Boehner: You bet your ** I told my caucus to get their ** in line (WATCH VIDEO)

Hotair ^ | 07/27/2011 | Ed Morrisey

[SeekAndFind]

Laura Ingraham got the man of the hour on her show this morning, who confirmed that he did indeed tell the House Republican caucus to “get their asses in line” to pass his debt-ceiling proposal — once the rewrite comes in. Speaker John Boehner also explained how he and Mitch McConnell would keep the deficit-reduction commission it creates from raising taxes, especially — as Boehner reminds us — some tax hikes are already in place. Boehner explains that he wants to push the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, but he wants to make sure that he and a Republican Senate can present it to a Republican President in 2013:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

The key in this decision by Boehner seems to be his assessment that the GOP will lose leverage the closer we get to the deadline — whenever that might be. If that’s true, then Boehner is making a smart play by consolidating what rhetorical gains the GOP has made in this debate and getting to a rapid conclusion. After watching the Gang of Six play last week in the Senate take the momentum out of the CCB Act, it’s not hard to see why Boehner came to that conclusion. Can Boehner succeed in whipping his caucus to get the needed majority to pass his plan? At the moment, that seems iffy — but Boehner has had a good track record in holding his caucus in line over the last four years.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

It is not Boehner's fault that the Senate is controlled by Democrats, and that the President is a Democrat. I'm sure he'd much rather have Republicans in those positions. Unfortunately, that's not what the electorate gave him.

The 2010 elections were a single, not a double or home run. The hard truth is that meaningful reforms will not happen as long as Democrats control the White House or Senate. That means the right approach is to do whatever we can strategically to give us that majority we need. Engaging in tactics that make us feel emotionally better but don't advance the ball in terms of legislation, and hurt our political prospects, are not smart.

[rjeffries]

You are accusing the only people who want to reign in the government of ludicrous behavior. If you are a conservative, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you’re not, you are on the wrong forum, please leave.

[Da Coyote]

I vote for a “Boehner’s a Goehner in 20XX” movement, where XX stands for whatever year this RINOcrat is up again.

We simply WILL NOT TOLERATE dim-bulb-crats, or dim-bulb-crat-lite.

Boehner, hang it up...and hold your breath for -— about an hour or so.

[kevao]

At what point does Boehner say “we’re done”? Or does he keep tweaking the bill to make the libs happy? Enough is enough!

At some point he'll compromise with Reid and Obama and put tax increases into the bill.

[9YearLurker]

What total BS was he dishing out today? That he doesn’t want CCB to pass and land on Obama’s desk before 2013?

I’d say he’s got to be crazy, since that alone would be a huge win—the BBA on to the states and Obama dared to veto something with bipartisan senate and house support.

‘Cept he’s not crazy, he’s disingenuous—and insultingly so. Yuck!

[DManA]

I’m with you. This just demonstrates the level of mendacity coming from BOTH the democrats and the Republicans, and big media (minus Rush). Even freezing at the staggeringly bloated 2011 budget would be demagogued as a $9.5 trillion cut. That is what we are up against.

[TexasBud]

That’s wrong. If we default on our loans, it’ll cost us MORE than if paid them. Just like if you don’t pay your credit cards...that doesn’t mean you don’t still owe it, and that it won’t cost you MORE down the line. There would be late fees, they’d raise your interest rate a lot immediately, and ultimately, you’d be sued for the $$$. That’s because legally you owe it, it’s money that belongs to someone else, and they will get it back, with interest and fees, in the end.

That’s what would happen. And ALSO, we wouldn’t be able to borrow more money at reasonable interest rates. I know you say we don’t need it. But what if we did? Another BP spill? Another Katrina or Rita? A nuclear meltdown?

So it feels good up front not to pay our bills when they come due, but in the end, it ends us costing us more. We wouldn’t recover the huge expense of failing to pay our bills, for many years to come.

