« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What is the End Game for Big Government?

Is the Republican infighting really about strategy, or is it about ideology?

Those Republicans, such as the Wall Street Journal editors and the Weekly Standard writers, who criticize Tea Party opposition to Boehner’s plan, would have you believe that they are just as ideologically committed to downsizing government.  They are just advocating smarter and more politically savvy ways of achieving that goal; one that is supposedly less tendentious to independent voters.  As such, they have an obligation to create a political and policy road map that will reduce government – a goal they purportedly share.  Where is their plan?

We believe that unless we go to the brink, and use our leverage with the budget process to force fundamental and transformational government reform, we will never limit government.  These wizards of smart obviously believe that we will have better opportunities in the future.  What are those opportunities?

Over the last 75 years, and especially during the past decade, liberals have methodically constructed an incorrigible edifice of tyranny.  Their magnum opus, the federal government, has foisted $14.4 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded obligations on our families; it has promulgated $1.75 trillion in regulatory burdens on our job creators, it has sucked out millions of jobs and trillions in income growth from the “little guy.”  Most important, it has revoked an incalculable measure of liberty from everyone.

Any sane observer of politics, who is willing to learn from the lessons of history, should intuitively understand that a few billion in cuts, along with incremental changes to government, are no match for perennial, self-perpetuating socialism.  It is akin to stopping a speeding bullet train (the last to leave the station, to paraphrase Speaker Boehner) with some twigs.  Boehner’s 2.0 plan, which appears to be gaining traction, does just that.

Our detractors will protest, “but this is not the time and place for such reform; let’s wait until we have control of more than 1/3rd of one branch of government.”

“This is the best we can do, given the extraneous circumstances.”

“Wait for 2012; we’ll take back all of government and really show them.”

“Get your a@#$ in line.”

No, folks, it is we conservatives who have kept our posteriors on the line, while you have retreated from it.

When you told us to help you fight to defund Obamacare, we held the line and took the bullets.

When you asked us to help fight the liberal media in the face of a government shutdown in April, we held the line.  Nonetheless, you caved for less than $500 million in savings from the 2011 Continuing Resolution.  You told us that it was not the time to fight, and it was the best we could get at the time.  But, we remained patient for the real fight; the debt ceiling fight, in which we would save “trillions.”

Concurrently, in April, the entire Republican conference rallied behind the Paul Ryan budget, which defunded Obamacare and set us on a path to a balanced budget, albeit in 26 years.  We held the line and took the arrows for killing granny.

Now, you guys are retreating from all those promises.  Not only are you surrendering our biggest leverage over the debt for non-transformational change, you are using this deal to negate the transformational changes that we rallied behind in the Ryan budget; Obamacare repeal, Medicare and Medicaid reform, and decreased welfare dependency.

Meanwhile, the clock ticks – and the programs only grow, Obamacare begins to take root, and not a single agency from the Departments of Education, Labor, HUD, Commerce, etc. are threatened with elimination.  In fact, they are still expanding.

What about waiting for the enchanted elections of 2012, in which we win back all branches of government?

Nothing will change, unless we are willing to employ drastic tactics – the same tactics that you oppose – and stick with them.  Even if we win the presidency and the Senate, an eventuality that is by no means guaranteed, we will not have 60 seats in the Senate to block the inevitable filibuster from 41 Democrats, who – unlike those on our side – never sell out.  Even if we win 60 seats, we will not have 60 conservatives.  Consequently, we will still be forced to use drastic tactics, such as the debt ceiling or budget reconciliation to enact our agenda and repeal Obamacare.

And you know what else?  Even if we have 60 seats, you will still oppose transformational change.  After all, how can we risk losing our power, once we work so hard to obtain it?  How can we alienate those precious independent voters by eliminating departments, cutting welfare, empowering young voters to save for retirement, or open Medicare to free market reform?

So what is your end game?  When will we ever downsize government?

Give us a realistic and coherent plan and we, unlike you guys, will hold the line and not leave the rest of the troops under fire in the field.  If you feel that that your plan is the best one for the debt ceiling fight, then show us how you will do better for the FY 2012 budget fight in September.

The reality is that you have no plan; you only have excuses.  The reason is simple.  You don’t really believe in limited government, and, despite the rhetoric, lack a true sensitivity for the pernicious effects of big government.

We can’t put our rumps on the line, if there is no line, and of that line is always moving…backwards.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • mkozikowski

    We have to throw out some of the ‘Babies’ with the bathwater.

