House Republicans Renege on Every Promise with Infuriating Budget Deal

RUSH: This budget deal -- and every time this subject comes up I have to point out that, well, even 25 years ago when this program started, to discuss something like the federal budget was one of the biggest mistakes you could make in terms of programming content. I mean, it was so esoteric and so boring, and it contained its own language that did not relate to people. It was instant death. You just didn't talk about the budget.

My, how things have changed. This budget deal -- and we first alerted it to you on Monday, saw a little flash news blurb from Bloomberg detailing what the House Republicans were doing, getting ready to do. And they've done it. They have crafted a budget that essentially gives nobody any reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

It is astounding what they have done, particularly when you balance it against what they've promised us they would do. They have reneged on every promise, written and oral, that they have made, beginning back in 2010 when it comes to what they would do vis-a-vis the budget, government spending overall, and how they would behave in battle with the Democrats. They've tossed it all aside.

Everything Obama wants and then some is in this budget. Raising the debt limit over $1 trillion which takes it off the table as an issue all the way through next year. The budget is also a two-year budget which takes it out of the presidential campaign which makes whoever the next president is, and the next Congress, they're saddled with this budget. I mean, every budget is technically a one-year budget. I know this, and they can make 10-year projections, five-year, what they've actually done here is try to craft a two-year budget.

And when I went through it last night and looked at it, and I went back and with the assistance of a column written by my buddy Andy McCarthy at PJMedia.com, I started boiling. I was literally infuriated. I have to tell you, folks, I am beyond able to understand the political thinking now of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, particularly as it relates to the presidential race. I can't figure it out. What they are doing makes literally and absolutely no sense. It makes no sense in dollars and cents. It makes no sense budgetarily. It makes no sense politically. They're not even an opposition party. They're not even pretending anymore to be an opposition party.

When you look at what they've done with this budget -- we'll get into some details -- basically all you need to know is whatever Obama wants, he's got. Whatever Hillary wants, she's got. Whatever you thought you were voting for in 2010 and 2014, you've been lied to, in terms of how your representatives were gonna fight the Democrats, fight spending, fight this constant bloat. We can now officially claim that the Republicans are responsible for five trillion additional new dollars added to the national debt. Spending bills originate in the Congress. The president could ask and demand and do whatever, but he can't write the bills, he can't write the laws. All he can do is sign them or veto them.

We turned over the writing of the budget to Obama and the Democrats, essentially. It wouldn't be much different if they had started the whole process and completed it. So I don't know how this helps them. I don't know how they think it helps them. I don't know why it's happening. Is this all because of the demands made by donors? I mean, that's the latest excuse we're given for everything else they're doing. "Well, the donor class, they're demanding this, and donor class is demanding amnesty, donor class is demanding nuke deal with Iran." Is what explains this budget deal, that donors are demanding all of this? Or have the Republican leadership just become a bunch of pathological actual left-wingers in the last couple years?

I don't see the difference in the current Republican House leadership. When it comes to government spending, the whole philosophy behind government spending, big government, I don't see any difference between the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership. When I look on the Democrat side I see Pelosi and Reid and everybody cheering the budget. Are they still scared to death of Obama? Do they still think that they have to show that they can work with Obama, be cooperative, let Obama have everything he wants otherwise the media's gonna call them racists?

We've got a year to go, for crying out loud, just one more year of this. And they are going to put it on paper that we get two more years of this. It's the most confounding thing. We've got one year of Obama left, but the Republican leadership in the House has passed a budget, or is about to, that will essentially give us another year of Obama in terms of philosophy on government size and spending.

Are they doing this to prove that they can be bipartisan? Do they think that's gonna help them in the presidential race? Are they doing this to show they can cooperate? Are they doing this to show that they love and support entitlements and nobody should think Republicans are gonna take anything away from them. Are they that defensive? Are they that scared? Are they that convinced the media can define them and there's nothing they can do about it so they may as well do everything the media is demanding of them so that the media will shut up and not be mean to them anymore? Is that what's going on here?