And of course don’t forget that some of the bills we owe are to veterans and elderly people. They live month to month on their disability or whatever. They would suffer a lot if we failed to pay them. I wouldn’t want to see that. I would hope the govt would not pay something else before it would cause suffering to our heroes, our disabled, and our elderly.

[Psalm 144]

Why fight as long and hard as they did only to surrender at the end? Baffling and infurating!

**********************

If one accepts the premises that both parties are after the same ends, and that the ‘opposition’ on both sides is purely simulated in order to placate the bases and casual observers, the past 22 years of GOP and Democrat policies make sense. The only real difference is that the Democrats are in a hurry, and the Republicans have a more subtle and incremental approach to the diminution of American sovereignty and domestic freedom, and the implementation of an expanded central government and more dependent and gullible population.

They really are on the same side. They are rivals, not enemies.

Accept those premises and there is nothing baffling at all. All is resolved and rational under that theory. Borders, globalism, divestiture of domestic industry, TARP, DHS - all of it. Every bit.

[rjeffries]

The GOP has been losing the politics game for years playing it this way. The people are sick of it. This is a proven losing strategy.

Boehner is a disgrace.

It’s time to do the right thing, politics be damned.

[Gritty]

I think freepers who are attacking Boehner are making a mistake. Obama is NOT going to sign this, so why not pass it and hoist Obama on his own petard, rather than let the Republicans be blamed when nothing passes?

Wasn't the same thing said about Campaign Finance Reform?

[KittenClaws]

Obama is NOT going to sign this.

Well, if he's not gonna sign it, then send through what we want - EVERY time.

His voters will vote for him no matter what we do, or how high we rise above the fray - they are too Stoooopid.

Tea Party voters and other conservative voters should be the ones they cater to.

[tennmountainman]

Read my Lips” No new Taxes. Bush Senior Made his own bed. Don’t blame Perot.

Does that answer your post.

[Gaffer]

And my reply to that little ditty is that I emailed my Congressman last night and told him that all I wanted him to do was to vote against anything Obama wanted, to NOT raise taxes under any circumstances, and to ENSURE any cuts were real and immediate (no ten year crap). The final thing was that if he voted for Boehner for Speaker ever again I’d vote against him....if he does those things, he’s got a job no matter what really happens because I know he’s true.

[DManA]

Don’t focus on the danger, focus on the opportunity to bring Americans up to speed and into reality. Just because Boehner is not up to the job doesn’t mean there isn’t a republican who can.

[KittenClaws]

The Conservatives are going to lose 2012, unless they learn about UNITY, AND STICKING TOGETHER.

It is Boehner that needs to learn about unity and sticking together. So what if he "stood up to" bambi? He sure didn't stand up for long, did he? He's all show and no do.

[ScottinVA]

Bite it, Boehner. Get some real budget savings proposed, dipsh*t.

[ScottinVA]

Bite it, Boehner. Get some real budget savings proposed, dipsh*t.

[Psalm 144]

Bullcrap! You must be one of devisive ones, who are destroying the Conservative movement.

***********************

YEAH! WHAT BOEHNER SAID! ALL YOU NEGROES GET YOU ASSES AND YOUR MULES BACK ON THE PLANTATION!

AND SEND US YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS!

NOW!

(ungrateful damn deeeeevisives!)

[SeekAndFind]

RE: That’s wrong. If we default on our loans, it’ll cost us MORE than if paid them. Just like if you don’t pay your credit cards...that doesn’t mean you don’t still owe it, and that it won’t cost you MORE down the line.

The folks at American Thinker did some serious math on this. Here's what they think....

By the time the debt ceiling is reached, most of Fiscal Year 2011 will be behind us. FY 2012 starts October 1. So I will use FY 2012 numbers to guide this exercise.

OMB estimates FY 2012 revenues to be $2.6 trillion. So if the debt ceiling is not raised, the federal government would have to get by on that for the year. That is more than the federal government spent in any year prior to 2006.

But OMB estimates 2012 spending to be $3.7 trillion, or $1.1 trillion more than revenues then. Somehow, spending would have to be "cut" (from the expected levels) by 29.5%.

