Elected to Compromise?

Boehner, Issa and the rest of the GOP leadership need to understand they weren’t elected to compromise. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, the ruling class doesn’t just think its knows better than you what you want and need – it knows it does. If they can at least stop Obama from doing further damage, we can work on ditching these jokers in the primaries next time and getting some real conservatives in place.

6 thoughts on “Elected to Compromise?

  1. I have to disagree. That is EXACTLY what politicians are elected to do. Find common ground, get bills passed, find a way to move forward. If the antiquated 2 party system can’t keep a clear majority then the two sides have to compromise. We can’t just go back and forth with the 2 parties doing nothing but trying to stop the other party from changing anything or passing anything. The so called “independent” voters that make up the moderate left, moderate middle, and moderate right will continue to change their minds and flip back and forth but most true conservatives are unelectable in all but a few states/districts, otherwise we would have a lot more Ron Pauls in office already. Admittedly he may not always be the best example, but you get the point.

  2. The anti-big gov’t wave that’s going to put most of the republicans back in office is fired up about a few key issues like health care and gov’t spending. There can be no compromise on repealing health care or at least defunding it until Obama is out of office and/or the gop gets veto-proof majorities.

    I listened to Rush Limbaugh driving in for lunch and he hit the nail on the head: If the Tea Party feels sold out after giving repubs a majority in the House and maybe in the Senate, the Tea Party will launch its own political party and the repubs will find themselves the minority third party. This situation ought to make you happy since dems would be the winners if this actually occurred.

  3. Healthcare funding is the least of our worries at this point. At least most Americans will be paying into the healthcare system or paying a fee/tax to avoid paying into it. At least it is funded. Most people will agree that reducing spending and/or increasing tax is the only way out of this mess but no one wants to be the one to say specifically what has to be cut before the November elections are over. No one wants to be the one to say that government jobs will need to be cut, that congress has to stop voting to give themselves raises, and that the military budget has to be cut at least as much as the entitlement programs that are usually targeted by conservatives. Everyone will be singing a different tune after November.

  4. Healthcare isn’t funded. The CBO recently revised the cost upward past $1 trillion. If it remains intact, I wager that Obamacare will double or triple its costs within five years, which will be following the model laid out in Britain and Canada.

    TARP cost $700 billion. The stimulus cost $862 billion, the vast majority of which (supposedly) hasn’t been spent. That’s more than the war in Iraq. All this when we are begging the Chinese to keep buying treasury bonds.

    The military budget isn’t the problem here and anyone who voted for the debacles above needs to go. And that’s the majority opinion.

    • I should have been more clear apparently. Extending the Bush era Tax cuts is not funded. Reducing taxes (the mantra of many Tea Party candidates) is not funded. The military budget is not just what has been requested for the wars each year, and not just Iraq. Most of the things you listed were one time deals, other than Healthcare Reform. The whole DOD and military related budget overshadows everything EVERY year, regardless how Fox News tries to twist and shape the numbers. In the 2010 budget alone $663.7 billion (close to half) of the $1.368 trillion discretionary spending is just for the Department of Defense, and it is in that range every year. You will note that I didn’t say slash it or get rid of it, but it needs to be proportionately cut along with every other government program and department. The industrialized military complex has become a burden on the government. It has become self aware and does not want to be downsized in any way, shape, or form. So even thought Republicans and Tea Party candidates are talking about balancing the budget and cutting spending everyone (most of the people currently holding office as well as those running for office) is afraid to give specifics about across the board reductions in spending because of the backlash.

      Doesn’t it seem wrong that the estimated receipts for 2010 Individual income taxes is $1.061 trillion, while Corporation income taxes is only $222 billion?

      And don’t forget the $164 billion in Interest we will pay on the National Debt for one year (2010). That is debt for all past spending, not just the last two years.

      Department of Defense

      Other budget documents

      • Funding tax cuts is one of the great liberal myths. Letting wealthy people keep and spend their money generates more federal revenue than taxes do. Related story here.

        It’s nearly impossible to decrease the budget for any branch of government. I think I’ve posted links in the past showing that the military is the only part of government that’s looking at actual budget cuts.

        Social Security isn’t a budget item and according to this, both it and HHS spending exceed the budget for the Department of Defense.

        You can find Republican proposals to cut spending if you look around. It just isn’t in the dems’ best interests to acknowledge that such things exist.

        Given the number of small business owners filing as individuals – no, not really.

        Obama is increasing our debt at a faster rate than Bush managed to and he certainly was no fiscal conservative.

        At any rate, I’m done. I’ll let you have the last word.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *