It is quite inspiring to have such an unvarnished conservative like Andy Harris representing Maryland. In this blue oligarchy, we are lucky to elect any Republican, let a along a true conservative. Yesterday, Congressman Harris opposed his own leadership and joined 65 other members in opposing the bill to raise the debt ceiling. This bill handed Obama his full lifeline until after the election, without imposing any enforceable and transformational change (other than cutting defense and creating a 19th debt commission).
Most people don't appreciate how hard it is to oppose one's leadership, especially at such a pivotal time. It is all the more inspiring that Harris is a freshman member who is willing to expend his political capital standing on principle. Harris was also part of the select group of congressmen that opposed the CR deal in April. Keep fighting on, Congressman Harris.
Now, if only we had people in leadership who exhibited such intrepid determination to limit the size of government!
Showing posts with label boehner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boehner. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Monday, August 01, 2011
9 Reasons to Oppose Boehner 4.0 Debt Deal
1) Obama gets his full lifeline, long-term debt limit increase that
will take him beyond the election ($2.1-2.4 trillion), without making
any transformational concession. There is no realistic roadmap to
entitlement reform; not a single agency or program, domestic or
mandatory, will be eliminated; Obamacare is off limits; there will be no
balanced budgets, ever. We will still add trillions more to the debt
over the next ten years. Yes, there is a second tranche that will
trigger the latter $1.2-1.5 trillion increase, but unlike previous
versions of Boehner's plan, Republicans have no control over that
trigger to use it as a precondition.
2) The only real cuts will be in 2012, when we cut $21 billion in outlays (just $7 billion in budget authority). The rest of the $917 billion will be baseline cuts that permanently lock in the fundamentals of the Obama era. This will overwrite and override the House-passed budget that remanded spending to pre-Obama levels. In addition, the extra faux cuts create self-fulfilling fake interest savings, thereby double counting total savings. Furthermore, how much of the discretionary cuts agreed upon for the first tranche of the debt increase will be from defense? The White House put out a memo saying that "the discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending."
3) What about the $1.2-$1.5 trillion in savings and entitlement reform from the super duper debt commission 19.0? Does anyone really believe that this commission will be more successful than Simpson-Bowles? That blue-ribbon panel identified policy changes that both parties liked and hated; it called for some cuts and entitlement reform – and more taxes; nevertheless, Obama threw his own commission under the bus. We are really to believe that Obama would approve a commission report that calls for the good entitlement reforms without tax hikes? Oh, but then there would be an automatic sequestration that would cut a commensurate amount of spending. Really? See #4
2) The only real cuts will be in 2012, when we cut $21 billion in outlays (just $7 billion in budget authority). The rest of the $917 billion will be baseline cuts that permanently lock in the fundamentals of the Obama era. This will overwrite and override the House-passed budget that remanded spending to pre-Obama levels. In addition, the extra faux cuts create self-fulfilling fake interest savings, thereby double counting total savings. Furthermore, how much of the discretionary cuts agreed upon for the first tranche of the debt increase will be from defense? The White House put out a memo saying that "the discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending."
3) What about the $1.2-$1.5 trillion in savings and entitlement reform from the super duper debt commission 19.0? Does anyone really believe that this commission will be more successful than Simpson-Bowles? That blue-ribbon panel identified policy changes that both parties liked and hated; it called for some cuts and entitlement reform – and more taxes; nevertheless, Obama threw his own commission under the bus. We are really to believe that Obama would approve a commission report that calls for the good entitlement reforms without tax hikes? Oh, but then there would be an automatic sequestration that would cut a commensurate amount of spending. Really? See #4
Why We Fight
Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and lots of courage
Over the past week, the Tea Party has been impugned and maligned
with more ferocity than ever before. Amidst our push to balance the
budget, downsize job-killing government agencies and programs, and
preserve our AAA credit rating, we have been condemned as extremists,
suicidal, and traitors. Sadly, most of these acrimonious ad hominem
attacks were propagated by those who purport to share the aforementioned
goals, but feel repulsed by our “intransigent” sense of urgency. Some
have even regurgitated Democrat talking points suggesting that Reagan
would be labeled a RINO by the Tea Party.
