Grover Norquist and the Tea Party Got Their Wish, They Broke America: The "Super Committee Fails" [106*10]
THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA
GROVER NORQUIST AND THE TEA PARTY WON - AMERICA LOST
TODAY THE "SUPER COMMITTEE" ANNOUNCED they failed! Grover Norquist had his way with America with his "No Tax Increase" pledge, which he got virtually all Conservatives to sign and then, under threat of withdrawel of political support, to keep it. To keep it regardless of the great damage that it might cause the country, to keep it even in the face of all of the logic and factual evidence that proves the basis of the pledge is nonsense; I have presented my own versions of this evidence myself several different ways.
The fact is the Democrats were will to do their part; they were willing to make rather substantial changes in their sacred cows, entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. They were were willing to accept much of the Domineci-Rivlin or Simpson-Bowles Plans, but, the Conservatives and Tea Party, largely because of their pledge to Grover Norquist, were not; they were not willing to do the one thing that is necessary to make our goverment work - compromise.
As Governer Perry Might Say - "Oops!"
APPARENTLY I HIT PUBLISH before its time, rather than "done editing". I was going to wait until the "super committee" had actually failed before publishing this hub, because, who knows, they might of had an 11th-hour epiphany and got something passed and then I would look like the DEWEY WINS! headline; not a place I would like to be.
So, my apologies to the 8 comments I had before I unpublished this hub in order to wait and see the outcome. I do appreciate them though, I haven't had that many in a long time.
OK, Now They Have Failed (Had to wait for the stock market to close, I suppose)
NOW IT IS OFFICIAL and I can publish this hub and comment on the comments, which I appreciate you all writing as well as finish this hub.
Why Did It Fail?
SIMPLY SPEAKING, because Conservatives refused to make any substantial increase in revenues. The one gesture they did make was to raise taxes on the middle class while cutting taxes on the wealthy ... again AND make permanent the Bush tax cuts. By not compromising, I suspect what they actually did, those short-term thinkers that they are, is to guarantee that the Bush tax cuts, all of them WILL expire at the end of 2012.
Why you ask? Because it will become an election item and 75% of Americans thinkraising taxes raised on the wealthy is a good idea, do the math; the Conservatives will not win this arguement like they did in the past. The Democrats will argue that this is just what they will do, the Conservatives won't let them, so the Bush tax cuts will expire.
Why do Conservatives believe so adamantly in the idea of no new taxes even though the evidence and logic clearly does not support them, because that is the Principle they believe in. The word Pragmatism does not exist in their vocabulary.
Of course, I am going to get push back on the first sentence, but just a cursory look at the charts contained in my hub, "One Aspect of the "Occupy Wall Street" Movement Regarding Redistribution of Wealth in America " shows several things 1) tax cuts have LITTLE relationship to economic growth rates, in fact, if anything, say seem to lead to LOWER growth rates in most instances, 2) there is a redistribution of wealth from the POOR to the RICH as tax rates were decreased, and 3) that regulating the financial industry DID stabilize the economy. The data is undeniable! I will be very interested to see how it can be interpreted any other way. It also shows that the ONLY times there were tax INCREASES, BUSH I, 1991, Clinton, 1993, the economy IMPROVED, go figure, while it improved only once when there was a tax decrease, Kennedy, 1961. I simply do not know how Conservatives can make any historic, fact-based case for their cause; they can't so they just say it does and tell you to have faith they are right.
Because Conservatives never even began to start moving toward a compromise, the one thing they did propose was a sham, the Democrats never needed, publicly at least, to start saying what they were really willing to give up. They had already given up huge cuts in Medicare with Obama Care and said they were willing to consider even larger cuts. Because the Conservatives never budged, fundamental structural changes, such as what Alice Rivlin proposed, never made it to the table, but, I bet there was a strong possibility it could have been adopted; a very appealing proposal indeed.
We will never know, of course, because the Conservatives stayed the course in their maniacal drive to fulfill their one campaign promise they are most interested in keeping, making President Obama a one-term presendent, regardless of the destruction it does to America.
GOOD QUESTION? As I said, I think the Bush tax cuts will now expire at the end of 2012 unless the Conservatives retain the House and win a Super-majority in the Senate, not likely. The sequester doesn't take effect until 2013, however, to stop it requires Congressional action. Any Congressional action, of course, depends on how the election in Nov 2012, turns out. I think unless on party or the other takes control.
Failing that, or the Conservatives getting kicked out of power and replaced by the Republicans of the past, we will continue with gridlock and the sequestration will tale place; I simply do not see any other alternative, unless ...
The 261 or so Republican's, who rediscovered the word compromise for the good of the country and Democrats who signed a letter to the Super Committee to man and woman-up in order to save America, carry their message to Congress and try to make something happen there. I still don't suspect success their either simply because of the way the House works and the fact that John Boehner controls the House and the Tea Party and Norquist control John Boehner. The Senate, on the other hand, is a different story. There may be enough Republicans now ready to vote against their party and break the obvious filabuster Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will throw up to block any positive action by the Democrats; that possibly could pass, isolating the House and the Conservatives and sounding the death-nell of the Tea Party and Conservatives for awhile.
SO, Time to Give Your Opinion
Do You Think The Super Committe Failed BecauseSee results without voting
- What is really meant by "... that all men are create...
Did you ever stop to think what Thomas Jefferson really meant when he penned the words
- Accounting 101 for Conservatives and Others with a H...
Conservatives have been hitting the airwaves and Hubpages putting out hyperbolic and totally false statements regarding the national debt and deficit. Accounting is an arcane, hard to understand field and it is very easy to misuse accounting data to
- Comparing 12 Quarters Of President Obama With His Pr...
President Obama now has 13 quarters of office under his belt and the rhetoric on how he has done is abysmal, if you listen to the conservatives. What is the true story. well, let's see.
- Are You A Social Dominator? Take the Test and Find O...
Social Dominance Orientation and Right-wing Autoritarian personalities need to be understood if you are going to understand today's Conservative movement. There are quizes that have been developed by psychologists to determine how strongly individual
- An Analysis of the Right-Wing Authoritarian Follower (RWA) [100*]
Are you a Right-wing Authoritarian (RWA) follower? I have talked about this personality characteristic vis-a-vis our political arena in several of the articles I have written because I believe it plays such a major role in today's political debate. T
- One Aspect of the "Occupy Wall Street" Movement Rega...
The Conservatives have one idea on how the economy ought to work and the Liberals have another. This hub explores the difference and looks at the historical data back to 1945, to see what really happened.
More by this Author
This Paper Is of particular interest every Presidential election because it justifies why No Term Limit is needed. The 22nd Amendment set all of Hamilton's arguments on their head.
Over the years there has been a call for a national referendum in order to make laws the PEOPLE wanted. There is a good reason why it is not in the Constitution but there are ways around it.
When I say "Freeloading", that is of course, sarcasm: only a small percentage of those drawing welfare are actually freeloading although Conservatives would have you believe it is 100%.