Skip to comments.Democrats Refuse To Compromise On Spending
Posted on 11/27/2012 4:47:53 AM PST by LD Jackson
I wrote yesterday how some GOP lawmakers were announcing their willingness to abandon the "no new tax" pledge they made to Grover Norquist. Most, if not all, of them said they would consider compromising on taxes and new revenue, only if serious entitlement reform was part of any package agreed to by both parties. Clearly, the pressure is on the Republicans to compromise their hardline stance on raising taxes, with no mention of cutting spending. President Obama announced yesterday that he wanted to prevent Republicans from ruining Christmas for the middle class. That is what would happen, said the President, if Republicans refused to budge on taxes. One would almost think he was still running for President. Maybe someone needs to tell him the election is over. At any rate, the campaign of rhetoric continues to grow, as every available ounce of pressure is brought to bear on the Republicans in Congress.
As a way of doing that, the labor unions have organized a visit to Capitol Hill by their members. Hundreds of them are scheduled to meet with Democratic lawmakers, hoping to help them stiffen their resolve.
(The Hill) Union members from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Education Association (NEA) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will also be on Capitol Hill this week to lobby lawmakers.From the tone of Trumka's letter, as well as what the union members are expected to tell their fellow Democrats, I think it's pretty clear where this is all headed. Couple that with the campaign of rhetoric President Obama is using to put pressure on Republicans, and I am sure of it. Nowhere do you hear serious mention or discussion of spending reform coming out of their mouths. Their baseline argument starts and ends with one issue: Republicans need to compromise on taxes and raise them on the wealthiest Americans. Here is a portion of the open letter President Obama used to lay out his case.
During their lobbying visits, union members will have an open letter sent to Congress from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
The head of the nations largest labor federation cites this months election results specifically Mitt Romneys loss to President Obama as reason not to cut into entitlement programs or keep tax cuts for the countrys wealthy.
We just had an election in which one candidate proposed to lower tax rates for the richest 2% of Americans and cut benefits for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. He lost, Trumka says in the letter. We ask you to respect the will of the voters and promise to (1) let Bush tax rates for the richest 2% of Americans expire in December and (2) oppose benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
(Fox News) Stop holding the middle class and our economy hostage over a disagreement on tax cuts, the letter states, as Congress returns to Washington this week to try to reach a deal that would avert the $500 billion mix of tax increases and budget cuts set to take effect in early January.Respectfully, I disagree with the President and vehemently object to the rhetoric he is using. He is portraying the upcoming negotiations as all about keeping taxes lower on the middle class. He likes to come across as their savior, but the reality is much different. Let's turn it around on him and ask him to explain why he is willing to stand his ground and allow taxes to go up for the middle class, unless he gets his way on tax hikes for the 2% of Americans who make over $250,000 per year? Is that not a legitimate question, just as much as the question he is posing to Republicans? Again, I ask you to look at his words. His main argument is raising taxes on the wealthy. He seldom mentions spending reform, and then only in passing.
The rhetoric being used by the President, and the visits to Capitol Hill by union members highlight one thing. They have no real intention of compromising on spending and entitlement reform. They are focused on one thing, raising taxes. Unless that changes, any failure to reach a compromise rests squarely on their shoulders.
Well there you have it...compromiste means you agree with our way of doing things.
I gave up on the RINOs long ago and don’t plan on going back. Hopefully there will be a new party by 2016, if not, what is the difference if we are going to agree with the dems anyway.
There is an adage about success and what happens in succeeding generations: shirtsleaves to shirtsleaves in three generations....today it is chains to chains in 200 years.
Obama ruined the Christmas for the Middle Class for the next 4 years when he got elected.
Unions are marching off the cliff with idiot Democrats who do not want to lose power by cutting entitlements.
WTF is wrong with these people that ignore Greece and Spain and think we can continue borrowing our way from one year to another with no thought of paying off our debt.Can’t they see what is happening?
The same people who want to throw the pro-life, pro-family wing of the party aside, so they can focus on fiscal conservatism,
... are about to cave on TAX INCREASES WITHOUT ANY SPENDING CUTS?!?!
It is starting to look like avoiding the “fiscal cliff” will not be worth the price.
Trumka presents the lie:
We just had an election in which one candidate proposed to lower tax rates for the richest 2% of Americans and cut benefits for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.”
and then insists this is the reason to abandon our principles, quit the fight, and sign on with the Devil.....
The reality is - there is already a law signed and on the books, about to take effect in January, which a) allows the tax rates prevailing BEFORE the Bush tax rate reduction to resume, effectively raising the tax rate on the “wealthy”; and b) sequestration kicks in which is an automatic, meat-cleaver approach to reduction in Federal spending.
An now, the Current Occupant of the White Hut wants to renege on the deal he so willingly signed in 2011, with the Budget Control Act? The short-term reason then was to get agreement on the debt ceiling limit.
But actions have consequences.
I love it when the guy who first called for the game of chicken suddenly realizes HE may have to be the one to swerve off the head-on course he is steering.
Best game of chicken I ever witnessed was when DJ and Roger were both coming head-on, and in an unspoken and unsignaled simultaneous response, they both swerved to their respective LEFT.
The reverse of the usual game, when one or the other swerves right.
And by the way, we are also about to run into the debt ceiling limit again.
What is the plan then, Bronco Bama?
To have ANY future, the only thing House Pubbies can do is let the dems own it lock stock and barrel, by voting Present.
I think we are in for a long, long period of center-left Big Government (the USSR managed to milk it for 70 years with far less wealth lying around to expropriate).
There will be some bleeding away from the margins of our movement as certain folks see better career prospects for themselves by hopping on to the Big Government ladder. Many others will just choose to live off-the-grid.
And I might add to continue the Sit Down Strike on every fiscal Bill, taxes, spending and budget or Continuing Resolution. Let the wild eyed dems go for it, all by themselves.
The Democrats never compromise on anything when it comes to accomplishing their agenda. Their agenda consists of power and control. Our problem is that, as evidenced by the results of the 2012 election, most of those that live in the United States [I no longer refer to them as Americans]have said, via their votes, “I want to be controlled”.
Hell, to them it is a compromise to allow the other side at the table...
Federal Financial Stewardship File.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.