    Meaning those Jello Spine House Speakers that passed a perfectly good deal with CCB and then came back with a plan that is so bad even the Democrats don’t like it.

    “Clean House” will be the call for 2012.

    • al003

      If we do not raise the debt ceiling so what. This only means that we cannot borrow any more money, the Credit Card is topped out. So what.
      This means that we are forced to follow a balanced budget, we cannot spend more money than we take in in taxes — this is exactly what we need to do.
      So what is the problem – Obama will have to live within the means of tax base.
      This is good thing – SO DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. TO HELL WITH OBAMA.

      LETS RUN EVERYONE WHO IS A RINO OUT IN 2012 AND UNELECT THE STOOGE IN CHARGE ALONG WITH OBAMA

  • ghostship

    Your completely right. They have no plan for victory. They don’t even want victory.

  • izoneguy

    Not a few months before the 2012 election.

    I would rather struggle for a few years now than for the rest of my life.

  • http://www.sheetanchor.org Sheet Anchor

    The Republican establishment always retreats, even when they increase power in Congress, such as in 2004 when GW Bush was re-elected.

    It is only conservatives, not establishment Republicans, and the Tea Party who will hold the line. Establishment Republican politicians fear the MSM, and protecting their political jobs, more than anything else – all to the detriment of the nation. The House freshman, and their counterparts in the Senate, must exercise their power in the Congress to hold the line at all costs now.

  • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

    Well said.

    • lizfstone

      said!

  • harlan

    “There is Boehner standing like a stone wall. Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer. Rally behind the Conservatives!”

    (In my dreams…)

    • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

      hits a ‘jello’ Obama, does it make a noise?

  • Danielle Davis (ocleverone)

    Bravo! Very well said.

  • Paul Seale

    If you label anyone who opposes going over the cliff in an effort to solve a problem as idealogically different and truly opposed cutting government then what the media reported about Reagan not being able to make it in the GOP today is true.

    In your haste to “leverage” for a better deal you are willfully ignoring ignoring the fact that Democrats control the Presidency and Senate. That is a fact which you and I both know.

    Whats more, you also know that CCB is dead – and I have yet to see any sort of plan to resurrect it and get the four votes necessary to untable it and 17 votes to avoid a fillibuster.

    So, that leaves me with the suggestion that the plan is to delay and kill any legislation and allow the country to go past August 2 (or beyond) with no way to reconcile its obligations.

    You are betting the future of the country that people will blame Democrats and President Obama for a potential collapse of services (at best) and an outright default in our credit at worse.

    Whats worse is the taking of extraordinary steps of refusing to even acknowledge and that there may be a difference of an opinion that might be valid – and essentially call those who do not agree with the “let it shut down” philosophy as some sort of coward and RINO is beyond the pale.

    How much more could we have “leveraged” or be taken seriously if instead of throwing bombs at each other and threatening primaries and spending resources on fights that need to be taken up?

    I suppose we will never know.

    We lost in 96 partly because of the govt shut down. If we do not realize that and pretend it was for another reason we risk doing what the Democrats did last year – fantasizing that it was really because we didnt didnt push hard enough – that we lost.

    There is a difference between working for a real solution and fighting for the sake of fighting. Most Americans find it irresponsible for their elected official to push for a government shut down and to not work in good faith.

    Apparently the die Democrats will be laughing all the way to the bank in 2012.

    I pray that the conservative movement may not be permanently damaged.

    • ghostship

      What’s your plan?

      Should we continue to retreat our way to victory?

      Yeah, because that’s just been working out so great for us hasn’t it?

      • Paul Seale

        Dream land: Pass CCB and BBA. Not gonna happen at the moment.

        What I would like to do:

        -Make sure provisions are in Boehners plan to prevent committee from getting out of control

        -Make sure that every dollar provided for in the plan is scored by the CBO as an actual cut.

        -Make sure that the committee isnt made up of hap-hazzard individuals who would agree to tax increases.

        Work within those areas – then push hard for 2012 and then twist arms to get what we want done if and when we were to get the Senate and Presidency.

        Charles Krauthammer had an excellent video on this from last night’s Orielly Factor.

