Obama should compromise on tax rates for highest earners

[Mr. Morden]

I don't understand why some Dems here are down on the idea of Obama compromising in the way that Beet suggests.  Beet is talking about keeping the marginal rates at Bush levels, but getting exactly the same amount of revenue from the wealthy as you'd get from the Clinton rates by some other means (capping deductions, or raising other taxes to offset it), in exchange for Obama getting other things he wants (such as rescinding some of the spending cuts in the sequester that he doesn't like).  How is Obama even giving up anything in such a compromise?  Why would he even care that much which taxes are being levied on the wealthy, as long as it's the same amount of revenue?

[Mr. Morden]

Why not just go over the fiscal cliff and then in early 2013 reinstate the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000?

Why is it necessary to wait until we've reached the "cliff" in 2013 to vote on such a bill?  It could just as easily be done now.  Or is the argument that the House Republicans will refuse to vote for such a bill now, but on Jan. 1 they'll suddenly accept it?

[Mr. Morden]

Why not just go over the fiscal cliff and then in early 2013 reinstate the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000?

Why is it necessary to wait until we've reached the "cliff" in 2013 to vote on such a bill?  It could just as easily be done now.  Or is the argument that the House Republicans will refuse to vote for such a bill now, but on Jan. 1 they'll suddenly accept it?

They should start working on it before then and if a deal can be struck before Dec. 31 that would be ideal.  But I am skeptical that will happen.  What I am not for is a subpar deal which shifts the burden onto the middle class just for the sake of getting it done by the end of the year.  And if we signal that we will fold just to meet the deadline, a subpar deal is what we will get.  In the new year, Democrats will have two more senators and a slightly larger handful of House members, giving them a bit more room in negotiations.

The President campaigned for reelection vigorously on this issue.  Polls show the public agrees.  Elections have consequences.

Right, so you are not for no compromise.  You're for a tough negotiating position, in which Obama insists on getting most of what he wants.  That is not inconsistent with what Beet was suggesting in the OP.  And not inconsistent with Obama's opening bid, which is to ask for all of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire, plus additional revenue to be generated on top of that by limiting deductions:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/267789-obama-to-push-deficit-plan-that-includes-16-trillion-in-additional-revenue

Obviously the GOP will never agree to that, and they'll negotiate away from that position.  But there will be some sort of compromise of some kind, whether it be before or after Jan. 1.  The way some of the Dems in this thread seemed to be talking, it's like they were against any kind of compromise on any of this, on principle.  But that's absurd.  There's going to be some compromise.