These writers and commentators who supposedly share our ultimate goals for limited government, yet condemn our tactics and sense of urgency, are lacking a sober understanding of the severity of our current predicament in relation to Reagan’s era.
As grim as the situation was at the time of Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, it simply doesn’t compare to the magnitude of our problems precipitated by the growth of the federal government, the insolvent debt, and rampant government dependency. Reagan came to power and fought for limited government in order to preclude the very eventuality that we are experiencing today. Today, in 2011, we are suffering under every pernicious effect of a tyrannical government; the magnitude to which Reagan did not experience, but presciently attempted to avert.
Although Reagan succeeded in his fundamental goals of stalling the inexorable growth of government, cutting taxes, rolling back some regulations, and winning the Cold War, he realized at the end of his presidency that those victories were not sufficient to countermand the self-perpetuating growth of government dependency and tyranny. He knew that due to factors which were mostly beyond his control he had failed to eliminate a significant number of agencies and programs that serve as the backbone for the statist society.
Reagan had learned that liberals had insidiously co-opted so many rent-seekers in government that it was impossible to win a war of attrition by fighting agency-to-agency and program-to-program warfare. Fifty years of steady movement toward socialism had shown that any edict promulgated by the federal government, much like the ancient Persian government described in Esther, “may not be revoked.” He realized that something drastic had to be done to prevent the immutable growth of government that he so ominously envisioned after his departure.
These writers and commentators who supposedly share our ultimate goals for limited government, yet condemn our tactics and sense of urgency, are lacking a sober understanding of the severity of our current predicament in relation to Reagan’s era.
As grim as the situation was at the time of Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, it simply doesn’t compare to the magnitude of our problems precipitated by the growth of the federal government, the insolvent debt, and rampant government dependency. Reagan came to power and fought for limited government in order to preclude the very eventuality that we are experiencing today. Today, in 2011, we are suffering under every pernicious effect of a tyrannical government; the magnitude to which Reagan did not experience, but presciently attempted to avert.
Although Reagan succeeded in his fundamental goals of stalling the inexorable growth of government, cutting taxes, rolling back some regulations, and winning the Cold War, he realized at the end of his presidency that those victories were not sufficient to countermand the self-perpetuating growth of government dependency and tyranny. He knew that due to factors which were mostly beyond his control he had failed to eliminate a significant number of agencies and programs that serve as the backbone for the statist society.
Reagan had learned that liberals had insidiously co-opted so many rent-seekers in government that it was impossible to win a war of attrition by fighting agency-to-agency and program-to-program warfare. Fifty years of steady movement toward socialism had shown that any edict promulgated by the federal government, much like the ancient Persian government described in Esther, “may not be revoked.” He realized that something drastic had to be done to prevent the immutable growth of government that he so ominously envisioned after his departure.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Here’s the Latest Democrat Plan
Will this ultimately be the best we can get, or will GOP leaders hold their own line?
Well, we really stuck it to the Democrats today. Instead of passing Cut, Cap, and Balance, a plan that will never pass the Senate and would have foisted the blame of a default upon us (supposedly), we orchestrated a plan to really own them. We came up with Boehner plan 2.0 that..well, …..will not pass the Senate – and will force a default, unless we agree to a watered down version of the watered down version.
As of late this afternoon, the underpinnings of a compromise Democrat plan were beginning to materialize:
As we speak, House leaders are going through cerebral gyrations to convince Republicans that this is our last option. Earlier today, Speaker Boehner refused to say whether he would force his own bill to the brink if and when Harry Reid rejects it in the Senate.
At the very least, these leaders owe the rank-and-file members two commitments: 1) They will commit to fighting for at least some of the fundamentals of the House-passed budget. 2) Even though they retreated on Cut, Cap, and Balance and are forcing them to vote for an “imperfect bill,” they will hold the line on Boehner 2.0, reject any further compromise, and tell Obama to get his a@#$ in line.
Or, is that bellicose rhetoric only reserved for fellow conservatives?
Cross-posted to RedState.com
Well, we really stuck it to the Democrats today. Instead of passing Cut, Cap, and Balance, a plan that will never pass the Senate and would have foisted the blame of a default upon us (supposedly), we orchestrated a plan to really own them. We came up with Boehner plan 2.0 that..well, …..will not pass the Senate – and will force a default, unless we agree to a watered down version of the watered down version.
As of late this afternoon, the underpinnings of a compromise Democrat plan were beginning to materialize:
Democrats are aiming for a debt-limit compromise similar to the House Republican plan, with at least one major difference: The second vote on raising the debt ceiling would not depend on Congress passing a broader deficit-reduction package.So, if this is ultimately the best plan that Democrats will pass, should we support it? What is the bottom line for GOP leaders, in which they would be willing to keep their a@#$ on their own line?
The shape of this potential compromise meshes major elements of the proposals offered in recent weeks by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), according to Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations.
Under the possible compromise, Congress could still get a second crack at voting on the debt limit within months. But rather than linking the vote to Congress approving the recommendations of a new 12-member committee — as it would be in Boehner’s bill — Democrats prefer McConnell’s proposal that allows President Barack Obama to lift the debt ceiling unless two-thirds of both chambers override his veto of a disapproval resolution, the officials said. (emphasis added)
As we speak, House leaders are going through cerebral gyrations to convince Republicans that this is our last option. Earlier today, Speaker Boehner refused to say whether he would force his own bill to the brink if and when Harry Reid rejects it in the Senate.
At the very least, these leaders owe the rank-and-file members two commitments: 1) They will commit to fighting for at least some of the fundamentals of the House-passed budget. 2) Even though they retreated on Cut, Cap, and Balance and are forcing them to vote for an “imperfect bill,” they will hold the line on Boehner 2.0, reject any further compromise, and tell Obama to get his a@#$ in line.
Or, is that bellicose rhetoric only reserved for fellow conservatives?
Cross-posted to RedState.com
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
What is the End Game for Big Government?
Is the Republican infighting really about strategy, or is it about ideology?
Those Republicans, such as the Wall Street Journal editors and the Weekly Standard
writers, who criticize Tea Party opposition to Boehner’s plan, would
have you believe that they are just as ideologically committed to
downsizing government. They are just advocating smarter and more
politically savvy ways of achieving that goal; one that is supposedly
less tendentious to independent voters. As such, they have an
obligation to create a political and policy road map that will reduce
government – a goal they purportedly share. Where is their plan?
We believe that unless we go to the brink, and use our leverage with the budget process to force fundamental and transformational government reform, we will never limit government. These wizards of smart obviously believe that we will have better opportunities in the future. What are those opportunities?
Over the last 75 years, and especially during the past decade, liberals have methodically constructed an incorrigible edifice of tyranny. Their magnum opus, the federal government, has foisted $14.4 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded obligations on our families; it has promulgated $1.75 trillion in regulatory burdens on our job creators, it has sucked out millions of jobs and trillions in income growth from the “little guy.” Most important, it has revoked an incalculable measure of liberty from everyone.
Any sane observer of politics, who is willing to learn from the lessons of history, should intuitively understand that a few billion in cuts, along with incremental changes to government, are no match for perennial, self-perpetuating socialism. It is akin to stopping a speeding bullet train (the last to leave the station, to paraphrase Speaker Boehner) with some twigs. Boehner’s 2.0 plan, which appears to be gaining traction, does just that.
Our detractors will protest, “but this is not the time and place for such reform; let’s wait until we have control of more than 1/3rd of one branch of government.”
“This is the best we can do, given the extraneous circumstances.”
“Wait for 2012; we’ll take back all of government and really show them.”
“Get your a@#$ in line.”
No, folks, it is we conservatives who have kept our posteriors on the line, while you retreated from it.
We believe that unless we go to the brink, and use our leverage with the budget process to force fundamental and transformational government reform, we will never limit government. These wizards of smart obviously believe that we will have better opportunities in the future. What are those opportunities?
Over the last 75 years, and especially during the past decade, liberals have methodically constructed an incorrigible edifice of tyranny. Their magnum opus, the federal government, has foisted $14.4 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded obligations on our families; it has promulgated $1.75 trillion in regulatory burdens on our job creators, it has sucked out millions of jobs and trillions in income growth from the “little guy.” Most important, it has revoked an incalculable measure of liberty from everyone.
Any sane observer of politics, who is willing to learn from the lessons of history, should intuitively understand that a few billion in cuts, along with incremental changes to government, are no match for perennial, self-perpetuating socialism. It is akin to stopping a speeding bullet train (the last to leave the station, to paraphrase Speaker Boehner) with some twigs. Boehner’s 2.0 plan, which appears to be gaining traction, does just that.
Our detractors will protest, “but this is not the time and place for such reform; let’s wait until we have control of more than 1/3rd of one branch of government.”
“This is the best we can do, given the extraneous circumstances.”
“Wait for 2012; we’ll take back all of government and really show them.”
“Get your a@#$ in line.”
No, folks, it is we conservatives who have kept our posteriors on the line, while you retreated from it.
Boehner Grounds into a Double Play
Negating our leverage over the debt ceiling and next years' budget in one fell swoop
Late this afternoon, the CBO reaffirmed all of our concerns with Speaker Boehner’s Budget Control Act of 2011 – plus interest (pun intended).
We have asserted ad nauseam that any proposed budget plan that fails to countermand the current prodigal spending levels, including the modestly reduced spending levels of 2011, is not worth the paper it is printed on. The CBO estimates that Boehner’s $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cuts will only save us $850 billion over ten years. This means that Obama’s credit card increase will be higher than the concurrent spending cuts, thus voiding the promise of the dollar-for-dollar agreement. Moreover, the CBO estimates that all the cuts will be backloaded, as the estimated savings for next year – the only enforceable year – will be a negligible $1 billion! It turns out that an extra $4 billion in mandatory spending for Pell Grants will ostensibly wipe out any savings from the paltry discretionary cuts.
This plan is worse than a strikeout; it’s a ground ball into a double play.
A mere lousy plan would have destroyed our leverage over the debt ceiling fight; Boehner’s plan obviates our future leverage over the FY 2012 budget fight in late September as well. The House-passed budget resolution, known as the Paul Ryan budget, authorized $1.019 trillion in non-emergency discretionary spending for FY 2012. Boehner’s bill authorizes $1.043 trillion.
Additionally, all the reforms in entitlement and welfare spending that were adopted in the Ryan budget (including reforms of Pell Grants) will be jettisoned and exchanged for a grand bargain formulated by the Super Commission. Yes, I know, it’s a committee; not a commission.
Consequently, when the 2012 budget fight boils over after the summer recess, we will lose our leverage to fight for the Ryan budget. So, all the hard work that has gone into passing the appropriations bills and fulfilling the mandate from the budget resolution would have been a waste. The Boehner plan has already overshot the spending levels of those bills. Democrats will laugh at them during those pretentious days at the end of the fiscal year.
Concurrently, there is another unforeseen vice to this plan. The two largest non-defense appropriations bills; the Labor/HHS/Education and Transportation/HUD bills, are being saved until after August. The Ryan budget blueprint achieved the most savings from these bills; $26 billion of the estimated $47 trillion in discretionary savings for 2012. Boehner’s plan, or any 2.0 version of it, would allow liberal Republican appropriators to reinstate some of the spending to the most pernicious activities of some of the worst government agencies. Congressman Steve LaTourette, a shill for Big Labor, is already agog over the opportunity to spend more on Labor.
John Boehner, to his credit, is planning to rewrite his bill. He needs to go for a home run and stick with Cut, Cap, and Balance. At the very least, we don’t need another double play.
If GOP leaders are serious, they will fight for a deal that upholds the integrity of the Ryan budget, both on the discretionary and mandatory sides of the ledger.
Cross-posted to RedState.com
We have asserted ad nauseam that any proposed budget plan that fails to countermand the current prodigal spending levels, including the modestly reduced spending levels of 2011, is not worth the paper it is printed on. The CBO estimates that Boehner’s $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cuts will only save us $850 billion over ten years. This means that Obama’s credit card increase will be higher than the concurrent spending cuts, thus voiding the promise of the dollar-for-dollar agreement. Moreover, the CBO estimates that all the cuts will be backloaded, as the estimated savings for next year – the only enforceable year – will be a negligible $1 billion! It turns out that an extra $4 billion in mandatory spending for Pell Grants will ostensibly wipe out any savings from the paltry discretionary cuts.
This plan is worse than a strikeout; it’s a ground ball into a double play.
A mere lousy plan would have destroyed our leverage over the debt ceiling fight; Boehner’s plan obviates our future leverage over the FY 2012 budget fight in late September as well. The House-passed budget resolution, known as the Paul Ryan budget, authorized $1.019 trillion in non-emergency discretionary spending for FY 2012. Boehner’s bill authorizes $1.043 trillion.
Additionally, all the reforms in entitlement and welfare spending that were adopted in the Ryan budget (including reforms of Pell Grants) will be jettisoned and exchanged for a grand bargain formulated by the Super Commission. Yes, I know, it’s a committee; not a commission.
Consequently, when the 2012 budget fight boils over after the summer recess, we will lose our leverage to fight for the Ryan budget. So, all the hard work that has gone into passing the appropriations bills and fulfilling the mandate from the budget resolution would have been a waste. The Boehner plan has already overshot the spending levels of those bills. Democrats will laugh at them during those pretentious days at the end of the fiscal year.
Concurrently, there is another unforeseen vice to this plan. The two largest non-defense appropriations bills; the Labor/HHS/Education and Transportation/HUD bills, are being saved until after August. The Ryan budget blueprint achieved the most savings from these bills; $26 billion of the estimated $47 trillion in discretionary savings for 2012. Boehner’s plan, or any 2.0 version of it, would allow liberal Republican appropriators to reinstate some of the spending to the most pernicious activities of some of the worst government agencies. Congressman Steve LaTourette, a shill for Big Labor, is already agog over the opportunity to spend more on Labor.
John Boehner, to his credit, is planning to rewrite his bill. He needs to go for a home run and stick with Cut, Cap, and Balance. At the very least, we don’t need another double play.
If GOP leaders are serious, they will fight for a deal that upholds the integrity of the Ryan budget, both on the discretionary and mandatory sides of the ledger.
Cross-posted to RedState.com
Monday, July 25, 2011
Boehner’s Two-Tiered Plan: Trust Without Verification
Give hen house keys to the wolves first, police them later
Why is Speaker Boehner abandoning Cut, Cap, and Balance for this new, so-called two-tiered plan? In what way is this plan superior to CCB, either politically or from a policy standpoint?
If Boehner’s rationale for repudiating CCB is that it won’t pass the Senate, thus forcing the dreaded default, which will supposedly be blamed on the GOP, then how does the new plan help? The Democrats absolutely will not pass a plan that resurrects the debt fight before the election. Boehner’s watered down plan won’t pass muster with Democrats, unless it raises the debt limit until after the election. So after the House passes this new plan, and the Senate summarily rejects it, we will wind up in the same predicament. GOP leaders will still shudder with trepidation from the approaching deadline. The only difference is that they will be forced to negotiate from a weakened position. In other words, the new Boehner plan will be the right goal post of the ensuing negotiations, engendering an opening for Democrats to push an even worse deal.
What about the policy virtues of this plan?
Boehner’s plan is being sold as one that upholds the principles of Cut, Cap, and Balance. The first stage of the proposal calls for $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over the next 10 years, in exchange for a $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. The plan would also impose spending caps, although the exact figures are still unclear. Finally, it would call for a vote on a balanced budget amendment by the end of the year, as a precondition for raising the debt ceiling.
The second stage, also tied to the initial agreement to raise the debt limit, would take the form of, you guessed it.. a debt commission, which would identify $1.8 trillion in additional cuts over 10 years, primarily from entitlement reform. Upon adoption of the commission’s cuts, the debt ceiling would be raised another $1.6 trillion next year.
There is one fundamental problem with the entire plan. Unlike the actual CCB plan, this proposal would hand the Democrat wolves the keys to the spending hen house first, while promising unverifiable and unenforceable cuts later. The bottom line is that once we return the federal credit card to the Democrats, they will no longer have any incentive to vote for a balanced budget amendment.
