The GOP: Another Fiscal Betrayal

REPUBLICANS CUT AND RUN ON AMERICAN WORKERS, TAXPAYERS U.S. Rep. Tom Cole – a “Republican” from heavily red Oklahoma – is the latest member of America’s perpetual minority party to cut and run on the supposedly bedrock principle of not raising America’s tax burden.  Cole is a GOP leader, and…


U.S. Rep. Tom Cole – a “Republican” from heavily red Oklahoma – is the latest member of America’s perpetual minority party to cut and run on the supposedly bedrock principle of not raising America’s tax burden.  Cole is a GOP leader, and his defection to the ranks of fiscally liberal “Republicans” like U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.) is expected to provide cover to other “Republicans” eager to abandon their party’s rhetoric on taxes and spending.

Are we shocked that the GOP is resorting to tax hikes in an effort to start reducing the government’s $1 trillion a year deficits?

Of course not.  “Republicans” grew government recklessly themselves during the previous decade – and when their chickens came home to roost, they joined Democrats in inaugurating a new bailout culture.  And let’s not forget it was a “Republican” president who appointed the real big-spending puppet master , U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke – who can buy any asset anywhere in the world (at any price) using money he either printed or borrowed from your kids and grandkids.

Tom Cole: The ugly face of an uglier taxpayer betrayal

Yeah, ponder that thought for a moment …

Such is the mess we’re in … and the number of those standing firm on something as simple as not raising taxes is dwindling.

“The House is not going to pass a tax hike,” Deputy House Whip Peter Roskam said shortly after this month’s presidential election. “It’s just not going to happen.”


Roskam’s bold prediction obviously depends on how you define a “tax hike.”  For far too many Republicans, that definition has narrowed significantly.  Yet as we noted in our initial post-election observations regarding the fiscal debate taking place in Washington, D.C., we view any increase in the fiscal burden of any American taxpayer as a “tax hike.”

Eliminating a deduction?  That’s a tax hike.  Closing a loophole?  That’s a tax hike, too.  Pretending that these “revenue enhancements” are somehow not the exact same thing as raising taxes is insulting to anybody with half a brain.

Then there’s the biggest lie of all … the notion that raising taxes on the top 2 percent of income earners in America is somehow going to deprive them of (wait for it) “bigger swimming pools and faster private jets.”  In the gospel according to class warfare, tax hikes on the rich occur in a vacuum – and strike exclusively at these two specific luxury items.  In reality, the upper income earners affected by U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposed tax hike account for more than half of the small business income – and more than half of the jobs – in this country.

These rich people aren’t going to reduce the size of their swimming pools or buy slower jets … they’re going to invest less money in the economy, which means fewer jobs, lower income levels and expanded dependency.

Yet this is the deal that “Republicans” like Graham and Cole are literally chomping at the bit to take.

“I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now,” Cole told The Politico this week.

You know … because God forbid the GOP actually roll up its sleeves and find something in government that ought to be cut.

Excuses … err, theories … abound as to why the GOP is cutting and running so quickly.  One theory holds that the party’s top legislative leaders have privately decided to let Obama have his way with the country during his second term, thus precipitating an economic retreat that will eventually usher them back into power.

Another contention is that the GOP is playing it smart – offering “flexibility” on tax hikes up front so that they can force Democrats into much broader entitlement reforms down the road.

Both arguments miss the fundamental point, though … which is that a growing number of “Republicans” are swallowing tax hikes without even making an effort to identify common sense savings in government.

While claiming the mantle of “less government,” the GOP has been a major part of America’s spending problem over the last decade.  Now the party of “lower taxes” is seeing an increasing number of its members embrace tax hikes – not spending cuts – as the only way to pay for all that excess.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why America is so fucked.  It’s not because a bunch of neo-fascists are driving the majority party further to the left – it’s because the minority party is matching this leftward march step for step, leaving its former principles further behind as it goes.


