What is the real reason Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns?

[Jhhnn]

Two comments regarding his taxes I've seen in last couple days:

1) grey market offshore tax havens: Romney might have waded into some murky, questionably legal offshore tax havens in past

2) tax loss selling: sounds like he may not have paid any taxes in 2009. My guess is that he did judicious tax loss selling when everything in market was falling in unison in fall / winter of 2008, regarding of quality of underlying company or valuation of stock, and he could improve the quality of his holdings and harvest tax losses to offset gains in process. Same thing that companies that didn't pay taxes for a few years might have done. As long as he played by same rules as us regular individual investors, I don't have problem with that per se, though politically, it may not play well when some voters who don't understand tax loss selling and just hear talking point that he paid no taxes just lock in to that. If this is all he is hiding in tax returns, would have been smart to release taxes a year or two ago.


Romney's actual campaign apparatus is obviously totally inept and slow to react. Obama's campaign was quite savvy in this attack, but Romney's campaign has really opened their own jugular...

1) Likely.

2) So what? If losses completely offset gains in any year, say 2009, then Romney could easily say that he didn't pay any taxes because he didn't make any money, and actually gain sympathy in the process. If, OTOH, he managed to put $20m in his pockets while using paper losses to reduce his tax burden to near nothing, that won't sit well at all.

For a guy like Romney, taking money out of his left pocket & putting it into his right while claiming a loss isn't terribly difficult, given the obscurity that complex offshore finance provides.

If it's legal, highly likely, then he only proved that he's really good at being a tax weasel.

Policy-wise, he hasn't attacked any of his own advantages in that respect, offers no shared sacrifice by himself or his peers at all. Rather, he offers to increase them even as the rest of us are called upon to sacrifice, one way or another. His endorsement of the Ryan budget & his own proposals prove that beyond any doubt.

 

[werepossum]

yeah, but the bolded part is absolutely true. when long-tenured, well respected republicans are ousted by young, inexperienced dudes that believe the world is 5k years old and their president is a muslim extremist, and their campaigns are soley funded by a single multimillionaire that has absolutely no stake in that district's election, let alone any knowledge of the incumbent candidate (only that the incumbent has a history of "working across party lines"), then you have no other conclusion to draw than a major political party is being hijacked by niche extremist nutters.

I read that whole horrendous article - did you? It does not say what you seem to think it says. It's a whiny hit piece on Art Pope (he was often given personal fouls in high school basketball? The horrors!) and his funding of issue and anti-Democrat campaigns of ONLY North Carolina STATE legislative races, featuring a slew of Democrats and the obligatory couple of Republicans complaining about Art Pope. The only national race even mentioned is a fear that Obama might not carry North Carolina in 2012.

At least according to Open Secrets, fourteen of the top twenty heavy hitters in political donations from 1989 through 2012 donate at least 70% to Democrats, and seven of those donate 90% or better to Democrats. You'd have to go to #62 on the list, Club for Growth, to find an entity donating 90%+ to Republicans, and even then it's a mere 91% - a lesser percentage than seven of the top twenty donate to Democrats - and only one of the top twenty, the National Auto Dealers Association at 67% to 32%, even slightly favors Republicans.

In independent expenditures too, Republicans are completely outclassed. Of organizations spending more than $10 million between 1989 and 2012, only two, the NRA and the Club for Growth, are predominantly Republican or conservative, and only one, the National Organization of Realtors, even straddles the fence. There are five - American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, SEIU, Emily's list, the NEA and the UAW - that are almost exclusively Democrat, as well as three (AMA, National Association of Realtors) that straddle the fence.

Bottom line, you're going to have an uphill battle convincing any thinking being that Republican millionaires are buying elections. At most, they are desperately clawing toward a parity seen in the distant future. With a family fortune of $140 million, Art Pope is barely qualified to be George Soros' chauffeur. As to donations as well as independent expenditures, the king is the Service Employees International Union at a whopping $72+ million total and $65 million in independent expenditures - the same unabashed Marxist organization whose president, Andrew Stern, was consistently one of Obama's most frequent White House visitors until he retired to enjoy the billions he earned representing service employees in their struggle against the, um, rich . . .

