Another bipartisan failure

We have just witnessed a highly typical example of why our federal government just doesn't work. This recent action to create a bipartisan 'super committee' expressly designed with a mission to cut the US debt by $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, has crashed to earth like a depleted space capsule failing its mission completely.

---

As I have said many times before in this space, the word bipartisan has two different meanings; one, the dictionary meaning: representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions; and two, the Democrat meaning: do it our way. So this extravaganza to nowhere was doomed to defeat by the simple act of conferring on it, a bipartisanship designator. What the public had expected was to have a group study ways to cut government spending by one point two trillion dollars from the national debt. My own personal thoughts on that would be to look at expenditures that are made for which there is no tangible or product-like results.

---

---

You know what I mean - like money we give to foreign countries that constantly refuse to support us in the world stages and most particular in the shadowy and corrupt halls of the United Nations; and definitely to the United Nations itself which is like a bottom-less hole with a strong suction favoring US dollars. But this was a bipartisan endeavor which means that the liberal Democrats would not be satisfied with a mission to cut the US debt; no, some way, somehow they would have to alter and amend that mission definition to include some tax increases. Democrats are unable to reduce expenses; it is a physical impossibility for a liberal Democrat to cut costs. So after weeks of wrangling and jangling and Democrat proposals for tax increases along with Republican insistences on maintaining the recently extended Bush tax cuts (that were for ALL US citizen tax payers, not just the rich) the talks predictably wound down to failure. Democrats flatly refused to agree to cuts (which was the original mission) unless there were accompanying tax increases, (not in the original mission) which the Republicans refused. But again, (typically) the liberal Democrats immediately cast blame on the Republicans for "wanting tax cuts for the rich". Liberal Democrat US Senator Patty Murray, (D -WA) co-chair of the committee, after the super committee talks broke down, blamed the panel's collapse on "the reality of the divide of the country today" and the refusal of Republicans to accept a tax increase as part of any deal to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Frankly, I am getting weary of hearing this tired old mantra of bleating liberals and their viciously misleading chants implying that the Bush tax cuts were just for the rich. That is a flat out lie. I can personally attest to that, as I am far from the "rich" plateau of tax payers and the Bush tax cuts definitely did help reduce my tax burden. And while we're on that subject, why shouldn't those in the higher brackets get a tax break occasionally? They pay the lion's share of all the taxes paid. A Human Events column by Jason Mattera on 11-22-11 gives a very simple to understand explanation of the fairness of the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. The relationship of these tax cuts to the mission of the super committee co-chaired by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) gets mention in Mattera's columm lead in paragraph along with a quote from the uber liberal Washington Post, which referred to the tax cuts as being "much-contested." and quoted Sen. Murray saying, "The wealthiest of Americans, those who earn over a million dollars every year, have to share, too." When a very liberal Democrat US Senator (Murray) says that the wealthiest of Americans have to share too, it makes me wonder where she parks her brain when she puts her mouth in gear. Surely a U S Senator must be aware of what the Tax Foundation states, "During 2009, the bottom 95 percent. paid 41.3 percent of the total collected.. The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers. paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes." And Patty Murray says the rich have to share, too. Then here's another one supplied in Jason Mattera's column: "Dan Pfeiffer, official White House hack and Obama bootlicker, said the expiration of the tax cuts "should be a powerful incentive to the Republicans to abandon their politically foolish and substantively absurd position on taxes on the wealthy." I personally would like to ask both of these lib Dems just whom do they think they are fooling? President Abe Lincoln's quote on 'fooling some of the people.' would be appropriate here but I'm sure you know it. Happy Thanksgiving to each and every one of you.

---