So the Democrats presented their idea of a good plan to divert the fiscal cliff, and Republican lawmakers laughed at it. Good! It is a joke. But Republicans had to do more than laugh. So, after the laughter died down, the Republican leadership countered with a proposal of their own, but I don’t think they got the reaction they were expecting. Not only did the Democrats and liberals put it down for being unbalanced, but conservatives attacked Republican leadership for caving.
First, where do the Democrats get off calling the Republican proposal unbalanced? The Republican proposal raises revenue (through taxing the rich), and lowers spending through changes to Medicare and Social Security, closing loopholes, and lowering deductions. There’s a few different ideas there, but essentially the proposal raises tax rates and cuts spending. Seems balanced to me. The Democrat proposal is mostly made up of tax rate increases and more spending stimulus, along with the bonus: a call to essentially put an end to the debt ceiling. To be fair there is some talk of spending cuts, but not enough to make a difference. The bottom line is that the Democrat proposal essentially does nothing to reign in spending, while the Republican proposal makes a start. Quite frankly, the Democratic proposal is extreme in that by giving the President solo power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, there is no way to keep spending in check. Remember that debt that keeps rising?
But, the Republican plan was attacked for being unbalanced! The Democrats present a budget that raises taxes, but not by enough to make a dent in the deficit, AND ask for the ability to spend MORE! If liberals think their skewed approach is balanced, then that explains why a balanced approach looks crooked.
The second issue goes back to the Republican proposal that raises taxes on the rich. Conservatives are saying leadership caved, and while they did, the Republican leadership is obviously not conservative. Maybe Boehner got an Obamaphone? Essentially, conservatives have held that there needs to be no taxes increases, and only spending cuts. The correct wording, I guess, is that the Bush-era tax cuts need to be kept in place for all. I would agree. We need to get out of the debt mess by leaving money in the economy, and reducing government spending. If they think the proposal presented by the Republicans is off balance, than this proposal would be upside down, but a REAL fix involving government RESPONSIBILITY is what is needed.
Now that both sides have presented their budgets, President Obama has essentially said that unless there are higher tax rates, and he’s given unlimited power to raise the debt ceiling, there will be no talks, and it will be the Republican’s fault if we go over the fiscal cliff. Essentially, he’s saying that if he doesn’t get what he wants, he’s going to plug his ears, and make noise, “Nyah, nyah, nyah,” and pretend he doesn’t hear Republicans at all. It will be the fault of Republicans, and apparently, there is a poll that shows many Americans believe the same thing. It doesn’t matter that it’s not true!
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what taking money out of people’s pockets does. Obama had no problem going out and finding a family to talk about how their lives would be affected by the $2,000 loss to taxes. I can tell you how I would be affected by the $2,000 loss, but I’m not here to play on your emotions. I’m trying to be practical. I represent one family, but if you take $2,000 out of how many millions of families in America, what will that do to the small business throughout the country? I’m talking about small businesses that provide jobs across this country. I’m talking about businesses that wouldn’t be too big to fail. Rich people tend to invest in business, but if the government’s going to come along and take their money, why bother? If I were them, I’d hide it. I’m not, but it doesn’t take a liberal economic expert to figure out that I’m not going to make my money vulnerable to a hostile a government take-over.
The Democratic party is always presented as the party of compassion, but it’s bullshit; they’re the party of children. They’re morally immature, personally irresponsible, fiscally irresponsible, and selfish. Compassion? They don’t care about people, they use people. This is about control. This is about politics. They played the bleeding heart card when President sat down with that family and let them explain how the loss of $2,000 will affect them. But he’s already shown his hand. He’s going to plug his ears until he gets what he wants, or that family goes over the cliff. They’re a pawn to get what he wants.
Republicans need to take this opportunity and come up with a clear, concise (precise) plan, and drop it in the Democrat’s laps. Details are what’s needed, and the reasoning behind it. Then, hit the airwaves, and the Internet waves, and explain to the American people why it needs to be done: NO POLITICS! Present reality. Present truth. Conservatives wouldn’t let their children run the house, why would they put up with it in the White House? I believe that all Americans are concerned with the debt and are afraid of what the consequences will be if it’s not dealt with. It’s not a rich/poor thing, white/black thing, young/old thing, gay/straight thing, male/female thing, or any other sub-group vs. sub-group thing. It’s an American thing, and American’s need someone to lead. Right now, they’re not getting leadership from either party. They being spoon-fed feel-good sayings and/or alarmism. They’re settling for the hand-outs, and I don’t blame them.
Americans want someone to be decisive. There’ll be a backlash from the MSM, and of course, liberals, but Conservatives need to stand on their principles. Stop tip-toeing around, and lead with good ideas. No more gamesmanship. Treat taxes as they are: a weight on society. Present the inconvenient truth: raise taxes, and government revenue goes down. The only real solution is to cut spending.
Come up with a REAL solution, and if the Democrats keeping plugging their ears and making noise, call it for what it is: they’re children interested in politics and power.