Will the Republicans Dump on the Poor or Stick with the Rich?

The unholy tax deal that Obama negotiated with the Republicans more or less told us where the Republican backers would like them to go -- minimal taxes for the rich and early deaths for the poor. But I wonder whether some of them may be wondering whether they can get away with that policy for two years without facing grand repudiation at the polls next time around and possibly into the indefinite future.

Damned few Americans are ultra rich. The vast majority are running scared as to whether they can hold their jobs and meet their money commitments. Millions of American kids are hungry. Private charities are struggling to make ends meet as much of the rest of us and so are not the escape hatch that they used to be.

At the very least Americans are now watching what is going on in their local state houses and in Washington. The former are mainly in bad shape and will be unable to pay for basic services -- medicine, education and security (police, fire departments, as well as playing a key role in national security).

Some of the newly elected Republicans are nitwits or nut cases. The rest may be running scared and wondering which way they should bounce. There were some Republican Senators who broke with their party and became national heroes with their dissident votes.

Lest anyone forgets, with power comes responsibility.

I would hate to be a Republican trying to decide whether to be a hero or a menace to more women and children.

I assume that we are in for interesting times -- and most readers know the ancient Chinese proverb that such language evokes.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent [blind copies]