The GOP convention dilemma


Word in Sacramento is that five Republicans may be close to going along with the governor's plan to put $12 billion in tax extensions (NOT tax increases, just extensions of existing taxes) before the voters. The problem: They don't want to vote for taxes and then have to show up at the state convention March 18 -- where there's a move afoot (I kid you not) to pass a resolution (thanks, CalBuzz) that calls on the party to censure any "traitorous Republicans-in-Name-Only, ask for their resignation from their positions within the California Republican Party, pledge to endorse and support efforts to recall them from office, and direct the California Republican Party staff, agents and officers to refuse to provide them with funding or assistance in future elections."

Why can't the Democrats do shit like this? Censure and abandon any Democrat-in-Name-Only who supports continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and refuses to increase taxes on the rich? (Oh, wait -- then we wouldn't have very many Democrats left. Which, I guess, is the GOP problem.)

At any rate, the Legislature is going into session this afternoon to try to push this package through -- and it could be one of those marathon sessions that lasts all night. Or maybe the Republicans will vote for the budget plan -- but only if they can wait until Monday.

By the way: Isn't it odd that two crazy talk-show hosts in L.A. can hold an entire state hostage? How come we don't have a couple of crazy talk show hosts in San Francisco who can make very Democrat in Sacramento pay attention?


i.e. Norquist's "no tax" pledge.

AFAIK, the Democrats have never had an equivalent (e.g. "No cuts, ever"?) pledge

The more interesting question is this: What are those two Republicans getting in return for taking such a big risk with their career and supporting a tax hike?

Posted by TonyW on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 10:14 am

There is no tax hike. Only continuations. When something remains the same, it doesn't go up. That's something we learned in Kindergarten.

What do they get in return? Probably primary challengers. They might lost their jobs. But they showed a ton of spine amidst the most cowardly clowns this nation has ever produced.

Posted by paul patterson on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 11:05 am

As Commish said, it's like the Obama tax cuts. Technically those were continuations too. If you consider those to be cuts, as everyone is calling them, then these are tax hikes. And certainly we'll be paying more in tax than if there's no special election.

I imagine those two Republicans have been promised some serious pork in return for taking such a personal risk. I highly doubt they're doing this because they've become miraculously converted to Brownian "tax and spend".

Posted by TonyW on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 12:19 pm

The GOP and the DEMS both have it all wrong. I don't see them doing anything they were swore to do. The federal govt. doesn't do it's job and that's why so many of them got fired last election. Unfortunately the golden state is full of morons mostly residing in Nor Cal. I live in San Diego. We are conservative for the most part. The problem being that hippies from Nor Cal are so fucking god damn stupid. Brown? Jesus christ! Come spend time down by the border. Although I know your illegal alien problem is just as bad. Thanks government for taxing the shit out of us and paying for the invasion. Don't bother to enforce our laws. Thanks for shitting all over us. Thanks for the racist mexican mayor of L.A. that is the founding father of MECHA the racist organization for la raza. Fuck this govt!!! And politcal correctness!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 11:22 am

Under that reasoning, the recent tax legislation that Obama just pushed through wasn't a tax cut, it was just a continuation. Just saying.

Posted by The Commish on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 11:27 am

This was supposed to be a response to Paul's post above. It wasn't a general response to Mr. Redmond's post. Oops.

Posted by The Commish on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 12:34 pm

referenced and acknowledged your post in my latest post, above.

From my POV, if I'll be paying more tax as a result of this initiative than I would been paying without it, then it's a tax hike.

Posted by TonyW on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 1:05 pm

Unexpired does mean "continued". If my driver's license is unexpired, it means it's the same driver's license, yes.

Posted by paul patterson on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

maintain an argument then you're already in deep trouble. I suspect you know that.

What part of "temporary tax" don't you get?

Posted by TonyW on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 2:34 pm