Image 01 Image 03

The Christmas Strategy should satisfy the LIBs and LIBINOs

The Christmas Strategy should satisfy the LIBs and LIBINOs

From DrewM at Ace of Spades HQ, What Does Let It Burn Mean? (h/t Hot Air), :

As one of the first, if not the first, people to say Let It Burn, I’m clearly thrilled with the growing chorus of voices joining the movement.

Like any movement, there are true believers and Let It Burn In Name Only (LIBINO) types. Since it’s never too early to purge a movement of its impure elements, let us lay out some key principles of Let It Burn….

“Let It Burn” is about inaction. There’s no point in trying do anything that avoids going over the fiscal cliff/sequestration. Remember, the deal that got us to this point was agreed to by House Republicans, Senate Democrats and signed by Obama. That’s as bi-partisan as it gets. I’ve heard from squishy low information voters, Obama and the media that “bi-partisan problem solving” is the Holy Grail of politics. Well, here it is.

Will it lead to massive disruptions? Yes. That’s the point. The current system is rigged against conservative. We should play no part in its perpetuation. If you can’t win the game, concede and start new one. That’s the heart of Let It Burn.

This isn’t some petty “I lost so I’m taking my ball and going home” tirade. This is what people want. It’s simply not sustainable. If we can’t stop them, we don’t have to continue to enable them either….

Let It Burn isn’t an option, it’s an eventuality. The questions are will we be complicit in it any longer and do we want to delay it? I say no. Let the liberals own it. Very few things are made better by delaying the day of inevitable reckoning.

The sooner it burns, the sooner we can try and rebuild.

Let me suggest a short term strategy which will put Let It Burn in the proper context, which is that the Burn is the result of a failure of Democrats to negotiate on spending.

It’s called the Christmas Strategy, you may have heard of it:

I say call his bluff. If a deal which tackles deficits from both revenue and spending can be reached this month, great.

If not, pass a 90 day extension of current tax rates and whatever else is needed to postpone the “cliff,” and go home for Christmas to give time for a Grand Bargain which puts Democratic sacred cows on the table.

Let Harry Reid refuse to bring it to a vote, and Obama refuse to sign it. Their inaction will be the reason for taxes rising for everyone.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


*sigh* I’ve seen several rounds of this, and I really think it is an abdication of the major responsibility of a minority party, namely to shape the legislation issued by the majority party. This kind of inaction is what the Democrats rightly, and with good effect, call “the Party of NO” and it does terrible harm to both the reputation of the Republican party AND TO OUR REPUBLIC.

The role of the minority party is not to take its (in this case rather substantial pile of) marbles and go home, but to propose changes and deflections to bad policy.

I know that there are those who think that letting the Dems express the full spread of the worst of their ideas will somehow lead to a return to power by the party, but that’s not what the voters expect. Those who want to let it burn should resign from office, and let somebody who cares about this country take their place.

    Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | December 11, 2012 at 10:31 am

    I think you misapprehend the problem here.

    You post assumes a state of affairs we no longer enjoy.

    “Let It Burn” simply recognizes that we a locked in a current carrying us toward a waterfall. We COULD row against that current, but the other side in the boat is rowing FOR the waterfall, and the current it is too strong and we are too close to the edge unless BOTH sides of the boat made Herculean efforts.

    We ARE going over. Letting it go over is not irresponsible. It is a recognition of where we are. The hope is the drop will not be catastrophic, but WILL be instructive. “Doing this gets you a trip over a waterfall, and hurts.”

    NeoConScum in reply to Valerie. | December 11, 2012 at 10:35 am

    Right, Val. HUG the slime and get none on’ya. Got it.

    Now, in bigger news for the day, the re-elected Boy King is off on that perpetual campaign trail to pound his limp wristed highchair and diss those dallying Republicans. Ummm,
    question Your Infantile Majesty: WTF happened, oh awesome one, to sitting your pompous a** in the Oval, the Cab Room or wherever IN THE WHITE HOUSE and WORK????????

