, let him be the one to take us over the cliff. And then let the new House, which is sworn in weeks before the president, immediately introduce and pass a full across-the-board restoration of the Bush tax cuts.

Obama will counter with the usual all-but-the-rich tax cut — as the markets gyrate and the economy begins to wobble under his feet.

Result? We’re back to square one, but with a more level playing field. The risk to Obama will be rising and the debt ceiling will be looming. Most important of all, however, Republicans will still be in possession of their unity, their self-respect — and their trousers.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may email him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Join the Conversation

34 Comments

    1. Krauthammer “truth”? That is simply Fox News truth, chewed up, swallowed and cast out his back door like the rest of his “truths”. You’re another “22percenter” – the 22 percent that get all of their “news” from fox…

  1. Krauthammer has absolutely no ability to be consistent or principled. His columns drip with hypocrisy.

    For example, he’s mocking a 2.8% victory by Obama (which is false, the victory is more like 3.6% and rising as votes are still being counted), but then in 2004 he called Bush’s 2.4% win “a large majority, or a significant majority.”

    Then Krauthammer laughs about a “rounding error” implying that the tax increases on the rich aren’t substantial and would do little to solve our debt problems. But earlier in the piece he’s screeching about $1.6 trillion in new revenue. So which is it? Is it a rounding error or it is a monumental tax hike? It can’t be both.

    And finally he suggests that Republicans renew ALL the Bush tax cuts — lol, so they can prove they care about the debt? This guy is nothing but a rabble rouser. His words are completely empty.

      1. It’s true. Anyone who speaks out against “the chosen one” is tagged as a racist and a bigot. Doesn’t really matter whether it’s true or not. Repressive tolerance at it’s finest. And oh yeh, this whole mess is what the Dems refer to as “bi-partisan approach”. Right! Let him take it off the cliff John. Then he’ll own it.

        1. I’ve got to hand it to you CONservatives. You must know something that the rest of us don’t since you’re always calling Obama “the chosen one” and “the messiah.”

        2. I said nothing about racism in my post. You guys are a desperate to change the subject because I pointed out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in this editorial.

    1. Please show where CK says that Bush’s victory was 2/4% and a large majortiy. Please show where the vote will come in giving 3.6% to the Liar in Chief. The only inconsistencies are in your posts. 1.6 Trillion is over 10 years and when applied annually it is a rounding error. It can be both!

      1. Piece of cake. Here you go sweat heart –

        We’re at 50.96% for Obama and 47.31% for Romney.
        https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&f=true&noheader=true&gid=19

        “And now that he’s been elected with a large majority, or a significant majority, and with a mandate, I think part of that mandate is to get the right judges, by his likes.” Krauthammer in 2004 on Fox News http://www.salon.com/2012/11/07/the_rights_new_line_obama_has_no_mandate/

        And no, you can’t scream that something is a massive tax hike when it’s convenient, then also argue that it’s inconsequential. Those two things are at odds.

          1. How can you have a massive rounding error?

            Also, please apologize to me for saying that my post was inconsistent. I backed up my claims with facts and you haven’t been able to indicate what parts were inconsistent.

  2. If the Bush tax cuts go away, why would any liberal complain because we would be under the Bill Clinton Tax Plan..
    Throw the meat over the edge and see what happens. I’m OK with it. Debt reduction, Bill Clinton Style..
    I actually believe Obama wants that to happen, more revenue for him to spend.

  3. Gawsh Charles, it’s amazing how you know the intimate details of how someone thinks. Now, expressing YOUR OPINION, that the current stalemate is nothing but a power play on the part of Obama, how do you, with your limited intellect and more limited vocabulary, explain exactly what it was that the Republicans in the House and Senate were doing when they clearly stated that their singular goal, no matter who it hurt or how much it damaged the country, was to make Obama a one-term president? My friend, that was a power play based on monolithic egos. You might want to spend some more time actually studying economics rather than relying on Rushbo to do it for you.

