Did Republicans win or lose on the budget?
Bookworm on Apr 11 2011 at 8:24 am | Filed under: Economics, Government, Republicans
There’s a fiery debate over whether Republicans won or lost the budget round over discretionary spending. Good examples of the pros and cons on that debate are Peter Wehner (Boehner did great) and Dick Morris (Boehner was a spaghetti-spined disaster).
What do you think?
Email This Post To A Friend
70 Responses to “Did Republicans win or lose on the budget?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You know Book, I don’t agree with your description of a fiery debate. As always the scribblers and blatherers are chiming in —from the sidelines. As we know, they must have, simply must have controversy. So, they stir the pot endlessly. Not debate.
The debate will come when the real issues come to decision; and it will involve the people who actually play a role. Will the national debt be increased without any constraints? What will the 2012 budget look like?
There are people, and some are actually Democrats, who are hell bent on bringing Boehner down. I ignore them, because they are not worthy of attention. Boehner’s battles lie ahead.
By the bye. I consider Wehner to be a serious commentator. Morris? Well, not really.
I think it needed to be pointed out early, often, and loudly that there is a law requiring a budget to be passed annually, usually by July – and the democrats didn’t do it last July. They also didn’t do it last August, September, or October. We know why they didn’t: they didn’t want to drown in a sea of red ink any time when there was an election in the offing. They drowned anyway – at least in congress. Which left them with full control of the house and senate for the lame-duck session in November and December, when they could have passed a budget. Again – they didn’t.
Why didn’t they when they were legally obligated to? Well, they’re democrats, and apparently not bound by the laws that bind ordinary folks. This needs to be said! A LOT! (And here again, to whom do the American people turn when under Reid and Pelosi the senate and congress will not do their jobs? What is the American people’s recourse? Whom do we call? Why are Reid and Pelosi not in very serious legal trouble?)
The Republicans have again been outmaneuvered because they continue to hold to the naive idea that the democrat party is something other than a criminal enterprise – and a criminal enterprise with both a long-range planning department, and a long memory. The democrats knew last summer they stood to sustain a lot of damage. (I think the extent of it in, especially, state houses surprised them – but they knew they were in trouble.) They had – and have - no interest in doing their jobs and passing a budget, because they didn’t want to be held responsible for making the cuts that even they know now have to be made. They want to keep the morons – which is most Americans – voting for them, so they will let somebody else be the bad guys.
The republicans keep looking at the numbers, talking about the numbers, touting the numbers – and they think, because they’re right, that this is all it takes to make their case. Despite all their experience, they continue to believe this, which leads me to think more often than not that they must be goddamed stupid. The democrats have nothing on their side, zero. Not a cogent argument they can make at all – but they have big mouths, and they have a great BS apparatus. And by golly – looka that! With the great, thoughtful, and deeply insightful American voter the BS factory wins every time!
The republicans need to stop dreaming and wake the hell up to this, but at this point they’ve left it so late in the game it’s going to be damned difficult. They’ve allowed the entire apparatus of news dissemination in this country to go left, because they can’t escape the belief that the obvious is obvious – and doesn’t need to be explained so a six-year old can understand it. But it does, Boehner! It does! You have to explain it early, you have to explain it often, you have to find some great emotional issues and visuals to counteract goddam Nancy Pelosi and her goddam starving grannies, and you have to frame it so that six-year olds – the American voter – can clearly get it!
And they don’t. They keep thinking that facts are facts, and the facts are plain, and they don’t require much elucidation. And as long as they keep thinking that way they will be forever outmaneuvered, constantly placed on the defensive, and displayed in a negative light.
I would have, for example, started yelling about the lack of budget last July. And I wouldn’t have mentioned it once or twice, I would have been a bore on the subject three times a week all through July, August, September and October. Early, loud, and often. I would have been really strident during the lame-duck session. Since the republicans sent a budget for consideration to the senate 49 days ago (does anyone know that? Who knows that? Who reported on that?) and we knew in advance the senate would just ignore it, I’d have mentioned that twice a day every damn day on from the day it arrived in February, through March, and right to last Friday. “Harry Reid and Motor-mouth Schumer got a budget from us in February. They haven’t even opened it to take a look. Why the hell not?” Every day. Several times a day. Constantly, so even Katie Couric couldn’t ignore me.
We got outmaneuvered again. Whatever cuts are made, whoever it damages and whatever BS job it hurts – that’s our fault. Whoever gets annoyed by whatever service cut happens – they’re annoyed at us.
It’s beyond belief that we are so incapable of learning.
Even they had to concede that the differences under discussion (a few billion dollars in a budget of more than $3.5 trillion) were minuscule.
Wehner doesn’t understand the strategy at play politically.
He still thinks it’s about the numbers. It never was.
jj: Laws are for the little people. Democrats transcend laws, just as they transcend ordinary morality and the Constitution.
Oldflyer: You’re right that it’s a tempest in a commentary tea pot. But one does wonder what the public perceives. In a binary system, there’s almost always a publicly perceived winner and loser.
Y: Your point goes to public perception. Does the public see the plays or the score?
John Q. and Jane Q. Public lost the debate and for all the reasons jj so nicely pointed out. Thank you jj – I agree and particularly with the silence of the GOP last year when there should have been ear piercing screams of “Where’s the budget”.
The masses must love cold weather, because they seems to revel in a snow job!
It doesn’t matter if only one dollar was saved. It was more important that the Democrat framed debate was changed from how much to spend to how much to cut. That is a victory.
More on the topic linked below.
“A deal where there was no clear winner except for the fact the GOP failed to achieve anything near the $100 Billion in cuts they memorialized in their September 23, 2010 Pledge To America.”
http://clarionadvisory.com/?p=13199
I also suggest reading: Washington’s China Syndrome at the same link.
-snip-
“Danger, Will Robinson,” those sitting in the easy chairs at the control panel evidence no belief that things are about to blow sky high. The following jobs all wait to be filled at the federal government:
$115,000/year to run the Facebook page for the Department of the Interior.
