Only Congressional Republicans contemplate compromise


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?


Jan-2004. Click to enlarge.

This is just one of many criticisms of George Bush’s wild spending I’ve made.

This is just one answer to speeches questions like, “Well, (chortle) where were your teabagger (giggle) protests when Boosh was ravaging the economy with his war-mongering spending and lack of (tee-hee) regulation? Huh? Huh? It’s his fault. What’s this have to do with taxes, teabagger (snicker)?”

These are diatribes questions you can pose only when you insist the words “Hitler” and/or “Chimp” are required to validate criticism of our last President. You also must be willing to believe that if Bush had proposed quintupling his excesses with a carbon tax, nationalization of health care, the banks and the auto industry, that there would have been no objection.

I’ve been principled, which is far more than the vast majority of Obama supporters can say. I criticized Bush’s profligacy, and I criticize Obama’s fiscal insanity.