Not Facing Reality: GOP House wants Romney Tax Plan Passed in Line with Norquist Tax Pledge

There is hope as a good portion of the American voters have woken up to Grover Norquist and his ridiculous 'no tax' pledge or he will primary you.  The Republican Party has given Norquist way too much credit to their own detriment with his pledge.  Very few backbones exist in the Republican Party today who are willing to stand up to Norquist.  Looks like the American voters understand very well based on the results that the no tax pledge is hurting our economy and are willing to see the 2% of the wealthiest people pay more in taxes and close the Bush Tax Cut loopholes for the wealthy.  Shame the Republican House Members do not understand what the voters were saying on November 6th.  They still seem to have their heads buried in the sand from their comments.

Without the redistricting and the gerrymandering by Republicans, the Democrats would have taken the House based on the analysis of the popular vote.  Imagine that -- Republicans doing the same thing they accused Democrats of doing (which they did).  Put the two parties at the state level in a sack on redistricting, shake them up, and whoever won the legislature in the state will be doing gerrymandering to get more House seats and keep the other side from winning more.  Neither side is looking out for constituents but their own personal gain IMHO.  The best news was the fact that the Norquist anti-tax pledge took a big hit:

Setting aside alleged scatological name-calling (by Grover Norquist), the election was an overwhelming rejection of the the political philosophy advocated by Norquist and his allies. 24 Republican Senate incumbents and candidates signed Norquist’s anti-tax pledge and lost. Linda McMahon (R-CT), Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), Treasurer Josh Mandel (R-OH), Secretary of State Charles Summers (R-ME), former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R-WI), considered top-tier candidates, were attacked by their Democrats opponents in face-to-face debates for signing Norquist’s pledge. They all lost.

55 Republican House incumbents or candidates who signed Norquist’s pledge also lost.

When I was first told that House Republicans want the Romney Tax Plan to be implemented, I laughed because I thought it was a joke.  I was wrong -- GOP House is advocating passing the Romney Tax Plan whatever that is as we never did get the details.  Are they too stubborn or dumb to understand that President Obama got over $3M more votes then Romney and votes are still being counted?  That means President Obama gets to set the agenda.

Just because the GOP swallowed the Fox News, Rove, Morris, and other conservative pundits/pollsters koolaid, doesn't change the fact that Romney never came close with Obama getting 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206.  What am I missing?  Arrogance and stubbornness of the GOP House?  They cannot be that naive to think that Obama is just going to sit back and let them tell him what to do.  Sources are saying that  Obama is about to take his case to the American people.  If the GOP wants to lose the House in 2014, all they need to do is keep it up with their obstructionist tactics. 

Congressional Republicans’ ‘Compromise’: Everyone Should Accept Romney Tax PlanBy Josh Israel posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Nov 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Seemingly ignoring that over than 3 million more Americans voted for President Obama than Mitt Romney on Tuesday, Congressional Republicans are moving quickly to embrace Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) call to adopt a tax “compromise” that is virtually identical to the tax proposal that Romney made the centerpiece of his failed campaign. 

The running theme this week is what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the “Rumpelstiltskin fairy tale” that the country can increase revenues simply by lowering tax rates:

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): On ABC’s This Week, Chambliss said, “Bowles-Simpson said, look, eliminate all these tax credits and tax deductions. You can generate somewhere 1 to 1.2 trillion in additional revenue. You can actually lower tax rates by doing that. And I think at the end of the day, what’s got to happen, George, we’ve got to get this economy going again.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): In a Friday column, House Budget Committee member Cole wrote: “However, raising tax rates is not the only way to increase revenue, nor is it the best way. Speaker Boehner has proposed comprehensive tax reform to raise revenue and lower rates. Eliminating inefficient loopholes and deductions will generate economic growth while creating a simpler, fairer tax code.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX): In a Wednesday Tweet, House Ways and Means Committee member Brady opined: “Stronger economic growth from tax reform that lowers rates and closes loopholes will generate higher revenue to bring the deficit down.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): In a letter to his Republican caucus, the House Majority Leader wrote: “What would be best is a fundamental reform of the tax code that lowers rates, broadens the base, makes America’s businesses competitive again, and reduces the burden imposed by taxes on work and investment.”