$155,000/year to make sure the Peace Corps complies with Equal Opportunity Employment standards.
$180,000/year to do the same thing at the Department of Transportation.
In fact, the federal government is currently advertising 294 jobs at the USAJobs Web site alone that pay more than $100,000 annually.
The amounts involved were so small in relation to the deficit that I viewed the whole fight as symbolic. On that level, I give the win to the Tea Party. It didn’t ultimately matter much whether the cuts were $100 billion, $60 billion, or $1 billion. It mattered that there were cuts. Maybe now we can get to work on reforming the budget, a task we’ve only barely begun.
What jj said.
The Republicans ran on cutting $100 Billion in spending, and won the House back in 2010 — BECAUSE OF that promise.
Then what? Boehner returned an “Old Bull” to the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, rather than appoint Jeff Flake, or someone else with genuine commitment to budget-cutting.
And so, the first steaming pile of c**p from the Committee suggested cutting $32 Billion. Forced by the outcry to send it back, Boehner then got the Committee to promise the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM that could be spun as keeping the $100 Billion promise – $61 Billion as the pro-rated $100 Billion cut for a full year. The important point is that Boehner settled on the minimum as his starting point for “negotiations”.
I knew then that these guys would fold. Why didn’t they throw Rand Paul’s $500 Billion plan in the Dems faces? For pete’s sake, why didn’t they say “We promised $100 Billion, so here’s $100 Billion.”, knowing that they would compromise on the $61 Billion?
Then it turned out that the Obamacare legislation had $100+ Billion hidden in it for implementation of a plan that America has overwhelmingly rejected – but WHO learned about this? Only those of us who are paying obsessive attention. What did the Republicans do to make this well-known to the citizenry at large? Not a D**N thing!
Except flap their jaws, of course — big talk about making it an issue, and insisting that it be repealed in exchange for cleaning up the mess the Dems left by not passing the 2011 budget. And when push came to shove, they folded. What else COULD they have done, since Boehner came out before anything really got started and said he wouldn’t allow the government to shut down!! Lead with your chin, Mr. Speaker…why not just hang a “Kick Me” sign on your chest, pointing to your crotch?!
I’m not going to go on and on – because they punted at every opportunity. The American people aren’t stupid if their attention is engaged, so they’ll look up from American Idol…and jj is absolutely correct that it will take a consistent effort to get through to the citizenry. But if the current crop of Republicans were serious about saving America, rather than their miserable jobs, they would be out there doing their best to get Americans to pay attention.
Face the facts, the bunch of turkeys we have now aren’t going to do it – and you can’t make them.
So, I will be donating my measly $10.00 to EVERY SINGLE TEA PARTY CANDIDATE that will primary the GOP leadership and anyone who votes for this sellout!
By the way, we have another chance coming up soon — the Debt Limit vote is coming up. The Republicans should be out telling America EVERY SINGLE DAY that enough money is coming in on a daily basis to pay the interest on the debt, so the Dems are LYING when they say we will default. We will not default. In fact, enough money is coming in every day to take care of a lot of necessary budget items — where is the list, Republicans?
I swear — the current bunch is hopeless — we need a majority of Tea Party Republicans, or you can start getting fitted for your Euro-socialist outfit, right now, because the America we grew up in and loved will be gone in the next decade at the current pace.
Book,
untrained people are not strategists. And most of the public are untrained. Those who make a living out of commentary, however, should at least have the basics down if nothing else. Wehner does not.
To achieve victory against an enemy such as the Leftist alliance, strength is required. And in a democracy, not just actual strength but perception of strength. The ability to get things done, the ability to not have to compromise, and the ruthlessness to ride over all objections and contests.
The Democrats have this, even when they lack political support in America. They push stuff through, regardless of the costs. The Republicans are more flexible, more willing to compromise and deal, because the Republicans aren’t ruthless enough to achieve victory. When it comes to political warfare, people will back the strong horse, much as Arabs do. It’s not that they agree with everything the strong horse stands for, but they would rather vote for a winner, than be on the loser’s side. This is infamously translated into the “electability” media meme. How “electable” someone is.
Yes, there’s an entire legion of people who make it their business to get people elected. But their perspective is trying to make candidates appealable to the public, like McCain or Obama. And they won’t let someone like Sarah Palin jinx the proceedings, regardless of which they are supposed to be on. That’s because there’s a simple divide. Trying to make candidates appealable is mutually exclusive with making the American public change their priorities.
This is not about numbers or even the money in the budget. This is about who will control the perception and priorities of the voting population in America. For once one side does, elections and electability will cease to matter.
The reason why the money must be cut is two fold.
One, it would be better to stabilize the budget in order to get funding to where it is needed.
Two, it is absolutely essential to destroy the money being laundered by Democrats for their political ambitions.
To not cut 40 billion, is to give Democrats 40 billion to buy more votes for. It’s as simple and as plain as that. It doesn’t matter where it goes. It really doesn’t. Because all of it goes to buy Democrat votes, one way or another. More allies, more favors, more government regulations. They all serve the purpose of getting Democrats more votes. 40 billion not cut, is 40 billion going into the Democrat war chest.
Looked at it from the basis of the 11 trillion US GDP income, it’s not so big. But that’s only looking at it from a fiscal perspective, in terms of budgeting items.
This is and was never about simply funding some Democrat programs vs Republican programs. This is and was about Democrats seizing total power through the means of diverting huge amounts of money to their allies. Those two things are not the same situation, the same problem, or even the same conflict. They are different.
And, of course, this glosses over the actual legal powers Democrats retained. For power is also in the law, not just in the money being handed out by Dems to their goons. Did the GOP give what they saw as “non-essentials” such as Union anonymous voting away in order to get their “minimum” budget cuts? If they did, I would like say that if they allow unions to crack down even harder on their members, they just lost a trillion dollars in terms of power.
Wasn’t it worth it even if they got 100 billion in cuts in return.
You see, this is the kind of calculation they need to do. But aren’t. They don’t understand how “laws” are often times more important than cutting the budget. Money is money, but laws are how this money is used for Democrat power mongering.
