The fiscal cliff is looming in Washington, and Republicans in the House are holding out against more spending, more taxes, and more waste. No matter what the results of the 2012 Election, the Republicans retained the House and are rightly poised to reassert their majority along with possibly retaking the Senate in 2014. Their standing majority remains the key indicator that the voters in this country do not want more taxes.
The stunning set-back for the GOP should not incline them toward compromising on their principles. Assessing the aftermath of the 2012 election, the Republicans failed to make the message for constitutional rule without signaling to voters that they would support country, not "Big Business" or "Big Government". Overcoming concerns about his moderate record in Massachusetts compared to his more conservative stances during the general election, Romney did very well in the South, despite his Mormon background. Still, millions of evangelical voters chose to sit out the election, which cost Romney the White House and a number of nationwide races in state and local races.
Now that the election is over, Republicans are facing serious questions about what to do next. Should they go easy on the social issues? A risky venture, backing off on core social conservatism would devalue value voters, who may choose not to vote at all in upcoming elections if neither party presents a platform of family integrity and social cohesion. Rebuking this call to soften the stance, Columnist Charles Krauthammer hammered the point home to like-minded readers that Republicans should not take on liberal ideas, since the country does not need two liberal parties. "Do conservatism better," he advised.
For example, Republicans should hold the line on spending, taxes, and raising the debt ceiling. Primary fights in the last election centered on the integrity of their representatives to fiscal conservatism. US Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana served in Congress for 36 years. He supported raising the debt ceiling without proper spending cuts; he voted for the STAR Treaty weakening our country's offensive against Russa. He lost a charged primary fight with Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who criticized the incumbent's lack of diligence on limiting government.
Sadly, instead of doing conservatism better, a number of Republicans in Congress are breaking ranks on holding down taxes, offering up spending increases or crossing party lines to support liberal appointments. Lindsey Graham, the senior US Senator of the Palmetto State, is one of them.
His prior record would indicate otherwise. While serving in the House of Representatives, Lindsey Graham established himself as a party man who would not sit by while the President of the United States lied under oath about an illicit affair with an intern. One of the lawyers who prosecuted Bill Clinton in the White House, Graham stood out for his courage to take on the White House and the Media Establishment.
Unfortunately, it now appears that Graham has immersed himself in the Beltway culture after two terms in the US Senate, replacing the stalwart Strom Thurmond in 2002, but refusing to defend the better interests of South Carolina and the country. He has supported liberal judicial nominees with a fleeting respect for the United States Constitution. A Huffington Post columnist even praised him as a "Purple Senator." "Lukewarm" may be more appropriate, as South Carolina voters may consider spitting him out.
Now Graham has informed voters that he is willing to renege on the Grover Norquist “Taxpayer Protection Pledge”. Claiming that he wants to protect this country from going over the fiscal cliff, the junior Senator has offered to forgo the pledge in order to ease negotiations. He made a promise to voters not to raise taxes without proper spending cuts. Just because negotiations look tense does not excuse his pretense for comity.
Senator Graham's dubious voting record exposes his growing "purple train" straying from of fiscal discipline and constitutional restraint. Graham’s “Nay Votes” include:
Middle Class Tax Cut Act
Limits Farm Subsidies to Farmers with Incomes Under $250,000
Repeals Sugar Subsidies
Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Udall Bill)
Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011
Granted, the Democratic majority offered some of these bills, and the "Christmas Tree" impulse in Senators inclines them toward layering pork and pet projects legislation, eviscerating the very good that the original sponsors intended. Nevertheless, attacking corporate subsidies to Big Business, ending handouts to Big Agriculture, and cutting spending from Big Government need to be Senator Graham's priority, not offering to raise tax rates that will hurt jobs and diminish private sector investment.
Senator Graham has crossed the aisle a number of times to make Congress work; but above all, his job is to get Congress working in the best interests of his state and the country.
To the voters of South Carolina, please contact Senator Graham and demand that he respect his pledge to honor his word, the taxpayer, and the Constitutional principles of limited government and state sovereignty. Tell him to attack "Big Handouts" before he allows Congress to gid its "Big Hand" into the taxpayer's wallet.
No comments:
Post a Comment