Related posts


Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons

Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks
State House

Conservative South Carolina Lawmakers Lead Fight Against CRT

Mark Powell


William F. Buckley, Jr November 28, 2012 at 9:26 am

This discussion seems, ah, well seems, ah, sort of harsh.

johnb November 28, 2012 at 9:27 am

it is the spending stupid

The Fonz November 28, 2012 at 9:35 am

Do the math.
Even the most conservative Republican budget has spending at 19 to 20% of GDP .
Our current revenue is just under 16% of GDP. The lowest since 1952 by the way.
It is not realistic to think you can close that gap by solely growing the economy.
Supply side economics have never proven to work. Except to grow deficits.
These are facts proven by math and history.

? November 28, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Who is making the argument for supply side? Or “growing the economy”?

The economy is dysfunctional and shrinking when using yearly metrics and eliminating “gov’t spending” as part of the GDP equation.

The “solution” as you put it is shrinking/cutting gov’t, which has nothing to do with supply side or “growing”.

Awaken America November 28, 2012 at 9:49 am

Is there really anybody out there Republican, Democrat, or Independent who does not yet realize these SOBs are in it for themselves!!!!!!
How was this messs created….a meteor from the heavens, an asteroid, mega volcano, tsunami, earthquake…..news flash, none of the above. Our elected officials created this mess!!!!!
Now, they expect the taxpayers of this country to foot the bill, suffer the pain! What is their sacrafice, penalty….$174,000 a year salary with automatic pay raises, living like Kings and ueens off of the workers (taxpayers) of this Country!!
They pass laws for the rest of us and exempt themselves, give themselves gold plated fringe benefits and platinum retirements.
The taxpayer, the workers get crumbs, while they dine on caviar, lobster and prime cuts!
They buy votes with our money and leave us and future generations with the bills!!!
What do we do, we pay them homage, treaat them like Royalty and RE_ELECT them!
Wake up America, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awaken America November 28, 2012 at 12:16 pm

Term limits! Cut Senate terms to 4 year, House at two and cap to two terms max.!!
No GOLDEN retirement ! AS a matter of fact NO RETIREMENT!!
Salary cut in half and capped !
Expenses cut 70% and capped!
No health Care!
And subject to the same laws they pass for the rest of us, NO EXEMPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

vicupstate November 28, 2012 at 12:44 pm

House terms are ALREADY two years and have been since the Constitution was adopted. Shorter senate terms will only increase reliance on lobbyist/PAC money.

Next idea?

Awaken America November 28, 2012 at 3:52 pm

I said house, at two and limit to two terms!
Allow lobbying make political contributions, meals, travel paid by lobbyist and companiess, in other words, No contributions, no travel, no gifts of anykind!!!!


shifty henry November 28, 2012 at 10:10 am


Even Donald Trump understands this. If my memory is correct, I think I read several years ago that Trump’s pre-nuptial agreements were set up so that his wife(wives) would get $2 million for each year she was married to him.

Hmmmm- wouldn’t it be interesting to have a marriage contract for a certain time period (say, 3 -5 years), but mutually renewable terms at the end of each period.

Sailor November 28, 2012 at 10:21 am

You should run that by your “bride”!

Smirks November 28, 2012 at 3:03 pm

Term limits may solve the problem of horrible incumbent congressmen staying in office for 30 or more years, but it won’t stop America from voting for horrible congressmen that serve for two terms and then are replaced by another two-term horrible congressman.

Also, it makes a HUGE market for revolving door politics. Go through House/Senate for two terms, scratch the right backs, leave office, and find yourself in a corner office or lobbying in DC making 6-7 figures. Hell, you might get more pay-to-play bullshit and good-old-boy setups that way. If you want more Tim Pawlentys and Chris Dodds then go right ahead.

