One of the most widely-accepted myths in American politics is that the Republican Party champions "limited government." While it may be true that a few outliers exist in the party who support reducing the size, scope, and cost of government, the party establishment undeniably stands for Big Government, and always have.

Case in point: Paving the way for a fresh set of tax hikes, John Boehner (R-OH), current Speaker of the House (and supporter of countless Big Government schemes), purged the few decent congresscritters found in Washington, DC.

GOP Steering Committee Shuffles Conservatives

Speaker John A. Boehner initiated today a small purge of rebellious Republicans — mostly conservatives — from prominent committees … clamping down on his fractious conference.

The decisions were made by the GOP Steering Committee … which reviewed a spreadsheet listing each GOP lawmaker and how often he or she had voted with leadership …

Reps. David Schweikert of Arizona and Walter Jones of North Carolina were booted from the Financial Services Committee. Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas were removed from the Budget Committee.

According to a source, Schweikert was told that he was ousted in part because his "votes were not in lockstep with leadership."

The shuffling is the latest sign that Boehner is flexing his muscle with the right flank of his conference as he seeks a united front during tense fiscal cliff negotiations with President Barack Obama.

"Tense fiscal cliff negotiations" … yeah, right.

Boehner, House GOP leaders offer 'fiscal cliff' counterproposal

House GOP leaders endorsed a debt-reduction plan Monday that would raise tax collections by $800 billion over the next decade, but they refused to budge on higher tax rates for the wealthy, the central issue dividing Republicans and Democrats.

For the first time, Boehner managed to get his entire leadership team — including conservative champions such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.), the 2012 vice-presidential candidate — to publicly sign on to a plan that explicitly calls for new tax revenue.

In other words …

Boehner and his statist Republican Party cohorts shoved those pesky "limited government conservatives" aside to make it easier for them to get away with pilfering the American taxpayer even more — you know, in those "tense fiscal cliff negotiations" in which both sides completely agree on raising taxes.

Is Boehner selling out?

Because it looks like he's about to surrender on tax hikes.

According to Politico, Boehner is willing to sign off on as much as $1.2 trillion in tax hikes over the next ten years in exchange for as little as $400 billion in Medicare cuts that do not even begin to take effect until 2023. That's right: Boehner is about to sign off on a deal of $3 dollars in tax hikes now in exchange for $1 dollar in spending cuts 10 years from now.

Is Boehner really selling out?


Beyond the soaring rhetoric and meticulously calculated ads, the Republican Party's claim to being the champion of "limited government" is a complete fraud — a bald-faced lie.

Don't think so? Okay, then ask yourself why … When Republicans had total control of the government (for over four years) during the George W. Bush administration, why didn't they make the "Bush tax cuts" permanent? Why didn't they get rid of the stupid Alternative Minimum Tax? Why didn't they cut departments and slash spending? Why didn't they even bother doing one damn thing about the federal government's runaway spending?

They certainly had the votes … didn't they?

Uh, huh.

They haven't a single legitimate excuse, not even in the slightest. The Republican Party doesn't have a "limited government" leg to stand on, they are statists through and through.


There's only one logical answer to the questions asked above (and many more).

The reason Republicans didn't make the tax cuts permanent, slash departments, or limit government in any way is, well … Because they don't want to and never have. Yes, the pathetic Republican Party is every bit as statist as the hopeless Democratic Party. Liberty-minded Americans need to get this through their heads.

So now John Boehner has a "Doomsday Plan"

Their "Doomsday Plan" is tailor-made to ensure doom for Republicans. It gives Obama what he's demanding now (raise taxes) and punts on any chance at spending cuts. How can they possibly negotiate concessions next year if they've already proven they're incapable of holding the line on taxation? Give in now and the Democrats will beat them like a rented mule for years to come.

Yes, this certainly spells electoral doom for the Republican Party (or at least, it should), but also (temporarily) keeps their power intact (which is all they really care about) while continuing the redistributive gravy train of taxpayer dollars funneling into the pockets of their crony BFFs.

The struggle between the two major parties has nothing to do with ideology, morality, ethics, or even the demands of their respective constituents. The battle is over power and power alone. The rest is just theater.

Look at this current stand-off over the "fiscal cliff." Both sides already agree on the final outcome, which is raising taxes. They just need to give their fans, er, constituents something to cheer for. So a bunch of arrogant, loudmouthed politicians are infotaining us with over-the-top proclamations in a tense build up to a final showdown. If you think this sounds an awful lot like watching WWE Raw, you can be forgiven. Because you're right.

And let's fact it, we all know what the the endgame is … more taxes!