At $140 million versus $11 billion, Art Pope isn't even qualified to be Andy Stern's chauffeur's driver.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indexp.php

 

[werepossum]

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes that the parties themselves are equally partisan, and that both caucuses put forth similar legislation. The numbers are effectively meaningless, because they mix together routine bills with "strategic" votes that will be supported or opposed for political reasons.

Funny how meaningful those numbers were until a little context creeps in, huh?

Those numbers assume nothing; they are the actual vote totals. As such, they represent only a measure of how hard it is to break a particular Senator, or a Party of Senators, away from the official Party line. That USED to be the definition of partisanship, how tightly one clings to the official party line, but apparently that definition too has now been rewritten.

But either way, when you're reduced to arguing that the Democrats are less partisan for clinging to the party line because their party is less partisan than are the Republicans, you've lost the debate pretty thoroughly.

Coincidentally, I suspect the definition of winning and losing a debate are due for a rewrite.

 

[Jhhnn]

I read that whole horrendous article - did you? It does not say what you seem to think it says. It's a whiny hit piece on Art Pope (he was often given personal fouls in high school basketball? The horrors!) and his funding of issue and anti-Democrat campaigns of ONLY North Carolina STATE legislative races, featuring a slew of Democrats and the obligatory couple of Republicans complaining about Art Pope. The only national race even mentioned is a fear that Obama might not carry North Carolina in 2012.

At least according to Open Secrets, fourteen of the top twenty heavy hitters in political donations from 1989 through 2012 donate at least 70% to Democrats, and seven of those donate 90% or better to Democrats. You'd have to go to #62 on the list, Club for Growth, to find an entity donating 90%+ to Republicans, and even then it's a mere 91% - a lesser percentage than seven of the top twenty donate to Democrats - and only one of the top twenty, the National Auto Dealers Association at 67% to 32%, even slightly favors Republicans.

In independent expenditures too, Republicans are completely outclassed. Of organizations spending more than $10 million between 1989 and 2012, only two, the NRA and the Club for Growth, are predominantly Republican or conservative, and only one, the National Organization of Realtors, even straddles the fence. There are five - American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, SEIU, Emily's list, the NEA and the UAW - that are almost exclusively Democrat, as well as three (AMA, National Association of Realtors) that straddle the fence.

Bottom line, you're going to have an uphill battle convincing any thinking being that Republican millionaires are buying elections. At most, they are desperately clawing toward a parity seen in the distant future. With a family fortune of $140 million, Art Pope is barely qualified to be George Soros' chauffeur. As to donations as well as independent expenditures, the king is the Service Employees International Union at a whopping $72+ million total and $65 million in independent expenditures - the same unabashed Marxist organization whose president, Andrew Stern, was consistently one of Obama's most frequent White House visitors until he retired to enjoy the billions he earned representing service employees in their struggle against the, um, rich . . .

At $140 million versus $11 billion, Art Pope isn't even qualified to be Andy Stern's chauffeur's driver.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indexp.php

Deliberate deception by omission & misattribution.

You forgot Outside spending, huh? Why was that?

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/06/outside-spending---the-big-picture.html

Andy Stern sold out? Damned shame. OTOH, True Conservatives should be congratulating him for having gone over to the dark side, shouldn't they? He's not worth anywhere near $11B, as you allege. The largest shareholder in his new venture, Perelman, is-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/andy-sterns-new-gig-biowa_n_753207.html

Attempted smear fail.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But either way, when you're reduced to arguing that the Democrats are less partisan for clinging to the party line because their party is less partisan than are the Republicans, you've lost the debate pretty thoroughly.

I didn't say that, though. I said that there isn't enough information to draw a valid conclusion about partisanship solely based on the numbers you provided.

Partisanship matters relative to what the average American believes, not relative to what party leadership believes. If you have a party near the center and a party way off to one fringe, then the former party having more adherence to the party line doesn't necessarily mean that that party is actually more out of the mainstream.

The crux of your argument is nonsense -- that because the Democrats can't get Republican support for anything, that this means there's a problem with the Democrats. It's simply illogical, the sort of stupid attempt at an argument that would lead to shaking heads in a high school debate class. I can't even believe I have to explain how idiotic it is to blame group A for not getting support from group B when group B has loudly, publicly and repeatedly said that they will do everything in their power to obstruct anything group A wants to do.

