Why not, they vowed to make him a one term president.
From the Economist
"Republicans have locked themselves into an impossible position on budgeting by simultaneously vowing never to allow taxes hikes, and passing long-term budgets that create a fiscal cliff necessitating tax hikes. It's in Mr Obama's interests to gain Republican cooperation to work out the best possible deal, but if that's not forthcoming, it's also in his interests to use the impossibility of the Republicans' position to weaken them. Back before the elections, Mr Chait wrote a piece distilling the thinking he'd heard from Obama aides on the budget debates. "The term that keeps popping up among Obamans is break," Mr Chait wrote, "as in, 'we have to break the Republicans on taxes.'" That strategy seems to be working out. Either Mr Obama is going to break the Republicans on taxes, or he's going to try to break the Republicans. On taxes.
Obama is setting himself up so he will not be reelected. Funny NO? He sent the special gathering of bi-part participants to develop a compromise on the revenue and spending. Their back drop was to implement the so called "fiscal cliff" if they failed to reach an agreement. Both parties working together developed this. It was not expected to actually be executed but it was the stimulus to get the job done and make a compromise. Each side sees a possible political gain and takes a blind eye to working for the betterment of the country. They should be reminded they are not running for reelection now at this late hour. The election is over. Now is time to do the job they have been elected to do. Balance the budget is not possible but reducing the growth of spending and increasing revenue (taxes) is. It seems to me that Obama is not encouraging the Senate to reconsider their spending but only working with the house to increase taxes. Obama should be encouraging both to compromise. Those responsible in the past for raising taxes have been stiff armed by not having spending controls implemented as has been promised. They do not want another stiff arm. They want to see the spending growth rates reduced first. Seems simple. Why does not the smartest mind in Washington see it too? He does not seek reelection. What is his problem with bartering a solution?