        • rightwingmom52

          Thinking that Boehner (& McConnell) will include any provisions to prevent the committee from getting out of control or to make sure it isn’t made up of haphazard individuals who would agree to tax increases. Otherwise, he would have done that in the first place. The fact that he didn’t speaks volumes.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      respect your views, but it’s hard to respond to someone who appears to have overlooked everything I have argued in this post and others. You are not answering the fundamental questions about the ryan budget, the next fights, post 2012 elections. when will things change. I, and most others, would be willing to soldier on and take a compromise, if we were ensured that there would be some point in time that the GOP would use their leverage to make the big plays. Until then, we will be gaining one yard for every hundred yards that the opposition advances.

      This is a good segue into your other point, Reagan. Ronald Reagan did what he did precisely because he envisioned the crisis of socialism that we now find ourselves in. Keep in mind that government was a fraction of the current size going back to the 80s. We are now in the ninth inning. Following Obama’s record growth of socialism and obamacare, we are in overtime.

      If you read the statements from Reagan at the end of his presidency, he had many prescient remarks about his failures to restrain government and what that would lead to in the future. Well, we stand today in his footsteps, following a reprehensible president that Reagan would have never envisioned. We can be patient for the next fight or even next year. But will things change? When will they ever get the courage? How will we reverse the trajectory?

      Nobody is answering these questions. The comparison to the era of Reagan is a non-sequitur and it only buttresses our point.

      • Spiral

        Actually, the answer to these questions is fairly simple. It follows the logic of how a bill becomes a law under our Constitution.

        For example, let’s say hypothetically that you want to repeal Obama-care. You need the US House to pass the repeal legislation. You need the US Senate to pass the repeal legislation. You need the President to sign the repeal legislation, assuming that Congress passed the legislation with less than a 2/3rds supermajority.

        Clearly, if the Democrats hold a majority in either the US House or the US Senate or hold the White House, repeal of Obama care will not become law.

        This is why some of us believe that the path towards a more limited government requires a GOP sweep of the US House, US Senate and White House in 2012.

        The alternative of withholding an increase on the debt ceiling as a substitute for the kind of electoral event that I suggest is simply not going to give conservatives the result we want.

        • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

          clearly have not read the entire piece, as I have precluded those arguments. You might be a fighter, but those who are in power, and subscribe to the view that they will never shutdown the government (and they tell the Dems that), are not fighters. They will never have the audacity to enact real change, even if they controlled Congress.

          As for your Filibuster argument? Come on. Do you really think these same guys who are tepid to fight now ? will suddenly find the gumption to stand before the public and abolish the filibuster. And besides, that wouldn?t be a conservative thing to do. Although the filibuster is not in the constitution, as the commenter suggests, it was adopted in the Senate rules of the first Senate by Jefferson. Most conservatives would not support it, and most other Republicans, even if they agreed with you in theory, would never have the courage to carry that out.

          • Spiral

            Daniel,

            I read your piece.

            And I deliberately did not give you a 100 percent guarantee of anything.

            I did not give you a 100 percent guarantee that the GOP would win the US House, the US Senate and the White House in November 2012.

            I did not give you a 100 percent guarantee that the GOP, even if they did win the US House, the US Senate and the White House in November 2012, would have the guts to enact the conservative agenda.

            However, unless we conservatives are going to leave the GOP and join another political party, like the Constitution party or the Libertarian party, we must work for a GOP sweep.

            As long as the Democrats control one of the levers of power in Washington DC, Obama-care will not be repealed and our entitlement programs will not be reformed.

            You know that.

          • Spiral

            So, if a GOP President is elected in November 2012. And a 56 to 44 GOP Senate majority is elected in November 2012. And US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg retires. And the GOP President nominates a constitutionalist conservative to replace Ginsberg, you would allow 41 of the 44 Senate Democrats to filibuster the constitutionalist nominee and be defeated.

            Ok. I disagree. But at least I know where you stand.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            on Judicial nominees. But the bottom line is that we can’t repeal it for everything. If you are putting all your faith in budget reconciliation, again, I would trust people like you to hold the line; not these guys in DC. They would not have the courage then, if they don’t have it now.

          • Aaron Gardner

            But you knew that already.

          • gekster

            Driving with eyes closed.

          • JSobieski

            No prior Congress can limit a future Congress statutorily. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.

            If the Senate wants to change its rules, it can change its rules.

            Any other interpretation means that the clause in Obamacare that precludes repeal actually means Obamacare can’t be repealed.

            So if you want to repeal Obamacare, one way or another, you have to confront the issue of what a past Congress can do to future Congresses.