Here's the real problem: the Democrats are more liberal than they've been in ages, but the Republicans are FAR more conservative than they've been ever. Bottom line: the GOP has become an extremist party.

Source

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't say that, though. I said that there isn't enough information to draw a valid conclusion about partisanship solely based on the numbers you provided.

Partisanship matters relative to what the average American believes, not relative to what party leadership believes. If you have a party near the center and a party way off to one fringe, then the former party having more adherence to the party line doesn't necessarily mean that that party is actually more out of the mainstream.

The crux of your argument is nonsense -- that because the Democrats can't get Republican support for anything, that this means there's a problem with the Democrats. It's simply illogical, the sort of stupid attempt at an argument that would lead to shaking heads in a high school debate class. I can't even believe I have to explain how idiotic it is to blame group A for not getting support from group B when group B has loudly, publicly and repeatedly said that they will do everything in their power to obstruct anything group A wants to do.

Here's the real problem: the Democrats are more liberal than they've been in ages, but the Republicans are FAR more conservative than they've been ever. Bottom line: the GOP has become an extremist party.

Source

Reason & facts have no effect on them- they're *Believers*, an integral part of the radicalization of Repubs that you mention. Their goals & methods are more like a religious crusade than anything else, one in which they can do no wrong when they have God on their side.

 

[fskimospy]

lol Charles. Good luck with that chart, I've tried to push DW-NOMINATE on them before. It didn't turn out well.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2224461

 

[werepossum]

I didn't say that, though. I said that there isn't enough information to draw a valid conclusion about partisanship solely based on the numbers you provided.

Partisanship matters relative to what the average American believes, not relative to what party leadership believes. If you have a party near the center and a party way off to one fringe, then the former party having more adherence to the party line doesn't necessarily mean that that party is actually more out of the mainstream.

The crux of your argument is nonsense -- that because the Democrats can't get Republican support for anything, that this means there's a problem with the Democrats. It's simply illogical, the sort of stupid attempt at an argument that would lead to shaking heads in a high school debate class. I can't even believe I have to explain how idiotic it is to blame group A for not getting support from group B when group B has loudly, publicly and repeatedly said that they will do everything in their power to obstruct anything group A wants to do.

Here's the real problem: the Democrats are more liberal than they've been in ages, but the Republicans are FAR more conservative than they've been ever. Bottom line: the GOP has become an extremist party.

Source

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisan

par·ti·san noun
ˈpär-tə-zən, -sən, -ˌzan, chiefly British ˌpär-tə-ˈzan

Definition of PARTISAN

1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
2
a : a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy
b : a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines
— partisan adjective
— par·ti·san·ly adverb
— par·ti·san·ship noun

I can only imagine the depth of self-denial required for one to feel he is winning an argument by simply redefining terms to his liking. I'm pretty sure there's a chart for it though.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I can only imagine the depth of self-denial required for one to feel he is winning an argument by simply redefining terms to his liking. I'm pretty sure there's a chart for it though.

You really are amazingly dense after all.

Let's step back, shall we? The proximate source of this subdiscussion is this comment from you:

It says a lot about the modern Democrat Party agenda that they were consistently unable to pick up even one lone Republican Senator, even from the liberal Northeast Republican Senators who rarely before voted with their party.

My comments were directed at this utterly moronic claim. The Democrats cannot pick up Republican support because the Republicans are an extremist party that has decided not to compromise on anything.

 

[zinfamous]

yeah, the argument that there is a problem with Democrats predicated simply by the fact that Democrats can not receive any republican support--after republicans loudly proclaim that their only platform is obstruction--is profoundly obtuse.

I'm not sure what happened to wherepossum recently, but he seems to have been personally offended/injured by an evil liberal, or something.

:hmm:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

yeah, the argument that there is a problem with Democrats predicated simply by the fact that Democrats can not receive any republican support--after republicans loudly proclaim that their only platform is obstruction--is profoundly obtuse.

And another point I forgot to make -- as soon as a Republican demonstrates any willingness to support the Democrats on any topic, he or she gets labeled a "RINO traitor" and primaried. Big shock that most don't want to have to deal with that, and that those that do get weeded out by the extremists in the party.

