Obstructionist. Intransigent. Obstinate.
These words among others, used in reference to the Tea Party and
fiscally conservative members of Congress, bark past teeth bared in
animosity. Critics of the Tea Party lament its uncompromising stance
against proposals like the recent fiscal cliff deal. Content to tolerate
mere rhetoric, these critics draw the line at standing on principle
when it actually counts.
Instead of being obstructionist, why can't Republicans be reasonable and cooperate with Barack Obama, asks
Walter Hudson, as he mimics liberals' talking points.
Perhaps it has not occurred to critics like Lazzaro that our real
fiscal cliff overlooks the economic consequences Foreman describes. In
that context, what does 
it matter if stock and bond markets plunge in
the immediate future? Worrying about tomorrow’s markets while ignoring
the consequences of unchecked spending is like refusing to set a broken
bone on account of immediate pain, hardly reasonable or prudent.
Foreman’s most critical observation is that higher taxes cannot solve the debt crisis:
According to the White House Office of Management and
Budget, if you taxed income over $250,000 you’d raise $56 billion next
year and only solve 5 percent of a $1 trillion dollar deficit.
The percentage reassures no more when adjusted for the $400,000 mark
agreed to by Congress. So when Tea Party-backed Republicans in the House
stand firm against a non-solution like the one just passed, they prove
themselves to be the adults in the room.
