What do Warren Buffett and Bill Clinton have in common?

Answer: Both are wealthy men and both believe the wealthy should be taxed more heavily.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obama-Buffett-tax-McConnell/2011/09/18/id/411387

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/business/buffett-calls-on-congress-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich.html

Image: Arvind Balaraman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

For Republicans, it seems to be a matter of faith that taxing the rich will hamper job growth. Yet, statistics from the 1990s bely that dogma. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans were higher than in the 21st century and job growth was robust much of the time.

Furthermore, everyone from Standard & Poors to Barack Obama believes that a $4 trillion dollar dent in the national debt is what we need, not the mere $1.2 trillion minimum the bi-partisan commission is required to make:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-unveils-framework-for-cutting-deficit-by-4-trillion-over-12-years/2011/04/13/AFJxX9WD_story.html

http://solidarityusa.org/how_to_cut_the_deficit_and_what_happens_if_we_do_not.htm

http://bfaslegacy.org/?pageID=30&docID=609

http://sovereign-investor.com/2011/08/07/standard-poors-kill-the-messenger/

So why in the face of all the evidence that $4 trillion is the least we should cut, that taxing the rich harder won't hurt job growth, and that we need a solution that both cuts spending and raises revenues, does the GOP cling to "no new taxes"? Perhaps it really is an article of faith, like the Holy Trinity, as Cokie Roberts said this morning on NPR. Or perhaps the rich, who overwhelming support the Grand Old Party, just want to keep their money no matter what. Or perhaps they hope that they will force Uncle Sam to drastically cut the so-called "entitlement" programs they seem to hate so passionately.

Or perhaps its a combination of all three: a perfect storm that faces the nation, as we try to end the debt-threat to our national survival.