Could Republicans compromise on compromise?

obama-reid-pelosiWouldn’t it be nice for Republicans to turn the tables on President Obama and Democrats; to stand back, give them all they want in raising taxes, continued spending on entitlements, full Obamacare, and amnesty for illegal immigrants, and then relish in the fallout that ensues? In a perfect world, watching Democrats hang themselves with the rope we give them should ensure a Republican victory in 2016.

The vast majority of you said no to our poll question: “Should House Republicans compromise with Democrats and agree to trade increased taxes for budget cuts?” The poll also elicited some colorful new ways to say no on my Facebook wall! And though I happen to agree, no way should Republicans compromise, there is a part of me – perhaps you, too – that wants to see Obama voters get exactly what they wished for.

However, the brilliant columnist Victor Davis Hanson offers a solution we may all agree on in a National Review article called, “Let Obama Be Obama.” It appears to be a way to compromise on compromise.

Hanson said Republicans should forget the raging debate over raising taxes on those making $250,000 a year, who we know includes many small business owners.

“Instead,” he wrote, “why not agree to hike federal-income-tax rates only on the true ‘millionaires and billionaires,’ ‘fat cats,’ and ‘corporate jet owners’ whom Obama has so constantly demonized.”

“Eight out of the ten wealthiest counties in the United States voted for Obama,” he added. “Corporate lawyers and the affluent in Hollywood and on Wall Street should all not mind ‘paying their fair share.’” (I wonder if Michael Moore would squeal if he had to pay 40 percent in taxes.)

As for the DREAM Act, a topic for which Republicans were vilified as “nativists” and slammed by the Latino vote, Hanson suggested conservatives could, “allow a pathway to citizenship for the play-by-the-rules millions who qualify, while regrettably enforcing an un-DREAM Act for others who just recently arrived illegally; enrolled in, and have remained on, public assistance; or have been convicted of a crime.”

As he points out, “Who could object to that fair compromise?”get-attachment.aspx

In the end, Hanson said, Republicans should insist on “equality for all” by ending all Obamacare exemptions, including the 1,200 granted to “favored corporations and unions,” rather than attempt to overturn the entire law. (I can see union head’s spinning around already: “What? Obamacare is good for you, not for me!”)

With such compromises, Republicans could then hold Obama’s and Democrat’s feet to the fire, demanding they agree to cut their habitual, out-of-control spending. Watch them squirm then!

Alas, only in a perfect world…

Read VDH’s “Let Obama Be Obama.”

[poll id=”9"]

Janeen Capizola

"And though she be but little, she is fierce." And fun! This conservative-minded political junkie, mom of three, dancer and one-time NFL cheerleader holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science. [email protected] Twitter: @JaneenBPR


6 thoughts on “Could Republicans compromise on compromise?

  1. Joyce Mccraw says:

    I think this is an excellent idea! Throw Obama's ideas out to the overtaxed taxpayers & let HIM explain why the "good ol' boys" in Govt.don't pay taxes or take Obamacare! Let Obama explain why his "wonderful' ideas have ran this Country into the ditch & people are desperate! Let the people themselves find out what a snake he really is! Let Obama explain why there is no more "free stuff" to give!! Let Obama explain why illegals have all the jobs AND all the Welfare & foodstamps!! Let Obama explain to his Hollywood pals why they have to pay "their fair share"too! Yes,I like it!!

  2. seazen says:

    Finally! A really great idea from the "conservative" side of politics as usual. Let all of Obama's policies really take hold and sit back and watch the horrific fall-out as the poor and underserved find their lives improve, as regulations begin to halt the rapacious behavior of Wall Street, as our education system improves, as health care is available for all, as our dependence on fossil fuels declines, as teachers, firemen, policemen, and veterans find new jobs and that kind of change. Of course we may have to pay $.14 more per pizza and some corporate jets may be grounded and a few less $8,000 purses may be sold but that is a sacrifice that will have to made.

  3. pete stubben says:

    fabulously interesting, Janeen. here's my blog post to The NY Times yesterday re Buffet's Op-Ed on Taxes. Best…PJS

    good stuff, Mr. Buffet, especially the carried interest loophole.

    Just to complicate the tax code, allow me to suggest a special EET (pronounced eat) Tax…an entertainment excise tax…whose proceeds directed exclusively to education. Big-screen and theatre entertainers (not script writers, or authors or poets); ball players (not coaches); musicians (but not lyricists) to pay a 10% EET tax off income (the top number). Am sure this special class of citizen would not mind at all…after all it's all about the students! Best…PJS

  4. Joanna Cooper says:

    Historicaly speaking, one of the largest donor groups to the DNC and Obama Campaign has been The Trial Lawyers Assoc. Trial Lawyers have sought to protect their incomes by refusing to address Torte Reform and Product Liability laws . These are issues that would definitely lower healthcare costs and take unnecessary burdens off of businesses. Please allow this lobby to pay higher taxes, support this President in the endeavor to tax this shrinking pie, and protect their right to make their living. Republicans have a much better idea…..

  5. Ed McCarthy says:

    Give the Dems what they want, “tax hikes on the rich!” Make some concessions in order to negotiate a tax hike, but only on those earning more than $2,500,000 (way more than Obama’s line in the sand.) Get some “reasonable spending cuts” in return. Make sure that there is a quorum present for the votes but have minimal or no Republican votes in favor. Most or all Republicans “abstain” on the vote, but make sure that the vote will pass the house and Senate. Have a similar minimal Republican vote on the Conference Committee version that goes to the President. It would then in essence be a Democrat Bill. When Obama veto’s the bill (which he almost certainly would), then he and his Democrat pals will be responsible when we fall off the fiscal cliff.

    The Republicans, having made concessions that were vetoed, then put Obama & Company on notice that, since the bill failed, and spending was not cut; there will be no future increase on the ceiling for our National Debt, thereby forcing cuts.

    The consequence of falling off the fiscal cliff will be severe, so will the forced cutback in spending; but these consequences pale in comparison to those of adding trillions more to our national debt. What would be painful now, averts unmitigated disasters later!

  6. Karen Seay says:

    I, thank this would be a great plan. But can America handle it when America goes off the cliff. We had the change to take this country back. And again he's put back into office. Obama needs to pay for the killings of our 4 Americans, he's taking us for fools, the people in NY, are mad it's not over unless he's impeached our country is headed for doom. We are as a people need to take our country back over. He's gives the Muslim Brother Hood over billions of our money to terrorist and they are terrorist Obama , and you know that. America people some will have to hit bottom before they realize what's going on with this President . He's just wants our country to be a Muslim country. We are going to have the same 4 yrs. with a part time Pres. Lies upon lies, the taxpayers will pay for more vacation. Obama , will disappear just like before, he's on a free ride again and America will pay the prices.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts