Well, we know the leadership is the same old GOP: As I noted last week, the Boehner Highway Boondoggle might as well be called “Obama Lite” — and it’s really not all that lite at $262 billion, which is about $70 billion more than dedicated fuel taxes will generate and $14 billion per annum more than House Republicans proposed just seven months ago. This is exactly the sort of recklessness that got the GOP booted from power in 2006 and 2008, and that they promised voters they had sworn off.
As Erick Erickson points out, moreover, House Republican leadership is using the same sort of sleight-of-hand Obama Democrats employ to conceal their profligacy and bribe resisters: budget busting provisions are diverted into separate legislation, to be paid for out of general funds, to hide the fact that the Highway Trust Fund is being blown out; domestic energy production is purportedly ramped up (the Left will never go for it) to woo fiscally responsible conservatives into voting yea — even though there is no reason why energy production should be linked to transportation, and if there is a surplus to be had from it, responsible lawmakers would use it to pay down some of the mountainous debt they are saddling our children and grandchildren with, not fund more “stimulus.”
The vote is today. It’s a very clear question for Republicans swept in on the 2010 Tea Party tide: Did you actually come to change Washington, or has Washington already changed you?
Yesterday, President Obama proposed an astoundingly irresponsible budget that doesn’t just utterly refuse to deal with the reality of our bankruptcy but adds goo-gobs of new debt. House Republicans, despite their spendthrift leaders, have a chance today to say: We’re different. Are they?
goo-gobs??
Is that a technical term?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSame Old GOP? Rhetorical question, si? And as long as they are the light version compared to the alternative, they can get away with it too. If their strategy is to not look too radically conservative compared to Obama's sure to come accusations, they will not escape his slings and arrows either. Will they depress conservative turnout more than liberal turnout in November? (another rhetorical question)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo these people not know that we have 1.3 trillion dollar deficit we're facing this year, and every year into perpetuity?
What is wrong with these people? How can they be this foolish? How did we end up with this crop of self destructive idiots?! The tea party people in congress better knock this down. This is absolute insanity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe want change. Ron Paul will actually CUT the budget. Conservatives must stop supporting these shenanigans. There are lots of dems that will get behind Paul. He is the ONLY Republican running that can defeat Obama. A vote for Romney or Santorum is a vote for Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs the GOP going to be irrelevant after the 2012 election if they do not make big gains? Or is it already irrelevant as a national force? The GOP is like a zombie party, still looks mostly alive, but is actually dead. The national GOP is comfortable being a permanent political minority, so long as they are allowed to stay as part of the ruling political class.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've been saying it for months: maybe the GOP has run it's course and its time for a real conservative party, one that actually PRACTICES conservative governance and doesn't just preach it. Every time I read one of these stories, I think the GOP is a closer to becoming the Whigs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile we want to have a new party, the destruction that would happen to the Republic during the 20-30 year rise would be horrific. We are not Parlimentary government, so the only way to a more conservative majority is to dismantle from within. Folks like Ryan, Rubio, Rand Paul, etc. It will take time, however, we have the resources, we need the patience. It will take fortitude to stomach the mess we must go through
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHonestly, what's the point of a conservative being a member of the Republican party?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs long as seemingly intelligent people can say Rick Santorum is a "conservative" the GOP has no chance to fix our problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoehner; McCain; McConnell, as well as Reid, Pelosi, Schumer and on and on just scream for term limits. Till the "same old GOPers" and Dems are thrown out we will still have an overbearing and huge government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have never liked term limits. I think a better way to limit life-long politicians is to limit their income to their salaries with ZERO retirement benefits and a permanent ban on dealing with the government after they are out of office. This would apply to all elective offices at all levels.Reduce the incentives to stay in office, or gain from the office, and most candidates will self-select for only a limited time of service.
Also, lawyers should be excluded from eligibility for any law-making office due to conflict of interest concerns.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpeaking of Erick Erickson:
I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.
Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.
Suddenly we’re all forgetting what a big government conservatism is. The term was coined by Fred Barnes in defense of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservative” agenda. Bush intended to use domestic social welfare policy for conservative ends. In the process, he expanded the welfare state to do so through No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, etc. Rick Santorum was a willing participant in this.
(snip)
Read the rest here:
External Link
What Mitt and Rick have in common?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy [original] captcha phrase: cold turkey
Didn’t see Republicans complaining about deficits when George W. Bush was running them up after starting with a surplus of $300 billion. Didn’t see them complaining about a China funded $500 billion expansion of socialized medicine. Didn’t hear a peep from them about overpriced ships the Navy doesn’t need or more reinforced steel for the border fence. Dyed
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusein the wool hypocrites.
For what it's worth, I did complaint. And when I would comment against W's and the GOP's dept spending in a local conservative blog, I was hounded as a liberal. Mind you, that I was somewhat popular when I complained against Clinton and the Mules when they did the same thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLooks like the whole Government Edsel is going to roll off the cliff of bankruptcy regardless of who's in charge. This latest Boehner imbicility is beyond belief.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're talking roads and infrastructure here. We have the lowest gas taxes in the world. Hello? Anyone out there with any sense? Anyone understand that good roads and modern transportation systems are essentiall to our society?
Why not just pay for them?
Isn't that a 'conservative' concept?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI haven't seen where you've endorsed Paul yet, maybe you have. I'm pretty sure the new NR won't collectively endorse him, either.
I wonder if you're going to come to terms with the idea that, even if you don't like the idea of retreating from the world, if we don't vote in a real spending slasher, it's not going to matter. Our "existential threat" is clearly from within, clearly the debt.
We have a few thousand nukes as the ultimate threat for the other problems. We have no "nuclear option" for the debt save, apparently, bombing ourselves with more debt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse