Only Congressional Republicans contemplate compromise

Why?

Regarding the potential temporary failure to prevent a tax increase: Tax deal: purists vs. dealmakers

Me, I’m a purist until they can demonstrate they aren’t making corrupt, sleazy deals. Which means never. Isn’t that the point of the recent election?

So. No pork because of The Dems’ Crackup The Democrats don’t want any compromise, so let’s not give it to them.

Taxes? Up or the same? If the GOP doesn’t say “You pick Nancy. On the merits,” then they should be replaced in 2012 along with Obama.

Stop spending. Stop Spending! STOP SPENDING!

The AP reported yesterday that the deal between the President and the GOP to maintain a taxation status quo is being modified to include load of pork. The pork is designed to bring reluctant Democrats on board.

Why? Let them vote no. Let them raise taxes; Just Stop Them From Spending.

The $5 billion dollar ethanol subsidy, by itself, demands a No vote. Just last week envirostatist, Nobelist, Oscar winner and former Tipper Dipper Al Gore called it a scam and a stupid idea.

The inconvenience of waiting until January to vote to preserve tax rates is well worth the message it sends: We are not going to buy votes for ethanol, windmills, transit subsidies, or any other unrelated items. If you want to preserve the current tax regime, lower payroll taxes and extend unemployment benefits – vote for it. If you don’t, vote against it. We’re done handing out billions of dollars to whiny political district-pimps at the behest of their lobbyist mobs. We don’t need your damn vote.

If you vote no, we’ll propose a bill you’ll like a lot less in January. If the Senate stops it, or the President vetoes it, we’ll bring it up again. And again. Until 2012. Higher taxes for the next 2 years will actually be a small price to pay for 5 decades or so of control of all 3 branches of government.

Every Republican should vote no if the tax-maintenance deal isn’t voted straight up-an-down on the merits. Make ethanol the poster child. If the GOP is going to eschew earmarks, why pander to Democrats’ earmarks?

By their earmarks, ye shall know them – redux


This post is recycled with minor changes from November of 2007, it seems even more appropriate now.

There are 535 elected members of the federal legislative branch. This is far too many to keep track of from memory. Who would actually recognize Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) if they bumped into him at Wal-Mart? And even if you could pick Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) out of a lineup of other guys from whom you would not buy a used car, would you admit it?

In an effort to reduce the obscurity and highlight the pork, The Other Club suggests that the 535 members be made more easily identifiable. Since it’s earmarks we’re concerned with here, why not use the long-established earmark method? After all, when you get to have more pigs than you can recognize on sight, you need to take action. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations tells us how it works. (Don’t tell PETA.) Emphasis mine:

Learning objectives

After studying this unit you should know:

1 Why do we identify animals.
2 How to notch the ear.
3 Reading the number of the pig.

Why we need to identify animals

If you have a few pigs or other animals, identifying them is no problem. You will be able to identify them by sight and may well have given them a name. [Such as Henry or Laura.] You will need some way to identify a large number of animals especially if you are going to keep records (see Annex 5). There are many ways to identify animals including numbered collars, tattoos, and plastic tags. Notching the ear is easy and is the cheapest way.

Notching the ear

A V-shaped notch can be cut out of the edge of the ear using a pair of clean scissors. Make the notch a few centimetres deep so in future you will be able to read it from a distance.

The notches on the left ear are for single numbers and on the right ear the notches are for tens.

Notching the ear

Recording the number of the pig

Look at the notches on the right and the left ears then add up the number on each ear to give the number of the animal.

Recording the number of the pig


There are some drawbacks. This method can only account for 121 out of 535 members. Worse, any appropriations bill to buy 535 of those yellow plastic ear tags normally used in such a case would undoubtedly attract all manner of airdrop earmarks. This limitation is more theoretical than actual however, 121 is enough when this method is applied only to the worst offenders, and anesthesia is not part of the process.

Another issue is that human ears vary considerably in size, shape and angle from the cranium. It seems likely, given our examples, that notches in Congressman Waxman’s ears would be more readable from a distance than in Senator Shelby’s case. In cases of small, and/or flat ears a prosthesis may be required to force the ears into a more forward orientation, which would supply the additional benefit of making it easier for our most pork-addicted representatives to listen.

Jeff Flake is fighting against Earmarks

I have advised those who read this blog to send money to The Club for Growth rather than the Republican National Committee to ensure that RINOs like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe (who does not even have any earmarks in the Omnibus Spending Bill, but will vote for it out of Porkulus Principle anyway), Susan Collins, Thad Cochran and others – but especially Richard Shelby – can’t benefit.

The Dallas Morning News editorializes about one Representative who opposes earmarks, which at one time were anathema to President Obama: Flake is fighting a lonely battle against earmarks

Most in Congress lack the will to police themselves, preferring to rail against wasteful earmarks while discreetly fattening up spending bills with pet projects. [Rep. Jeff] Flake [R-AZ] and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, who doesn’t earmark any project, are among the few exceptions.

Flake should continue his crusade to expose Congress’ charade, which encourages waste and tolerates political corruption. The $410 billion omnibus spending bill contains at least $8 billion in earmarks, including 13 pet projects for clients of PMA Group, a lobbying firm under investigation for suspicious campaign donations to members of Congress. PMA had close ties to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and other influential lawmakers who received substantial contributions from PMA’s employees and clients.

That $410 billion dollar bill is being passed in the Senate as I write this – with the support of Republicans. They should be thrown out of office. Start there and work backward to the Democrats. There’s less chance you’ll be stabbed in the back that way.

The justification from Harry Reid and Richard Shelby, respectively, for earmarks is that “faceless bureaucrats” or “the President” shouldn’t have the power to direct the money, because then it might be “”wasted.””

Well, under Shelby’s direction, $800,000 is going to oyster rehabilitation at the University of South Alabama. I don’t know what my share of that is, but, quite honestly, I think it’s an issue the people of Alabama have to address locally on behalf of themselves and the drug addicted oysters at the University of South Alabama. This approach would also protect the Senator Shelbys of the world from having to account for corrupt politicians like Rep. John Murtha, D-I’llaska.

Here’s another idea for the Senators to consider; “If you might be unhappy with how a bureaucrat or the President might spend taxpayer money if it was their choice, then it shouldn’t be your choice either. DON’T APPROPRIATE IT, Idiot!” Work instead to get the general government to observe the fact that the words “oyster” and “rehabilitation” appear nowhere in the Constitution. Maybe if the States didn’t have to send money to Washington in order to get back ninety cents on a dollar, they could afford their own oyster rehab programs.

Jeff Flake is a guy who deserves your direct support, as the article linked above makes clear. He has a lonely task, but it’s God’s work (apologies to commenter John Lofton, Recovering Republican). We should directly encourage it. Contribute
if you can.