Are they hell-bent on showing their ability to cooperate, cross the aisle? They think that's helping the presidential field by doing this? Are they ambivalent? Are they unfeeling in any way about...? Folks, the blatant lies that Republicans in the House have told their voters during campaigns. All the documents, the contracts, the pledges that they wrote and signed that none of this would happen. Virtually everything they pledged not to do, they are doing in this budget deal.

Are they unconcerned about destroying the economy? Are they so secure in their own existence that they don't care what happens outside their own lives? Are they set now for the rest of their lives because of the votes that they have secured for big donors? Are they happy that in the places they live there isn't any unemployment, there isn't any real difficulty managing the cost of living?

Are they unconcerned about destroying our culture? Do you have any idea what this budget's gonna do to our culture? This culture is creating more dependence and more dependence. It's practically designed to put people on the welfare rolls. It's practically designed to tell people to stop relying on themselves and look to government for whatever you need or whatever you want. That's not who we are. But that's what this budget deal does.

The spending caps that they negotiated with Obama? They've blown those up. The one thing that they won, spending caps, they got rid of them themselves in this deal. I'm trying to understand, are they totally in debt to K Street? Do they all have jobs waiting for them on K Street? It doesn't compute here. Who are these people in the House Republican leadership? What are they? I'll tell you what I've concluded, and it's something that I have forecast before, mentioned before. We've even discussed it on this program.

I think what's going on in Washington right now -- and it isn't new, it's just more visible than it's ever been. I think there's all kinds of bipartisanship going on in Washington. I think there's all kinds of cooperation going on in Washington. I think that it's kumbaya time. I think they are linked arm in arm. I think the bipartisan project is to destroy conservatism. I think they would be happy. They would prefer... I'm talking about the Republican leadership. Not the whole membership, but the Republican leadership.

I have the idea they would be happier with Hillary Clinton as president than Ted Cruz, and that's not a feeling. I know that almost for a fact. I know that with almost ontological certitude. They, as members of the inside-the-Beltway establishment, no way, no how do they want anybody like Ted Cruz in the White House. They would much prefer Hillary. The only thing that explains this, looked at in any kind of prism of common sense, is that there is a combined bipartisan effort to finally render conservatives and conservatism as irrelevant as a pockmark.

The only thing that explains this: This is not good budgeting. Not only is this not conservative, it's not even Republican, even moderate Republican. This is rubber-stamp liberal Democrat budgetary philosophy. This violates every pledge and promise that they've made in election campaigns going back to 2010, repeated in 2012 during the presidential race, and repeated again in 2014. And I shall remind you word by word of some of the pledges they've made, the contracts they wrote, reminiscent of the Contract with America.

I actually think... You know the Democrats want to get rid of conservatism. They want to get rid of all opposition. That's their modus operandi. The thing here is the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, I think, wants to do the same thing. I think we're a burr on their butts. I think we're a pain in the rear to them. I think they much more resent us than they do liberal Democrats. Romney gave it all away the other day. He gave it all away when he came out -- and have you noticed how there hasn't been any reaction to that anywhere?

I have been studiously observing. Mitt Romney comes out, laments/longs for the good old days when we all get the same facts. There were only three different places you could get news America: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Those were the good old days. Those were the good old days when everybody got the same news, everybody got the same facts, and it's easy to collaborate. Democrats and Republicans could work together. But now we have these insurgent, extremist right wingers in this New Media confusing everybody with different facts.

And he also did give some lip service to saying the left has their own version, but he's not concerned about them because the extremists on the left still have the same facts that the Democrat Party has. However, us? We extremists on the right. We seem to be operating with a totally different set of facts and the mainstream doesn't want to deal with it, and the establishment doesn't want to deal with it.

So Romney comes out and sides with the people who called him a liar about paying his taxes, who told everybody he hated women and hated his employees and allowed them to get cancer and didn't care -- and put the dog on the roof of the station wagon -- and much more incendiary stuff designed to destroy his career and his reputation, and that's who he thinks his friends are. So Romney let it out of the bag with this idea that the good old days, you have to go back 25, 27, 28 years to find them. (paraphrased) "Yeah, everybody got the same news!

