« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Definition of Stupid: Another Legislative Surrender

Get ready for another weak ground out into a double play in the upcoming budget battle.

Shortly before the August recess, we reported that Republicans planned to pass a clean 6-month CR which funds Obamacare and appropriates $1.047 trillion in spending – commensurate with Obama’s request instead of the House budget.  The idea behind the “deferment” strategy was twofold; to delay the major battles to 2013 in the hopes of winning back the Senate and to preclude the need for the lame duck session, when wayward members would use the must-pass budget bill to pass extraneous bad legislation.

At the time, we weighed both the pros and cons of this strategy.  Now we learn that some of our concerns have come to fruition, as the proposed CR is neither clean nor will it prevent the lame duck session.  Here are some things to consider.

  • Welfare Reform: Earlier this week, we pointed out that Republicans have an opportunity to force Obama’s hand on his gutting of welfare work requirements.  The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is set to expire September 30.  Even with control over just one-half of……etc, Republicans can force Obama’s hand by simply refusing to pass a TANF reauthorization without an agreement to reinstate the work requirements.  They can pass a reauthorization with a provision banning Obama’s state waivers of the work requirements, ship it off to the Senate and dare Reid and Obama to rail against an 80/20 issue.  This would literally provide us with an opportunity to contrast a paycheck president vs. a food stamp president.

Instead, House Republicans have cooked up a ‘dirty’ CR that contains a ‘clean’ extension of TANF without the work requirement provision.  This will allow Democrats in the Senate to pass the CR, while concurrently consummating Obama’s violation of welfare reform without engaging in a standalone fight on the issue.

But fear not, House Republicans plan a cover vote next week on a resolution of disapproval of Obama’s HHS waiver.  That would be fine if they wouldn’t be approving it this week.  We’ve seen this rodeo a million times before.  They punt on their only consequential opportunity to force an issue, while opting for a vacuous gesture that won’t go anywhere, especially without a parallel commitment from McConnell to bring up the resolution in the Senate.  This resolution vote provides House Republicans with a worthless talking point.  They can make believe they are fighting against the Obama Administration’s waive of work requirements, when they are actually surrendering the policy at a time when they have the power to undo the waiver.

  • Extra Spending: This is the first CR in history that actually slightly increases spending as opposed to “continuing” current levels.  To begin with, the agreement for this CR is a funding level of $1.047 trillion, not the current level of $1.043 trillion.  Moreover, as we pointed out a few weeks ago, CBO is now projecting that discretionary spending will only reach $1.039 trillion in FY 2013 based on the current budget.  As the housing market begins to recover, CBO is predicting that FHA receipts from premiums for loan guarantees will increase, netting much of that extra revenue and offsetting up to $8 billion in spending.  Yet, amazingly, instead of pocketing the savings and calling it a day at $1.039 trillion, both sides have agreed to plus up the rest of the spending accounts by 0.6% in order to “comply” with the $1.047 topline number.  You read the correctly.  Once they agreed to spend more money, they are incapable of saving it even when CBO shows that their budget could result in $8 billion less than expected.  Leave no spending behind!
  • Disaster Relief: This is an old trick that has already been used during this Congress.  This bill contains $6.4 billion in unpaid for disaster spending over and beyond the abovementioned spending cap.
  • Lame Duck: Not surprisingly, despite passing a CR funding government until March 27 2013, Congress still plans to come back for the lame duck session, when outgoing “suicide bombers” are willing to vote for terrible legislation.  The whole point of this strategy was to eliminate the lame duck session and prevent tacking on bad bills to the CR.  Now we are tacking on a bad bill to the CR….and still incurring the dangers of the lame duck session!

The House plans to vote on this bill some time this Thursday.  Please call your Republican members and tell them to abide by their promise to cut spending.  More importantly, ask them if they are willing to stand up to Obama on welfare reform.

