Did Republicans win or lose on the budget?

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?

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. says

    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.



    “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.””
    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.
    “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.”
    – 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.


  2. says

    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:

  3. Oldflyer says

    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.

  4. says

    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.

  5. says

    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.

  6. says

    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.

  7. says

    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.
    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?
    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.

  8. says

    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?

  9. says

    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.)
    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.
    STOP THE (D**N) SPENDING! (Pardon my French)

  10. says

    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.

  11. says

    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.”

Leave a Reply