Skip to comments.JIM DEMINT, LEADER OF THE RESISTANCE?
Posted on 12/04/2012 7:04:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The "fiscal cliff" drama presents opportunities for leadership, which is something the Republican Party naturally seeks, following a difficult election loss. Among those bidding for the leadership of the conservative resistance is Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who issued a tough statement about House Speaker John Boehner's instantly rejected compromise proposal:
Speaker Boehner's $800 billion tax hike will destroy American jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more, while not reducing our $16 trillion debt by a single penny. This isn't rocket science. Everyone knows that when you take money out of the economy, it destroys jobs, and everyone knows that when you give politicians more money, they spend it. This is why Republicans must oppose tax increases and insist on real spending reductions that shrink the size of government and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.
Big government is the cause of our debt crisis, not the solution. Washington has a spending addiction that is shackling our children and grandchildren with unsustainable debt. Conservatives fought for a balanced budget amendment last year precisely because we knew the political establishment in Washington would never stop their tax and spend addiction without it. However, if neither party leadership is going to put forward a serious plan to balance the budget and pay down the debt, we should end this charade. We can stop the fiscal cliff with the bill that House Republicans already passed that simply extends the current tax rates and replaces the defense cuts with reductions in wasteful spending.
(Emphases mine.) Curiously, I noticed that a great many media sources quoted the first highlighted passage from DeMint’s statement… but virtually none of them quoted the second part, where he reminds everyone that he put his shoulders behind a plan that really would have solved our deficit crisis, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. At one point during Washington’s previous ”budget ceiling” Muppet show, DeMint said he was only a votes shy of getting Cut, Cap, and Balance through the Senate. It was killed with parliamentary manuevers in the Senate – you know, stuff like the filibuster that becomes a menace to democracy when Republicans do it, but is the very essence of patriotism in Democrat hands.
Cut, Cap and Balance proponents – and their even more dour brethren, the “leave the debt ceiling in place” crew – correctly predicted that Washington’s political machinery would end up producing a meaningless “deal” that didn’t really cut spending, but left us with even more unsustainable debt. They could not have been more correct. The result of the last debt ceiling drama was the Budget Control Act of 2011, which “controlled” the deficit in the same sense that a little kid in seat 34C with a plastic dashboard is “controlling” the airplane he’s riding on.
DeMint also makes a point that more reporters should be asking President Obama and his surrogates: if the national debt is no big deal, and a few billion in spending here and there amounts to mere pocket change, why not just extend the entire Bush tax rate package for another year and have a longer, more serious discussion about what to do next? DeMint has long expressed his misgivings about making historic decisions during the artificially-induced panic of a lame-duck session. Surely Uncle Sam’s credit cards can handle a little more debt, while we take our time to formulate a rational plan and build a national consensus behind it – a process that must inevitably include making those dependent upon government programs comfortable with significant reductions. Running up the national credit card was not even a momentary consideration when it came to passing ObamaCare, was it? That crazy thing blows the deficit even higher with every passing month, but for some reason Democrats only slip on their green eyeshades when it’s time to count the money Americans don’t send to Washington.
Senator DeMint also delivered some solid resistance to the silly notion of a revenue-starved Washington via Twitter on Tuesday, as noted by CNN:
DeMint added his voice to the fray Tuesday morning with a tweet critical of the House Republican proposal, which included an extension of the Bush-era tax breaks as well as accomplishing $2.2 trillion in savings, among them $600 billion in non-entitlement spending cuts and $800 billion in “health savings.”
He tweeted: “Speaker Boehner’s offer of an $800 billion tax hike will destroy jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more.”
The Palmetto State Republican defended his stance, saying, “This federal government doesn’t need more money.”
“This country needs less federal government. We’re gonna be near historic highs of tax revenues in Washington this year. More money than we’ve ever had. So it’s not a revenue problem, it’s a spending problem,” he said.
He chided Republicans, saying “this is not a time to negotiate with ourselves” and describing Obama’s proposal as “outlandish.”
“This is a time to work together where we can, but it’s clear that what Obama wants is not a solution to our deficit problem, because his proposal doesn’t even come close, and it’s not a plan at all,” DeMint said.
DeMint has repeatedly said he doesn’t plan to seek another term in the Senate come 2016, and in the opinion of some observers, has lately sounded a bit more amenable to the idea of running for President instead. The Senate is, at least in theory, more likely to yield a candidate with durable national appeal and fundraising prowess than the House; the current President was a Senator first, after all.
