The fundamental error in the drama unfolding before us about the fiscal cliff is that there is a mismatch in negotiations: The House Republicans are negotiating to bring about an end to the fiscal crisis, while the Democrats in the Senate and the White House are negotiating the terms of the surrender of capitalism and the full bore onset of redistributive socialism. In essence, there are two different negotiations going on at the same time with two very different end goals.
The only solution for the Republicans in the House is to stop the negotiations with the White House altogether (didn't they learn this already with Obamacare and the previous debt ceiling?) and accomplish their objective in the Legislative Branch of the Government alone --- end the discussions with the White House because they are the wrong party to the negotiations in the first place. The place to begin the real battle in the trenches is with the few moderate Democrats that exist in the Senate, explaining those that are vulnerable in 2014 that recent polls indicate that the public might have re-elected the President, but the polls show strong opposition to his current position. The Republicans in the Senate need to join the fight by preventing any action at all until the House Bill is either adopted as is or amended and adopted -- and then sent to a conference committee as it properly should be. These back and forth efforts are producing no fruit, so go back to the real process and make it work.
The next thing to do is to clearly articulate that the solution to the fiscal crisis is to reduce spending significantly and to raise the necessary revenues in the most effective way possible. The White House released data last week that clearly shows that revenue to the Treasury INCREASED BY NEARLY 500 Billion PER YEAR after the "Bush Tax Cuts" were enacted. They did not "cost" the Treasury anything -- they in fact helped close the deficit each year from 2004-2007. This should be the loudest and strongest message they use. The Republicans should clearly articulate the notion that they are for a simpler set of fairer rules that remove various special considerations and loopholes -- flat fair and small for everyone. Period.
The Constitution sets forth the legislative powers of the House and the Senate -- between them, they are supposed to decide what gets spent, who gets taxed and how much. If the President doesn't like that result, he is free to veto the result, but then he alone bears the responsibility for the failure to move forward. My guess is that he won't let that happen.
Let the President attempt to make the case for massive redistribution and raising the rates on the rich-- and then show the facts from Britain in the past couple of years which clearly show that the British millionaires left the country in droves and cost their Treasury billions when they raised the tax rates.
The American people are less interested in "tax the rich" than the left thinks -- particularly when they are finally told the truth -- that family farms, family businesses, small law firms and small medical practices are the ones that will suffer the most. Get that message across, and we should win the argument. Getting side tracked into silly debates about whether Warren Buffett should pay 35% or 39% is just not worth the fight.