Any deal that delays the spending cuts under sequestration (without replacing them with other cuts) should be anathema. If this deal re-raises spending (on anything other than defense), it should be an absolute non-starter.
Now, if it delays sequestration, but replaces it with other, specified spending cuts instead of an across-the-board bludgeon, then that is actually BETTER policy than sequestration.
But this is worth noting: Boehner's Plan B would have kept sequestration intact, but would have protected tax cuts for everybody up to a million dollars of income. Plan B was better than this deal, regardless. This game hasn't been played well by the political right.
We await the final details of this thing. But if this raises taxes on small businesses whose proprietors earn (meaning the businesses earn, which means the money doesn't actually end up as personal earnings) as little as $450,000, this might not be a deal worth accepting.
Gallup reports that Obama's disapproval ratings are up a whopping five points in just the last week. If no deal is reached, he'll get plenty of blame, too, and the pressure will remain on both sides after going over the "cliff" to come back and fix things (including retroactively). In fact, Obama might LOSE leverage, because when the economy goes bad, the president ends up getting the blame in the long run. Obama knows this too. therefore, why rush into a bad deal, when the leverage for a better deal might improve after going over the cliff?
Of course, it would help if the GOP knew how to communicate. I sure know people who can help them out.