THE FRUSTRATION AND OUTRAGE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY following the last election was perfectly understandable. Barack Obama’s re-election was shocking enough. Government continues to grow, and in short order the party’s discipline on tax increases dissolved in the chaos and confusion of the fiscal cliff fight.
Yet it did not seem to occur to these men and women that they were elected to Congress precisely to represent Americans who are not in Washington, D.C., by acting in the public interest. It does not seem to occur to them that there are higher public and private goals than avoiding primary opposition.
There is a passionate and generous group in Congress composed of conservatives for whom no stance against government can be too bold and for whom no compromise with liberalism is worth the cost. There is, however, a great danger in mistaking inflexibility for strength and in placing categorical opposition to the “establishment” above all other considerations. The danger: falling into a self-delusion similar to that of Obama and profligate Democrats.
The pose of conservative purity will not bring the nation closer to reviving the economy or cutting entitlement. Indeed, it can be self-defeating, because in some cases the alternative to the compromise is worse than the compromise itself. What Republican Congressmen seemed to not recognize over the course of the cliff debate was that the tax increase was going to happen, regardless of their actions. The choice was not between one tax hike and no tax hike. The choice was between one tax hike on some and another tax hike on everyone.
One might oppose tax increases so staunchly as not to vote for them under any circumstances, but the fiscal cliff was a paradoxical situation. Not voting for a tax increase would actually have resulted in the largest possible tax increase. How could a tax cutter be happy with that?
In addition, one might have said that “going over the cliff” and allowing the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts to occur would have been the only way for America to reduce her deficits in the near term. But doing that would have left the Democrats in 2013 as the party of tax cuts and the Republicans responsible for the economic, social and political consequences of higher rates. Was that really how House conservatives wanted to cap off a 20-year record of keeping taxes low?
Such is the mess Americans have made of their tax code and budget. Facing the fiscal cliff, the outgoing Congress had not a single wholly good option. That none of Speaker John Boehner’s Republican opponents could articulate a realistic alternative that would have left rates untouched was evidence that their top priority was assuming a pose that would bring the maximum rewards from within the conservative movement. Democrats, meanwhile, were split between the liberals who were satisfied with the deal’s tax hikes and the liberals who said the deal did not hike taxes enough. This was the chaos and confusion, in the rush to avoid the consequences of the cliff.
What might have been the most significant outcome of the fiscal cliff debate, then, was a growing appreciation for the new facts on the ground among conservatives and Republicans. They are facing the world and Washington as they are, not as they would wish them to be. There will be no “grand bargain” worthy of the name out of Washington’s taxation and spending policies.
Should the Republican Party make it perfectly clear that they stand as one unit in opposition to the disastrous spend-and-tax policies of this president, then and only then will the Democratic Party realize that the GOP has once again begun to perform as the party of the opposition. Up until now, it has done anything but that.
Should Speaker Boehner begin to actually act as the leader of that opposition, and cease his tendency to fold at the feet of Barack Obama, then perhaps the American people will once again witness democracy in action.
God knows, it has been a long time coming.
Jim Pugh is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
HUH? Has Mr. Pugh ever had a happy day in his political life? I wish him joy and insight, a good laugh once in a while at ALL the political horse exhaust as it exists in the US, I walk in the woods, a healthy talking to a duck at the waterfront, any one of Benicia’s several. – pb
Does Peter Bray ever say anything that’s meaningful. His comments are designed to make him sound intelligent but are empty of content. My bet is that he has never been in position to actually be fully accountable for his choices, to be detailed and concrete about what he says and about what he does.
He probably worked for someone else, and his choice , his ideas are mixed in to a general pool that , if wrong, is not detected. He handles the English language well enough to make him sound like he knows what he talking about
Todd Knipper: If you don’t like what I write, why do you read it? Show me your great stuff if you have any. Show me your flag, I might salute it if it has any fabric at all…Good luck with your morning bagels, I have my own. pb
Todd is sounds like you got the picture very clearly about Peter Bray.
Leave it to the Village Idiot to weigh in where he’s not needed or wanted. A special skill of our special needs citizen.
Now we also know just what we are dealing with in Real American. A name calling monitor of the comment section. A comment like the term “Special Needs” is a very sentive comment and I think you need to make an apology about that statement. It Is very insentitive to many people including myself.
I know you have apologies on your mind since you so recently were cornered, like a rat, into giving one, a real embarrassment for you. So I will go ahead and say I am sorry if anyone who isn’t Bob was offended … I meant only to insult him and his Jim Hoft-like propensity for risible, peerless stupidity that is difficult to explain unless it involves brain deficiencies of some kind.
