In Spring 2009, President Obama bluntly, repeatedly, and publically chided Congress and the American people that “elections have consequences”.
Then, bolstered by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, he – with sidekicks Reid & Pelosi – rammed through ObamaCare with no GOP votes. No compromise, except to sway Dem votes (think Cornhusker kick-back, Louisiana Purchase, Florida Medicare Advantage, union waivers, etc).
Yep, elections have consequences.
Last November, voters took the President’s words to heart and elected a majority GOP Congress – largely driven by angry tax payers who didn’t want to pay for Obama’s spending binge.
Now, the Congress refuses to jack up taxes … or, in Obama-speak, to increase revenues.
The President and Sen. Reid say the GOP Congress is being “intransigent”.
Hmmm.
I thought elections were supposed to have consequences …
The Homa Files 
July 26, 2011 at 10:25 am |
It’s a simple matter of perspective.
The President’s position is pragmatic; the Republicans’ position is ideological.
The President’s plan is balanced; the Republicans’ plan is reckless.
When Republicans agree with the President they are bipartisan; when the Republicans disagree with the President they are intransigent.
When the President agrees with the Republics he is bipartisan; when the the President disagrees with Repiblicans he is principled.
As a bonus, I think I’ve figured out what “shared sacrifice” means in the President’s mind: A bargain where the “rich” and the “poor” each surrender an economic benefit; the rich surrender additional income and wealth through higher taxes while the poor surrender right to take an ever larger portion of the rich’s income and wealth… for now.