The "talks" are limited to a very narrow set of "solutions." The "spending cuts" are not serious cuts at all. Taxing "the rich" couldn't even put a dent in the federal government's severe financial problems, so getting "the rich" to pay "their fair share" is "not about economics, it is about politics." Boehner's stated objection "to any increase in tax rates" is undermined by his intent to raise taxes on everyone in other ways. And but of course, the deficit will continue to grow … and grow and grow …

Romney may have lost, but is this really what the people who voted for House and Senate Republicans wanted? For Republicans to waive a false white flag? To get more of the same old Republicans for Big Government?

As Judge Andrew Napolitano says (emphasis added):

Do you know anyone who voted Republican this past election in order to further President Obama’s big government agenda? Or is it more likely that Republican voters sought to advance a smaller version of the federal government? And if they did, why are Republican congressional leaders offering to help the president spend us into oblivion?

Don't be a dupe.

[T]hose who have relied on the political wisdom of politicians, rather than their own prudential judgment, are dupes … Those who have permitted politicians to use the force of law to compel us all to contribute our hard-earned income to a bankrupt government Ponzi scheme are dupes if they think this can work without end.

One would expect [Republicans] to understand the intent of the voters who sent them there and thus say no to more taxes, no to more spending and no to more borrowing. Instead we have Republican leadership in the House that actually proposed raising more revenue by eliminating deductions on income taxes.

Any significant movement of wealth from taxpayers to tax consumers will not enhance prosperity; it will crush it, and it will breed dependence on a government that is fiscally out of control. But the recipients will no doubt vote to re-elect those who gave them these payments.

The United States federal government confiscates more money from its taxpayers than any other in the history of mankind … it has printed more money (out of thin air) than any other in the history of mankind … yet it never has enough money?

Get real.

That's what I call Bullshit with a capital "B."

Anyone who believes Washington, DC has a "revenue" problem, not a "spending" problem, also believes they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem. And quite frankly, anyone who believes the twisted, nonsensical lies constantly spewing out these thieving politicians mouths, deserves the Big Government (and the consequences thereof) they get — good and hard.

Problem is, the rest of us don't.

P.S. — The saddest (or funniest) part of this whole lowbrow imitation of pro-wrestling is, "We Already Went Over the Fiscal Cliff."

« Previous Post

Next Post »

  • Andrew_M_Garland

    compromise noun.  Reconciling differences to find the middle way. When the Democrats want to take all of your money, and the Republicans want to take 1/3rd, then a compromise is taking 2/3rds of your money. It is commonly observed that our government runs on compromise, and that politics is the art of compromise, at least until the money runs out.

    • theCL

      And that's the illusion of political "compromise." The Establishment always gets their way and We the People get screwed.

  • Frank Koza

    You're exactly right that it's like watching WWE Raw. But isn't it all smoke and mirrors anyway? Could the whole never-ending budget battle be simply a diversion to keep us from seeing the ingenious ways they concoct to steal what little wealth each of us generates without us noticing, just as a street magician can slip the watch off your arm?

    The total national debt is just about equal to the annual GDP. It's big, but it's still a relatively small number in relation to the overall balance sheet of the economy. What about assets or total wealth? Think of the national budget in terms of your household income, budget, and balance sheet. How does your debt relate to your annual income and what's your net worth? Is it unmanageable? John Rutledge has a few comments that put it into that perspective:

    • theCL

      Well, the government has a balance sheet. You do and I do as well. But "the economy" does not. Besides, why would anyone think your personal assets and mine somehow offset government debt? Are you saying the fedgov has a prior claim to everything you and I own?

      The same could be said of Bill Gates, who has oodles of assets. But what does that have to do with say, you filing bankruptcy? Do his assets offset your debts? Of course not.

      Private assets do not offset public debt.

      Second, the $16 trillion (or whatever) is just the current budget deficit. Taking into account unfunded liabilities, the fedgov's debt is around $220 trillion. If Generally Accepted Accounting Principles were applied to the government (as required of all private entities), the fedgov would be upside down somewhere around $400 trillion.

      Yes, it's a charade to bamboozle Americans out of more of their money. But the debt is very real. There will be a day of reckoning.

      • Frank Koza

        I'm not at all saying privately held wealth should ever be used to offset so-called 'public' debts. I'm saying the collusion between the compulsive liars in government and the MSM saying that's all we should be worrying about is all a show, a distraction.

        The real problem isn't the current debt or even current levels of spending it's the excessive crap that they're buying with it that are far outside their enumerated responsibilities.

  • Pingback: Meet the Ruling Party – Again! | Daily Pundit