And I look forward to Bob sleeplessly policing the insensitive comments of others on this blog. Good to have a Herald cop on the job.
I think Real American you need to quit hiding behind that phony name. Give us your real name or are you to much of a coward to identify yourself. Again more name calling by the Cowardly Lioness.
More whining bu the VI … Waaaaaaaaaaaa
The Cowardly Lioness has been overwhelmed by the Man of Steel.
We are all constantly overwhelmed by your stupidity, VI.
Again name calling by the Cowardly Lioness of Benicia . That is all the Cowardly Lioness knows. Personal attacks on others, myself and big time name calling. Now I know why you hide behind your phony name. Maybe Matt will identify you since you know him so well. Matt just tell us who Real American is. It would be in your best interest Matt to get this Cowardly Lioness off your back. Who knows maybe Matt is your husband.
Matt and I have never met; how strange that you should think otherwise. But then, we know you are not nearly as connected as you claim to be. And remember, VI, this particular spate of namecalling as you call it started because of your nasty, unnecessary attack on Peter Bray. So once again, you reap what you sow.
But I’m glad it happened here, in this old Jim Pugh column. Maybe it will lead to more people reading the column. Maybe they’ll look at it closely … very closely … and we’ll have Bob Livesay to thank for the result.
Dear Real American: Thanks for your comments, my father from another generation used to say, “Fools’ names and fools’ faces, often appear in public places.” I no longer even receive Mr. Livesay, Pugh, and Lund’s online text on my monitor screen. I have a special App available for most pcs and Macs, it’s called “TripeScreen/BarnacleDetector” and it keeps my monitor clean as a whistle. Have a good Wednesday! Don’t bother to forward their messages, this App is Awesome! –pb
What a relief
Jim makes a number of interesting statements here, some of which are quite true. This one, beginning his third paragraph, though, is rather peculiar. “There is a passionate and generous group in Congress composed of conservatives for whom no stance against government can be too bold and for whom no compromise with liberalism is worth the cost.” The first part about the presence in Congress of passionate and conservative conservatives has an acceptable truth value. Yet, the rest of the statement (“for whom no stance… can be too bold… and no compromise with liberalism… worth the cost.”) belies the generosity imputed to those conservatives regarding compromise. Here is the case against Republican willingness to participate in governing the country sensibly and with sensitivity. When you “know” you’re absolutely right about everything important, you can only dictate, never negotiate in good faith. You don’t really believe in democracy because you’ve forgotten what it means and how it’s done.
Jim is right, that “The pose of conservative purity will not [help the nation.]” Not helping the nation will be very bad for conservatives, pure or impure. Jim correctly sees confusion among Republicans. The party must sort itself out and recreate a unitive identity or fade away like the Bull Moose and Socialist parties.
I can appreciate Jim’s frustration and sadness. He spent his whole life, i’d guess, as a committed conservative Republican voter, yet now sees people using his party identity as aegis to talk and act like ignorant idiots. This has got to be heart breaking. He seems perhaps too hard on John Boehner. John had little choice but to knuckle under when his own House caucus undercut his positions. You don’t call up legislation for a vote when you know you can’t swing a majority. It’s nauseating even to watch from the other side. From there, you may want to smirk, but you urp at the same time because you know Congress is failing.
At least we can tell from this essay that Jim is actually an honest man and capable of insight. I cannot share his view of Obama, for whom I continue to hope. I don’t need God to bless America. I bless all Americans, myself, and wish we were all okay.
Corection: “… passionate and generous conservatives …”, not passionate and conservative conservatives.
I understand perfectly what Jim is saying. He is right. It has now all turned in the right direction. The fiscal cliff and taxes are now a thing of the past. We now open a new revenue, spending and budget period. Very short as it is. Already the Liberals want to kick the can down the road. We will now see the shoe on the left for what it really wants us to walk in. That will not be good. I have said all along give the President what he wants with a mild fight. Then make your stance in the new year. They did and some Republicans did not like that but at the same time came around. Pick your stance and a stance you can win. That is happening as we write. President Obama is back on the revenue bandwagaon along with his very split party. As Jim said the far left wanted higher taxes, not just on the rich but all tax payers. He will have his own inside fight to overcome. The President does not want to cut spending but even spend at a much higher rate all backed by his entire party. Thats is right, more debt. This is where the fight will be. Boehner now has a united House that will take a stand. His moves in the last ninety days were brilliant and very difficulkt for some Conservatives to see. They do now and are well prepared for the fight with the Republicans now holding the advantage. It will be a very interesting ninety days with the Republicans not losing any ground.