Dumb question (I’m good at those). To what extent are the “cuts” true cuts and to what extent are they reductions in planned increases? My impression is that the Republicans failed.
DQ: I haven’t seen/heard any actual details of what the agreement was – and I listened to Rush this morning, to Sean this afternoon, and have been reading what I can.
However, you are right to be suspicious — although I’m hearing that the cuts *are* real cuts, and not merely slowing the growth of the programs that have been “cut”, there is a suggestion that at least $10 Billion of the $38.5 Billion are dollars that were cut by earlier Continuing Resolutions. That means that they did not even get 2/3 of the pro-rated amount they promised during the campaign.
AND, they gave up all the riders – defunding Planned Parenthood, defunding NPR, defunding the EPAs ability to regulate CO2, etc.
Nothing from this bunch would surprise me….except if they actually kept their promises and got serious about STOPPING THE SPENDING.
STOP THE SPENDING!!
Urban myths are powerful things. The Republicans did not run on cutting $100B from the budget–never mind that there was no budget.
But to the point, some candidates may have run on the $100B, but they did not speak for the Republican leadership, nor for the party. Boehner should not be saddled with that figure. It is disgusting that people who should be supporting him, are carping over this kind of phony baloney.
Ideological conservatives are sometimes the Democrats best friends. The Dims don’t have to attack the GOP leadership; the conservatives will carry their water. Conservatives have the patience of fleas; meanwhile the opposition keeps chipping away ever so patiently.
As far as I am concerned, they cut $78B from Obama’s plan. That is the number that matters, that is the number that they should advertise; and that is the baseline that conservatives should measure their performance against..
Sorry, Oldflyer…the GOP in fact DID lead us to believe that they were promising to cut $100 Billion during the 2010 elections. If you are correct, please explain THIS:
GOP, Poised for Gains, Plans $100B in Cuts
Published October 28, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House ad possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama’s health care and financial regulation laws.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/28/gop-poised-big-gains-plan-b-cuts/#ixzz1JGqPUT4t
jj said it all in #2:
The republicans keep looking at the numbers, talking about the numbers, touting the numbers – and they think, because they’re right, that this is all it takes to make their case. Despite all their experience, they continue to believe this, which leads me to think more often than not that they must be goddamed stupid.
In politics, it’s not enough to be right. You have to make your case to the people. The Republicans are simply terrible at making their case. It’s because most of them lack the strength of their convictions. They don’t really believe in the conservatism they’re spouting. You can’t have a spine when you don’t really *believe* in what you’re saying. You cave under pressure.
It was a terrible struggle to cut 33 billion dollars? When the deficit for this year alone was 1.3 trillion? How sad, how utterly ineffective, how pathetic. But politics is the art of the possible, and there is always another day, so the fight is not over. Are the Democrats merely stupid and blind, taking us right over the cliff as fast as they can, or are they, as jj said, a criminal enterprise?
Either way, it’s up to the Republicans to make their own case. No one is going to help them. And certainly the media is not going to play fair by pointing out the best and the worst of both sides. They’re in bed with the Democrats, nearly all of them. The Republicans to this point are total failures at setting the message.
All of this is an effort to avoid genuine, terrible pain further down the road. Americans are notorious (and notoriously optimistic) until hell is staring them right in the face, and only then do we resolve to act. Looks like this is going to be another one of those times.
I’ll fess up – I am math challenged.
Give or take $40 billion in cuts, give or take, against a $14 trillion debt. Does it cover the interest on the debt for a week? month? few days? If the cut had been $100 billion (2.5x) exactly what impact would it have had on the $14 trillion?
I never thought that I would live long enough to say this, but cutting billions is a manicure.
Sadie: Those of us who are complaining about the budget “compromise” aren’t arguing about the difference in how $100 Billion or $61 Billion or $38.5 Billion will affect the deficit. It’s clear that this is not the issue.
How many of you went and looked at that video of the big fat kid being pummeled by the bully? That kid is the Republican Party, folks. The Dems have lied, punched, and stolen their lunch for YEARS and YEARS and YEARS. This despite the fact that America is a center-right country, and every time they’re given a clear choice, Americans vote for the more conservative alternative. They certainly did in the last election cycle!
In the recent “negotiations”, had the Republicans stood up for the promises they made in 2010 (yes, even to the point of a “government shutdown”), and (thanks, jj) MADE THEIR CASE to the American people, it would have been the equivalent of that fat kid picking up the bully and dumping him on his head.
But, they didn’t do it…they whimpered, and said “Uncle”. So in the short run at least, we’re in for more pummeling…..I hope and pray that the debt limit argument will turn out differently – more like the way that video ended.
But, I’m not betting on it.
Doesn’t matter what Boehner ran on. He didn’t get anything critical for Planned Parenthood. PP is one of the pillars of Leftist power. That was worth at least 300 billion in cold hard cash. And what did he get in reality.
Proper negotiation position is to always demand the max, never admit what your are willing to compromise on or settle, and never, ever, do the opposition’s negotiation for them. This is basic negotiation tactics police hostage negotiators and union bosses know straight down the line.
Boehner violated all the rules, at once.
Earl, I agree. There’s a segment (I don’t know how many) of the GOP that see/saw the Tea Party like a glass of iced tea and not burning hot mad as hell HOT tea. As I recall on the tally there were 47 nays on the ‘right’ side of the vote. My understanding is that they were the HOT Tea Party – those that ran on the unspoken slogan … OH NO, you don’t and better NOT.
Round 2, 3, 4 are coming up soon enough – they’ll only get a few more rounds before the bell is rung in 2012. I hope they get the message loud and clear … GET IT RIGHT or else! More importantly, I hope they give a damn.
The same party saboteurs in McCain’s campaign that scorned Sarah Palin, is working at large in the GOP.