Why is Speaker Boehner abandoning Cut, Cap, and Balance for this new, so-called two-tiered plan? In what way is this plan superior to CCB, either politically or from a policy standpoint?
If Boehner’s rationale for repudiating CCB is that it won’t pass the Senate, thus forcing the dreaded default, which will supposedly be blamed on the GOP, then how does the new plan help? The Democrats absolutely will not pass a plan that resurrects the debt fight before the election. Boehner’s watered down plan won’t pass muster with Democrats, unless it raises the debt limit until after the election. So after the House passes this new plan, and the Senate summarily rejects it, we will wind up in the same predicament. GOP leaders will still shudder with trepidation from the approaching deadline. The only difference is that they will be forced to negotiate from a weakened position. In other words, the new Boehner plan will be the right goal post of the ensuing negotiations, engendering an opening for Democrats to push an even worse deal.
What about the policy virtues of this plan?
Boehner’s plan is being sold as one that upholds the principles of Cut, Cap, and Balance. The first stage of the proposal calls for $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over the next 10 years, in exchange for a $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. The plan would also impose spending caps, although the exact figures are still unclear. Finally, it would call for a vote on a balanced budget amendment by the end of the year, as a precondition for raising the debt ceiling.
The second stage, also tied to the initial agreement to raise the debt limit, would take the form of, you guessed it.. a debt commission, which would identify $1.8 trillion in additional cuts over 10 years, primarily from entitlement reform. Upon adoption of the commission’s cuts, the debt ceiling would be raised another $1.6 trillion next year.
There is one fundamental problem with the entire plan. Unlike the actual CCB plan, this proposal would hand the Democrat wolves the keys to the spending hen house first, while promising unverifiable and unenforceable cuts later. The bottom line is that once we return the federal credit card to the Democrats, they will no longer have any incentive to vote for a balanced budget amendment.
The Unanswered Questions for GOP Leaders from Freshmen
What about Paul Ryan's budget?
Forget the tax issue or the timetable for a moment; any proposed “spending cut” deal that fails to slash funding for discretionary spending and welfare programs to pre-Obama levels, as proposed in Paul Ryan’s budget, is worthless. As Congressman Dennis Ross (R-FL) tweeted earlier today, “debt “deals” that count on 10 years worth of spending cuts are the Mr Snuffleupagus of budget tricks. No one sees them except pols.”
If House leaders fail to stand by their own budget, freshmen members like Ross might pose the following question: was the entire Republican majority of the 112th Congress a waste of time?
A record number of freshmen Republicans were swept into Congress to downsize government in general, and repeal/defund Obamacare in particular.
In April, Republicans had their first chance to fulfill their mandate by passing a continuing resolution for FY 2011 that slashed government and defunded Obamacare. As the clock ticked down to a government shutdown, GOP leaders retreated in fear. They forced the conference to pass a spending bill that maintained funding for Obamacare and only trimmed a paltry $352 million from the deficit, thereby abrogating their popular mandate from just five months before.
But we were told that the CR was not our fight, and that we should remain patient until we are presented with real opportunities; the debt ceiling fight and the Paul Ryan budget for FY 2012.
The Ryan budget, unlike the impending debt ceiling deal, more or less fulfills the mandate of the 2010 freshmen by defunding Obamacare and downsizing government to pre-Obama levels. This is not the RSC plan or a Tea Party plan; it is the plan of the entire conference, supported by leadership. Ever since the budget resolution was adopted on April 15, the House has worked diligently to carry out the budget blueprint and implement comprehensive cuts in every appropriations bill.
Forget the tax issue or the timetable for a moment; any proposed “spending cut” deal that fails to slash funding for discretionary spending and welfare programs to pre-Obama levels, as proposed in Paul Ryan’s budget, is worthless. As Congressman Dennis Ross (R-FL) tweeted earlier today, “debt “deals” that count on 10 years worth of spending cuts are the Mr Snuffleupagus of budget tricks. No one sees them except pols.”
If House leaders fail to stand by their own budget, freshmen members like Ross might pose the following question: was the entire Republican majority of the 112th Congress a waste of time?
A record number of freshmen Republicans were swept into Congress to downsize government in general, and repeal/defund Obamacare in particular.
In April, Republicans had their first chance to fulfill their mandate by passing a continuing resolution for FY 2011 that slashed government and defunded Obamacare. As the clock ticked down to a government shutdown, GOP leaders retreated in fear. They forced the conference to pass a spending bill that maintained funding for Obamacare and only trimmed a paltry $352 million from the deficit, thereby abrogating their popular mandate from just five months before.
But we were told that the CR was not our fight, and that we should remain patient until we are presented with real opportunities; the debt ceiling fight and the Paul Ryan budget for FY 2012.
The Ryan budget, unlike the impending debt ceiling deal, more or less fulfills the mandate of the 2010 freshmen by defunding Obamacare and downsizing government to pre-Obama levels. This is not the RSC plan or a Tea Party plan; it is the plan of the entire conference, supported by leadership. Ever since the budget resolution was adopted on April 15, the House has worked diligently to carry out the budget blueprint and implement comprehensive cuts in every appropriations bill.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
When Will the Real Fight Finally Commence?
There is no time like the present.
Over the weekend, Speaker John Boehner showed that he is even more conservative than the Tea Party. While the petulant rubes in the Tea Party were credulously focusing on the 'small potatoes' of the 2011 budget, Boehner wisely decided to proceed to the real fight; the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget. In the process, he even secured $38 billion, or 1%, in cuts from this year's budget, along with the funding for a D.C. voucher program.
In addition to being an intrepid conservative and a tenacious negotiator, Boehner is also a skilled mathematician. He knew from the very beginning that 38 billion is more than half way between 0 and 61 billion. Game over, Democrats lose! Even though half of the alleged cuts might comprise of Democrat cuts in mandatory spending, and another $10 billion might include the previous CR cuts, those are just minor points.
At this point, you may ask, what happened to those pesky little riders, like defunding Obamacare and EPA regulations; those little things that will cost the taxpayer, consumer, businesses, and healthcare providers trillions - if not billions - in expenditures over the next decade? You might wonder, what happened to the defunding of Planned Parenthood, preventing our tax money from killing babies? You might be perplexed concerning the absence of the NPR rider, preventing our tax money from servicing Democrats' public relations effort.
Fear not, simpletons. This is where Boehner really beguiled Reid and the Democrats. He forced Reid to bring two of four riders - Obamacare and Planned Parenthood - to an actual vote on the Democrat-controlled Senate floor! Besides, Boehner is presciently saving his firepower for the real battle, the debt ceiling fight.
Now let's travel in a time machine and attempt to ascertain the outcome of the real big fight in the future:
Over the weekend, Speaker John Boehner showed that he is even more conservative than the Tea Party. While the petulant rubes in the Tea Party were credulously focusing on the 'small potatoes' of the 2011 budget, Boehner wisely decided to proceed to the real fight; the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget. In the process, he even secured $38 billion, or 1%, in cuts from this year's budget, along with the funding for a D.C. voucher program.
In addition to being an intrepid conservative and a tenacious negotiator, Boehner is also a skilled mathematician. He knew from the very beginning that 38 billion is more than half way between 0 and 61 billion. Game over, Democrats lose! Even though half of the alleged cuts might comprise of Democrat cuts in mandatory spending, and another $10 billion might include the previous CR cuts, those are just minor points.
At this point, you may ask, what happened to those pesky little riders, like defunding Obamacare and EPA regulations; those little things that will cost the taxpayer, consumer, businesses, and healthcare providers trillions - if not billions - in expenditures over the next decade? You might wonder, what happened to the defunding of Planned Parenthood, preventing our tax money from killing babies? You might be perplexed concerning the absence of the NPR rider, preventing our tax money from servicing Democrats' public relations effort.
Fear not, simpletons. This is where Boehner really beguiled Reid and the Democrats. He forced Reid to bring two of four riders - Obamacare and Planned Parenthood - to an actual vote on the Democrat-controlled Senate floor! Besides, Boehner is presciently saving his firepower for the real battle, the debt ceiling fight.
Now let's travel in a time machine and attempt to ascertain the outcome of the real big fight in the future:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)