Bob L. writes, above, what is for him an unusually intelligent set of statements, yet he still comes off as whistling Pollyana tunes like Dixie through the cemetery after dark. Democrats are nowhere so badly split as the Republicans. Obama really does want to trim spending to increase efficiency, but he refuses to let the GOP get its way with the safety net. They want to cut the wrong things and not raise taxes anywhere, which is a foolish mistake they make based on repeatedly failed theory. In what world does Boehner now have “a united house?” It looks more untied than united. Sorry, Bob, the country is sufficiently sick of GOP shenanigans and nonsense that the House majority will turn over to Democrats at mid-term, no matter that some gerrymandered districts produce seats permanently Republican.
BOB: Livesay is just whistling in the woods again of his own pseudo-reality…My canary makes more political reality sense than Livesay and I don’t even have a canary–Sorry, only muskrats listen to Livesay…his tirade recently against Mayor Patterson in the Herald was read by my cats, with corresponding catcalls and snickers, but I refuse to read him anymore–tree bark has more focus…pb
Peter said: but I refuse to read him (Livesay) anymore
I think this is about the 10th time you have said this or similar words.
For someone who has expressed a decided disinterest in Mr. Livesay, it strikes me as curious that you continue to post to tell everyone you are not interested in him.
I wonder if there is a 12 step program available for those who seek help to break the Livesay habit?
😉
My cats read Livesay on the floor below their Sardines with Gravy Canned Lunch and think he’s a comedy writer but NOT as funny or timely as Bill Maher or Soupy Sales—What do they know? Tney’re cats!–pb
Is that a promise Peter or are just blowing in the wind as usual. I sure hope you keep your promise this time.
If our tax code is a mess, Jim, we must recall it was Republican Senator Dick Cheney and Democratic Representative Abe Rostenkowsky who, a long generation ago, last revised it. They alleged to “simplify” it, although the improved clarity never seemed as obvious to folks in the street as to tycoons in boardrooms. What a pair of crooks! Rostenkowsky finally spent time in jail before he died, and Cheney should be in jail right now.
Speaking of crooks, Obama let himself (for whatever reasons) get persuaded to bail out the big banks instead of actually relieve four million or so, cheated, small homebuyers. Saving GM was good, but letting the little people flounder in loss was decidedly “undemocratic.” I thank Paulson, Summers and Geithner for that travesty. They “took care” of their old associates and Obama was too weak or confused stop them.
Lastly here, it remains to be seen, Jim, whether or not your “canard-speak” of Obama’s inclination to “tax & spend” has real meaning in an economy built on massively created fiat money. Inflation is inevitable and happening now. The effect of huge taxation stays indirect and virtually hidden. The question is, can it be kept slow enough and uniformly controlled enough not to pinch and squeeze some set of people to the point of devastation and disaster. Well, of course that has already happened to those little folks who lost homes and jobs. Can we fool around and make it worse? Will we avoid Germany’s catastrophe of the 1920s? We must grow quickly and get the people back to work or content ourselves with less of everything and much more poverty and despair.
Addendum: You don’t grow the economy by sitting at the kitchen table balancing budgets, especially other people’s, you go out and get back to work — and up on top, if you’ve really gone back to work, you’re doing all you can to put others back to work, not “resting on your laurels,” meaning what you’ve already won at the lottery of life. Corporate leaders, by the way, have no right whatever to cry about taxes, they are significantly lower today than they were under our “heroic” ass, Ronald Reagan.
Speaking of crooks, the biggest one of all, thought Dan was a pretty good guy:
Clinton Issues a Pardon To Ex-Rep. Rostenkowski
What would you put in Cheney in jail for, what crime do you feel he committed and under what authority?
Clarification: By the term “under what authority”, I mean under what authority did Cheney act for which he could be held criminally liable.
Whatever he was jailed for (I need to research it) he had done good service for a long while in the House Democratic caucus and on committees, so Clinton forgave the wrongful act in view of Dan’s good work. As for Cheney, we could forgive him too, were the consequences of his errprs not so absolutely horrendous. Crimes are not solely defined by authority of laws as written but by moral understanding, about which I won’t argue with you, for the debate might go on all night into next month and never be settled between us, as we live in differently envisioned, moral universes. Yours lets you be a radical conservative and mine requires me to be a progressive.
Correction: Yours lets you be a moderate conservative and mine requires me to be a progressive extremist.
I have no desire to jail people who commited no violation of laws, nor to wish people death based on a mechanical malfunction of a life supporting device, nor do I desire to see what was once expressed by you regarding the leaders of the NRA.