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI): In a Wednesday press release, the House Ways and Means Chairman wrote: “There is a better path forward than simply increasing tax rates, and one in which both sides can claim victory. We can address both our jobs crisis and our debt crisis by focusing on tax reform that strengthens the economy. There is bipartisan support for tax reform that closes loopholes and lowers rates.”

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): On Fox News Sunday, House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Price, a member of both the Ways and Means and Budget Committees, said “We can increase revenue without increasing the tax rates on anybody in this country.”

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says there will be no significant negative impact on the economy should the lower rates on the wealthiest Americans be allowed to expire. And the notion that lowering rates will magically create more revenue is indeed a right-wing pipe dream.

Then there are the comments of Cong Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) who doesn't think the GOP has to move back to center right from the hard right.  All they have to do is modernize the message?  She has to be kidding.  Take a look at the picture from Talking Points Member with the four female Congresswomen behind her.  Don't know about other's take, but those four women do not look very happy to me:

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the highest ranked House Republican woman, said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that Republicans need to become more "modern" but not "moderate." 

"I don't think it's about the Republican Party needing to become more moderate; I really believe it's the Republican Party becoming more modern," she said. "And whether it's Hispanics, whether it's women, whether it's young people, the Republican Party has to make it a priority to take our values, to take our vision to every corner of this country." 

"I think it's more about the messenger and who's communicating our values to every corner of this country."

Does this mean that center right in today's vocabulary means 'moderate' to those on the hard right?  The Republican Party cannot win by staying hard right no matter the message.  Voters will see right through the hard right candidates as they did this time.  Using social issues hurt Republican candidates big time but the GOP seems poised to come right back and only redo how the message is delivered.  Keeping social issues front and center along with obstructing anything the President proposes and saying the President needs to adopt the Romney Tax Cuts is a sure prescription for disaster in 2014.

We need at least two viable parties and right now we have the Democrat Party and lack a true Republican Party as the Party went hard right in 2012.  The Republican Party today follows the lead of Rush and the conservative pundits along with Fox News which is a total prescription for disaster.  Don't know how many times that MSNBC would play a Rush clip of the afternoon, then Fox Tabloid News would pick it up, and the next day Romney/Ryan or Sununu would be touting what was said by pundits.  Shook my head more than once during this election cycle.  No wonder the Republicans including Romney, Gingrich, Rove, Morris, and Fox Tabloid News were shocked that Obama won handily since they are relied on a false premise that Romney was winning when he wasn't.  You cannot run a campaign in a bubble of only news you want to hear or you are going to lose which is exactly what happened to Romney/Ryan.

Did the GOP learn their lesson.  Jury is out but initial comments are saying NO!  Hope I am wrong, and the Party moves back to center right but I sure wouldn't want to take that bet. 

9/11 Relative: Obama Turned his Back on Me

Here is one 9/11 Family member who Obama and Jarrett are probably sorry was invited to the event at Ground Zero. Most of those invited were the Bush haters that went after Pres Bush at every little turn including getting mad at him for taking 7 minutes to continue reading to children so not to upset them on 9/11. Same people have said nothing about Obama taking 16 hours to decide.  Today more and more people are now of the mind Obama never made the decision -- Panetta did. Word for these Bush haters is 'hypocrite' as just like Obama they have been using 9/11 to make a political statement against President Bush which the mainstream media loved.  We have not forgotten how Obama trashed President Bush first when he was an Illinois Senator and then a US Senator.

Once again Fox News has brought us the facts.  Have any of the other national broadcast news organizations bothered to show Debra Burlingame and learn how Obama turned his back on her and why?  Probably doesn't fit their narrative they have for Obama as the Obama media goes into campaign mode right with Obama.