"Everybody got the same facts! There weren't any controversy day to day over what was what. We could collaborate and get along and everything was fine and dandy and hunky-dory. Yeah. Now we can't do." There hasn't been a... I haven't found any reaction to that anywhere. Have you, Mr. Snerdley? Have you seen it? (interruption) Not a peep. And to me it was the biggest news because it confirmed long-held suspicions. But there hasn't been a repeat of that. There hasn't been a repeat. There hasn't been anybody. I have not seen it other than where it originally appeared, in Breitbart.

RUSH: Now, back to the budget deal for just one or two things here. I mentioned at the outset that the Republican leadership has violated practically every promise they made to voters in 2010, 2012, 2014 about how they would behave if they were elected. And what they would do to stop Obama, stop the Democrats, stop the spending. One of the things that Boehner promised was three full days, 72 hours to read all legislation before voting on it.

Not here. This is being rammed through. This is going to have to happen today. It has to happen before Paul Ryan becomes Speaker so his fingerprints are not on it. This is supposedly Boehner's gift to Paul Ryan, a clean Speakership with no budget battles in the immediate future, the budget's done, no arguments with the Democrats. The conservatives out in the country can't do anything to you because it's a done deal, no threats of government shutdown. Boehner thinks this is his present to Ryan as new Speaker, a clean slate when it comes to the budget.

But to make it happen, they have to violate the promise and the pledge that Boehner and the leadership made. If the vote happens before 11:36 p.m. tomorrow, then Boehner's pledge would be violated. It's 144 pages. It raises the debt limit by a trillion dollars. Why does it take 144 pages to do that? But there are many more promises that were made and pledges that were signed way back when.

Let's talk about a Pledge to America, a little pamphlet the Republican leadership put out. It had all kinds of pictures of Boehner and Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, other Republican leaders. And this Pledge to America began thus: "An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.

"An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many. Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose."

Well, we all read that, those of us who did, we all heard that, those of us who did, "Man, these guys get it. These guys get it. They're gonna go in there and they're gonna stop this stuff. They understand all this elites are implementing things with executive action. The will of the people is being thwarted. Spending is out of control." We bought it. We elected 'em in droves. By the way, this pledge was made when all they had was the House. And this pledge did not say anything about we must have the Senate before we could do any of this. That came later.

They were making these promises when all the Republicans controlled were the House of Representatives, folks. And when they won the House of Representatives, that's when they said, "We can't do any more. We need the Senate." But yet they made these promises when they didn't control the Senate. The Republicans in this Pledge to America promised to do a lot of things to address this crisis. "They said they had 'A Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust.' They committed to change the abuses of Democratic leadership, who had 'consolidated authority, abusing the letter and spirit of the House rules to get the outcome desired, while ignoring voices of the American people, the minority, and even dissenters within [its] own party,'" and they were gonna make the Democrats pay for that. It's right from the Pledge to America.

When you hear that now, if you happen to read that now, how do you not snicker or get enraged? When you remember all of the complex, voluminous, endless bills, great consequence, that would no longer be dumped on members, they'd be given no meaningful opportunity to read the legislation, much less propose changes. Everything they pledged just kind of drifted away by the wayside when reality set in.

Further from the pledge: "We recognize that if we are truly committed to addressing the American people’s highest priorities, the House of Representatives must operate differently -- differently from the way the Democrats do now, and differently from the way Republicans did in the past. Change begins at home." This is what they promised to win the House. And here's the requirement to read the bill part of the pledge: "We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on."

Can't blame Republican voters for eating this up. It's exactly what needed to be done. It's exactly what they promised to do. So they were elected and they gained control of the House. And then we began to hear, "Wait. We forgot to tell you something. None of this can be done 'til we have the Senate." But this just scratches the surface on pledges and promises which were made.