    Gawd, what a useless, feckless Punk.

    lightning in reply to Valerie. | December 11, 2012 at 10:37 am

    What would you have them do then? You mention “changes and deflections to bad policy”. Realistically, what does that mean? What would the consequences be? The most likely deal (if there is one) is that taxes rise on those making 250K excluding small business, raising the age of SS, means testing of Medicare, and closing some tax loopholes. Will this deal do anything? No. It at most kicks the can down the road. Republicans are faced with a situation they should now be familiar with. Raise tax rates now and we will gladly pay you back with spending cuts next Tuesday. Like the cartoon, next Tuesday has never come regardless of who is President or what party holds the majority in Congress. I say we go over the cliff because it is they only way to get actual spending cuts. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. If you believe my last statement, I think they only solution is to go over the cliff. Recession is inevitable and Republicans will be blamed regardless. At least with my way (and the author’s) we get spending cuts.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Valerie. | December 11, 2012 at 11:02 am


    The general principle you espouse is right. But I don’t think it applies here. As DrewM notes, the hodge podge of legislation coined the “fiscal cliff” is a whole bunch of stuff that passed the 112th Congress with the most bi-partisan support of any major legislation enacted during the Obama regime. Since 2012 was largely a status quo election with no change of control of the presidency or either house of Congress, then why is it irresponsible to hold those legislators feet to the fire for the enactment of the overwhelmingly bi-partisan legislation?

    “Let It Burn” is an unfortunate turn of phrase. I’d prefer “Make Them Own It”.

    Besides, it is a Democrat wet dream come true. They get massive tax increases and massive cuts in the military. That’s the entire Democrat agenda of the past half a century. Republican rank and file voters ought to be asking (but are not) why Republicans voted for the hodge podge of “fiscal cliff” legislation initially. I think the answer is that either they are stupid or they had way, way, way too much confidence that they’d be dealing with a President Romney in 2013 to reverse it. Whether it was stupidity or misguided overconfidence bordering on hubris is truly an open question.

      Well, they believed that Obama was an honest negotiator, and that this was a hostage he wasn’t willing to shoot.

      Unfortunately, they were wrong on both counts.

      At this point, I don’t really like the prospect of going over the cliff, but I don’t see any better options. The administration simply is not negotiating in good faith, and has proven completely unwilling to entertain any spending cuts beyond the military ones. There is no point in agreeing to tax hikes without any spending cuts at all.

    Sanddog in reply to Valerie. | December 11, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Valerie, THIS voter expects the republicans to govern like republicans, not as democrats. Accepting tax increases with no concrete, immediate and substantial cuts in spending is nothing more than ceding to the progressive agenda and enabling the Obama administration’s reckless, irresponsible and dangerous policies.

    I believe you are operating on a false assumption, this isn’t 2000 or 2004. Democrats have control of the Senate and POTUS and neither are being operated in a fashion one would call historically ethical or legal. There is nothing ethical about a President who repeatedly lies much less a Senate, specifically a Senate Majority Leader who breaks the law by NOT allowing a budget to be passed. The only reason why Harry Reid is NOT in jail is because there was NO punishment attached to the Law that prohibited Congress from NOT passing a budget.

    Under these circumstances the American voter had a duty to turn out the unethical and the scofflaw, they didn’t. They chose an unsustainable path. Elections have consequences and so the majority who voted now must face the consequences of their choices. To bail out the majority of voters by over riding their vote for Obama and Democrats is wrong, that would immoral. It is immoral for the minority to dictate to the majority. There are ethical, legal and moral stands, the moral stand is the last stand before THE END. When the END comes one should never cast their lot with the damned even if to go with them delays the inevitable.

    In a Republic you deserve the government you get, the majority voted for them.

    Every GOP member needs to vote PRESENT and let the bill pass so the Dems can take full credit for doing exactly what they campaigned upon and those the majority of voters chose.

