Sir, you defend your vote to accept the Senate-amended version to HR8 by citing some nebulous theory of gaining future presidential support, through this act of bipartisanship.

You state we can only get debt under control with the (assumed) help of that president to curb the primary drivers of debt: too much spending, too little economic growth. Yet, you assume future assistance from the very man who caused the present problem…?

You defend your vote by implying that the alternative, this so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ dive, is cast in concrete. But Congress makes (and changes) laws every day – in session today, law tomorrow. The new 113th Congress is sworn in Jan 03, and (some would think ‘unfortunately’) can start making law immediately. Concrete? More like quicksand…!?!

Finally, you cite the real problem as out-of-control spending, and the need to “get at the heart of the problem”. Well, you just voted for a measly $15 billion in spending cuts, and $620 billion in tax hikes. That’s a 41-to-1 ratio that doesn’t look promising, since…

Congress never hikes taxes without an intent to SPEND the money…!

And, minutes after that bill passed in the House, the president (who drives this ‘out-of-control’ spending bus!) stated he would not negotiate; the debt ceiling must increase.

Congressman Ryan, we respect you as the economics guy, but even lowly BlueCollar-types realize it’s not necessary to actually be IN the cesspool…to know it’s gonna stink.

…”get at the heart of the problem…”? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

(Translation – good luck with that ‘bipartisan’ theory…)

And, as always, we welcome any feedback on where our logic may be misguided.