If it's going to burn, make them set it on fire

As bad as the prospect of four more years of President Obama might seem to conservatives, it is rapidly becoming clear that we face something that actually might make it worse: Republican congressional leadership. Specifically, Speaker of the House John Boehner seems to be acting like a guy who has already lost the fight and is trying to find a way to quit without looking like he's quit. Busily negotiating with himself -- Barry's position is that this can all be solved quickly if Republicans will just agree to be his prison bitch and do whatever the fuck he wants -- Boehner has already ceded the high ground on several fronts.

First, the GOP has given up on the meaning of words and accepted the Democrat position. Tax increases are no longer tax increases -- they are "revenue." Democrats know that Americans aren't fond of tax increases, so they don't talk about them. They talk about "revenues" and how much tax cuts "cost" the government and how the "rich" aren't paying their fair share. Boehner and the GOP are not fighting back even on these simple semantics. "Revenue" normally is the money that comes into the government (in this context) that can be increased in a number of ways. The best, of course, is economic growth that results in higher tax collections without changing the tax rates. Barry's position -- and by Barry, I mean President Obama, who was known as Barry when he was a junior at a privileged, expensive private school in Hawaii and I was the son of a very low-paid Marine major and a senior at a public school across town -- is that revenue only results from tax rate increases. He is an economic illiterate, and Boehner seems unable to explain that. Revenues actually grow when tax rates are reduced. It happens every time, whether liberals like it or not. But Boehner can't seem to explain that.

More semantics? Boehner could explain that tax cuts don't "cost" the government anything -- it's not the government's money, for God's sake. If your neighbor doesn't give you money, it doesn't "cost" you anything. It was never your money. And as for the "rich" not paying their share? Boehner can't seem to point out that the top 1 percent already pay 29 percent of the federal income taxes in this country, that they pay a higher rate than most middle class people and that most of those "rich" people are small business owners who list their business income on their personal tax return because the top individual rate is much lower than the corporate tax rate, which is the highest in the Western world. Boehner also can't bring himself to mention that making $200,000 a year ($250,000 for joint filers) is not rich -- that's a marginally successful business or, at least in the area I live in, a husband and wife who both have good federal government jobs. I'll bet they don't think they're rich. That's because they aren't.

The GOP also has ceded the policy argument, refusing to punch home the fact that Barry's desires are bad economic policy. Boehner seems to be resigned to believing that taxes on the upper income folks will be going up. The GOP seems unable to explain that this is, economically, bad for all of us. Tax increases always depress economic activity -- if you want less of something, tax it. That applies to income, too. Further, taking money from the upper income echelons suppresses job creation. Poor people don't hire people. Rich people do. Less money in the hands of the "rich"? Fewer jobs created through investment. Don't like it? Fuck off. Facts are facts. Taking more from people who make more will not make anyone else better off. If Barry took all of my money, how would that help you? If he took all of Bill Gates' money, how would that help you? It won't. It doesn't matter that Bill Gates has lots of money and I don't. Your pay won't go up. And if you don't have a job, you can be sure of one thing -- Bill Gates and I will damn sure not be hiring you. Barry has no economic argument for what he wants to do -- if he did, he'd be happy to take the increased "revenues" that Boehner is offering through tax reform. It's not about the money. The amount he wants to take from the "rich" won't make a dent in the deficit, much less the debt. It's about, as Barry once moronically said, about "fair." Because fair is so much more important than economically sound policies that will help the country grow.

If Boehner and the GOP had a pair among them, they'd be fighting tooth and nail on all of these issues. It's not "just" semantics -- words matter. And letting the other guys define policies as "good sense" when they are nothing of the kind is foolhardy. Finally, you have to offer an alternative that does not involve playing the other guy's game. Once you start playing the other guy's game, you lose, because he knows how to play it better than you do.

So here's what the House Republicans should do. First, contest at all opportunities the points outlined above, as well as any I haven't thought of -- or, as I would say were I more literate, of which I have not thought. Second, force feed the Democrats their own recipe -- go totally fucking Titus Andronicus on them. Put Barry's proposal up for a vote in the House. All $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, all the billions in new spending and all the millions or thousands in spending cuts (there aren't any actual spending cuts in Barry's proposal, but I digress). Put the whole steaming pile up for a vote in one stinky package, and see if the Democrats will vote for it. If they do, let 'em pass it and just vote present. Enough House Democrats are in safe districts that they can probably get a majority of their caucus to vote for it, but they sure won't get  all of them. So that already would look bad. Then things get worse for them.

Because next we send that bag of turds to the Senate.  Put it on the floor, bring it to a vote. My bet is Harry Reid won't allow a vote. If he does, I don't think he can get to 51 votes -- I'm not sure he can get a majority of his caucus. But if he can, vote present. Let them pass it. The proposal Barry put forward is not serious and he never expected to be signing it into law. So make him decide. He can't veto it if it passes with only his own party's support, and he can't blame Republicans if they let it pass. Make him motherfucking eat it.

People argue with me and say, we should stand on conservative principles and fight this tooth and nail until the bitter end. That ignores reality. Should we try to fight on the semantics and policy problems with what Barry wants? Hell, yeah. But we're going to lose the vote. Democrats get everything they want if they do nothing: taxes go up on everyone, the military gets the shit cut out of it, some domestic programs take a minor hit and entitlements get left alone completely. What's not to love? Of course they're willing to go over the fiscal cliff. Republicans, on the other hand, know that going over the cliff will be bad for the economy. But they can't stop it. So instead of going over the cliff and giving Democrats what they want, we should give them what they claim they want and pass Barry's supposed solution to going over the fiscal cliff.

Will it be bad for the economy? Yes. Will it send this country into a tailspin? Yeah, probably, and we'll probably take the rest of the world with us. Will it ensure Democrats are a national minority for a generation? I sure fucking hope so. Does that make me a bad man for wanting this? No. What the Democrats want will be bad for the economy and probably take the rest of the world with us. But they'll blame Republicans. I say hey, give them what they say they want. Then there is no one to blame but the party that actually is to blame. They're going to get what they want, and it's going to be bad for the economy. At least make them own it. This isn't exactly Let It Burn, but to the extent it is, it hands the matches to the Democrats.