    Phillep Harding in reply to Valerie. | December 11, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Val, you are talking as if the Democrats are going to listen and cooperate. They have not and will not. “You lost. I won.” Democrats figure on dictating, without input from the Republicans. I say “Stop giving them openings to claim the Republicans are also to blame.”

    Dear Valerie. Welcome to the party. You are not only incredibly stupid and gullible, you are also about eight months too late. But your spelling and syntax seems OK.

    wbkrebs in reply to Valerie. | December 11, 2012 at 4:49 pm


    For the purposes of argument, let’s accept your premise.

    Where, I ask, is President Obama’s legislation that Republicans are supposed to improve?

I 1000% agree. “Let it Burn”. This is not saying “start the fire”, that train has long left the track, this is about letting that fire spread as its going to eventually anyways, as fast as possible so the rebuilding can begin somepoint down the road.

I have 2 family members, both with small businesses (both less than 20 people), one is certain to close his shop by Jan, the other one is looking to sell it, if not then close shop.
They cannot handle all the new ObamaCare taxes, and their revenues are plummeting and they are struggling to even keep the employees they already have on the books, so according to the dims and Barry, they need to work harder so that wealth they create can be spread around by Barry and the marxist dims?!?

No thanks to that.

“Let it Burn” and go John Gault.


Now, I don’t care who you are…that thar is funny…!!!

Let It Burn, but make a record, too. They can be done collaterally. It has to be clear that there were two sides, and one was wrong and one was right.

“As Cashin so wisely points out: “Somewhat lost in the posturing is the fact that the Fiscal Cliff was put in place to force Washington to address the exploding government debt problem. That problem is greatly exacerbated by the rapidly changing demographics in this country. If you fast forward 20 years until all the boomers are retired government debt (taking into account unfunded liabilities) soars to $202 trillion. Perhaps worth remembering that “The real problem is that regardless of the resolution it will not solve anything. We have passed the point of no return. We cannot mathematically solve this debt problem. We can only slow its progression.””

Part of the problem here is that we have self-seeking blowhards like Warren Buffet saying that he wants to be taxed more, which lends legitimacy to Obama’s initiatives for low-information voters.

Buffet says this because his income is insignificant compared to his wealth. He can afford to say it.

I say that the GOP should put forward legislation proposing a 5% wealth tax on those with an estimated net worth of greater than $10 million. The boomers and those in that group have greatly benefited from the kick-the-can strategy employed by the politicians their generation elected. This puts the onus for payment back on those who can afford it, as today’s parlance so blithely puts it. It will also likely shut up the ones martyring themselves for taxation, but who know damn well that it will never touch them.

Further, it endears the Republicans to people while forcing the Democrats to then protect their own rich instead of trotting them out for showcasing PR.

Time to be bold. Let’s have the really hard discussions with those who posture for greater taxation. If only to see John F’ing Kerry sputter about the unfairness of this.

    Ragspierre in reply to beatcanvas. | December 11, 2012 at 11:20 am

    I think as a first principle no Conservative should suggest a new tax.


      So, principally speaking then, you are totally okay that the money robbed from the treasury by politicians elected by boomers that threaten to bankrupt our children and grandchildren because they will have to pay that back – because they’re the ones being taxed without representation here.

      Scenario: 30 people put money into a ponzi scheme and recruit others, while taking money out. The ones at the end of the line are left with the debt, not realizing that they would be left holding the bag. For you, it’s not responsible or acceptable to make those who erected the scheme be accountable for it – because well, that’s just not the conservative way. Do I have that right?

      You have kids? Grandkids?

        Ragspierre in reply to beatcanvas. | December 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        I have both children and grandchildren.

        I also have enough sense to know that ANOTHER form of taxation within the monstrosity of our current code will be greedily embraced and any money it generates spent.

        And do you really want to pick a fight, or are you just having a bad morning?

