In the old days, Washington politicians would have negotiations between the President and Congress, and both being somewhat well-meaning, they would split the baby in half.
However, today, with President Obama so ill-intentioned toward the United States and its future, negotiations between him and with those of us who oppose him are pointless.
With the election settled and four more years of Obama’s mad reign upon us, the only sensible course is to ignore him when it comes to what to do about the so-called “fiscal cliff,” which will bring a new tax landscape on Jan. 1, 2013, if nothing is done before then we are now living in the time of “Obama Unconstrained,” what he promised Russian leader Vladimir Putin he would become without having to face the electorate again. That’s of course if he does not decided to make himself “President for Life,” or invoke “emergency powers,” and hold ersatz elections every once in awhile with preordained outcomes, similar to what the Duvaliers used to do in the backwards kleptocracy of Haiti. Probably unlikely, but we’ll keep our eyes open and won’t be surprised.
It would be nice if we could rely on GOP House Speaker John Boehner for leadership, but we probably can’t because he has already sacked several key fiscally conservative representatives from various House committees. Regardless, everyone opposing Obama, and at this point you can’t straddle the fence, should immediately stop negotiating with him and let the country go over the fiscal cliff. (I’m writing this from a political perspective and what’s good for the country and no other point of view or endorsement.)
If the country were to go over the fiscal cliff, the economy will probably suffer if not more likely go into recession. More Democrats than Republicans will also have their taxes go up. In a sane world, one doesn’t negotiate with someone who says that it is his goal to fundamentally transform the country from a constitutional republic/democracy into something else, namely a socialist utopia.
Obama’s first “offer” in “negotiating” included massive tax increases, new government spending, and raising the debt ceiling. Obama was apparently implying to the Republicans that they accept this “deal,” or he, Obama, was going to make it really bad for them, meaning take this “least worst” proposal or they be sorry. This is the world now in which we live: negotiation begins with an offer of nothing in terms of reducing government spending, but we’d better accept it or Obama is going to get really ugly and I don’t mean simply scary looks!
If we could trust Boehner, the only thing that would make sense would be for him and the GOP leadership in the House to abandon negotiations and get back to doing the people’s business. Start by forming the House Ways and Means Committee and start working on a budget for the United States of America, one that would cut everything to balance the budget and then send the bill over to the Senate whether any Democratic representative voted for it or not. There is nothing else that can be done but that. Obama’s promises are known to have expiration dates on them. He could promise the stars and then decided to rule by executive order. Meanwhile, the Republicans only hope is to deal directly with their House members and then try and get House and Senate to agree on a bill and then drop it on the president’s deck. By that time, Obama would be going up against 535 congressmen and not Boehner and Minority Leader Eric Cantor alone.
If the election proved anything it is that it is time to panic and not to operate in the mode of “business as usual.” We have an elected coup d’etat with a man the head of a party in which 52 percent of Democrats say they are favorably disposed to socialism, and overtly hostile to economic freedom. Let the chips fall where they may. If taxes rise on income, dividends and capital gains, and the reduced estate tax exclusion ensnares more people, so be it; there will be stability and life will continue. Because of the massiveness of the deficit and debt, even if all income were confiscated by the federal government, it would still not succeed in eradicating those trillion dollar numbers. The only thing remaining after that would be for the government to start seizing private property, which I guess is the point of socialism in the end anyway.
What we now have is an electorate that has rejected Mitt Romney’s “Believe in America,” and economic growth, and in effect has chosen the path of austerity and “fairness.” What it will bring is more insecurity and unrest. One has to hand it to the Democrats: they have the remarkable ability to control the dialogue by turning a positive, like fiscal responsibility, into a negative by calling it austerity, and nobody wants that dirty word! Yuck!
So, forget sending faxes and emails or making phone calls to Boehner and company about “holding the line” and not capitulating to Obama. The nat
The nation has already capitulated to Obama, and all he is trying to do is rope-a-dope the Republicans into agreeing to a deal and then to blame them later when things inevitably fail. They can’t be that stupid the Republicans, can they? They are not, because most of them feel the same way about government in general that the Democrats do, but not to the ultimate extreme that the Obama wants to push the federal regulatory and entitlement state. Like I’ve said previously, the Republicans are not up for the challenge.
We conservatives have got to start gunning for the long-term and not simply the next election cycle. There is a right-of-center country out there somewhere, but it hasn’t coalesced around a particular movement or individual yet. For sure whatever does take shape, it will have to be more multi-racial in scope and many more young people involved in it than there are now.
For right now, though, it is time to ignore Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the president’s negotiators as much as possible, in the same way that one ignores mentally ill homeless people and panhandlers on America’s streets and public conveyances. It’s not an ultimate solution, but at least we don’t have to participate in the problem.
Daniel Wiseman is an independent political commentator, who focuses on national and international affairs. He spent nine years as a professional journalist in Wyoming before working in fund-raising, non-profit management, and is now working in New York City. Wiseman focuses his writing on how to bring the United States back to its Constitutional moorings. He writes exclusively for Canada Free Press.