Politics by its very nature is ripe for corruption, and public ignorance helps bigtime. Term limits, even if you could have them put in place, wouldn’t solve much, and in fact could make things worse. What will make things better is if America just puts some intelligence behind its voting for once, gets rid of the self-servers, the corrupt, and the ignorant clods that comprise a vast majority of Congress. For fucks sake, the fact that Rangel stays in Congress says something about how we vote for absolute scum, but given a term limit, Rangel would probably find himself a cush job and maybe help get the right stooge elected to replace him for a nice little reward. It would be far better if people like Rangel just got canned immediately at the end of their term once their shit sees the light of day.

Haley should be proof that 4 years is more than enough time to help yourself at the expense of those who elected you, anyways.

End of the World (as we know it) November 28, 2012 at 10:14 am

Cut spending. Limit the federal government’s ability to borrow/print money. The only way to force smaller government is to starve it of funds.

Oh wait, we have already done that. It’s called the debt limit. And the enumerated powers clause.

Oh well. Fuck it.

LD November 28, 2012 at 10:14 am

It isn’t as easy as just cutting spending on the entitlements. Who winds up with the money from entitlements? Sure Joe Poor gets food stamps and other assistance (abuse is another issue), but the grocery store owner gets some benefit as does the wholesaler, the truck driver that delivers the goods, the manufacturer, the farm, etal. Go back to your pencil video– there is a lot a play here.

Joe Poor isn’t using his money to buy illegal drugs or invest,
Joe Poor spends. Joe Poor’s money keeps Main Street open.

Joe Poor’s money flows upward. The “trickle down” economy is bullshit.

shifty henry November 28, 2012 at 10:31 am

You have hit on the secret….

Joe Poor spends all of his funds in the area where he lives. Keep in mind that includes home rentals, utilities, sales taxes (except for food stamp purchases), gasoline, etc.

His available funds helps keep businesses open and provides a few jobs.

? November 28, 2012 at 12:47 pm

So guys, where does the money Joe Sixpack gets come from? Is it a combination of money printing and taxes(taxes from the people he’s buying stuff from)?


EJB November 28, 2012 at 10:27 am


Your post ignores so much history that disputing it would obviously be a waste of time. Also, you are obviously waiting for someone to mention Reagan so you can launch a diatribe against him and his policies.

Revenues are so low, as a percentage of GDP because we are in a down economy. Grow the economy and you grow the revenue. Will it close the gap, of course not. But spending got on a rocket and went from 19.5% of GDP (2007) to 24.3% of GDP (2012), that’s a 24.6% increase in spending and at a time of dwindling revenues (GDP only grew 11.2% during that time). The growth of our economy has been retarded by the present administration’s economic policies and that is why the GDP growth rate is 2% or less per year instead of 4-6% where it should be. In fact, if spending had maintained the same percentage of GDP in 2012 as 2007, 19.5%, the deficit would have only been $574 billion instead of $1.327 trillion, way less than half.

Like johnb said “it is the spending” (deliberately left off the last word, sorry johnb)

Now that I have mentioned Reagan you can proceed with your prepared statement and when you finish that launch into the Democrat talking points for the day.

Jan November 28, 2012 at 11:49 am

Exactly which economic policies of the present administration are you referring to?

The problem with people who just repeat Republican talking points over and over and over, is that they are never specific about anything.

As for Reagan, perhaps Republicans should start their negotiations by returning to the tax structure proposed by Mr. Reagan in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

The Fonz November 28, 2012 at 12:03 pm

“In fact, if spending had maintained the same percentage of GDP in 2012 as 2007, 19.5%, the deficit would have only been $574 billion instead of $1.327 trillion, way less than half.”…..I guess you ignore 08 and 09 and pretend the recession didn’t happen…..? You can’t cherry pick history to make a case for something.

? November 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm

EJB is right. He’s not “cherry picking”, he’s simply stating the facts.

There isn’t magic fairy dust anyone can sprinkle around to make the economy grow…you need solid fundamentals…which include making business successful and the best way to do that is lowering their tax burden.

The system as it is structured might allow for a short term/limited recovery on the basis on money printing, but it won’t be sustainable and ultimately hurt the middle class/poor more.

