Speaker of the House John Boehner hasn't taken long to make something of a mockery of the populace's wish for bipartisan compromise.

FIRST, he claims that "our" returning a GOP majority to the House is indicative of a lack of a mandate for Obama. I take exception to his statement on two fronts. One, the makeup of the House isn't something that's controlled nationally--if it were, we might very well see a different constitution. Two, Democrats made GAINS in the house, increasing their minority from 193 in 2010 to 199 in 2012. (In the Senate, the Democrats also gained, with a net move of 1 seat from GOP to Independent.) That said, I'm not arguing that Obama has a mandate--a several percent advantage in the national vote simply doesn't rise to the level of mandate.

SECOND, his "olive branch" on the budget allows for new revenue as long as it's not via new taxation. If not by taxation, where exactly does Mr. Boehner think the money will come from? Well, that would be the tried and true "close loopholes" (which, if that works, RAISES taxes) and "lower rates to drive growth" (which, studies show, doesn't actually work).

The "grand bargain" of last summer, agreed to by Obama but NOT Boehner, was more conservative than liberal in nature (20% tax increases, 80% cuts). Not only should the right should not expect more concessions from the left, we would all be better off with fewer.

It amazes me that the Romney-Ryan plan was to follow the model of European austerity. Keynes said, and Europe shows, that austerity is a poor way out of a financial downturn. We avoided the mistake of Romney-Ryan--let's not make the mistake of adopting their model.