The staid and tired old argument is that the GOP must be united to fight the Left. Well, we’ve seen that kind of unity for decades, and that horse don’t run any more. It has been quite obvious for awhile that much of the GOP leadership and bureaucracy are in fact closer to the Leftists then they are to us in loyalty and virtue. Cooperation is, of course, necessary to fight a foreign foe. But it is also a convenient way to keep oppressed masses down in the mud so that they never question the wisdom of their leaders. Look at how the Palestinians think:
Oh look, there’s the Jews, the cause of all of our problems. Let’s unite and go get them.
Instead of listening to the criticism of their own people and fixing their house, they instead say that they can’t afford to appear weak against the foreign foe. Well, that’s a rather convenient line.
But it’s been used for awhile now and we aren’t any better for it.
Those sabotaging the GOP aren’t the internal critcisms. It’s the people who want to keep the status quo up, when the status quo has been the GOP being the bootlicking associate of the Democrats. That is no longer acceptable any more.
DQ, You’ve nailed it:
“To what extent are the “cuts” true cuts and to what extent are they reductions in planned increases”
That is one of the many problems with Washington – they say one thing in political speak which insiders all understand, but means something different to us common folks. Sadly, “spending cuts” is one of those phrases.
>>Boehner violated all the rules, at once.>>
I understand the point all of you make. I’m not sure I agree – not because I don’t agree, but because the bigger fights are still to come. What would have happened if the government had shut down?
Honest question. I really don’t know. Would Congress have continued to meet?
The debt ceiling is the next issue. Major issue.
Then the 2012 budget.
And I’m also confused by the “$100 billion in the 2011 budget”. Meaning the budget _for_ 2011, or _done_ in 2011 – for 2012?
I’m making the assumption that the GOP strategists know more than I do, and for now, at least, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I definitely hope I’m not overly optimistic. Not that there’s anything I can do about it but howl during a full moon…!
Suek: The GOP strategists may “KNOW” more than you do, but if you’re anything like me, they aren’t more “COMMITTED” than you are. Ymar has it right up above…there are too many in the D.C. GOP whose major focus (conscious or unconscious) is on doing what they can to stay in government – they will not risk the disdain of the media or attacks from their “colleagues” even to do what the promised and were sent there to do.
As for the 2011 budget, the Dems refused to do WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES and pass a budget for 2011 before October, 2010 when the 2011 fiscal year began. They were afraid to admit their priorities to the American people before the election, but even AFTER the election during the lame duck session, when they had the majority in both the House and the Senate, they did not pass the budget they wanted! Why do you suppose that was?
I think I know….the Dems figured they would do better to wait until the GOP took over, because they could get the GOP to roll over and pass a budget for 2011 (six months late) that gave them 99% of what they wanted. At that point, they could wail and moan and say to the world what a great victory the Repubs had won….and when the next fight arrived the Dems will say “We’ve slashed the budget far more than we wanted — so now it’s time for you guys to do the right thing and balance those cuts with tax increases.”
It’s coming — in the debt ceiling fight. What are you betting that “this time”, the GOP will stand tall for principle? They’ve already proved that they won’t keep their promise to the American people – the specific and very clear promise that got them elected to a House majority in 2010.
Past performance may not give us guarantees of what will happen in the future, but it’s the best index we have. So, be afraid…very afraid. Get ready for disappointment. But you can do a LOT besides “howl during a full moon”. Join your local Tea Party, and donate what you can (for me, it’s $10.00) to as many Tea Party primary challengers as you can. Throw the RINOs out!!
The solution to our problems is pretty simple: STOP SPENDING!!
We have to elect people who know this and will perform.
Earl, you dare to quote AP to me to illustrate what Republicans promised? Why not quote the DNC? Well, you are ipso facto quoting the DNC by linking to the AP.
The fact is that 2010 was 900 local elections. Nine hundred +- individuals running, each with a personally tailored agenda. That is what I am talking about. Tea Partiers, Moderates, “Finger in the Wind” politicos; all running as Republicans. If you can show me a quote where Boehner, Kantor or Ryan promised $100B in cuts, I will shut up.
The analogy of the fat kid and the bully are fine. Only, I would add that the ideologically pure conservatives are the kids standing around with their hands in their pockets or even egging on the bully (media, Dims). Someday, all Conservatives are going to have to face the fact that the GOP is the only vehicle for our agenda. Yes, I am as conservative as anyone; but, I have been around a long time, and I don’t believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. In other words I do not expect miracles out of politics.
Let it go. Let it go. Get behind the GOP for the next fight. It will be a big one.
Next up: debt ceiling. Here’s another dumb question for DQ: why the hell do we bother to have such a construct as a “debt ceiling,” when every time government spending gets close to it they just vote to raise it, and blow on through where it used to be? Given that absolutely no one observes it, or takes it in the least seriously – why have one? Why bother? What’s the point? Evidently here in the real world it means absolutely nothing, it’s so roundly ignored (except for needing to be voted on to render it null now and then) it doesn’t even qualify as an accounting trick, so…?
Some of your questions with answers are in the link at The Hill.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/155421-six-month-spending-bill-unveiled-whats-cut-and-whats-not
What would have happened if the government had shut down?
What happened when the Democrats shut down the government in Wisconsin? They actually had a plan behind their actions there, which is why it produces some results and is backed up by union thugs and other strategic initiatives. Doesn’t mean the plan will work, only that they have one, and the Republicans do not usually.
It doesn’t matter who shuts down the government. All that matters is who obtains power from the method, not the method itself. If propaganda is on the side of Dems and that convinces people Republicans shut down the government, power automatically accrues to Dems. There are also tactical and strategic reasons to shutdown the government, as seen in Wisconsin.
Only, I would add that the ideologically pure conservatives are the kids standing around with their hands in their pockets or even egging on the bully (media, Dims).
Historically, those were not the ideologically pure conservatives, but the ideologically impure, such as Reagan’s former speechwriter, Peggy Noonan.
Get behind the GOP for the next fight. It will be a big one.
The chain of command no longer holds the respect, loyalty, or authority of command. Have you ever witnessed what happens to a military unit in war when the chain of command no longer deserves its authority, Old. It’s not very common, but it is not as if it never happened before.
Earl said:
> Throw the RINOs out!!
