Boehner: Obamacare Must Be on Table During Budget Talks

Newsmax ^ | 11/21/2012 | Unknown

[diamond6]

President Barack Obama must show a willingness to cut back the healthcare reform law during budget negotiations, says House Speaker John Boehner. “President Obama has won re-election, but his healthcare law is still driving up costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. As was the case before the election, Obamacare has to go,” Boehner writes in the Cincinnati Enquirer. “The president’s health care law adds a massive, expensive, unworkable government program at a time when our national debt already exceeds the size of our country’s entire economy. We can’t afford it, and we can’t afford to leave it intact.” Editor’s Note: New 'Obamacare Survival Guide' Reveals Dangers Ahead for Your Healthcare That’s why Boehner already has made it clear that Obamacare must be part of the congressional-White House discussions on reducing government debt. “Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct thorough oversight of the executive branch, and congressional oversight will play a critical role in repealing Obamacare going forward,” he writes. With the Supreme Court mostly upholding Obamacare and the president winning re-election, that oversight and state actions are the only avenues left for repeal, Boehner says. House committees can go after various elements of Obamacare, he says. And state governments can do their part by resisting government-run insurance exchanges.

[diamond6]

“Its our job to hold their feet to the fire. Let’s hold them to this.”

Exactly. Let’s hold their ass in the fire, too.

[diamond6]

“Everyone should be complaining about Boehner to their Congressman. I’ve sent my letter already. I told him to look at some of the Young Guns and get some new blood in there.”

That’s right. And complain to Boehner, too. That’s what my wife did, and it might have helped give him a message.

If enough of us complain hard and long enough, they won’t be able to ignore it.

[Manic_Episode]

"I call that bold talk for a one eyed fat man"

[KTM rider]

does someone hear a little dog barking in the distance ?....oh wait, .. thats Boehner speaking

[Westbrook]

Did Boner get a spine transplant, or is it just a temporary brace?

[diamond6]

We’ll find out soon!

[USCG SimTech]

Tough talk but Bonehead doesn’t mean it. If he meant it he would simply not fund ObamaCare.

...and the EPA, HHS, FCC, etc. No guts.

[voicereason]

Talk...nothing but talk. Just wear hip boots so you don’t get covered in the manure Boehner is putting out. He’s shown his colors and they aren’t conservative.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “ If he meant it he would simply not fund ObamaCare.” <<

.
Exactly.

Boehner has the power to defund anything he wishes; the speaker is the most powerful man in the world because he holds the purse.

[familyop]

"I think this is good because Obama already raised the stakes by raising his demand for new taxes from $800 billion to $1.6 trillion."

The "1.6 trillion" plan is over a decade: ten years, which is $160 billion per year. $800 billion is the combination of scheduled automatic spending cuts and tax hikes (expiration of tax cuts) during the first year, with the scheduled tax hikes (expiration of tax cuts) of the "fiscal cliff" being near $400 billion per year. So he's wanting to limit the tax hikes to the incomes in the top 40 percent of those who would pay higher taxes under the expiration of the tax cuts. He's enticing the upper middle class to support tax hikes against the "wealthy" (not good good at all but going to happen).

So the choices are between $160 billion in tax hikes and all of the scheduled spending cuts, or nearly $400 billion in tax hikes and compromises against the spending cuts.

The House should leave it alone and resist any and all compromises on the spending cuts. The spending cuts must happen. Only a little over $37 billion of those cuts are against defense spending (per year) and the rest against many useless and detrimental political regulator programs against starting production again. And of course, increase military spending as needed as soon as possible in the near future.

[trebb]

No hopes - he talks tough about the Left before he caves while he actually acts tough on the Right to marginalize the actual conservatives.

[WashingtonSource]

Thanks for the details. So, does this mean the GOP has leverage against the $1.6 trillion because we would actually really and truly for the first time ever see cuts in spending if we go over the fiscal cliff? If we do go over the fiscal cliff, we need to make sure Obama gets the blame. The fiscal cliff was his idea, after all.

[familyop]

Democrats are afraid to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the middle class (saturated with government incomes). So far, they’re saying that they’ll only allow the cuts to expire for richer folks and issuing figures (like about $40 billion per year during the first year for individuals not including corporations). That’s not good, but all of the most high profile “1%” individuals are way to the left on most issues and have expressed desires to pay more taxes.

The best way to go might just be to let it ride and refuse to budge on the spending cuts. That might be the only way to see those spending cuts happen.

Allow Congress to play, wheel and deal on those spending cuts, and we’ll see the current situation get much worse with increasing inflation in important market areas (oil, for one). We would also be unlikely to see any significant decreases in regulatory activities against production.

With the big spending, government continues to be big, busy, counterproductive and supported by more voters (government incomes). With less spending, producers have more room (freedom) to produce, and fewer constituents lean toward Democrats. Many folks with government incomes know which party is more experienced at keeping the debt coming and only feint (pretend and talk) at voting Republican.

If government were made smaller, more voters would be truly private sector and leaning to the right (constituents for production). All only my opinion, of course.

[Sun]

“It’s a Boehner trap to try and convince Conservatives that he’s fighting for us. ..”

Yup, Boehner talks the talk, but ends up caving.

I called my GOP congressman’s office to ask him to vote AGAINST Speaker Boehner. The GOP needs a Speaker who will fight and win!