9/11 Relative: Obama Turned His Back on Me
Thursday, 05 May 2011 05:01 PM

By Newsmax Wires

Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles "Chic" Burlingame (pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon) told Fox News Thursday that President Barack Obama turned his back on her during the 9/11 memorial when she attempted to engage him about the prosecution of the men who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Burlingame said she confronted Obama about Attorney General Eric Holder's prosecuting the men, who probably produced intelligence leading us to bin Laden.

Burlingame describes the encounter with Obama: "As a former attorney, I know you can't tell the attorney general what to do, he said, 'No, I can't.' But I said 'we — that shouldn't stop you from giving your opinion. We wouldn't be here today if they hadn't done their jobs. Can't you at least give them your opinion.' And he said 'no I won't,' and he turned around and walked away."




Source: Fox News via Newsmax

Cannot understand how Obama and his Attorney General Holder, who serves at his pleasure, can even consider charging our CIA/military for interrogation of terrorists using various techniques. Those techniques including waterboarding led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden according to CIA Director Panetta. This is one site that you will also never see us spell Osama with a "U" like the mainstream media are now doing to separate it from Obama. Might say something about having a President with a Muslim name -- did he ever get it officially changed back from Barry Sorento that was his adopted name?  You might think the mainstream media would have checked on that as well instead of being the lapdogs for Obama.

National Politically-correct Radio -- Firing of Juan Williams

When we first heard about the firing, we were shocked. Juan Williams is not someone we would have expected NPR to fire over his comments to Bill O'Reilly. Believe a lot of us share Williams' apprehension if when flying we would see people in Muslim garb on the same plane. Since flying is not my #1 thing to do (understatement), would probably get off the plane and take a later flight. Cannot feature sitting through an entire flight waiting for something to happen since the terrorists have made very clear they intend to strike again.

More and more people this morning are beginning to question this firing and asking if Soros and his $1M contribution to Media Matters is behind this since he is a huge contributer to NPR. Wouldn't shock us if he was the ultimate source behind the firing, but now the Congress can finally quit funding this liberal group of radio stations. The head of NPR said they are get 2% of their funding from the Federal Government but we believe 1 cent is too much.

If Soros was behind this in his attempt to take out Fox News, he must have not had a good night last night knowing that Fox News just gave Williams a $2M contract. Actually Juan Williams has been someone from the left on Fox that doesn't irritate like Alan Colmes used to when he was on with Hannity. He has earned respect for the books he has written over the years on Civil Right which is so ironic he gets fired by NPR for his statement. When Williams fills in for Bill O'Reilly, we have noted his interviews are done with respect and class and he always knows the subject matter. Of the liberal commentators, would rank him near the top for not being annoying. In fact, he says some pretty funny things at times.

Bill Kristol has one of the best takes on this firing from The Weekly Standard of all the articles we have read:

National Politically-correct Radio
No inconvenient truths here, please.
7:45 AM, Oct 21, 2010 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

My Fox News Sunday colleague Juan Williams has been fired by NPR for telling an inconvenient truth.

Juan was appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show Monday night, when O'Reilly asserted, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.” Juan didn't disagree with this claim.

Would President Obama, for example, disagree? I don't think so. Isn't this why, for example, we are fighting a war to prevent jihadists from re-establishing a terror base in Afghanistan? (It's a war, by the way, that Juan happens to oppose.) But do the powers-that-be at NPR really think that jihadists, especially if aided by state sponsors, are not a serious threat? Do the powers-that-be at NPR think their analysts shouldn't be allowed to say they are?

Juan cited the words of the Times Square bomber: “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts." Do the powers-that-be at NPR deny that jihadists have made countless comments of this sort? Are NPR analysts not allowed to cite them?

Juan also commented, “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I've got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Do the powers-that-be at NPR think Juan Williams is a bigot? Do they think a traveler who has a reaction (fair or unfair) like the one Juan describes, in our age of terror in the name of Islam, is a bigot?

Of course the powers-that-be at NPR know he's not. In fact, I suspect the powers-that-be at NPR pretty much think what Juan thinks. But the standards of political correctness must be maintained. Pressure groups speaking for allegedly offended Muslims must be propitiated. And so Juan had to go.

NPR--unfair, unbalanced...and afraid.

Source: Weekly Standard