> The solution to our problems is pretty simple: STOP SPENDING!!
> We have to elect people who know this and will perform.
That’s where we’re at. They want to stay in power, and they believe the way to do that is to suck up to all of their colleagues and the media, too.
Yes, Virginia, the problem is *YOUR* congressCritter, no matter how much you like him or her. The problem is not Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Obama.
If you are mad as hell that we can run a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit THIS YEAR ALONE, and be able to cut only 33 billion dollars of that 1.4 trillion increase, then it is time: Vote only for a Tea Party candidate. The idea is that the congressCritters must understand that if they don’t get serious about deficit reduction, we won’t be serious about them.
And it truly doesn’t matter at all whether they cut form X or from Y to achieve their sad, pitiful 33 billion. The budget is the budget. The deficit is the deficit. The national debt is the national debt. Period.
Oldflyer: If you went to that Fox News page, you saw a photograph of the GOP House leadership standing there with the Pledge to America held up, promising to CUT THE BUDGET. What were we supposed to take away from that? If you were paying attention in the last election, you too heard the $100 Billion figure over and over and over and over. So, you may be correct that Boehner, Cantor, or Ryan never actually said the words “We will cut $100 Billion out of the 2011 Budget”, but if the GOP was not promising $100 Billion in cuts when they got control of the House, then they allowed everyone to think so, my friend.
If they knew THEN that they weren’t going to follow through on the implicit promise being made (for week after week after week in headlines all over America) then they’re not just the “stupid party” anymore – they’ve joined the Dems as another “How can we fool ‘em today? party”. And I refuse to vote for that anymore.
One thing that you and I agree on — it is the GOP that is our best shot right now for forcing our government back into the highly restricted space that the Founders envisioned for it. But NOT as currently constituted. If we do not fill the GOP with Tea Party Conservatives, all we’ll get from them is more of the same – a slightly slower trip to national bankruptcy and worse.
You know, it’s people like the Tea Party who are the GOP’s best friends!! Look at the history – when the GOP runs as a genuinely conservative alternative to the tax-and-spend left, THEY WIN. Our problem so far has been that the candidates we elected weren’t really committed to conservative principles – they mouthed them, or let us believe that those principles were theirs, until they got elected. Then they went back to playing the D.C. games of log-rolling, back-scratching, and compromising – just as we saw with this “Budget Deal’.
By the way, have you noticed that “Surprise, surprise”….about $10 Billion of the $38.5 Billion being trumpeted by our “leadership” is the same $10 Billion that they “cut” in one of the earlier C.R.s? I’m absolutely convinced that they’ve got an accounting maneuver to prove to us that it wasn’t REALLY a lie to present it the way they did – but do you truly want Representatives who will play these games with us? Might as well elect Dems and be done with it
STOP SPENDING!!
Primary opponents for every wimpy Republican.
ELECT TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVES
Under the DQ category (Dumb Questions not Don Quixote).
Why is Donald Trump gaining so much press and popularity. It’s gotta be more than questioning birth certificates. I certainly can’t place him in the ‘likable column’.
It’s because he’s asking the questions nobody has had the courage to ask before. BTW, considering his long-standing, deep and profitable Soros connections, the suspicion amongst my email list friends is that he’s a Hillary Clinton stalking horse — including running as a 3rd party candidate to divide the Republican party.
In other words, Trump, although he’s performing a valuable service, may well be gaming conservatives, who are making a big mistake getting so excited so quickly.
S&L has about three really good articles. Not especially favorable to Boehner et al. This is the first – most recent – one, the other two are the two immediately previous. Worth a read.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/time-gives-boehner-new-stature-award
>>It’s gotta be more than questioning birth certificates.>>
Sadie…I agree. Put it together with the Chris Christie enthusiasm, and I’m bound to come to the conclusion that it’s a matter of the rejoicing of the people when someone finally says “The Emperor has no clothes!”. It’s _such_ a relief when someone gets honest to goodness MSM coverage when they stand and say loudly the things the rest of us have been saying for years, but no one paid attention.
Although – I must confess…it would feel good for at least a minute and a half if Trump could call up Obama on the red phone and tell him …. “YOU’RE FIRED!!!”
Unfortunately…it would only be for the minute and a half.
>>the suspicion amongst my email list friends is that he’s a Hillary Clinton stalking horse>>
Hmmm. Maybe.
>>— including running as a 3rd party candidate to divide the Republican party.>>
Don’t think that’ll work. I don’t think there’s _that_ much enthusiasm. And what there is, I think, is more cheering because of the recognition of questions that have been raised and ignored than cheering for him for his qualifications…
How many ways do I agree with BW’s message about Donald Trump?! Let me count them, if you have all day!
Trump is very likely to be the Ross Perot of 2012 — and I will weep bitter tears if conservatives are so stupid as to give money, time, or their vote to him.
Get involved with the Tea Party, both where you are and nationally. Whatever pittance you can spare – do NOT give it to the RNCC, or the RNC, or any other branch of the GOP. Give some to the Tea Party Patriots (recommended by Hugh Hewitt), and what’s left to individual candidates you’ve done your homework on who are running against Democrats or RINO Republicans.
We have to fill the Congress with Tea Party Republicans if we are going to save our country.
STOP THE SPENDING, NOW!!!
Primary opponents for every wimpy Republican.
ELECT TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVES!
Sorry…..can you tell I feel strongly about this?
By the way, have you seen the first of the 2012 Tea Party ads against Obama?
http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/tea-party-ad-delivers-body-blow-obama
Earl, I am in favor of using his own words to ‘inflict’ upon him. It would make a great print ad – just cross out his name and insert
Tea Party – November 2012.
Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jan. 8, 2008
Sadie: I absolutely agree with you!! Where is the RNC with this….there is material for an endless series of ads.
Here’s another way to use this stuff: First, a statement from the Senate, or the 2008 campaign….and then the flat contradiction, straight from his own mouth. There must be dozens! Scores! Hundreds! How hard would it be?
