look at that and we would be willing to do that and so far the republicans have not been willing to budget one inch on rates and again this is all a matter of semantics. it is not dollars so they ought to be willing to put everything on the table on the revenue side. what they might say is and let me get your answer. you said we re not going to get entitlements done in three weeks and in fact you think it would be irresponsible to do that. without entitlements on the table, without entitlement reform, are you going to get the kinds of concessions from the republicans that you need to do a deal? well, maybe not, and that s why i think peter s comment is probably very apt. we probably are better off in that respect if they re not willing to compromise just on the tax side before the end of the year we re probably better off waiting until next year with a different congress and more time to actually deal with the more comprehensive approach, but again all we want to make sure is it is
does keep the economy going and when you cut that much spending all at once abruptly you create a shock to the economy and that is dangerous and there are economists that say it could send us into recession again. it is not going to happen immediately on january 1st is their point. the alternative perspective is if you believe in preserving entitlements, social security, an eventual deal, a real deal, how much different would it really look from what is on the table with the fiscal cliff? that s a good question. let me read to you what congressman peter difazoo told politico. if the republicans can t see their way to significant additional revenues target to the people who are best off and passive income and other things like that, then we re better off going over the cliff and readdressing this with a better congress in january so then i guess the question becomes will things be much different with this different congress if the leaders are the same.