"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Mickey Edwards (R-OK): Slams Norquist Pledge '"t's not rational. And it's not adult"

Now this is a Conservative I can relate to when it comes to taxes and other issues.  
Edwards, a longtime conservative movement stalwart, attacked his party’s 22-year-long unwillingness to raise taxes as neither conservative, nor adult, nor rational. 
For 22 years the Republican members of Congress have been honoring the Norquist Pledge which is simply stunning that they would be so stupid to let Norquist run the Country when it comes to income tax rates.  Who died and made him king?  Finding out in this article that Norquist designed this plan when he was 12 years old should make Republicans the laughing stock of the Country.

When Moyers noted that Norquist devised his anti-tax pledge as a 12-year-old, Edwards observed “Well, you know, the fact is, the idea that, you know, ‘No, I’m not ever going to do this no matter the circumstances, no matter if we’re at war,’ whatever, it is a 12-year-old kind of thinking.” But, he noted, one “can’t just blame Grover,” as the Congressional signers or the pledge are also to responsible.
How stupid are Republicans in Congress who have signed the Norquist Pledge that was concocted by him as a 12 year old years ago?

Wish he was still my Representative.  He was gone from the House when we moved to Norman.  He talks so much sense and has a way with words (understatement).

Top Conservative Leader Slams Norquist Pledge: ‘It’s Not Rational, And It’s Not Adult’
By Josh Israel on Dec 10, 2012 at 2:10 pm 
Former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-OK) (Credit: Gia Regan/Yale University Press)
Former Congressman Mickey Edwards (R-OK) lambasted anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and the hundreds of Republicans who have signed his Americans for Tax Reform Pledge in an interview with PBS’s Bill Moyers on Friday. Edwards, a longtime conservative movement stalwart, attacked his party’s 22-year-long unwillingness to raise taxes as neither conservative, nor adult, nor rational. 
Edwards, who served in Congress from 1977 to 1993, was a key architect of the modern conservative movement. He was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation, chaired the Republican Policy Committee, and was national chairman of the American Conservative Union for five years. He was also an adviser to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign. 
Asked about the Norquist’s frequent boast that no Congressional Republican has voted to raise taxes since 1990, he told Moyers: 
EDWARDS: It’s certainly not Conservatism. It’s not rational. And it’s not adult. You know, when you create a program, you make a decision. You say, “I think we should conduct this war. I think that we should expand our security apparatus at home. I think that we should provide this additional benefit.” Then you pay for it. You vote to do it. And then you say, “Here’s what it’s going to cost.” And you pay for it. You know, Republicans may complain about the federal debt, but they’re as responsible as the Democrats for the debt being as large as it is. And once you have already done that, then you have an obligation to pay it down. 
You know, so the idea that what you’re going to do is say– you know, “We’re not going to raise taxes, we’re not going to close loopholes, we’re not going to do anything” — that means that we’re not going to pay off what we’ve already created. I mean, that’s childish. That’s childish.
Watch the video: 
If that wasn't enough to make you think these elected members of Congress are not the brightest bulbs in the pack, check this out:

In fiscal cliff negotiations, the only specific proposal Republicans have made to date is demanding $600 billion in Medicare cuts over ten years by denying Medicare coverage to Americans during their first two years of eligibility by raising the eligibility age to 67.  Because the elderly are prone to chronic conditions like cancer and diabetes which can be treated more effectively, and less expensively, with early diagnosis and intervention, it makes little fiscal sense to deny coverage to people aged 65 and 66. The result will lead to more severe infirmities, higher Medicare costs, and early death which may be the Republican’s ulterior motive and another means of cutting Medicare costs over the long haul. 
If Republicans are serious about cutting Medicare costs, they should look at expenditures for unnecessary care, and fraudulent billing for care that is given. Of course, that means Republicans will have to address overtreatment that boosts corporate profits, and especially unnecessary procedures that can lead to pain, disability, and even death in older Americans. Republicans have rejected attempts to rein in unnecessary treatment in the past, and ironically, they used the government-imposed death panels argument to ward off attempts to control excessive treatment when the reality is seniors often suffer ill-effects of profit-driven overtreatment.
Republicans want to cut Medicare costs by raising the age you qualify for Medicare but don't seem to be interested in cutting unnecessary care and fraudulent billing because that helps their big donors.  This cut in Medicare is one thing the Republicans want in exchange for 'daring' to raise taxes on the top 2%.  Don't see what cutting Medicare and Social Security have to do with raising taxes on the top 2%.  Why are Republicans so obstinate in keeping the 2% tax cuts for the wealthy to the stage of alienating voters in various groups plus the middle class?  Having a Presidential candidate run who paid less than 15% in income taxes when he is a multi-millionaire didn't set well with many of us.

One Congressman, Rep John Duncan (R-TN) said he doesn't want to pass the bill to keep the Bush tax rates for those making less than $250,000 because  it would give"control of the floor to the Democrats."  What?  Is that what we have come to in this House -- Democrat bills all bad -- Republican bills all good.  From Igor Volsky at Think Progress comes this gem:

But in a recent photo-op with constituents, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) explained why Republicans are refusing to give in. The Tennessee Republican admitted that he won’t vote to extend tax cuts to 98 percent of Americans because doing so would cede control to Democrats:
CONSTITUENT 1: Are you going to sign the discharge petition?
DUNCAN: Ummm…Oh no, I’m not. No Ma’am. I’m not about to sign the discharge petition.
CONSTITUENT 2: Well if you sign the discharge petition, you’ll immediately etend the tax cuts for the middle class.
CONSTITUENT 1: Yea, why would you not want to do that? [...]
DUNCAN: It would take too long to explain that. I’m not going to give control of the floor to the Democrats.Watch it:

When you think that Republicans cannot sound any more stupid, someone comes along and proves you wrong.  It is so obvious that Republicans are putting Party over the good of the Country.  There is a simple solution for that problem that can be remedied in 2014 even in gerrymandered districts.  The Democrats need to run candidates that independents and disgruntled Republicans can get behind.  Many of us are  disgusted with the Leadership of the House for playing up and coddling the Tea Party members which makes a 'compromise' impossible.  It is time for Republicans to get a true wake-up call and be defeated for their obstructionism, arrogance, and stubbornness.  When as a Party in the House, you are afraid to let the opposition get the credit, you have lost your way and deserve to be sent to the unemployment line.

1 comment:

SJ Reidhead said...

The problem with Edwards is that he is just one of those poopy pants sugar plum fairies Norquist keeps referring to as obstructing his grand plan for the wealthy.

The Pink Flamingo