The first one could be on the debt limit — one would hope that there is tape, or even video, of Obama decrying the 2006 increase under GW. Playing that, and then the White House statement that he’s sorry about that vote…wouldn’t it be DELICIOUS?! And I think, in time, it would get through to even the dimmest American citizen.
Of course, there would be an immediate outcry on the left, and in the media…and these guys are more interested in having the good opinion of their fellow elites than in almost anything else.
Tea Party Republicans ONLY!
STOP SPENDING!!
The latest fun…
I don’t watch TV, so I missed it, but I just heard that our delightful media had Doomsday Countdown Clocks ticking towards the pending APOCALYPSE of a national government shutdown. Countdown clocks! Ticking, ticking, ticking, ticking! Sheesh.
Also in the news…
“President Barack Obama will call tomorrow for a combination of reductions in entitlement spending and tax increases on higher-income Americans to address long-term fiscal debt”
I’m soooo excited. I’m certain his “reductions in entitlement spending” will be a very serious part of his proposal. HA! HA! And of course, let’s squeeze a little more blood out of that turnip of those evil “higher-income Americans”.
Also…
The president also will try to align his plan with the objectives of the so-called Gang of Six, a group of three Republican and three Democratic senators working on their own recommendations.
Who the heck is this “Gang Of Six” and why is this the first I’ve heard of them? Names, please, if anyone knows. How much you wanna bet the three Republicans are lefty RINOs? Not just an average RINO, but a lefty RINO!
And finally…
The Obama administration projects a record $1.65 trillion deficit this year, declining to $1.1 trillion next year largely on an outlook for an improved economy and increased tax collections.
There they go again, relying on an “improved economy” and “increased tax collections”, so that they can lie to us and say that they’ve got the situation under control. Lies, lies, lies, lies. And the American People will fall for it yet again.
Mike: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-11-gang-of-six_N.htm?csp=34
Well, not sitting at my computer 24/7, I missed Earl’s reclama to my last. Earl, you have made up your mind.
If your logic consists of combining a picture of the leadership in which the promise (unspecified amounts) of budget cuts with statements by unnamed persons which use the figure of $100B to reach your conclusion, far be it from me to try to reason with you.
I did make an egregious error in my post in which I said the election involved 900 races. I apparently double weighted each House race. I certainly should have said 500 separate races, in which there were myriad positions on a plethora of issues.
Trump’s threat to run as an Independent has confirmed my opinion of him.
Romney and Pawlenty are in. Either would get my vote.
I’m just strange enough to find myself getting a lot of fun out of Trump. I hear all kinds of explanations about his “motives,” and I find myself unable to wholeheartedly buy any of them. (He wants publicity? Sure – that’s what Trump needs: publicity. Money? Maybe – who ever has enough of that, but I don’t see any angle for him in a fiscal sense. Being president would represent a huge pay cut, and he’d have to put everything into a blind trust, an idea he’s highly unlikely to favor.)
I am sort of forced to the conclusion that his interest – if genuine, about which I remain dubious – is for pretty pure motives. As a large stakeholder in America, I suspect he’d like it not to go into the toilet. Add to this that he has some experience in taking things that government has handled with splendid ineptitude, and straightening them out, jerking them back into shape, and getting the job dome. Those of you with knowledge of New York City will remember the saga of Central Park’s Wohlman Rink (skating rink), the repair and rehabilitation of which baffled the Koch, Beame, and Dinkins administrations for over a decade. Trump finally got fed up with the whole performance, told NYC to take the proverbial long walk off a short pier, promised that people would be able use it within the year, and by damn – it was repaired, rehabbed, reopened, and in use ten months later. (And didn’t cost NY a dime, he fixed it, gave it back to the city, and didn’t name it for himself.) He’s good at cutting through crap – which may be precisely what we need.
But I don’t think he’s serious. I also don’t think he much likes Obama, and though his interests are too diverse for him to just come out and say “this guy’s an idiot,” I suspect that’s what he thinks. And maybe somebody who sees pretty clearly and doesn’t much care if he gets re-elected or not might be just what the doctor ordered.
I don’t think he means it in the least. But I’m willing to enjoy every minute of him saying, “hey! Obama! In the real world everybody produces their damn papers! Get it up, come clean, or beat it.” I just find that refreshing as hell.
the job of president is an executive job. Trump may not be your cup of tea, but it’s tough to say he’s not a pretty good executive.
Oldflyer: Hopefully we can disagree and still be friends. You simply MUST know that the evidence of Republicans running on the $100 Billion tax cut is not founded on a single picture and the statements of unknown persons. Where did you spend the 2010 election season? Again, I’m not saying that every single Republican who ran for office put it into their campaign literature, or that the RNC wrote it up on their home page (although I don’t know that this ISN’T the case, either). But, it was a prominent feature of the campaign, as is almost universally admitted. The Republicans certainly believed it – or they would not have come up with the “$61 Billion is really $100 Billion pro-rated for a full year” dodge. Why are you trying to deny this?
Besides, if opponents of the Republicans were trying to hang the $100 Billion pledge on them falsely – explain why? What advantage for the Dems would accrue if they did it? What disadvantage for the Republicans? It was the specific pledge of $100 Billion that made GOP claims to be budget-cutters believable! “We’ll cut the budget” is a reason to snore….we’ve heard it all before. When there is a NUMBER out there, you make people pay attention, and you increase your perceived seriousness immensely. That’s why they did it….not because some nefarious person unknown wanted to saddle them with it. Think it through, man.
As for Trump, I find him highly entertaining, and with jj would LOVE to see his executive skills sitting in the White House. However, I can’t make myself trust him in this “run” for the Presidency….I’m in the “wait and see” mode right now. It appears that he’s flip-flopped on some issues in the recent past; his donation records disturb me a good deal, as it appears that he has given far more to big lefties than the “leave me alone” amounts that any business guy uses as insurance; and, and, and……
Maybe he’s in there to bring Obama down so that Hillary can mount a primary fight – if the Bamster’s poll numbers are low enough, it might work. And trumpeting the birth certificate questions is a GREAT way to get things rolling — LOTS of us have been really curious about this, but there is so much abuse involved in asking the questions that we’ve pretty much shut up. I can hardly wait to see what he comes up with next.