Some people are saying that Republicans should close up shop if they can’t win in this environment.  More aptly said, they should close up shop if they are unwilling to embrace a fight against Obama on an 80/20 issue – one that cuts to core of the election.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • CarolT

    I agree. there should be no lame duck sessions at all. They don’t do things when they’re in session but give them a lame duck session and they’ll pass everything we are against, especially if we win the senate. The outgoing dems will be bitter and pass more bad legislation.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I guess the question is .. ” They punt on their only consequential opportunity to force an issue, while opting for a vacuous gesture that won’t go anywhere” … Do they think we are as stupid as they are?

  • michaelbowler

    The RINOs are in charge of the republican party, we are all set to elect a RINO to the Oval office. It’ll be great, we’ll have a RINO in charge at the senate at the house and at the WH, it’ll be another Keynesian hey day.
    Romney is a holding action, one that won’t hold very well. The conservatives will be out in the wilderness again, screaming while everyone sighs a relief that Obama isn’t president…when we might have done so much better.
    Meanwhile the moron public will equate these half hearted progressives with conservatism and we will be left taking the blame for not really getting the real problems fixed.

  • willik

    Boehner and crew are too stupid to exist! Hopefully he’ll be presented a ‘Darwin’ Award in return for the gavel to a TEA Partier which he’s tried to ‘marginalize’ (his words) since ’10.
    BTW: Where the HELL is the Great and Glorious Ron Paul in all this? He IS the Chairman of the Budget Committee, is he not.
    Even if he’s not the Chariman, he is a very senior CongressCritter concerning budgetary matters. Where is his input/comments on this? I’m very sure he has some.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Ron Paul? Very senior CongressCritter concerning budgetary matters?
    Make no mistake- Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Ron Paul probably have nothing to do with this bill. Since it originated from Appropriations, Hal Rogers, with John Boehner and Eric Cantor behind him…
    But if Romney-Ryan could provide some leadership on this, it would go a long way. It makes no sense to be increasing spending and sacrificing welfare reform.
    And they should be willing to take Reid on now, especially regarding the 20+ jobs bills they passed.

  • witchrunner

    How do these repubs think they are going to receive any votes if they vote like dems? One can only hope that if the repubs do take over the Senate and keep the House that they vote for new leadership. I can see the capitulation already: Well, the dems would filibuster, so we had to go along with them. Heck, please tell my why we should vote at all? It seems that the repubs we vote in are just as intent on destroying the country as the dems. I sure hope that I prove to be wrong as I will still vote for the repubs, but I sure hope things change. We know with Obama and the dems that the country will be taken further down the hole. We can only hope that voting for Romney and the repubs that they will change directions. I guess a little hope is better than no hope.

  • rightlane1111

    Oh…the powers that be. Last night I heard Laura Ingraham (sp) say something that really made a lot of sense. If Romney does not win this election, the Republican Party is over. Now, before anyone gets me banned…listen to today’s news. Do you all think that perhaps Romney could have been MORE FORCEFUL concerning the slaying of the Ambassador in Libya? Do you think that he could have been more demonstrative concerning the antics in Egypt? Oh…and Obama apologized giving them “international” freedom of speech.

    Folks…I’m war weary here…not the site…but circumstances around the globe. What is happening. When Libya acted up under Reagan…they got bombed. We watch our men and women in the service being killed for what? International approval. Our borders are desecrated and NOBODY IN CONGRESS SAYS JACK about it. We have a Supreme Court Justice REWRITE Obamacare. Moodys is going to downgrade us. The Congress keeps spending. The Catholic Church must perform abortions or be fined! All that Romney can say is “disgraceful”.

    Tell you what…what happened in Libya is tantamount to an act of war. There…Mr. Romney….say it. I can. Do we just bend over for everyone…especially those people that inflicted harm on us in 9/11…now they are doing it again…because they don’t like something. My red hair is a flamin

  • Dan

    No wonder Obama is so bold and not afraid to criticize and/or challenge the Republicans at every turn…he knows that on the important issues, they’ll cave, I think it’s as simple as that! That’s why I left the Republican party a few years ago to become a registered Independent (my personal protest movement) because I find the Republicans to be such a huge disappointment! I agree with Laura Ingraham…this election should be another Reagan-like landslide but I fear the Repubs will once again choke and hand a sure-win to Obama and his liberal dems…

  • celador2

    This is a well written, clear and to the point diary, thanks.
    CRs seem to be the wave of the future replacing budgets as long as a Democrat is in White House. But when the CR gets to the Senate why can not Ron Johnson, Jim Demint, and rand Paul even Mike Lee make some noise and hold the process up until work requirements are restored minimum?
    We deserve action to stop this CR as it must not pass in the typical silence of DC inevitability.