You are far too eager to assign the worst of motives to your fellow FReepers ...

Prove it. Cut and paste the words in my posts here that "assign the worst of motives" to fellow FReepers. I can think of one post of mine that could be interpreted that way, but it wasn't initially addressed to you, it was to a different FReeper and you were pinged. And at that, again, it is rather like a equating anger with hatred -- the two are very different from each other, but many times people think that if someone is angry at them, then that someone "hates" them. And they are badly mistaken in thinking so 99 percent of the time. I have been guilty of it as much as anyone.

Do you equate thinking that someone is misguided, with thinking that someone is acting on "the worst of motives"?

Post #153

For so many decades I believed in voting "against," the same as our FRiend MKJessup and so many others still believe. Thinking that a goal can be accomplished by relying on an imaginary resource, is folly; the goal will remain elusive every time. It's like planning with wisdom and precision a nice trip, itinerary, budgeting and saving up for plane tickets and hotels, etc. -- and counting on the Tooth Fairy to act as your travel agent. No matter how good the plan, the trip will never materialize because from the git-go, you've lost it -- there's no such thing as the Tooth Fairy, and there's no such thing as voting "against."

There is the first installment, sounds pretty judgmental to me.

Post #151

My 20/20 hindsight, which was also adopted by enough fellow conservatives in 2012, served our nation and all "conservatives" who voted for Romney very well -- the bastard lost, and you, MKJ, are off the hook for all the garbage statism and amoral evil he would done in your name with your endorsement.

More judgment, assuming that because one voted AGAINST Obama (*by voting for the Republican ticket headed by Romney) that one was endorsing all of the policies of Romney. Quite to the contrary, a voter in 2012 who cast their vote for the Republican ticket was effectively voting AGAINST the policies of the Obamunist regime, and while they might not have agreed with each and every position that Romney and the GOP platform stood for, they made a reasoned judgment of their own, that those policies could not be much worse than what had already been done over the previous four years.

Now if you want to talk about 'endorsements', in your post #156, you endorsed Blackelk's post #117 in which he said:

What can NEVER be justified is any person calling himself or herself an American, a patriot, much less a conservative, and voting for Romney OR Obozo.

Sounds like Blackelk is saying that I (and many other FReepers, including our Founder) are not Americans, not patriots, not conservatives if we voted AGAINST Obama by voting the GOP ticket in 2012.

And, it can never be repeated often enough, as Finny often posts, we have only the option of voting FOR a candidate. There is no mechanism for voting AGAINST one.

Again that faulty logic trap. If you cast your vote for ONE candidate and their party, you are effectively voting AGAINST the candidate of the OTHER party.

If and when this nation is destroyed it will be due to those who lack the courage or the clarity to vote the traditional morality of this country.

One more judgment. It is inferred that FReepers such as I (and others) lack 'courage' or 'traditional morality'.

Moving right along now, in your post #88 you took FReeper 'Thibodeaux' to task:

...you are so desperate to keep your own self-esteem intact, that you carry on with this charade and get angry at folks who used to be where you still are, but who have figured out that the deal being offered by left-leaning politicians that now dominate both major parties is almost literally "Heads I win, tails you lose."

...You went ahead and allowed yourself to be manipulated into voting for crap that you didn't want in the first place. OR DIDNT YOU? Norm Lenhart is becoming more and more convincing in his argument that indeed, people like you WANTED what Romney has to offer. You WANT the political equivalent of crap like Coca-Cola and actually think it's "better" than Pepsi, metaphorically speaking.
Wake the hell up.

Now in the interest of brevity, since you apparently support the general timbre of what Blackelk has had to say in this thread, I would urge your reviewing his posts at #119 and #120 and weighing in as to whether you endorse those comments as well?

Eternal Vigilance stated that my response to you was "mean" which strikes me as highly ironic when one considers the mean spirited crap that was posted in this thread directed at other FReepers long before I began commenting here, Blackelk leading the charge, and you (Finny) eager to join in with the "Amens!" and the "me toos".