Robert you are so far to the left, that even Che would be a moderate in comparison.
Dennis Lund, et al:
Cheney was/is a moral maggot and should have been waterboarded until his pacemaker shorted out. Start at the top of the list:
His moral compass about Iraq’s phony “Weapons of mass destruction,” driving the “phony intelligence” to substantiate it; his collusion with “outing” a US CIA agent; his secretive Energy Policy, excluding the media; his allowing fracking chemicals to NOT be under the jurisdiction of the EPA; his endorsement of waterboarding; his setting up the lack of US air defense cover during the 911 attacks – How long do you want the laundry list? The man has no moral compass. He was Darth Vader, a negative “Buffalo Bob” and W was his Howdy Doody, on his lap, a totally inept President. Anyone endorsing Cheney as being anything but a war criminal is a fictional fabricator. When the “controlled demolition” of WTC 1,2, and 7 are finally outed, I suspect they will have Cheney as a pathway operative…the investigation is stymied until he is dead and then the truth will finally out, he will have escaped prosecution. Just like Zapruder’s later film frames show JFK’s head and brains thrusting backwards from a frontal impact rifle shot, hardly the “single bullet” Oswald-only theory endorsed by our lame government of coverup stooges…Earl Warren should be ashamed of himself to have lent his name to such a travesty. Analyze your own government and see who’s fit to lead…and who should be put on a “rendition” aircraft to another country–Who you guys think you’re fooling with your feigning of innocence? Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
We now see the real Peter Bray. A very angry conspiracy opinonated person. That is good it will keep you busy going nowhere. Now remember Peter your promise not to read anything I say. So there will be no response. Oh I forgot you have others that can do your thinking for you. By the way what about Pear Harbor who was responsibloe for that. FDR?
Dennis, Dan (excuse the Abe) didn’t go to jail for his work on the tax code but later (for what I don’t just now recall.) Slick Dick technically committed no crimes until he “stole” vice-presidential powers from idiot Bush to further enrich himself and kill immense numbers of people by getting us into a wrongful war in Iraq that diverted us from a proper conclusion in Afghanistan. Dickie-boy was much too slick to get caught mugging old ladies on the street. He could get away with much just by looking so upper-class and sounding competently “official.” He was a fraud and still is. The world will be better off when his pace-maker fails and he avoids going to trial at The Hague, once and for all. Or does he already have somebody else’s heart? He never had a proper one of his own. Sorry for your worshipful feelings toward his image.
Robert stated: Slick Dick technically committed no crimes
Yet you still want to put him in jail?
Maybe we should just put him on the list of those who are dangerous to America and then one of Obama’s drones could take care of him.
RMS: The world will be better off when his pace-maker fails
I would be curious as to what other Republican leaders you feel should be dead.
Yes, Dennis, “Slick” could be listed and shipped off for “rendition” (to be rendered) into lard.
Other GOP figures? Several score should be, not deceased, but incapacitated beyond ability to communicate anything complex, and confined to beds at home or or out of sight in institutions. 😉
Wheelchairs in the desert would be all right. Let ’em bake and chill some before they go to Hell.
Robert I am surprised at you. This kindly old man saying things like that. Shame on you or were you talking about the Liberal Socialist. If that is the case you owe them an apology.
Poor whimsical Peter. Peter I want you to remember to not read anything I comment on or any of my LTTE. Also remember it was not a tirade. Just the facts that many were not even aware of. That probably includes you also. Just what could the city do with that $7,000? The one good thing is you will not read this so no come back comment. As for the former Poet Laureate he just has bad feelings for any Conservative. Boy am I glad I do not have a pace maker. But that would not be a problem for Shelby he could not pray to god for someone to pass on. Robert that statement about Chaney was very shameful and shows lack of respect for all humans. Dan has issues with stamps. What a way to cheat the hard working folks. His office buys stamps he turns them back for cash. Robert as far as 2014 midterms goes you may want to remember that in January 2014 Obamacare kicks in. That alone could be the end of the Democrats for a few years. Just watch the national debt rise and the middleclass healthcare cost sky rocket. So much for President Obama and his beloved middleclass which will now drop to below $30,000 a year. I do believe Robert you need some econ lessons.
Mr. Livesay: My “whimsical” cats report that you have something to say—I have no ears for your tripe–Enjoy your reality facade—No doubt Cheney is your warlord. Good and adequate Karma to you both–pb
Peter I new you would not keep your word. The real Peter is now coming out. 9/11 and JFK. Peter you are a very sorry individual. I love to get to y6ou. . But again Peter you break your word and comment back to Bob Livesay. So I would say Peter you have no credibility.