Doesn't it seem more likely that negotiations, especially those whose outcome raise taxes in light of a situation where IT IS spending that is out of control, are doomed to failure. I sincerely hope so. It is not really about $ and ¢ per se, but rather about future direction and principle. If we continue to bankroll the wayward largesse of the out-of-control federal government, the ones that think they can just continue to reach deeper and deeper into the pockets of the people to finance their failing system will win... for a time at least. It is time to stick a fork into the backs of their hands like they were reaching for the last piece of fried chicken.
I gotta chime in here--You're in the middle of a blood transfusion, the patient is the American economy, and everybody is suddenly worried about the blood bank. There's a time and a place for that worry, but the last time we tried to "fix" the tax codes in the middle of a Depression it was 1935 and we fell off a cliff then only to be rescued by WWII.
It was also prudent for those who were going down the stairs 9/11 to proceed in an orderly fashion. Those running full out passed their neighbors, rather rudely I may add, to safety, those that proceeded in an orderly fashion died of dust and smoke inhalation.
There's "right" and there's "correct". Cutting defense spending and entitlements is "correct". At this point in time, cutting off one source of blood to this overworked heart may just give it a heart attack. And all the Congresspeople in the world just worried about their jobs instead of the American people and common sense is what is wrong with our country, we don't have the kinds of folks at the helm who can make the hard choice of a hybrid approach. Sometimes called compromise. Sometimes called, stoke the furnace now lest it burn out, we'll farm the excesses when we have that largesse.
We should have done just that about halfway into Clinton's term, when some folks were more interested in where he put his mooohagga than where he put our money.