Every new round of money printing gets us closer to the ultimate value of the paper money and further doesn’t fix the fundamentals needed for a healthy economy.

The Fonz November 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Corporate profits are at record highs, intrest rates are at reord lows, tax rates are at historic lows. And you think we need more supply? Really? Do you not think we have a demand problem?

? November 28, 2012 at 1:31 pm

“Corporate profits are at record highs”

Really? So are we talking Subchapter S’s?

Or are we talking crony corporation profits(or even multi’s)? You know, the GE’s, Google’s, etc.

Do you think you’re getting them in your tax net? LMAO! Are you really that naive?

As for whether the issue is supply or demand, it’s really a “chicken or the egg” type question that completely ignores the complexity of our economic situation.

Profit is an issue, but the fundamentals of a good economy are an aggregate of many things that include both supply & demand but many, MANY more factors.

That is why it can’t be “planned”, you should really read some Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

Jan November 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Fonz you are waisting your time discussing taxes with ?. He believes we should pay no taxes at all. He believes we cross over the bend in the Laffer Curve somewere between 0% and 1%.

? November 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm

“He believes we cross over the bend in the Laffer Curve somewere between 0% and 1%.”

lol, that is completely untrue.

I do believe there’s some legitimacy to the Laffer curve, the number most studies show is 20% for the backside.

You get points for being funny though.

I believe in “no taxes” for ethical reasons(though there’s some good economic arguments too) and it has nothing to do with the reality of the Laffer curve. (and whatever magic % of GDP is the one where revenue from taxes drop off)

? November 28, 2012 at 4:40 pm

You know Jan, for the record I wanted to state one other thing.

I have been debating internally and researching “poll taxes” as a form of tax I might actually be able to support.

I like the early form of America’s version which basically involved you paying a tax as a requirement to vote.

Of course it was controversial and “disenfrachised the poor”, which frankly I think needs to occur for the sake of financial solvency for the nation as a whole.

This form of “tax”, which is really a fee, is totally voluntary so it meets my personal criterea in terms of it not being theft(which is not important to 99% of the population, I know).

So assuming that the nation could be funded again like it was previously under such a system I could actually be for that type of “tax”-because it’s done so without theft.

I also liked “good ole boy”‘s suggestion the other day that the poor(or those that can’t afford to vote if a poll tax/fee was in place) be allowed a vote in some areas that aren’t related to finances.(like some civil law stuff)

After all, there’s a reason most(but not all)of them are poor. If we allow them a say so it stands to reason what the nation will(has) devolve to.

I also like the fact that people that really feel like gov’t has solutions to offer now can literally put their money where there mouth is.

Wanna change the world through gov’t? Great, pony up the dough for a vote, don’t force 49% who don’t agree with you to fund your stuff.

Knowing how gov’t is if such a momentous change occurred they’d probably force everyone to vote…but that’s a different issue.

For me the whole deal is “voluntary”, without coercion.

Junga November 28, 2012 at 10:33 am

The top 2% are not the “job creators” they’re the job eliminators. They are the one’s that buy all the truly small businesses consolidate them and shed jobs. One day all you tea baggers will realize that the top 2% that y’all tirelessly defend are not your friends. Be careful because the job you help to eliminate may be your own.

marty November 29, 2012 at 6:38 am

Oh boy touche`

Frank Pytel November 29, 2012 at 6:46 am

Do you ever research anything Junga?

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

The Fonz November 28, 2012 at 10:41 am

“Revenues are so low, as a percentage of GDP because we are in a down economy”

That makes zero sense.

Dr. Stephen Hawking November 28, 2012 at 12:21 pm

What if the Mayans are proven to be correct? Then you whiners will not have to worry about this crap anymore.

I will see you on the far side.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Recovering Lobbyist November 28, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Wow, a post that:

a) is spot on
b) does not attack the Governor

Jan November 28, 2012 at 12:30 pm

What don’t you people get. The debate is over. Taxes need to go up, and spending needs to come down. That is what will happen if congress does nothing.

