Congress is all about compromise

I think some folks out there are not too clear on how the founding fathers intended our government to work.  There are three branches and 2 houses within the legislative branch for a reason.  The founders knew that pure democracy and majority rule was a death sentence for the liberties of the minority, so to protect individual freedoms, they planned for multiple counterbalancing forces.  They knew that it would be unlikely for all branches to be controlled by the same party, so that extreme ideological action would be harder to pass and be put into effect.

Within the system today, Democrats have control of the Senate and the White House, and Republicans have control of the House.  In order for Congress to  accomplish anything at all, the two parties HAVE to negotiate and compromise.  Democrats will have to give in on things they want, and Republicans will have to give in on some things they want.  The fact is: the legislation that will come as a result of these rounds of compromise will not be all that Republicans would hope.  Nor will it match the Democratic wish list.  Minority Senate Republicans are particularly important right now in tempering Democratic proposals enough so that they can be supported by their counterparts in the House.  

Sure people want THEIR desires put into practice, but accusing principled legislators of abandoning their principles or selling-out ignores the fact that given the mix of opinions and political ideology we see in America, it would be virtually impossible for strict ideologues to ever get their way all the time.  We sent our representatives to congress to represent our interests and to work together to solve the problems of this country.  We want to see people sharing the same values and priorities we hold to be involved in those negotiations, so that those with the opposite views do not have the final say.  We cannot, however, expect them to achieve 100% of what we would like.  In negotiation, both sides must give up some of what they want so that both sides get most of what they want.  

You STILL didn't build that

Obama is still holding steadfast to his demand that tax rates be raised on the "rich" (and again I point out that "rich" in his mind means families earning $250K).  Why?  Republicans have given in and are open to raising the same level of revenue through the closing of loopholes rather than straight up changes in rates.  Because he wants to punish success.  Obama wants to clearly label successful people as evil and not deserving of their wealth - they didn't build that! 

This is a fundamental difference in philosophy from the country our founding fathers envisioned.  It is the same view that enabled the administration to portray Mitt Romney as explicitly morally inferior, and implicitly guilty of some crime or wrongdoing, because he is a successful man. This has been accepted and embraced by the Democratic congress in stark contrast to how John Kerry was received as the party's nominee for President, and his net worth was significantly higher.  Of course John Kerry wasn't guilty of earning his money, he married into it.  Maybe that's a forgivable sin. 

And the liberal guilt for making money must not be assuaged by voluntary charitable works, as the pitiable philanthropic efforts of the Obamas and Bidens can attest, they prefer to take wealth by force.