Skip to comments.GOP rallies around Boehner on deal
Posted on 07/31/2011 11:33:36 PM PDT by RabinEdited on 08/01/2011 8:38:33 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
By JAKE SHERMAN & JONATHAN ALLEN | 7/31/11 7:17 PM EDT
House Republicans praised Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the deal he cut to avoid a national default during a rare Sunday night conference call, giving first-blush approval to a plan that must still be committed to legislation and passed by both chambers of Congress.
Now comes the hard part for the four heads of congressional caucuses: Selling the fine print. Thats the job that Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) signed up for when each gave his or her word to President Barack Obama Sunday night that the deal was in hand.
Its complicated, multi-dimensional and full of peril for the priorities of each side so much so that while the White House pointed to the possibility of the Bush tax cuts expiring, House Republican leaders were telling their rank and file that the deal made that scenario less likely.
Its not the greatest deal in the world, Boehner told his troops.
But it shows how much weve changed the terms of the debate in this town, Boehner said on the call, according to a transcript released by the speakers office. There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles. Its all spending cuts.
Come Monday, all eyes will be on House Republicans because they seldom jump in line without a fight.
Boehners lieutenants, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), applauded the speaker for pushing the president as far as he could while avoiding the economic and political calamity that could result from a default on the nations debt which the Treasury Department has said will happen after Aug. 2 if...
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Hustle do you think? Na...
When you have it right get set to fight.
Heads will roll in the primaries - again.
GOP surrenders in the face of victory
I think I’m the only one on FR not upset. I never thought it would or could end another way...we simply don’t have the numbers. 2012 is our chance to make a difference and we should be going after Democrats then; we need a Senate majority and a new president - that must be our focus.
Spin aside, what are we actually celebrating / mourning here? Aside from no one liking the deal, I’m curious how good / bad it is ?
We control the House.
LOL, kick the ball charlie, next time I will not move it. Always the next time.
Conservative needs to clean house in 2012
| We said; cut, cut, cut. But it looks like we got; spend, spend, spend. A hamburger today for payment later.
We add another trillion each year to the $14.4 trillion debt and pretend this is responsible?
Once you go off a cliff you can't stop halfway down, and the DeathCare bill that he and Nancy put in place might finish us off.
How much of this final deal was worked out weeks ago between Obama, Boehner, McConnell, Pelosi, and Reid?
The economy is off the table until after the 2012 election and there's no commitment for a BBA. Is that about right? Fire Boehner for not stopping this.
This was never about stopping the spending. Boehner screwed up with the CR in December 2010 and he screwed up here with Boehner 2.0. They should have passed 'Cut, Cap and Balance' as many times as necessary, putting the ball in Cowboy Reid's court until he cries 'uncle.'
You don’t have permission to access /news/stories/ on this server.
Apache/2.2.6 (Fedora) Server at www.politico.com Port 80
The deal was better than I feared. From an objective of past standards, as opposed to what needs to be done, Boehner took Obama and Reid to the cleaners.
Call it what you like, but you can’t reign in spending until you achieve entitlement reform and you can’t get there without a Senate majority and a new president. It’s really that simple.
Try this one:
If we control the House then we control the spending. Why do we have to negotiate anything?
The Super Congress will cut spending. It is an even better version of the Congress we have now ... which 6 percent of America supports.
OK, got to it via a google search.
Still pretending the current congress has any ability to control future congressional action!
No real assurance of a balanced budget amendment, I doubt one trillion in cuts covers the interest on the current debt.
Appears we may lose the “Reagan tax cuts”, equals a TAX INCREASE!
I saw nothing of any Fed. agencies being eliminated, none even being combined!
Where are the actual budget cuts, not just imaginative accounting tricks, real cuts?
I fear what this debt ceiling affair (along with the CR charade) proves is that the GOP House isn't capable of winning any battles and actually moving the ball forward.
Consequently, it might be best if we simply go on defense and concentrate on stopping everything the President and Democrat Senate try to do.
Worse than what we hoped for, better than what we feared. Our opponents are NOT happy with this deal. At all.
It’s not what I want at all. I won’t be satisfied until all Unconstitutional spending is eliminated. But it’s a start. It took our opponents a century to get us where we are today. We cannot expect to reverse a trend of such duration overnight.
