Both parties are manouvering for political advantage. The party in power has the advantage, but here we have 3-way split: GOP over the house, dems over the senate and a dem in the White House.
The GOP wants deep cuts in spending and no new taxes, but has only managed to pull off the latter. The dems are resisting "deep" cuts as defined by the GOP. They're offering modest cuts, 1/6th of what the GOP is proposing.
The correct political ploy in that case, given the mood of the country, as expressed by the voters on the last Congressional elections, is to create the appearance in the public's mind that the dems are 1) standing in the way of meaningful cuts and by extension, deficit reduction and 2) want to raise taxes instead (they did). If the public agrees, the dems may lose the White House, the House and the Senate next year.
That's the situation. Whether you agree or disagree as to which party is right or wrong, your opinion has no direct bearing on whether or not the aforementioned political strategy exists. You can speculate on the outcome of the strategy.
If the public agrees, the strategy will fail; if not, Katie bar the door. The current GOP leadership in the House and the Senate is sharp as a tack. The dems will have to be nimble to avoid the trap. They can, if they agree to 5/6ths of the proposed budget reduction the GOP wants, maybe even 4/5ths, and stay mum on taxes until after 2012. But my sense is Reid is not handling it well. We'll see.It was jobs, jobs, jobs the last election. The whole starve the beast mentality is just justification for future deficits. If you want to cut spending you cut spending you dont borrow to finance taxcuts. The real meat is in entitlements and they are extremely popular and given a choice of cutting medicare and socail security or returning the top rates do you really think it's a debate the right can win with John Q Public? How come when they have the Presidency the republican party has always supported higher deficits? Reagan, Nixon, Bush1 and Junior all had party support while running up far worse numbers then Johnson, Clinton or Carter. National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The stark swings can not be just pooh poohed away they are statistically signifigant 64-2008 Starve the beast failed.