The only question is will Republicans increase taxes on the top 2% or on everyone. I can live with either. If they choose to increase taxes on everyone, it will be hard on many middle class taxpayers and may slow economic recovery, but that is the choice they have. So make it already and move on.

The very wealthy will do fine under either scenario.

Thomas November 28, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Boehnor and Mitch McConnell lose seats in the House and Senate and they deserve to be leaders for two more years?

Smirks November 28, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Why not? Ryan couldn’t keep Romney afloat and he’s still going to chair the budget committee. He’ll go back to promoting vast cuts on the rich with tax hikes on the rest of us to pay for it, as he has many times in the past.

ceilidh12 November 28, 2012 at 5:18 pm

Romney is having lunch with Obama at the request of Obama.

I guess Romney is now one of the 47% of the American people who “want free stuff” from the President.

Frank Pytel November 29, 2012 at 6:37 am

You know its not even disgusting anymore. Corporate welfare along with personal welfare is so entrenched in our lives that just the slightest hint of a bailout causes the markets to swing up 2%+ in half a day.

Tell me there’s no corporate welfare and I’ll call you to your face, respectfully but right in your lying ass damn face, that you are the biggest fuckinggopdemlicanrepublicratpoliticolyingasswhore on the face of this God’s green earth.

Time is short. 200+ fracking points folks. fuck

EJB November 29, 2012 at 10:49 am

For those that still believe taxes don’t factor into business decisions think about this, what was Boeing’s deciding factor in locating their new assembly plant here? Yes, nonunion was “a” factor and I’m sure they like the pretty girls but the “deciding” factor was the $450 million TAX break they got.

Next, there was a major flap last year because GE paid no corporate income taxes. It was all perfectly legal but does anybody believe they just woke up one morning happy as can be that they miraculously didn’t have to pay taxes or do you think they hired expensive lawyers and accountants to figure out what things they could do that would leave them with no tax liability? There were a good many business decisions made in those corporate offices to eliminate the tax liability they otherwise would have had and I would wager that those decisions didn’t involve hiring thousands of workers to make Obama happy.

Increased taxes have negative impact on business and it will be the lower income people that suffer the most.

A good read for those that are interested that explains the reversal of the surpluses from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration is at the following link but the article starts out;

Those surpluses turned into deficits largely because of the unexpected 2001 recession and its aftermath, plus the costs of the unexpected war on terror — not the tax cuts.
And after Bush signed the second round of tax cuts into law in 2003, federal deficits started to shrink. By 2007, the federal deficit was just $160 billion, and the CBO was again forecasting annual surpluses starting in 2012.
What stopped those surpluses from emerging was the “Great Recession” — which caused revenues to collapse — along with Obama’s vast new spending programs.

Here is the link;


As far as my stating specifics, I have given specifics on a number of posts and so have a number of Republicans but I’m not going to preface every post I make here with a ten page litany of specifics just to keep someone from saying “where are the specifics” like some child crying “why!!!!”. Sorry, I’m not going to indulge you.

Jan November 29, 2012 at 12:58 pm

I’m willing to go back an look if I can. When were your posts?

I fail to see why asking for specifics is crying. Perhaps that is part of the Rove theory of politics, i.e. if you don’t like the questions personally attack the inquisitor.

I can say Republican policies led to the Great Recession, which I believe they did, but unless I am willing to say which policies my statement is meaningless.

The Fonz November 29, 2012 at 7:49 pm

Good to see your are such a huge fun of corporate welfare…..

The Fonz November 29, 2012 at 8:21 pm

EJB…when you talk about someone’s policies you need to include it all. Again you talk like the recession was some kind of an anomaly from outer space. The growth in the economy that we had from 03 to 07 was from a bubble. That burst and caused the recession. Sure the economy grow under Bush…until it didn’t.
And Bush’s budgets did not reflect the spending for his 2 stupid ass wars.
Again….you are cherry picking your facts….

The Fonz November 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm



Leave a Comment