The RINOs come out to play

This article in the WaPo names most of the usual suspects:

The "pay-as-you-go" amendment, which Voinovich opposed last year, could come to a vote as early as Wednesday. Last year, the same amendment squeaked through the Senate with the backing of virtually every Democrat and four Republicans -- Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain (Ariz.) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.). But President Bush and House Republicans refused to go along, and Congress failed for the second time in three years to complete a budget plan. ... This year, the Senate budget measure has set aside $70 billion in tax cuts over the next five years, using parliamentary language that would ensure those cuts could pass the Senate with a simple, 51-vote majority, not the 60 votes needed to cut off a filibuster. But this time, the economy is growing smartly, Milburn said, and the largest of the tax measures to be extended are major reductions in capital gains and dividend tax rates that disproportionately benefit the affluent.

"Pay as you go" is code for tax increases, especially when uttered by these folks. One thing that we have learned from the past 25 years is that tax increases will not lessen federal deficits. As Milton Friedman pointed out long ago, Congress will spend all the money it has, plus as much more as it can get away with. Spending restraint and economic growth are the only deficit solutions. It is also well established that even tax breaks that are thought to "disproportionately benefit the affluent" tend to increase the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy by broadening the tax base (by making shelters less attractive). I wonder why Republicans, of all people, are making class warfare arguments. I guess that's why we call 'em RINOs.

(Via Beltway Buzz.)