Posted on 11/08/2010 9:53:53 AM PST by WebFocus
In the past, House Speakers have treated votes for raising the US debt limit like pirates legendarily treated their loot; they buried it by attaching it to other must-pass legislation. That allowed members to rail against the increase in national debt while explaining that they had no choice but to vote for the increased limits because of the other issues involved in the bill. In an attempt to reform the process and create accountability for national debt, new Speaker-to-be John Boehner will force Representatives to vote on a limit increase with no fig leaf at all:
For the first time in years, House lawmakers will soon have the chance to vote on a standalone measure to increase the federal debt limit next year under the new Republican majority — a vote that’s shaping up as the first early test of the GOP’s commitment to spending restraint.
The House Republican leader, Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, will give lawmakers a chance for a direct vote on raising the debt limit, spokesman Michael Steel told the Washington Times.
That would be a break with the recent tactic of burying the debt limit increase in parliamentary maneuvers — a way to shield vulnerable lawmakers from having to take the unpopular vote — and would instantly give leverage to those in Congress hoping to impose immediate spending cuts.
The move forces Congress to cut spending if the debt limit stays in place. That puts Democrats and Republicans alike in a very uncomfortable position when it comes time to cast this vote, as the cuts will almost certainly have to come immediately, regardless of whatever budget Nancy Pelosi gets passed in the lame-duck session. That will probably mean an end to whatever remains of Porkulus spending, and then some cuts in actual programs — especially anything to do with ObamaCare.
That leaves Pelosi with a card to play in the lame-duck session. Will she attach a debt-limit increase to the budget in an attempt to pre-empt Boehner’s gauntlet on federal spending? If she does, Pelosi will have given the GOP yet another talking point for the 2012 election, especially if Democrats insist on electoral suicide and keep her as Minority Leader in the 112th Session.
But I think Social Security, Medicare, and Debt repayment make it difficult to make sudden improvements in the amount we spend. But whatever we can do to cut spending, we ought to do. And if having a static debt ceiling is one way to force us to do things we'd rather not do, then I support that static debt ceiling.
THEN, when he Vetos it he can't claim he did it for other purposes..
Keep him busy Vetoing stuff.. maybe we can force him to hire a vetoing CZAR...
Wouldnt that be sweet....
If this is anything more than a publicity stunt (and I hope it is), it puts the Republicans on a hotter seat. The D's are on record arguing that deficit spending is the appropriate policy for a country in recession. Voting to raise the debt ceiling is merely part and parcel of executing their economic policy.
Not so the GOP, they are on record saying we need spending restraint. If the debt ceiling vote comes before Boehner makes it crystal clear just what cuts in spending he advocates (and they better be significant because we're still running a $1 trillion+ deficit), this will appear to be nothing short of an empty stunt that the D's will be able to exploit easily, just as they did Gingrich's lame government shut down in 1995.
Boehner needs to do better than this. He needs to draft and sell a coherent budgetary vision that gets the U.S. on a glide path to a balanced budget over 6 to 8 years. Then he needs to sell it the voting public. Then he can put the D's feet to fire to vote it up or down. There can be not short cuts this time. The voters have given the pachyderms only one second chance. They won't get another. There is no time for empty gestures and political side shows. The GOP Congressional caucus has to deliver the goods this time, and these debt ceiling shenanigans aren't giving me a good feeling.
Tie raising the debt ceiling with TOTAL repeal of ObamaScare...
Line in the sand moment...
Reading your post is like reading my own recent posts. I completely agree with everything you just said.
I love that idea.
Exactly- and further- I read a quote somewhere this morning of Cantor saying if there’s a government shutdown it will be Obam’s fault- not theirs...so I’m thinking they’re serious about this.
Is that right? I thought it was usually the other way around. The debt ceiling increase was seen as the "must pass" legislation, to which a lot of other unrelated and unable to stand on their own legislative give-aways were attached. "Well, I really wanted to vote against the National Guacamole Museum, but it was attached to the debt ceiling bill so I had to vote for it."
We’re on the same team here. I think holding down the debt ceiling is a great idea. Yeah, it would be tough to cut 50 percent out of the budget, until you realise we are spending 10x what we did in 1946, even after accounting for inflation.
I’ll walk on hot coals for this guy if he is the man he appears to be.
**** “.EVERY single bill should be a stand alone bill.” ****
YES YES YES
TT
Making it CRYSTAL CLEAR is getting our messages out to all the people.
I’m thinking the TP is the way to go.
Well.... here is the deal. To get out of this mess, and REALLY shrink the size of government, WALK THE TALK, then whole departments need to be cut. Starting with the Department of Energy, which has failed in its original mission to get us off Oil. And then the Dept. of Education. This is a realm that belongs to the STATES. Not the fed. Next. Fund Social security for those already getting it, and add in a buffer for those about to retire, and then CUT IT OFF. End it. People should be investing in their OWN retirement not depending on a freaking government check to do it for them.
Now, Bambi talks about people making sacrifices, well HE means it in the sense of us sacrificing our freedom and sticking rings in our noses tied to a chain held by the federal government. BS.
This is true sacrifice for FREEDOM. Both ours and that of our children, and THAT is real sacrifice. Its gonna hurt, you bet, but you have to ask yourself, is it WORTH the pain? Is Freedom WORTH IT??
OH HELL YA!
Barack *kiss my a$$* Obama can shove his “sacrifice”.
I would rather take the hit in a real sacrifice that neuters permanently Obama and his socialist, marxist, communist ilk. Thats sacrifice I am happy to make. Where is the line, sign me up, I volunteer.
IMO, every bill in Congress should be a ‘STAND ALONE BILL:.
Too much camoflauge happening each & every day there.
Not 'til he wrenches the speaker's gavel from the clammy claws of the botox queen.
“There are just as many bad things caused by excess wealth as deficit when viewed on a global scale.”
I have long thought that part of our current problem is the way that a ratio of big company CEO salaries to their low level employees, which in Reagan’s years was about 40 to 1, recently skyrocketed to somewhere from 400 or even 1,000 to 1. Forty times was plenty to allow upper management to live a very comfortable life. Then on Wall Street in 2007 you had Countrywide’s CEO with $140 million salary, Bank of America’s CEO with $100 million, Goldman Sachs raising the salary from $37 million to $74 million in 2008, and we wonder why it all crashed.
On a personal level I was outraged when I studied my last GE report and saw that for the past 3 years the top 7 people earned between $11 million and $22 million while the the stock dropped from $50 per share to $5, and has only leveled to between $15 and $20. Needless to say I ignored their advice to vote against the Proposal for an “Advisory Role of Stockholders on Executive Compensation.” If this stockholder was advising, I would advise no more than 40 times the low level worker pay, probably between $1 and $2 million. I don’t recall that upper managements were suffering during the Reagan years.
GOPpers sounding like they might be ready to fire a shot across the bow of the lame-duck congress. Interesting move.
A tone for doing business is being set, I think. We're in charge. If they play nice, maybe we will play nice. If they play hardball, we will play hardball.
My position from before the original porkulus package and bailouts has been that NOBODY and NOTHING is “too big to fail”. If that’s what it takes to get our own spending under control, then let the chips fall.
Colonel, USAFR
2.) Use the savings to cash-out Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid - if States want to do anything other than encouraging non-government controlled free-market controlled Local/Regional Hospital Membership Cooperatives, be my guest.
3.) Pay off Debt
4.) Cut Federal taxes 90%
http://www.krsieanforcongress.com/Debt%20Reduction%20Plan.pdf
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.