          A fight? I thought this became a discussion when you replied to me.

          See, for me, a first principle is no taxation without representation. Your kids and grandkids didn’t vote for the debt they’re about to inherit.

          Another first principle I kinda like: you bought it, you pay for it.

          So explain to me again why your kids and grandkids should be stuck with the debt that your generation’s politicians are giving to them? Because your generation’s politicians didn’t cut the debt either. Why should that become the problem of your children and grandchildren? And if you don’t want them to inherit it, and I suspect you don’t, then how do you intend to resolve it? You mind if we slash your benefits?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm

          You will, I hope, note that I did not insult your intelligence, or put words in your mouth. You did both to me.

          In answer to your last question, I will never take any “benefit”. I am a veteran, and have some medical care due me via the VA. I will never take Soch. Insecurity, nor will I take any benefit from either of the Meds. I cannot see a time when I will not work, but if I become disabled and cannot work, I will be a burden on my children, as nature intended!

          I have no brief against paying down debt. I also am not stupid enough to think that…under present conditions…that would remotely happen if revenues were enhanced with some new tax, added to the current immoral system.

          Now, a complete revision of our tax system is something I advocate here frequently, with a concurrent radical reform of what the Federal government spends money on.

          Fair enough. I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

        No, that’s not what was said or implied. I loathe the practice of putting words in people’s mouths.

        Every Conservative knows it is immoral to make other people pay for the stuff you want, we call it stealing. I agree with you that it is immoral to force one generation to pay for the next especially when they didn’t have a say in the policy. Taxation as used by politicians is merely stealing using a different name. Unless you support stealing? Any politician that promotes wealth redistribution is a thief. Do you support thieves?

        The real issue here is one of accountability and morality in politicians who purport to be public servants when in fact they are self serving thieves. Since you raised the issue of boomers, i.e. people who are or will be drawing Social Security and Medicare, you are blaming the wrong people. Everyone who pays into these two entitlements did so for their entire lives (paying forward) and thus expect to get back what they put in with interest accrued. The politicians STOLE that money and then spent ALL OF IT on vote buying scams, there is no SS trust fund, it’s a fiction, a lie. Just worthless slips of paper sitting in boxes saying IOU on them. IF SS and Medicare would have been properly managed like a pension fund and insurance company there would be no issue at all. Let me restate that for effect, had the money they we paid into the fund been invested responsibly like EVERY other pension fund and insurance company is required to do then there would no trillion dollar unfunded liabilities. NONE. Instead, politicians made the situation worse on top of stealing all the money they then proceeded to over promise benefits by making people eligible for stuff they shouldn’t have.

        The gross mismanagement by politicians over the decades has brought us to this point. You can not be sustainable and over promise at the same time.

        So let’s get to the real issue here, one of incompetence by politicians due to their rigid ideologies. Liberals believe in wealth redistribution, they have stated it over and over so their is no dispute as to premise of their policies. Do you support their policies?

        IF you do not support their policy of organized theft via taxation, then as a principle you can not support a tax increase when those running the government do so for their own self interest of staying in power by larding out tax revenue to favorites.

          Being angry at the past actions of politicians doesn’t solve the current math problems.

          We disagree on something fundamental here. The politicians are the symptom of voter apathy. We put them there. Our fault. We didn’t watch them or hold them accountable or force transparency. Also our fault. We didn’t watch over them because it didn’t really matter to us. We didn’t make the time for it.

          So when our kids and grandkids inherit this debt, we are to blame, in my opinion. Given what you say, politicians are horrible and greedy people. Great. Run them out on a rail. The problem is that the math problem remains, and the voter apathy remains, and my question is: how do you solve that?

          There are only two ways out of a math problem like this: increasing revenue or slashing spending.

          Now, history teaches us that raising taxes never sustains increased revenue because it deters income. But given that the Democrats, politicians voted into office by this crop of voters, won’t cut taxes to raise revenue, and given that Republicans, also elected into office by this crop of voters, won’t fight to cut taxes to raise revenue, the only option is to slash spending. But the boomers don’t want their benefits cut.