But Senators make the sort of public statements that come back to haunt them, too, and no Republican senator is ever going to get the blank slate handed to Barack Obama when he decided on a White House run. DeMint’s tough talk on the fiscal cliff over the past few days has been tempered by something he said two months, one presidential election, and several political epochs ago, to Bloomberg News:
You cant get a deal with Obama without raising taxes on the producing class of folks, said South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a leader of the limited-spending Tea Party movement. We might as well cut a deal, he said. If Republicans want to maintain the defense, were going to have to give tax increases to Obama.
Today Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Senates third-ranking Democrat, said DeMints comments may signal an end to congressional gridlock. When Jim DeMint is suddenly open to revenues, you know the tide is turning, said Schumer.
DeMints office didnt immediately return a phone call seeking comment, though a report on Politico.com said DeMint clarified that, while a tax increase would be necessary to get a deal with Obama, he would personally never support it.
It doesn’t really sound as if DeMint’s initial quote – the one that made Chuck Schumer giddy – was just academic speculation about something he would never actually support, since he used phrases like “we might as well cut a deal.” His later clarification, interpreted literally, means he would never cut a deal – he would never agree to the one thing he believes Obama will never stop demanding. At the time, he was talking about avoiding the sequestration defense cuts; he could fairly say that the election, and President Obama’s subsequent irresponsible behavior, has changed the discussion.
It sounds as if DeMint is putting considerable effort into making himself crystal clear on that point. It’s about time someone of stature spoke up loud and clear for the one idea that always works, which is of course the only idea that doesn’t seem to be on the table: cutting taxes, to reduce the burden government places upon the private sector, while trimming the federal government down to something America can actually afford.
I like DeMint, but let everything burn to the ground.
Out of the ashes, AND from the energy of the conservative people of this country SICK TO DEATH of cowardice, someone will emerge...
but, they’d better be ready to be thoroughly vetted and born from the fire before they get support from me.
I’m sick of being lied to. I don’t care anymore about the republicans...and the media will reap what they have sown.
” - - - If Republicans want to maintain the defense, were going to have to give tax increases to Obama. - - - - “
RINO-Think: “If we want to win, we must first Cave-In, and then we MUST remember to always lose at all costs.”
Bye-bye DeMint, you are now a useless, sad joke - - - .
Coward DeMint, RINO File.
THE RESISTANCE?...... A WORD THAT NEEDS repeating
“Anybody care to respond to this?”
Try this from Miltie.
Bottom line is that yes the money gets spent either way, but there’s a couple key differences...
1. who gets to spend the money (the producer or the taker?) This has “moral hazard” aspects that are very detrimental to both the economy and society in general (rewards and punishes the wrong behaviors)
2. how effectively is that money spent. This is addressed by another Miltie video - the four types of money.
With a private funding, the first dollar goes to the development of the product or service and to those who's efforts are required to make it happen. The last person in line for compensation is the person who owns the business or service that is being produced.If the product or service is deemed valuable by the market, the business will continue. As it becomes more successful similar businesses will rush to the market with better, cheaper, faster products and services.
In the bizarro world of public (Federal) spending, the first tax dollar spent by the Federal government is spent on the guaranteed pension plans and benefits of the Federal employees. The second dollar spent by the Federal government is to Federal employees as the bureaucratic filter captures the “cost” of redistributing tax revenue. Subsequent dollars are used with decreasing efficiency as the Federal mindset reinforces failure, not success. If a Federal program is deemed as unsuccessful the cause in almost inevitably that there was too little money spent on it. Witness the War on Poverty. After umpteen trillion dollars spent to eradicate poverty what do we have? More poor people, of course. As for the collision of the public and private sectors, the litany of Solyndra’s over history is too long to mention.
The politics are much more complicated. It seems as if the least dangerous course for Republicans is to pass a one-year extension of the Bush tax cuts in the House, send it to the Senate and adjourn for the year. Let Harry Reid be the one to send us over "the fiscal cliff".
Not with my hot temper!
My run would end in a jail term.
As much as I like this,it is exactly what Obama wants,a Divided Republican Party.
I just cant force myself to vote GOPe any more.
Yep. Maybe the time is ripe for a strong 3rd party.(Tea Party?). Real conservatives have had it with the GOP.
They should buy time on all the alphabet networks every week and get the message out since ABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNN won't regain their integrity anytime soon.