 

[werepossum]

Deliberate deception by omission & misattribution.

You forgot Outside spending, huh? Why was that?

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/06/outside-spending---the-big-picture.html

Andy Stern sold out? Damned shame. OTOH, True Conservatives should be congratulating him for having gone over to the dark side, shouldn't they? He's not worth anywhere near $11B, as you allege. The largest shareholder in his new venture, Perelman, is-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/andy-sterns-new-gig-biowa_n_753207.html

Attempted smear fail.

My second link was outside spending - independent expenditures, meaning political spending outside of the candidates and parties. I know two is a hard number for you to handle, but surely someone there could help you get that far . . .

I was wrong about Stern - either the article I read was wrong or I didn't read it carefully enough as that amount clearly refers to Perelman. (See how I can just admit I'm wrong without the need to redefine any words? Join me, lefties, it's really not that painful!)

 

[werepossum]

You really are amazingly dense after all.

Let's step back, shall we? The proximate source of this subdiscussion is this comment from you:



My comments were directed at this utterly moronic claim. The Democrats cannot pick up Republican support because the Republicans are an extremist party that has decided not to compromise on anything.

And I showed proof that Republicans cross party lines far, far more often than do Democrats. At which point you decided the word "partisan" needed a redefinition. You may want to do some advance work on the word "compromise" too, as currently it does not mean "toe the Democrat Party line" which your post requires.

yeah, the argument that there is a problem with Democrats predicated simply by the fact that Democrats can not receive any republican support--after republicans loudly proclaim that their only platform is obstruction--is profoundly obtuse.

I'm not sure what happened to wherepossum recently, but he seems to have been personally offended/injured by an evil liberal, or something.

:hmm:

Well, I'm still really, really pissed that I defended Obama and Holder over Fast and Furious, only to have that blow up in my face. I seriously underestimated Obama's level of evil. And I'm really pissed that Obama said "If you have a business, you didn't build that." Having watched my grandfather and then my father build up a small business, having seen the level of sacrifice required, having often been the one who had to give up my evening or Sunday after working fifty hours over six days each week to go out and open the store so that someone could get a needed part to fix his car or truck, I am absolutely livid over Obama's assertion that "somebody else" made that happen.

Obama does make it crystal clear that things look a lot different to someone building up a business than to a community organizer looking to extort some of his earnings. So yeah, I guess you could say I was offended by an evil progressive. Unfortunately, he's my President. But please feel free to rejoin the circle; so far it seems pretty efficient at protecting lefties from the slings and arrows of reality.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And I showed proof that Republicans cross party lines far, far more often than do Democrats.

Yes, you did.

You just haven't shown how this supports, in any way, your contention that it's a fault of the Democrats that the Republicans refuse to work with them.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, you did.

You just haven't shown how this supports, in any way, your contention that it's a fault of the Democrats that the Republicans refuse to work with them.

Crossing party lines IS working with the other party. Ergo I've demonstrated that the Republicans work with the Democrats far, far more than the Democrats work with the Republicans.

Honestly, your side is so into definitions of convenience that you're forgetting that words can actually mean things.

 

[shadow9d9]

Wait a sec... Werepossum thinks there are "liberal" republicans when even the Democrats are middle/right? Talk about delusional!

 

[fskimospy]

Crossing party lines IS working with the other party. Ergo I've demonstrated that the Republicans work with the Democrats far, far more than the Democrats work with the Republicans.

Honestly, your side is so into definitions of convenience that you're forgetting that words can actually mean things.

You should work on understanding what he wrote before you start trying to talk shit about people not understanding words. It went right over your head.

Again.

 

[blankslate]

That's a good idea.

But you won't follow it.

You never answer my questions anyway.

Turns out that the saying "there are no stupid questions" has exceptions....

 

[blankslate]

At least according to Open Secrets, fourteen of the top twenty heavy hitters in political donations from 1989 through 2012 donate at least 70% to Democrats, and seven of those donate 90% or better to Democrats. You'd have to go to #62 on the list, Club for Growth, to find an entity donating 90%+ to Republicans, and even then it's a mere 91% - a lesser percentage than seven of the top twenty donate to Democrats - and only one of the top twenty, the National Auto Dealers Association at 67% to 32%, even slightly favors Republicans.

