New Breed of Republicans Resists Fiscal Deal

The title above almost needs a question mark. A WTF? kinda question mark. That's because to understand this piece at the New York Times you have to understand the paper's agenda. There's never any questioning the idea that government today has to expand, that government must grow. Look at the spin on the fiscal cliff deal. Oh, we saved people thousands of dollars by not going over the cliff. Why isn't that enough for you Republicans? It's been ten years since the Bush tax cuts passed, but for NYT's reporters they're still temporary, so it's the Democrats who should get credit for them, right? For making them permanent. And Republicans should just STFU and get with the program on more spending because Obama decided to let you have your little play toy.

See, "Lines of Resistance on Fiscal Deal":

WASHINGTON — Just a few years ago, the tax deal pushed through Congress on Tuesday would have been a Republican fiscal fantasy, a sweeping bill that locks in virtually all of the Bush-era tax cuts, exempts almost all estates from taxation, and enshrines the former president’s credo that dividends and capital gains should be taxed equally and gently.

But times have changed, President George W. Bush is gone, and before the bill’s final passage late Tuesday, House Republican leaders struggled all day to quell a revolt among caucus members who threatened to blow up a hard-fought compromise that they could have easily framed as a victory. Many House Republicans seemed determined to put themselves in a position to be blamed for sending the nation’s economy into a potential tailspin under the weight of automatic tax increases and spending cuts.

The latest internal party struggle on Capitol Hill surprised even Senate Republicans, who had voted overwhelmingly for a deal largely hashed out by their leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The bill passed the Senate, 89 to 8, at 2 a.m. on Tuesday, with only 5 of the chamber’s 47 Republicans voting no.

Twenty-one hours later, the same measure was opposed by 151 of the 236 Republicans voting in the House. It was further proof that House Republicans are a new breed, less enamored of tax cuts per se than they are driven to shrink government through steep spending cuts. Protecting nearly 99 percent of the nation’s households from an income tax increase was not enough if taxes rose on some and government spending was untouched.

And that's supposed to be bad? We'll soon be pushing $20 trillion in national debt and these idiots question why Republicans might be worried about a little bit more than voting to keep something first passed ten years ago. You want to hit these numbskulls up side the head. This is Democrat media framing at its finest, courtesy of the newspaper of Walter Duranty.

More at the link.

And then read Erick Erickson, "The McConnell Tax Hike":

The McConnell Tax Hike raises taxes on people making over $400,000.00, but it also raises taxes on the middle class. “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes.”

Not only does the McConnell Tax Hike stick it to the middle class, it raises taxes $41 for every $1 in spending cuts. Those spending cuts are ephemeral as there is $330 billion in new spending and a $4 trillion price tag over the next ten years.

Both Hollywood and NASCAR get carve outs. So too do wind energy companies.

The Republican Establishment in Washington, DC should be burned to the ground and salt spread on the remains. Republicans who saw Mitch McConnell and John Boehner destroy the last plank of the Republican Party are going to need to look elsewhere for a savior for their party. Boehner and McConnell have declared they will survive. Their party? They don’t really care.

Conservatives must look elsewhere. I do not advocate a third party. I advocate bring fresh blood into the GOP.

And also, "A New Agenda."