Yes, the Dems want to (and will) raise taxes, but taxes are not the problem: spending is and will always be the problem. So the Democrats pay for their spending benders via taxation (and use the tax code for all manner of nefarious social manipulations), but the Republicans refuse to pay for theirs at all, preferring to borrow the money from those yet unborn. So which is worse, a guy who steals money for his weekending drunken binges from his neighbors, or one who raids his children’s college fund to do so? Not a dime’s worth of difference as far as I’m concerned.

On the minimum wage hike, of course it’s stupid and counterproductive, but I note that it’s also one issue on which our GOP president has already found common ground with the GOP. And I also notice that there has not been much of a GOP move to eliminate it altogether. If raising it is bad, then having it is bad to only a little lesser extent.

Of course, the Democrats are protectionist, as all of their economics is harmful. But while the GOP makes lots of free trade noises (el Presidente calls it “a moral imperative”) they are more than willing to apply tarriffs and limitations to trade when it is convenient (like when they are running for election in steel-producing states: http://www.freetrade.org/node/324). If a nation wants to engage in free trade, all it has to do is drop its own barriers, something we have not done and refuse to do. If it’s a moral imperative, then we should not wait for other nations to go along. So where’s the difference?

On frivolous investigations, the author must have forgotten about this one: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/25/bush.energy/

When it comes to results as opposed to rhetoric, there is nary a bit of difference between the parties on the national level. They both believe that the government ought to be the prime mover in society, the engine behind the economy, and the lender of last resort. The results therefore are the same, even though each party takes a slightly different road to reach them.