That is just showing the heavy hitters who are part of the overall data for contributions from lobbying sectors.

If you look up all of the sectors: Financial/real estate, Technology and communications, lawyers&lobbyists, misc. Businesses, etc....

You'll find that the totals add up for every group are very close with democratic candidates edging out republican candidates by 1% or less.

I did go through the various links and add up the numbers in a spreadsheet.

refer to this post for more details.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33538067&postcount=35

It's a reply to another post that highlights the same data you have. considering that this data is one part of the overall data on the site it bears looking at imo, charged language notwithstanding.

Interestingly the Union sector does heavily favor the democratic party. Remove them from the totals and the Republicans would be getting the majority of the donations. Overall though Union monies donated aren't the largest by any means but it's not without effect.

If you want I can upload the spreadsheet file and provide a link for it but it's not on this computer. So it would have to be in the evening.

 

[hal2kilo]

I read that whole horrendous article - did you? It does not say what you seem to think it says. It's a whiny hit piece on Art Pope (he was often given personal fouls in high school basketball? The horrors!) and his funding of issue and anti-Democrat campaigns of ONLY North Carolina STATE legislative races, featuring a slew of Democrats and the obligatory couple of Republicans complaining about Art Pope. The only national race even mentioned is a fear that Obama might not carry North Carolina in 2012.

At least according to Open Secrets, fourteen of the top twenty heavy hitters in political donations from 1989 through 2012 donate at least 70% to Democrats, and seven of those donate 90% or better to Democrats. You'd have to go to #62 on the list, Club for Growth, to find an entity donating 90%+ to Republicans, and even then it's a mere 91% - a lesser percentage than seven of the top twenty donate to Democrats - and only one of the top twenty, the National Auto Dealers Association at 67% to 32%, even slightly favors Republicans.

In independent expenditures too, Republicans are completely outclassed. Of organizations spending more than $10 million between 1989 and 2012, only two, the NRA and the Club for Growth, are predominantly Republican or conservative, and only one, the National Organization of Realtors, even straddles the fence. There are five - American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, SEIU, Emily's list, the NEA and the UAW - that are almost exclusively Democrat, as well as three (AMA, National Association of Realtors) that straddle the fence.

Bottom line, you're going to have an uphill battle convincing any thinking being that Republican millionaires are buying elections. At most, they are desperately clawing toward a parity seen in the distant future. With a family fortune of $140 million, Art Pope is barely qualified to be George Soros' chauffeur. As to donations as well as independent expenditures, the king is the Service Employees International Union at a whopping $72+ million total and $65 million in independent expenditures - the same unabashed Marxist organization whose president, Andrew Stern, was consistently one of Obama's most frequent White House visitors until he retired to enjoy the billions he earned representing service employees in their struggle against the, um, rich . . .

At $140 million versus $11 billion, Art Pope isn't even qualified to be Andy Stern's chauffeur's driver.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indexp.php

I know you must have missed the Shameber of Commerce.

 

[Fern]

I understand some Repubs are pushing Romney to go ahead and release the returns. I think he should do so only under the condition Obama releases his Harvard transcripts and thesis (if that's what it's called).

The arguments for and against are similar to both: Neither are particularly relevant and both will lead to a bunch politically spun BS attacks. But the Romney side would able to join in with the Obama side and say "if you've got nothing to hide why don't you release it?" etc. Romney could throw it out there and just move on to focus on the economy economy or whatever. I think it would cut short any more questions about releasing his returns, when asked about it (again) all he need say is that already said he would if Obama would release his transcripts and that it's in Obama's court now.

Sort of a checkmate I think. Obama probably won't risk looking like he's 'folding' in a game of chicken, and if he does play it up that he's a weak negotiator and run with it on a foreign policy angle and such.

Fern

 

[blankslate]

I understand some Repubs are pushing Romney to go ahead and release the returns. I think he should do so only under the condition Obama releases his Harvard transcripts and thesis (if that's what it's called).