  4. It is an all out war on greed Charlie. Gird your loins and hang on. The top 2% have seen their wealth explode by 300% over the last 20 years while the other 98% have seen their wages go down. They are getting a tax increase for Christmas, along with their lump of coal. Santa knows who has been greedy and who has not. So does Obama.

        1. If in 2005 I purchased a painting for $50,000 and in the last 7 years that painting has gone in up value to $250,000 (the artist died) my wealth has increased by $200,000. What would you tax? If I purchased gold when it was trading at $1000 an ounce and now its $1700 an ounce my wealth has increased. What would you tax?

          1. If in 2005 I purchased a house for $50,000 and in the last 7 years that house has gone in up value to $250,000 (I did some improvements) my wealth has increased by $200,000. What would you tax?

            :-)

          2. You failed to address my question. My example did not use real estate. Please stay on topic and put the bong down

          3. You whine that I’m off-topic, then you pull a bong joke out of thin air. That’s called hypocrisy.

            And I did answer your question. You asked how it was feasible to tax wealth and I pointed out that we already tax wealth with property taxes.

          4. You did not answer my question because you are unable to. How do you tax increases in wealth. If I bought 10000 shares of a stock at $1 per share and those shares are now worth $100 a share. An increase of my wealth by 100 times. What will you tax? Im suggesting that you are off topic because you can’t address what I’ve put in front of you. How would a liberal tax wealth?

          5. LOL, you’re funny.

            Keep saying that I didn’t answer your question doesn’t magically make it true. You asked how can wealth be taxed and I told you exactly like they tax your property. They don’t tax your property at a stagnant rate, they tax it continuously and as it is valued. That’s taxing wealth.

            Keep your head in the sand all you want, but I answered your question.

            BTW you still owe me an apology for saying my post below was inconsistent. It wasn’t and I provided facts to back myself up. :)

          6. No sense an posting with someone who cant follow a thread. Regarding the previous posts, you did provide facts and for that I thank you. I’ll apologize when you address my question

          7. I’ve followed the thread. Real estate changes in value all the time and it is taxed accordingly. Wealth could be taxed in that exact same way. Saying that isn’t changing the subject, it’s making a comparison. Answer why that is not the same thing as taxing wealth. You’re desperate to avoid the issue and that’s why you accuse me of changing the subject. It’s pathetic.

          8. Now you’re talking about something different than your original non-starter posturing. You would be taxed on the dividend income per year, as income just like someone working at Wal-mart would. But at a higher rate since you did nothing to “earn” that income except sit on your keyster and wait for the money to roll in.
            And if you sold the shares, the amount of profit you realized.

          9. Whatever, my question never brought real estate into question. Your argument is imbecilic at best and you avoid the topic. How do you tax wealth if its non-real estate. Please put the bong down and try to focus on the topic.

          10. You would be taxed on the income you made if and when you sold it (or passed it on as inheritance if you were worth over 2 mllion)! What if yousaid the paointing was worth nothing? …would you then expect a rebate, if you said the painting was worth 100 million would you be taked on that? Of course not silly! You are taxed when a transaction take’s place as income, and the income would be taxed. It’s a silly notion that you would be taxed on belongings. If that were the case you would have to have yearly appraisals done on everything you own…. It’s a non-sensical argument
            So on the gold for instance if you sold it you would be taked for $700… simple enough.

          11. The topic was taxing wealth and not income. The fact that someone’s wealth has increased is meaningless when it comes to federal taxation. How would you tax wealth was the question, the imbecilic answer was “simple math”

  5. So this is the new rallying cry – if the ultra-wealthy have to pay higher taxes, everyone else does too!?

    Kraut’s a multi-millionaire and will not be affected truly one way or the other – he will still get paid to write his partisan schlock and live the high life. Though middle and lower class GOP? You’re going to feel it. Enjoy!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *