Return to the Article
Posted on 04/09/2011 1:25:50 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Return to the Article |
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) didn't want to cut anything at first. But bowing to political reality, eventually ponied up about $4.7 billion in cuts. He ended up with $33.8 billion less spending than he wanted. And he called it an "historic" accomplishment. (Not surprisingly, the left is appalled).
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), on the other hand, initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts. House Republicans, led by an undaunted freshman class, bumped that number up to $61 billion ($100 billion off the president's budget), before settling on $38.5 billion.
That's $6.5 billion more than Boehner asked for to begin with, and $5.5 billion more than the $33 billion that Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats claimed had been agreed to less than two weeks ago.
The budget number is pretty good, mainly because it kills programs instead of lowering their budgets for 6 months. so those 6 month numbers expand and grow in the coming year (snip) [emphasis added]
Obama even admitted in his speech infrastructure projects were being ‘delayed' (i.e., de-funded in 2011). Once de-funded, they will not be back any time soon. As fox News reports, this is a lot farther than the Democrats said they would be willing to go when this all started. (snip)
However, Boehner must have had an incredible stick in those negotiations, because Reid and Obama agreed to put things to vote in the Senate which everyone deemed impossible just last week. That is the truly amazing part of what Boehner pulled off yesterday:
The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama's government takeover of health care in its entirety. The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America.
...
The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
The last thing Reid or Obama want is a vote in the senate on Obamacare (or Planned Parenthood). But now they are going to have to vote and this is huge. If this happens, and 4 of those 23 red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2012 vote against Obamacare, then the President will have to veto a bipartisan bill that lines up with the overall will of the American voters. What could be better than isolating Obama and Obamacare from the will of the people and Congress heading into 2012?
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/the_gop_did_just_fine.html at April 09, 2011 - 03:11:01 PM CDT
This is just another bomb from D.C. that we can’t see the details of, until after it’s passed and signed by Obama.
I want to know more than the figure allegedly cut. I want to know exactly what programs were cut.
You see, I don’t for a second believe that the dems are out any money except for some of the funds they had already padded. In other words... more smoke and mirrors.
The games haven’t ended, they’ve just begun.
That liar promised 100 billion...he lied...there are no reasl cuts in the Ryan budget ...he start at 3.59 trillion and heads UP....
excerpt:
"A congressional source tells CNSNews.com that under the deal struck last night, the normal Senate filibuster rule will still apply to the Planned Parenthood defunding bill. Unless 60 senators support a procedural measure to close debate on the bill and bring it up for a final vote on whether to actually pass it or not, it will be defeated—even if it could win 51 votes on final passage."
The House DID pass $100 B. But after the Senate screwed with it we still ended up with 80% of that because Reid was forced to give up WAY more than he wanted.
Ryan's budget cuts $6.2 T. We probably won't end up with 100% of that either because we don't control the Senate but 2012 will see cuts in the trillions which is a very nice next step.
ping to article
Barf.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2011/04/07/kudlow-paul-ryans-growth-budget/
You might be confused, I'm not...
Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker. ...
This looks like part of it....
"Over the next decade the cuts are expected to save hundreds of billions of dollars.
The deal mandates a host of studies and audits of Obama administration policies. It also blocks additional funds for the IRS sought by the Obama administration and bans federal funding of abortion in Washington, D.C."
The only decent thing I see so far is not hiring extra IRS. If it is real.
Thank you.....
The GOP blinked and there no other explanation for the result we saw this morning.
If they can’t manage real, substantive cuts now, when can they ?
It is a $49 billion cut - $10 billion earlier in the year and now an additional $39 billion.
The deal is exceptionally good on both tactical and strategic grounds.
I freely admit to jumping the gun in my comments about this yesterday. It now appears to me that we have indeed gained a tactical victory here.
Putting my pitchfork away for now...
I don’t know about the CNSNews article’s assumption, but the Boehner insistance on having the votes is a bit more than just a symbolic victory.
I believe the idea is to put vulnerable Democrat Senators on record going into an election year.
I think it goes without saying that the last thing Democrats want is votes on Planned Parenthood and Obamacare.
But if Reed tries to pull a filibuster stunt, then the whole Democrat Caucus will be seen as reneging on an agreement.
Ultimately, Obama would veto any defunding of PP or O-care anyway, so it’s just a matter of who gets blamed, Obama with a veto or the Democrat Senate with a filibuster.
Either way, Boehner has forced the Democrats and Obama into an unpleasant choice.
“The deal is exceptionally good on both tactical and strategic grounds.
I fully agree. I think the Speaker did as best as could be expected under the circumstances. He looks more presidential than the POTUS.
It really is time for all the whiners here to shut up. The man did a good job. NONE OF US got exactly what we wanted....that is the way of life.
NOTHING GOOD would have been gained by shutting down the federal government. It would have made the debt worse.
You make a good point. A filibuster may reflect as badly on the Dems as them voting the bill down, maybe more so.
Let’s see...we have probably the closest thing to a Commie for President we have ever had, and a mentally ill old man running the Senate, and Boehner is getting accolades for a tactical victory with one house of congress.
What the heck do you people want in this kind of environment? Shut down the government so our soldiers can’t get paid?
That won't happen in 2012.
First, the election will take place. Then, within a few weeks, {the wall will be hit; bubbles will burst; cards will come tumbling down ... chose your metaphor}.
That way, if Obama is reelected, the Dems have a couple of years to try to get things fixed. If a Republican is elected — then it becomes her (or his) fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.