Two steps forward, one step back. Keep up the pressure.
The point is not to take Obama, Reid and Pelosi to the cleaners, it is save the country.
Maybe next year, if there is a USA next year. You keep kicking the can down the road, and someday you run out of road.
What would the Old Pea Picker have to say about our situation?
Another day older and a deeper in debt. St. Peter don't you call me cause I owe my soul to the Chicoms now.
Divided government allows you to stop an agenda. We’ve done that already. Reversing one, which is what everyone here wants to see, takes control of the entire government. We had our shot under Bush and blew it; we need to work on earning another in 2012. Only then can we hope to turn America around.
Watch individual members, not the party.
no dems wrote:
IF THE GOP GOES ALONG WITH THIS, IT'S TIME TO FORM THE "CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF AMERICA".
The TEA Party caucus should vote against this. And any true conservatives should seriously consider voting against this.
In 2012, all "establishment Republicans" who go along with this need to be eliminated in the primaries.
Ballot access laws in most states are written to protect the establishment parties. I live in Florida. Charlie Crist (RINO) tried to run as an "Independent" last year. I thought he was washed up, but when I heard his radio add during the last 3 weeks before the election and he said, "Look for me on line 9 on your ballot," I knew he had no chance at all.
Until that changes, a "third party" is doomed. Better to reclaim and reform the Republican party.
Right now, from what I'm hearing about this deal, this will grow government. The "cuts" are from projected spending increases, not from current spending.
There are two major things wrong with this. First, spending in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 (the only two years which this Congress can actually control) will go up, not down. The second is pretending that this Congress can do anything about years after Fiscal Year 2013, it can't. On January of 2013, a new Congress will be sworn in, and that Congress can do anything, including reversing anything this Congress has done.
The status quo is going to be maintained for now:
So, there would be a economical difference when we control the House, Senate and WH? The results would be smoother? The world is defined by men, not mice.
When has that ever happened in the past?
f Repubs had the Senate and Presidency we could hack government spending down right now, this year, for the current year, and eliminate some departments AND all their corresponding regulation on citizens and business.
Republicans had the House, the Senate and the Presidency from January 2001 through December 2006. During that time, the Department of Education budget doubled. Department of Energy grew by 50%.
We need more Republicans like Custer needed more Indians.
What we need is a party dedicated to smaller federal government, limited by the Constitution. And we need that from the bottom to the top. We need city council members and county commissioners who control their spending and don't go asking their Congress Critters for "Grant money" to pay for things. The problem goes much farther than inside the beltway.
We need Republicans who will act like republicans. Repubicans who will live within the limits of the Constitution, and local and state Republicans who understand you can't pass "10th amendent resolutions" asking the Congress to respect the Constitution, and then ask for $Billions in "federal grants" for extra-constitutional "programs."
The GOP lost its way, were working on giving it new focus. Politics is always about what is achievable. Elect the right people and in the right numbers, and we can do much.
There would be a legislative difference. The world may be ruled by men, but at the moment we haven’t sufficient of them. Win in 2012.
There is nothing you said that I disagree with. But in my putting probabilities of what would happen on the debt deal, this wasn’t the most likely, and certainly not the worst. A default is inevitable, IMO. The mathematics are becoming more insurmountable with each passing day.
Rather than just “preach to the quire” I fired off FAXes listing my objections to each of my reps in the house and senate, TONIGHT!
My FAX will be waiting for them when they arrive in the morning.
Already printed out for their readying pleasure. ;-)
If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.”
Have you been reading Leibniz again?
Wow, what a great deal! We went from 3-1 cuts to 1-1 and the choice is higher taxes or deep(er) cuts to the military. That’s real good negotiating.
That PUB laughing about giving Boehner a Merlot and a cigarette was truer than he thought - Boehner got scr*wed. And so did we.
Once again, PUBs have shown their inability to lead. Only 0bambi is worse; but he’ll take all the credit that the LSM gives him.
You’re not the only one.
