Re: the current outbreak of Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome among Pub Senators

Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham are either being disingenuous in order to dress up their zeal to be liked inside the Beltway, or they have never seen the CBO numbers on the utter ineffectiveness of a tax hike on "the rich" or Ernst & Young report outlining the economic damage that the tax penalty on which the Most Equal Comrade insists would do.

These paragraphs from Red State's Daniel Horowitz's piece about (my boldface for emphasis) it ought to be trumpeted from every media outlet without relent:

Saxby’s comments are quite instructive for conservatives as we confront a Republican Party that is committed to capitulation.  This imbroglio over the fiscal cliff was never about the budget – spending or revenue.  It is about the fundamental role of government in a Constitutional Republic that inherently restrains the size of government.  As such, even if raising taxes on the rich would be fair (it’s not; they already pay 37% of the income taxes), and even if it would be economically prudent; it is the wrong thing to do.  Any additional revenue would be used to grow the size of government at a time when it needs to be cut in half.  On this core issue, Republicans like Chambliss and Graham side with Democrats.  We side with the Constitution.

That’s why this has never been about Norquist and his tax pledge.  If Democrats would genuinely agree to a deal that would wind down the welfare and entitlement programs and eliminate full departments of the executive branch, conservatives would reluctantly go along with some form of revenue increases.  Raising taxes is unfair and counterintuitive, but if that is what it would take to get Democrats to come onboard with our efforts to shrink government, then it would be a deal worth making.