Posted on 03/27/2011 7:37:05 PM PDT by Nachum
The incremental approach is working and embarrassing Democrats. Why should the GOP risk a government shutdown?
Some of the most disgruntled folks in Washington these days are conservative Republicans in Congress. They believe their party has abandoned the cause of deep spending cuts that spurred the Republican landslide in the 2010 midterm election. They say their leaders are needlessly settling for small, incremental cuts.
Moreover, this demand for bigger cuts and defunding of liberal programs—immediately—comes from prominent members of the House, not just excitable freshmen. "This is our mice or men moment," according to Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Allowing Democrats more time to negotiate "will only delay a confrontation that must come," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the House Study Committee, added: "We've made some solid first downs. Now it's time to look to the end zone."
The end zone is far away, however, and impatience won't get Republicans there. Impatience is not a strategy. It may lead to a government shutdown with unknown results. To enact the sweeping cuts they desire, Republicans must hold the House and capture the Senate and White House in the 2012 election. Then they'll control Washington. Now they don't.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“Republicans Are Winning the Budget Fight”
Really, Fred? One nickle at a time?
I think you need a bit of constitution 101. No law can come into effect unless the House votes FOR it. No law can come into effect unless the Senate votes FOR it. No law can come into effect unless the president signs it.
Our system of checks means everyone has veto power. To stop something one needs EITHER the House, Senate OR Presidency and it was designed in this way because in the absence of law there is liberty.
Oh Really? How did it work out last time? Were you around for that one?
A budget has to move from the House to the Senate and then to the President. It aint going nowhere without compromie. The Republicans will lose a shut down standoff, theres no doubt about it . Then we can have an all Democrap govt in 2013 ! yay!
It is the path to sure defeat. The conservatives already believe the Republican leadership is going to betray them. The house leadership has to force the Dem Senate to vote things down or the president to veto. Otherwise they lose the active support of the Tea Party and won't have a majority in any of the branches next election. Which by the way, also means they will lose the Supreme Court on the next appointment.
Whether the elite rulers in the Republican party want to admit it or not, the Tea Party will turn the next election; either through their support of the Republicans, bloody in-fighting within the Republican Party or as a third party. Only one of those alternatives results in a conservative victory and a conservative Supreme Court.
So you're proposing a shut down. Please outline the steps subsequent to that that will lead to victory on the budget.
Here's what I see: Partial shutdown of gov't services, then three weeks in, public opinion turns sharply against the Republicans in Congress, aided and abetted by the Pravda media. Then , another temporary budget with less cuts in it then they would have gotten otherwise, and continuing hatred towards the Republicans, who begin to buckle individually. Finally, a 5 month budget comes out with no more significant cuts, and some BS talk about a balnced budget. In 2013, a fully Democrat gov't gets voted in..
What fun it is is to stand on principle when you have little leverage!
You think like a loser.
The house should pass the budget that represents what they were elected to do. Let the fight happen in the Senate where the Dems have control. The country is overwhelmingly in favor of deficit reduction. Let the Dems go on record as stopping it. There is not reason for the House Republican leadership to be the ones getting the blame for stopping it. It is a gauranteed path to Republican defeat.
How can the Republicans not have leaverage when they just won the biggest national landslide in US history? The voters have spoken. The leadership should listen.
No, I was paying attention back in '95 when the Republicans had both houses of Congress and Clinton was stuck at 42 % in the polls, and they BLEW it, and came up with nothing on their wish list. In fact, Clinton got reelected , easily.
How can you say you were paying attention when you ignore the details. Clinton never got 50% of the vote. He was elected because of a third party candidate who split the conservative base. Nothing will insure a splintered Republican party or a third party candidate more than ignoring the Tea Party.
Right now the Tea Party is a mobilized faction, not an actual party. If they feel ignored by the Republican leadership, they will organize into an actual third party and then the Dems win in a walk. Splitting the conservative base is not a formula for success. That is what '92 and ' show.
Well, whatever. I just hope they dont take your advice and fall for the sucker punch of shutting the gov't down. That will crush the Tea Party for at least one cycle.
Yeah, I was around for that one. If I remember correctly, the Republicans balanced the budget, saved our future and retained the majority through the next twelve years. They lost the majority after people lost respect for them over budget issues and frustration over the war in Iraq.
Were you around or did you learn your history lessons from the Main Stream Media?
Who are you? One of the writers for Inception?
Fred mistakes gains in PR as relevant when the only thing that really matters is making significant cuts in actual spending.
They don’t have both houses of Congress. They can’t act as stop on the President , while he acts like its his own idea and gets all the credit. Thats because nothing like what theyre proposing will ever get to his desk.
Youre saying they lost the battle (Clinton reelected) but won the war (they got credit for a balanced budget that relied on increased tax revenues). Except this time they lose both. Too bad youre too obtuse to see that.
“They don’t have both houses of Congress. “
They don’t need both houses. Our founders designed a system where either the Senate, House, President or even the USSC can stop anything from becoming law. That’s a fundamental problem that you are having. It’s the foundation of our system of government that unless there is general agreement that a bill become law, there is no law and in the absence of law, we are free in this republic.
“They can’t act as stop on the President , while he acts like its his own idea and gets all the credit. Thats because nothing like what theyre proposing will ever get to his desk.”
Again, our government was not designed to act. It was designed to prevent.
“Youre saying they lost the battle (Clinton reelected) but won the war (they got credit for a balanced budget that relied on increased tax revenues). Except this time they lose both. Too bad youre too obtuse to see that.”
They did not get credit for balancing the budget, Clinton did and getting credit was not the measure of whether they won or lost. Only small, small people demand sole credit for good outcomes. They ensure nothing good ever comes from them.
I understand how it works, pal. I'm talking from a political point of view. If they had both houses they could dump a bill on Obama's desk and make him veto it. Appearances matter. Their leverage with the public is reduced here, comprehend it or not.
You were the one trunmpeting the fact they stayed in office for 12 years straight. I see it as opportunity lost; especially the 2 years the Republicans had both branches of government.
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.