To avoid default, interest payments would have to be made. OMB expects them to be $243 billion in 2012. That would leave $2.4 trillion for everything else.

If Social Security and Medicare are also untouched, that would leave $1.1 trillion for everything else. That is, we could avoid default and pay seniors every cent they expect from Social Security and Medicare, and still have well over one trillion dollars left for everything else.

The trouble is OMB estimates everything else to cost $2.2 trillion. So to leave SS and Medicare untouched, and also not default, the rest of the 2012 budget would have to be cut by $1.1 trillion, or about 50%.

The elephant in the room is defense spending. We certainly don't want to stop paying our military men and women who are fighting wars. OMB estimates all spending on national defense to be $738 B in 2012. But less than $160 B of that is military pay. Let's say we leave military pay untouched, but cut overall defense spending to 2005 levels. That is a 33% cut. Maybe we could find savings by removing bases and troops from Japan, Korea, Germany and elsewhere around the world, especially since ground wars in Asia, Africa and the Middle East have been ruled out.

Here is a shot at an overall spending budget, using OMB's categories, that meets the $2.6 trillion target to match revenues. (Most spending amounts in the right-hand column fall into one of three categories: untouched from OMB's 2012 estimate, zeroed out, or matching the minimum year's spending since 2005.

Spending category	FY 2005 Actual	OMB's 2012 estimate	A balanced 2012 budget
National Defense	495,308	737,537	495,308
International Affairs	34,565	63,001	8,974*
General Science, Space and Technology	23,597	32,284	23,584
Energy	429	23,411	0
Natural Resources and Environment	27,980	42,703	27,980
Agriculture	26,565	18,929	17,662
Commerce and Housing Credit	7,566	23,620	0
Transportation	67,894	104,854	67,894
Community and Regional Development	26,262	25,701	8,545**
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services	97,555	106,172	0
Health (excluding Medicare)	250,548	373,774	250,548
Medicare	298,638	492,316	492,316
Income Security	345,847	554,332	226,554***
Social Security	523,305	767,019	767,019
Veterans Benefits and Services	70,120	124,659	69,811
Admin. of Justice	40,019	58,696	23,770****
General Government	16,997	31,149	16,997
Net Interest	183,986	241,598	241,598
Allowances	0	6,566	0
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts	-65,224	-99,635	-99,635
Total Outlays	2,471,957	3,728,686	2,638,925

*2005 level, but without foreign aid

**Disaster relief only

***Retirement, disability and unemployment only

****Retains prison spending, cuts other justice funding in half

The above budget is in rough balance. It would not increase debt, so the debt ceiling would not have to be raised or violated. It would also preserve the core functions of the federal government, and then some. Note some key features:

•Net interest is paid in full. No default.
•Social Security and Medicare are completely covered.
•Federal retirement and disability programs would also be fully funded.
•The men and women of the military would continue getting paid in full.
•Federal prisons and correctional facilities would continue to operate.
•Funds for disaster relief are preserved.
•General government would be funded enough to keep operating. That includes the courts, legislative functions, the executive branch, and foreign affairs.
•There is still funding for infrastructure, science, agriculture, etc.

Of course, deep and painful cuts would have to come from somewhere.

Education spending is eliminated in the above budget. But note that the federal government accounts for less than 10% of total public education spending. Public schools would have to survive on the 90% of planned budgets that come from state and local governments. But they also would be relieved of federal mandates and rules. Would that be so bad? The Dept. of Education did not even exist prior to 1980; it was given to us by President Jimmy Carter. We lived without it before; we can live without it now.

[greeneyes]

It seems to me that pushing the CCB now, is a good way to have an excellent issue to use to win the election in 2012.

Let Demint work the Senate to get those 4 votes needed without all this Kabuki Theater. Just state the facts:

The house already compromised and agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, and a plan to balance the budget. It was bi-partisan, and reflects the desire of the majority of Americans.

The House has done it's part. The senate needs to bring it up for debate, amendment, and passage so that it can go to the conference committee if necessary.