I will consider a vote for Mr. Romney when he comes clean about Romneycare….it’s a flipping failure! It’s fine to say that states should get to test various plans, and I agree with him about that. But costs are sky-rocketing in Massachusetts, doctors are leaving the state, and Romney won’t say “It was a mistake – we tried, but it didn’t work.” If he had done this a year ago, he’d be in much better shape at this point. When a leader will not confess error, it’s a big black mark against him, and Romney came down several notches in my estimation over this one. (I also think he’s far too wooden and wonkish to ever get elected.)
Pass the popcorn please. Oh, by the way:
STOP SPENDING!!
Speaking of higher taxes:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/us_census_bureau_request_alarm.html
And about who won:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/04/after-todays-budget-revelations-id-be.html
Not complimentary.
Ok. So…it is what it is. I’ll hold judgment until after the two next big battles. Regardless of the conclusion on whether they “did good” or not, I will definitely be looking for TeaParty candidates. I’m still hoping against hope that Boehner et al are cagier than we’re giving them credit for. But I have to admit, I’m not strongly optimistic.
Read it and weep….the $38.5 Billion budget cut? It’s about $15 Billion in real money – the rest is gimmicks.
Eric Cantor was on Hugh Hewitt’s show this afternoon and confirmed.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/details-of-spending-deal-demonstrate-that-budget-cutting-ain-t-easy-20110412
Here are the URLs for the podcast and the transcript of the Tom Coburn (sorry – not Cantor, as above) interview:
http://www.breitbart.tv/coburn-on-budget-negotiations-send-me-some-senators-with-gonads/
http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=c5f1dbfc-ee40-496a-91c0-188aa46489c6
Money quote (IMHO)? “Send me some senators with gonads.” Don’t you wish it were Boehner saying stuff like this?!
“Send me some senators with gonads.” Don’t you wish it were Boehner saying stuff like this?!
Well…we got one that became the president and now I am wishing his would just fall off or shrivel into raisins. I normally, save this type of wish for extremely rude drivers, who think cutting me off in traffic is the highlight of their day, but I am gonna be flexible here since I believe his ‘road rage’ is a life style.
Oldflyer: Google is your friend…or mine, in this case. Here are links to references establishing, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the 2010 GOP campaign included a specific reference to “at least” $100 Billion to be cut out of the 2011 budget.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/republicans-plan-100-billion-budget-cut-as-early-act-if-they-take-power.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/143229-under-pressure-from-tea-party-house-approps-delays-funding-bill-scrambles-for-deeper-cuts-
“Chastened GOP leaders promised Thursday to find a full $100 billion in spending cuts after freshmen lawmakers torpedoed a proposal that they said betrayed the party’s “Pledge to America.””
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/house-republicans-release-100-billion-but-not-really-100-billion-budget-cut-package/
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) on Friday evening introduced a revised 2011 government spending bill that the GOP said will cut at least $100 billion in spending this fiscal year, bowing to demands by Tea Party-backed House freshmen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/politics/04fiscal.html?_r=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49372.html
http://www.bucksright.com/gop-freshmen-hang-tough-in-push-for-100-billion-budget-cut-6527
“During the 2010 campaign, the GOP pledged to cut $100 billion from the Federal budget. Because their first fiscal year in power is half over – fiscal years begin in October – GOP leadership proposed a semi-prorated $74 billion in cuts this year. The rank and file wasn’t having it, and the $74 billion plan was scrapped.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html
- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)
If you don’t believe that CBS accurately summarized what the GOP wrote, well that link has the full text of the Pledge to America, so you can check it our for yourself.
Now, in case you don’t trust the New York Times, or Bloomberg, or Politico, or AP, or Bucksright (whoever that is), or CBS, or The Hill, or Outside the Beltway…..well, here are Eric Cantor and Jeff Flake ON CAMERA being asked about the $100 Billion pledge. I note that neither one of them says “WAIT! We never pledged a specific amount – certainly not $100 Billion! Where did that number come from?” The reason is that the GOP ran their 2010 campaign on a specific pledge to cut AT LEAST $100 Billion from the 2011 budget – a pledge that they have miserably failed to keep. Make what excuses they will — those are the facts.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2011/01/07/video-keystone-kongress-defaults-on-100-billion-budget-cut-promise/
Does anyone have a suggestion as to what Obama is going to say during his address to the nation? No fair saying he’ll want to increase taxes — that’s ‘WAY too obvious. What else?
Well, Roger Kimball says he’s going to talk a lot about “fairness”…so let’s listen and see if Roger is correct.
“Fairness”, of course, is in the eye of the beholder — as anyone with at least two kids knows all too well. So here is what the Instapundit thinks would be “fair”:
A 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Leave a $150K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman, Sachs, pay a $425K surtax.
Don’t you love it? Me, too…..Glenn Reynolds is practically BEGGING someone in the House to propose this, if only to watch leftist heads explode! But, Roger doubles down…..and you’ll enjoy reading about it, here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/04/12/the-fairness-meme/?singlepage=true
Fairness surtax – I like it, Earl.
How about a graduated income tax on politicians, who have made it their career to stay in office,
This one is for you, and you and you and anyone else who hasn’t giggled in awhile.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html
Oh Earl, Earl, Earl. You are quoting statements made after the election. You are also “quoting” third party statements about what the Leaders are being forced to do by the Freshman. Ipso facto, post-election. But, let’s let this go. As we do, I can only hope that deep within yourself you recognize that the GOP controls only one leg of the Executive-Legislative triad. To paraphrase Obama, (sic) “It would be so much simpler if this were a Dictatorship (or an Oligarchy, or even rule by Central Committee)”; but, it is not. No matter how you cut it, or wish otherwise, representative democracy is going to be give and take. Savor progress when you achieve it, because it comes hard.