          At the risk of putting words into the mouths of the boomers collectively, that says only that they really don’t give a rip about their kids. Kick the can so we can retire in style!

          Ragspierre in reply to dscott. | December 11, 2012 at 1:29 pm

          “So when our kids and grandkids inherit this debt, we are to blame, in my opinion.”

          That, generally, is an irreproachable statement.

          However, I have seen polling showing that older Americans ARE willing to see their benefits cut in order to curb the climb of entitlement spending. Interestingly, younger demographic groups most firmly resist it. I speculate this is due to their training as good Collectivists…which includes an inability to understand simple cause >>> effect relationships.

          I think this may go far to explain many things…


          I’ve given this a lot of thought during our discussion. You’ve swayed me. While I am mad at the Buffets of the world and would love to hurt them back, giving politicians another tool in their toolbox (wealth tax, in this case) will only come back to hurt us worse later. Giving power to my enemy to hurt another enemy can only mean self-imposed trouble later.

          My bad, and well-argued. It does me no good to answer a fool like Buffet with foolishness.

          Well beat what we have here is an untenable situation. We can not as you acknowledged go with the taxation to solve the problem, nor can we simply say no, screw you and walk away without dumping the whole load on the next generation. Our problem is those who occupy the WH and the Senate aren’t going to allow any solution that is long term in nature. This idea was tried back with Reagan and Tip O’Neill. The money was promptly stolen.

          There will be a tax increase and there will be no appropriate reduction to make the problem go away. The Democrats will never ever allow a situation where they can’t raid future surplus SS revenue, they have proven that time and again.

          Now we are in what’s called a Mexican Standoff.

          You are under the false assumption that somehow Democrats are going to behave contrary to their self interest. Their self interest is power via buying votes. You can’t negotiate with someone who believes as an article of faith that lying via over promising is the path to power and wealth. You can’t use an election as leverage when the majority of voters believe every lie told to them and base their lifestyle on receiving tax revenue in the form of government handouts. So there we have it. You can be responsible all you want but your responsibility WILL NEVER EVER remove the load upon our children or grandchildren and ANY attempt on your part only delays the inevitable melt down. So what if you delay it 2 years? Hoping for a regime change in the 2014 election cycle is engaging in magical thinking when the electorate is not allowed to experience the immediate consequences of their choices.

          Your problem beat is that you haven’t looked to the end here, there is no solution as long as the majority of voters believes they can get something for nothing at another’s expense. The Dems wouldn’t be taking this position IF they didn’t believe they could hoodwink enough voters. There is only one way to break the paradigm and that’s to change the rules of the game. This is just like the double dip Depression of FDR when he jacked up taxes in the late 1930s. The country had to be broken before the majority of voters recognized they would never obtain prosperity in a bread line.

          Sorry beat, there is no avoiding the melt down and people are going to get hurt. There is no amount of tweaking that is going to undo the mess that has been created, we are past the point of no return.

          Ragspierre in reply to dscott. | December 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm

          You are a mensch!

I am fed up with paying for the rope liberals intend to hang the country with.

I’ve said it many times starting on Nov 7.
put on the record WHY the policies will hurt and then vote present.
let it be known you cannot stop the policies but you don’t agree with them and then let the people see how badly it hurts.
stop with the slow band aid pulls.
they wanted it, they own it.

[…] of a failure of Democrats to negotiate on spending,” William A. Jacobson writes today at Legal Insurrection: It’s called the Christmas Strategy, you may have heard of it: googletag.cmd.push(function() […]

Jim Geraghty provides a good discussion of the politics of the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. He asks two pertinent, and related, sets of questions. First: Shouldn’t House Republicans be in session, and holding votes, one after the other, on all of [the various plausible] options?

Why, YES! Yes, they should be creating a record.