” Disarm this weapon from Obama so you can fight him, then he is the one who raised taxes not you. With any luck all the other cliff stuff will slow the economy down and then ya got an argument against raising taxes.”
This is by far, the best option. Actually, the only one.
Thanks friend, you and me are tired of this crap and want to see O beaten for a change:)
“Forget any protest in Washington.. The news media needs to be confronted FIRST. They are 0bama’s front line and until they’re EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE AND WHO THEY’RE WORKING FOR, nothing will change.
FUCBS, FUNBC, FUABC.. They, along with CNN, MSNBC, and most websites are WHORES for 0bama. We need to track WHO George Soros has funded and is funding. ARGH!!!!”
Yup, I have been saying this now for about 5 years. The SRM are our biggest enemies. IMO even bigger than Obama, because without them covering and cheerleading for him he is nothing. They shape and reinforce the narrative to the sheeple, yet the fing stupid GOP continue to allow them to moderate their debates!! Not enough bad things can personally happen to these Media people, they have and continue to destroy America! I wish the Muslims would issue a fatwa against them!
Public schools are churning out anti-Christian marxists by the millions...
Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.
It is a divided party but not because of obama. You have conservatives on one side and the GOPe somewhat if you can say that with a straight face, fiscally cheap liberals on the other. It has been this way since 1964 and through the prism of the Cold War we won several elections because the Republicans could be counted on in most cases to put country before party especially in foreign policy. That ended after Bush 43 and his Republican majorities in congress went on a spending binge that would normally make a liberal blush.
The conservatives and the cheap fiscal GOPe liberals are totally at odds with their goals for the party and the country. A house divided cannot stand. Either the GOPe liberals leave or the conservatives do. Together as they are now it will never win a national election again.
The Republican party is dead it just doesn’t know it yet. A new party will rise from its demise, but sadly I believe it will come to power too late to save the country. I fear once we spiral into the anarchy that is coming liberal tyranny will take hold and totalitarianism will be the result of the collapse instead of a new republic.
Some may say this is sheer pessimism, hardly, just taking a cold hard look at reality, history and where the country stands and the future looks grim about anyway this goes down.
No doubt Boehner has this message repeating in his brain: "If I pass a partial extension of the tax cuts for those below $X, then O can either sign it an do a victory dance (and Grover will torture me), or he will veto it and demand something else."
But the latter option, demanding something more (stimulus?), is clearly a riskier position for O than the House doing nothing but bluster, letting the budget control act do its thing.
Similarly, if the senate blocks the partial tax cut, that looks bad for Dems. However, one thing that worries me is that the simple bill gets amended in the senate, and then moves to the Pork-O-Rama bicameral conference, followed by a quick vote before they have time to read the bill.
O could sign the bill and do a victory dance, saying he kept his campaign promise. If the GOP is right about small businesses suffering as a result, that should become evident, although it's not clear to me whether voters understand or care about the economy at this time.
Maybe Boehner will see the light. I am not going to hold my breath. Dems are already rehearsing their talking points (and the media and many public school teachers will echo whatever they say): "Who refused to lower middle class taxes?"
You wont get an argument from me.
I have already pondered these. If you watch Obama he is only talking about the tax cuts because he wants the voters to think that the rich are all Republicans care about, (and some seem to want to help him at that).
So he is setting things up so Republicans can call his bluff and pass the tax cuts, so then if he demands more Rs can make a big fuss about Obama demands a moving target and O playing with the middle class peoples lives.
So in this it is good that it is dragging out a while.
As far as gloating goes, Dems are going to do that. We have to be tough and stomach it.
But the longer the standoff drags out the more of a victory O can claim, and if Rs hold out like they did on the debt limit then Rs will really be hurt by it, and cave on it too.
I heard on the Dem channel that it is being leaked that Bohner is planning on doing exactly as I been advising, pass the tax cuts and nothing else.
I also heard on both channels that Obama wants to lure Rs into a suicidal confrontation early on so he can crush them with public opinion and they (leadership) will be terrified to stand up to him again, and the R party descends into civil war,
This one could just be Obama trying to psych out Republicans, but I can see it playing out that way too,
I don’t know who to trust anymore in the GOP but I do know that if Sarah Palin teams up with DeMint or West then I’m in.
Otherwise, I’m done with the republican party.
That might result (after senate amendments) in a House/senate pork-o-rama conference behind closed doors, followed by a quick vote before they read it.