ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on December 3, 2012

Two heads, but having the same stomach.

President Barack Obama campaigned on tax hikes on the wealthy and top income earners in the country and won the 2012 presidential election; but now, the opposition Congressional Republicans were saying, "No" to raising taxes on the rich, and that the country should go over the inimical "fiscal cliff" that would hurt every person and damage the fragile economy.

United States Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, appeared on television on Sunday in an interview explaining why the "Bush-era tax cuts for top incomes must go" to make way for the Obama administration's plan to get the economy moving forward; but the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representative, John Boehner, said in another interview that it (plan) would not be acceptable.

The Speaker's argument was that the $1.6 trillion taxes the government was requesting from revenue sources would be wasted. "He would spend it," attributing that statement to Obama.

The interviewer, Chris Wallace, on Fox News Sunday program, then rhetorically questioned the Speaker, "it would not go to reducing the deficit?" to which he (Speaker) somehow replied, "No".

That almost instantly resolved the differences between the White House and the Congressional Republican Caucus on taxes, to avert the crisis of a recession that would inevitably follow the "fiscal cliff" episode.

All the president has to do would be to tell the nation that the money would go to defray the deficit, and that he was serious about tackling the National debt in his second term.

In a way, the Speaker was right, that both the government and the opposition were concerned with how the economy would fare in the coming years; and that the borrowing, which was resulting in spending by the government was not conducive to the nation's economic health.

Obama's plan dealt with the same thing, that by finding ways to reduce health care cost and military expenditure, plus closing the loopholes in the tax system and making the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, the country's financial woes could be remedied.

All that was left was a common ground for both sides to reach an agreement, and the "fiscal cliff" would be avoided.

There was, therefore, room for a compromise, considering that both the Obama administration and the Republicans were having the same objective, and that was to get the country out of debt and be placed on a sound economic footing, now and in the future, for the benefit of all Americans.

All they have to say now was, "Let's do it, gentlemen".


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Good hub, Owurakwasip, it had several interesting observations in it. The fatal flaw, at least in the near-term in the Speaker's thinking regarding Obama "spending" the extra revenue is that the conservatives control the House and they have veto control in the Senate. In other words, if the conservatives don't want the money spent, it won't be.