So, as a tactical victory, this may pave the way for a strategic victory in 2012, when we can actually turn the tide. As it is, we just don't have the firepower to close the deal. It may be suicidally stupid, but the average American voter doens't understand the issue well enough to realize how screwed we are unless we start hacking down the debt. Grandma wants her check. The nice man promised her money during one of his fireside chats, and she intends to collect.
That mentality is too pervasive in America, and getting it under control is going to be incremental. So, if this is a step in the right direction, then let's be happy for it, and keep Obama's minions on the retreat.
I just checked out that Politico link, and it was a mostly positive article for the compromise. We are so screwed. It’s killing me because I have to miss what Rush has to say about this work of art today. Get ready for radio air wave melt down!
What makes you think we will win in 2012? Think about it, if the GOP runs on “getting the house in order, and smaller govt.” and the dems run on “freebies for all”, who do you think the huddled masses will vote for?
The chosen one will still get 114% of the holders peoples vote, 80% of the wall jumpers vote, and probably 70% of the student loan vote.
The dems will always get the moron vote, which I figure is at least 40% overall. The GOP will always get about the same from the common sense group.
We have to depend on the 20% of the “politics, what’s politics” group. That doesn’t inspire confidence in me...
You are right that this is really a big goose egg. There were other deals to be made, even the Gang of Six plan would have been better, for now anyway.
We just need to make sure we aren’t going to be like General Lee at Gettysburg and end up with a lost cause. This problem didn’t happen over night and it likely won’t be solved that way either. In addition to that we need to figure out whether the demands being made are really the essence of solving the problem. On that point, I have my doubts because capitulation to big government, in the permanent sense of amending the constitution, isn’t going to solve the problem and that is what the BBA does.
It doesn’t solve the “why” of government spending too much, or the effects of statism on the economy because there are other ways for government to get what it wants and make everyone pay for it indirectly, even if it had some limiting effect on government itself. In my perception, that is in serious doubt because after reading the various proposed BBAs and applying them to the last 10 years, I cannot find one aspect that would have been prevented from happening. We still would have had all the bailouts, stimulus, and ObamaCare, and still be in the same place with debt and spending we are now because of 1) the wars, and 2) Democrats had a supermajority 2009-10 and could override the caps.
The reason the BBA was put up is because it supposedly adds to the credibility that our government will get its liability issues under control to avoid problems in the market for debt. It has nothing to do with restoring constitutional government, and cannot even promise that. The only way to restore constitutional govt is to do it. Like the 13th and 14th amendments overruled Dred Scott, we need to overrule Slaughterhouse and other gross distortions of the commerce clause through the New Deal Court and beyond. Once we do that, spending and statism at the Federal level will be greatly mitigated, because the “why” of spending too much will be addressed.
Short of doing that, all we will get is a bunch of cost shifting, and a bunch of stuff being done under the covers that we will end up paying for anyway.
We add another trillion each year to the $14.4 trillion debt and pretend this is responsible?
Responsible hell! They are pretending the increases are cuts.
Doing nothing would have reigned in spending. It is a lame boneheaded move to buy into the default hype. This is the left's crises not the right's. Find a RINO website.
Well, we're close to the tipping point. If there's enough people left in the country that care about getting the house in order for the sake of their children and grandchildren, then we have a shot. If not, then we don't.
If we are already past the tipping point, and the parasites have a numerical lock on the government, then it doesn't really matter either way, does it?
It’s better that the tea party is pissed off and motivated to take scalps than democrats pissed off and motivated to take scalps.
You tried troll, now go back to your congressional cave and report to you RINO masters, FREEPERS aren't buying your turd sandwich. Your carping needs to end.
You’re both correct IMO but this forum is inundated by a gang of “my way or the highway” folks who seemingly have lost the ability of cognitive thinking.
AS outlined the plan STOPS growth of government and SHRINKS it by 100 billion per year immediately with mechanisms in place for a further 14 billion per year in cuts by years end. We will have to see the details of what cuts will be made by the trigger if the comm. cannot reach agreement.
One very important and overlooked aspect of this whole thing is that the public has now become glaringly familiar with the huge spending problem in Washington. And since more and more spending is the only way the liberals can get elected it presents for them a serious issue which they will have a difficult time explaining away as they continue to attempt to buy votes.