Trump is entertaining in the abstract. It is entertaining to hear how he skewers Obama. His bombastic talk about controlling China with tariffs is pie-in the sky entertaining; but scary if he believes himself
There is nothing entertaining about looking at that ridiculous hair; nor is it entertaining to listen to his self-promotion. It will be far from entertaining if he runs as and Independent, and siphons off a big chunk of the potential GOP vote. Welcome to four more years of Obama hell.
Same with any third party movement. I admire the Tea Party movement enormously. As a “near” spontaneous statement of popular purpose it is superb, and very effective. I just hope the TP faithful do not suffer delusions of grandeur. The GOP is the only viable vehicle for Conservative principles on the national stage; and the TP needs to concentrate on exerting maximum influence on the GOP, as it works to get like-minded GOP candidates elected. Period.
Sadie, actually I think it would be a better idea for career politicians to give up all their wealth and investments to the state. Whatever money they have, should all be liquidated and given to the state coffers. Those who have supreme power in politics to decide the life and death of others, should not be allowed to make a buck for their personal accounts on the side by buying or trading favors.
This will ensure that those in politics go into it for reasons other than personal wealth, thereby cutting down a lot of the temptations with power, leaving only power and its responsibilities. It also provides a steady income for the state, as it demonstrates for certain that politicians have a stake in the system. Since their money is in it, thus motivating them not to bankrupt the state with crazy budget spending.
People here should already know that Senators and Congresscritters make substantially more on stock market trading than the general public. Know why? When the lawmakers are the ones writing the laws, of course they know which stocks to sell or buy. But you don’t. If you did that, they would call it insider trading and lock you up, like Martha Stewart. You don’t to have the “privileges” of the true elite. So that money goes where. Into their bank accounts. Not into taxes. Not into the US treasury.
Of course it doesn’t really matter what Boehner promised or didn’t promise. The fact is, they didn’t get anything worth the trouble in the new budget, compared to what they gave away. It’s not a matter of decision, it’s a matter of being swindled while telling the rest of us that they made off big. They didn’t make off with anything.
For once I agree with Y-man completely.
Oldflyer: You earlier stated that my mind was made up, which now appears to me to be a projection on your part.
If you look at the list of links, the following shows clearly that it is from October 27, 20010. I don’t think we had voted then, my friend.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/republicans-plan-100-billion-budget-cut-as-early-act-if-they-take-power.html
Furthermore, this one is from the actual GOP Pledge to America…and I do believe that it was issued before the elections of 2010, as well.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html - Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)
Not to get too pushy, but what would be your explanation of the performance of Cantor and Flake when questioned about the $100 Billion pledge? How is this video explicable under your memory of the election season?
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2011/01/07/video-keystone-kongress-defaults-on-100-billion-budget-cut-promise/
I have already agreed with you that a Third Party will merely assure that the Dems are returned to power. My plea is that we THROW THE RASCALS OUT, and I’m referring to Boehner and all the rest of them that broke faith with us when they didn’t keep the central promise of the 2010 campaign.
Vote for the Tea Party Conservatives in the primaries, and send whatever you can to assist their campaigns.
STOP THE SPENDING!!
Using what Old said as a template, that this is a victory, then how many more victories will we need to beat ObamaCare? If ObamaCare is a quarter of the 1 trillion budget the Dems crafted like an ulcer upon the body of America, and 40 billion in cuts were achieved by the GOP this year, how many more years will we need before 500 billion can be cut.
And are we supposed to wait 12 years for the Left to finish consolidating their power, before providing them with a nation that is flush, once again, with cash so they can spend it more later?
Well, folks….who is volunteering to follow the GOP “Leadership” over THIS cliff? (I’ll be honest – I thought it was Iowahawk or The Onion, when I first saw this announced. It’s not.)
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/13/cbo-last-weeks-38-billion-budget-deal-only-reduces-this-years-deficit-by-352-million/
CBO: Last week’s $38 billion budget deal only reduces this year’s deficit by … $352 million; Update: GOP leaders lobbying for votes
Hanging is too good for these people.
PRIMARY OPPONENTS FOR ANYONE WHO VOTES FOR THIS DEAL!
TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVES ONLY
STOP THE (D**N) SPENDING! (Pardon my French)
Don’t fret, Earl – we’ll teach’em a lesson November 2012.
TAKE NO PRISONERS – YOU HAVE TO CLOTHE AND FEED THEM
(Pardon my French)
Danny and Martel, will you pardon his French for him?
and the TP needs to concentrate on exerting maximum influence on the GOP
The most convenient, effective, and efficient way to achieve that would be to purge the Old Guard of the GOP and replace them with TP loyalists. That means the ideologically impure are either going out or they’re going to have to pick sides for once.
What Ymarsakar said, folks.
THROW THE B*****DS OUT!
VOTE FOR TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVES IN EVERY REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
STOP THE SPENDING!!
Earl and Oldflyer
Does this settle it for you – it does for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHCiSqxT-As&feature=player_embedded#at=55
Thanks for posting that, Sadie….
John Boehner promised to “fight”. If what the leadership did in the 2011 “budget deal” was how they define a “fight’ then we need new leadership. He promised to stop the Federal funding of abortion, and then they folded like an old tent.
If they truly meant it about “fighting”, someone from the GOP would have been out there telling the American people something like this: “My fellow Americans, your President swears that he will veto the agreement if it has a clause promising to pay the military in the case of a shutdown. He also says that he will not accept any agreement that withdraws funding from Planned Parenthood, 90% of whose services to pregnant women consist of abortion. The Republicans say that we consider paying the fighting men and women of this nation to be a much higher priority than the Federal funding of abortion services. We invite the President to join us.”
PRIMARY OPPONENTS FOR EVERY REPUBLICAN WHO VOTES FOR THE $352 MILLION BUDGET CUT
ELECT TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVES
STOP THE SPENDING
I got to say Book, Bkwormroom has some interesting analysts.
Not that this was new, but it came to mind when rereading this entire post and comment lunch box.
Most of the time the regulars aren’t fired up enough to argue or debate (with each other). But when it does happen, you get the friction of interstellar bodies in motion. Deshou?