There you go, copied and pasted as requested.

Come on, MK -- I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence of your charge that I, finny, posted "vitriol" and "assign(ed) the worst of motives to fellow FReepers" in my posts on this thread.

Perhaps you were mistaken, but my personal alarm clock does not ring when you demand it. I respond to posts when I return to FR, off and on throughout the day.

You have insulted me and made a pretty ugly charge against me. Now BACK IT UP with evidence. It should be easy for you to do -- so DO IT.

You got your evidence, you and Blackelk too.

Or if you have honor [emphasis mine-mkj], ask the moderator to delete your post #159 in which you make absolutely false and hostile allegations against me. Actions speak louder than words, MKJ.

"If I have honor", noooo no judgmental behavior going on there, is there? Sounds to me like you got miffed because I didn't respond on your timetable, so you're throwing a fit.

Take a chill pill.

If those words are what you interpret as "vitriolic" and "judgmental," then disagreeing with you at all is always going to qualify as "vitriolic" and "judgmental."

But above all -- you voted FOR Romney and every single amoral thing he stood for, from gay marriage and on-demand abortion, to nationalized health care and the environmentalist agenda, and complain because I hold you accountable for what you voted for while you claim you only voted "against" Obama.

Black Elk and Norm Lenhart and others use language I avoid and attribute motivations to folks like you that I refrain from attributing because I think you are only misguided, but I agree with them in principle that voting for Romney was wrong and if he had won, very bad things would have happened for which only the people who voted "against" Obama would be responsible --

-- and certainly I know now as they do (and you have yet to figure out) that voting "against" is pure fiction.

Sorry that it is so -- like you, I voted "against" for years and helped get the Republican party to the miserable state it is now. But at least I have faced it and you are still in denial, as I was myself for years.

If you are able to accuse me of endorsing, siding with, encouraging, taking part in, the "vitriol" and angry tone of certain posters here because I agree with them in political principal -- then YOU had better understand that you EXACTLY acted to endorse all of Romney's depraved morality and government statism when you voted for him.

You didn't vote "against" a damned thing. You are very, very confused and it's just sad.

You hoist yourself on your own petard.

If you would like some examples of what I would consider "vitriol" as opposed to disagreeing with your political strategy/opinion, here are some:

you're throwing a fit....
Take a chill pill.

The most ironic of all: Eternal Vigilance stated that my response to you was "mean" which strikes me as highly ironic when one considers the mean spirited crap that was posted in this thread directed at other FReepers long before I began commenting here, Blackelk leading the charge, and you (Finny) eager to join in with the "Amens!"

Your vote for Romney was much more than an "amen" directed "against" Obama -- it was an effective action that would have put a depraved amoral Republican in the White House to do huge harm to America and the Republican party; any pretense of voting "against" Obama was strictly intent -- there's an old saying that The Road to hell is paved with good intentions because intent and action are very different from each other.

The "amen" you engaged in was more than a simple verbal agreement -- it was an empowering act that, thank God, failed.

And you know what I say to that?

I say Amen! {^)

I dont use nice friendly arguments because these people do not want to consider an alternate to their view so there is no point in holding back.

I see no point in politely debating an abortionist. Nor an amnesty advocate. Nor do I see a point when it comes to debating someone that shares many of those views through the candidates they support. They share a view. They are the same people. They want the same things. Thats why they vote for those that share their views. To advance them.

Treat them accordingly.

Just as you say, there is no voting ‘against’. Likewise, logic follows that a person who supports X votes for those that support X. In the case of Romney, he supports every major liberal issue on the table that liberals support. He did so prior to the election, he lied about it during the election and within 18 hours of losing the election, he reverted to supporting every major leftist issue. He also cannot stand and has always actively derided conservatives.

No breaks.

So with nothing to bitterly cling to, people that choose to continue defend their vote obviously share his values. Think about it Finny. Name one thing about Romney that makes you say ‘I support that! One.

They WANT what he offers.

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.