  • celador2

    rightlane, if Romney loses the Republican party can lead with whomever it has in power. Strongest Republican leaders by their actions are in US senate on national level and the many governors who tackled state debt and did not raise taxes.
    It is probable that if Romney loses Boehner-Cantor will continue to cave and cut deals in the house. Boehner and Cantor do not lead in reducing size and scope or cost of the federal government.
    . That means the SCF led by Demint or the tea party caucus can step up and take action on the debt. Not increasing debt and the growth of government is their goal.
    GOP governors and state legislatures will take on debt and entitlements and try to lower taxes for a business friendly environment at state levels.

  • celador2

    gork, much of the capitulation takes place in the House where seniority dominates who decides committee chairs and deals on appropriations. The pecking order is entrenched.
    As long as the current caucus leadership attitudes to deal –even though it is wrong and raise debt—- dominate we will not see much change in DC. IMO

  • celador2

    if Romney wins Boehner has no excuse to cut deals on CRs and budget busting spending as he has with Obama and Reid. Hold Romney to a balanced budget so Boehner is less tempted to cave to spending.
    Romney said in SC he liked ‘cut cap and balance’, the tea party budget in primary.

  • celador2

    The House caucus votes on its leadership and the entire House votes every two yers for Speaker. There is nothing but seniority, cronyism and tradition keeping Boehner from having a challenger for Speaker inside his own party. Of course Democrats run their leader for speaker also.
    I’d like to see someone outside the chain of command challenge Boehner, someone with a voting record RS approves but is not a TV kind of Rep. Boehner and Cantor who is next in line take much for granted. They help members win reelection and are repaid with support for leadership.

  • celador2

    When media and Democrats take over and decide what issues are relevant the GOP always fall on defensive. Debt, limited federal government are still key issues.
    Not long ago Republicans offered bolld new strategies to open up energy where Obama will not. This will create new jobs and off shoot jobs immediately. free markets work more than planned economies with excessive regulations.

  • tompusateri

    Don’t forget about the imminent debt ceiling deal that has to be done. Republicans are all about not raising taxes but they’ll happily borrow more money. Peter Schiff says its the same thing. At least with taxes, we directly feel the pain and will push back. With borrowing and printing, the inflation is much less obvious up front but much worse for the economy long term.

  • celador2

    Paul Ryan is chair budget committee in House. He is eligible in Wisconsin to run for both his seat in House and VP at same time.

  • screamindave

    Agreed celador2…the current Speaker of the House is a spineless jellyfish!

  • celador2

    ‘Funnymoney’ is the name of the game so Democrats do not care about debt. And Boehner and his croyism crowd do not mind borrowing more.
    Fed chr Ben announced he will print and buy 40 bn in bonds or mortgage bonds until the jobless rates rise. He will help ease the economic worries for Obama to win.
    But with deficit spending and debt not priority issues what does that mean for real time money? Real money backed by gold and silver is meaningless and amounts to less every second as we taxpayers pay debt in real money. Obama spends in funny money and spends like there is no tomorrow.
    The Fed reserve runs a planned economy to help the November election for Obama not the US economy short or long term.

  • celador2

    tom,if there is one thing that is inevitable in Washingotn Dc it is the ritual of raising thr debt ceiling..

  • celador2

    It is possibe McConnell may have a challenger who will not win but a challenger anyway.
    If not Mitch, Inside caucus elections, Ron Johnson ran for a caucus spot and got 22 votes. He also lost to seniorityy but it showed strength from rookie hawks bent on a budget resolution.