Governor Romney has made his Bain experience a central part of his campaign in the primaries and it remains so today

Therefore his tax returns are relevant to the question of that experience because they would confirm or dismiss the question of his reported $100k salary from Bain in the years 2001 and 2000.
You know after he left the company.
Even just releasing tax returns that relate to those years is better than his current position obstinate stonewalling.



President Obama hasn't made his education a main focal point when he ran for President. Not sure about his congressional run because I'm not from back east.

Therefore this is a false equivalence. Especially considering that it was Governor Romney's father who helped set the example of releasing many years of tax returns.

*edit*
Governor Romney could release his college transcripts and then make that argument I suppose... then it would be much less of a false equivalency.

However, given the fact that he has so far resisted suggestions even from Republican officeholders and commentators that he should just release his tax returns. I doubt he will make that move.

 

[werepossum]

That is just showing the heavy hitters who are part of the overall data for contributions from lobbying sectors.

If you look up all of the sectors: Financial/real estate, Technology and communications, lawyers&lobbyists, misc. Businesses, etc....

You'll find that the totals add up for every group are very close with democratic candidates edging out republican candidates by 1% or less.

I did go through the various links and add up the numbers in a spreadsheet.

refer to this post for more details.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33538067&postcount=35

It's a reply to another post that highlights the same data you have. considering that this data is one part of the overall data on the site it bears looking at imo, charged language notwithstanding.

Interestingly the Union sector does heavily favor the democratic party. Remove them from the totals and the Republicans would be getting the majority of the donations. Overall though Union monies donated aren't the largest by any means but it's not without effect.

If you want I can upload the spreadsheet file and provide a link for it but it's not on this computer. So it would have to be in the evening.

I would be interested in seeing it. My point however was not that Republicans don't get their share of money, but rather to counter this widespread fallacy that "the rich" are buying elections for Republicans.

I know you must have missed the Shameber of Commerce.

"Shameber" of Commerce? <groan>
The Chamber of Commerce has not historically been particularly political and thus is not in the top 100. I am amused though that you feel the correct role for small businessmen is to lube up and manfully take the rapine and pillaging.

 

[Fern]

Governor Romney has made his Bain experience a central part of his campaign in the primaries and it remains so today

Therefore his tax returns are relevant to the question of that experience

Nope. That's an argument for seeing Bain's tax returns, not his.

(Edit: We all know disclosing his returns doesn't have anything to do with Bain, it's just your side is too dishonest to admit it.)

because they would confirm or dismiss the question of his reported $100k salary from Bain in the years 2001 and 2000.
You know after he left the company.

This is stupid.

It was his company, he owned 100% of it. He can pay himself whatever he wants whenever he wants as long as he owns 100% of it.

President Obama hasn't made his education a main focal point when he ran for President. Not sure about his congressional run because I'm not from back east.

His supporters and media cohorts sure have.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

You should work on understanding what he wrote before you start trying to talk shit about people not understanding words. It went right over your head.

Again.

It didn't go over my head at all. He said the Republicans will not work with the Democrats. I provided evidence that the Republicans work with the Democrats much more often than the Democrats work with the Republicans, as evidenced by their voting records. He then tried to change the definition of partisan by claiming the Democrats' agenda is the people's agenda, and thus the Republicans, by not crossing party lines at an even higher rate, are not really working with the Democrats. It's the same old song we always here from the left, that compromise means the right doing as the left directs.

You seem to feel that I should somehow answer his revised "point" that I should show it's the Democrats' fault that Republicans aren't working with the Democrats at at even more lopsided rate. Why? More to the point, how would I do that? The two parties are pushing agenda that are in many places mutually exclusive. To the extent this is the case, the two parties will increasingly be unable to compromise. For me to assign blame then requires me to make a value judgment about who is right and who is wrong, rather than just who is right and who is left; you and I will never agree on that value judgment. There is absolutely no single, rational answer as to whether the Democrats or the Republicans are responsible for the Republicans not slavishly following the Democrats' enlightened lead; it's a value judgment each individual must make as to which side (if either) has the proper course. To pretend otherwise is just to adopt the childish ploy of sticking fingers in ears and chanting nonsense to avoid hearing dissenting views.

Cross-party voting is what it is, and I'm content to show that the Republicans are compromising to a much higher extent than are the Dems.