          • gekster

            But what has it got to do with the filibuster.

          • JSobieski

            is contrary to the Constitution. If the Senate wants to change its cloture rules, it can do so at any time on the basis of a majority vote.

            If you interpret the Constitution to prevent such an option, you are also interpreting the Constitution to prevent the repeal of Obamacare.

            http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2009/12/22/can-one-congress-bind-another/

          • gekster

            I do have some understanding of the rules and of the Constitution, (though I could learn more), the point is, we get rid of the filibuster, and then what do we do when we get around to losing the Senate.
            It really doesn’t stay in one parties hands for all that long.

        • jerry39

          I keep reading this argument over and over again and nobody ever explains why having complete control of the government is a pre-requisite for reducing debt in this case?

          We all know how laws are made, and that is precisely the issue = a law must be made for the debt ceiling to increase. If controlling the Senate and the Presidency were sufficient, then the debt limit would increase perpetually until a law was passed to stop it from increasing. In that case we would be powerless to do anything about it.

          It is precisely because a law must be passed that we have this control and there is nothing illegitimate about exercising it.

          • Spiral

            That’s where the difference is.

            I don’t see refusing to raise the debt limit unless certain conditions are met as a responsible option.

            Here’s why. (Since you asked.)

            Currently the government borrows over 40 cents of every dollar it spends. So, without an increase in the debt limit, government can not pay all of its legal-financial obligations.

            Now, the federal government still is legally obligated to pay defense contractors, veterans, bondholders, social security recipients and all that other stuff. It’s just that, now, with no authority to borrow money, the federal government has to welch on about 40 percent of its legal-financial obligations.

            Consider that not a single member of Congress, not even the most tea party-ish member, has developed a detailed budget for cutting the federal government by 40 percent immediately.

            Why not? Why doesn’t Senator DeMint or Senator Paul draw up a budget that tells us which 40 percent will not be paid?

            This is the dog that has not barked. It means that there will be a debt limit increase. It’s just a question of whether we will do it before we drive off the cliff or before.

          • jerry39

            than no option at all isn’t it? It leads to 2 related questions. The first question is, if what you say is true, then wouldn’t accepting CCB be the responsible thing for the democrats to do? Wouldn’t the modest but firm decreases of CCB be 1000 times preferable to them than having to reduce spending by 40% (which would put us at around the spending levels at the end of the Clinton administration).

            The second question is when does it become reasonable solution? When our credit rating sinks another 3 levels? When the highest marginal tax rate is 70%>? When debt is 4-5 time GDP? At what point does forcing responsible spending become the responsible thing to do? At some point and I think some are suggesting that time is now – we have to weight the horrors of failing to increase the debt, against the likelihood that the perfect storm of conservative control of government will never happen. It doesn’t get easier every year, it gets harder.

          • Spiral

            Yes. If, and this is a huge if, the Democrats were responsible they would support CCB.

            You ask, “When does it become a reasonable solution?”

            When does what become a reasonable solution? Making an immediate cut in federal spending by 40 percent while sending out Social Security payments in full?

            I think some conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouth when they say that they think the federal government can do fine on just its revenue, but don’t propose a detailed budget describing exactly how that would be done while making sure that everyone gets their full social security check and the military is paid.

            You ask, “At what point does forcing responsible spending become the responsible thing to do?”

            Well, I think that proposing responsible spending is responsible. But I think that not raising the debt limit when we don’t have any detailed plan as to how the federal government will function without any new borrowing authority is bad policy.

            If we are going to limit the federal government, I think we need to gradually raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. I also think we need to raise the deductible for Medicare, perhaps by a large amount, to save the federal governent money. I also think we need to reduce or eliminate Medicaid spending and say to the States,”If you want Medicaid for your state, you pay for it. No more federal matching funds.”

            That’s just off the top of my head. I imagine folks like Paul Ryan have more creative ideas than I do.

            If you don’t think I am in favor of limited government, it’s really no skin off my back. Most people who know my political views think of me as very right wing. In this Red State environment I am considered a squish. It’s all relative. These days even Mike Pence, John Bolton and Alan West are considered moderates.

          • Aaron Gardner

            But whatever, it’s your reality, do what you want.

          • lineholder

            May God bless you for your patience! Just about every other word Spiral has written has been a slam against conservatives. I couldn’t deal with that for long. Glad someone can!

          • Spiral

            That does not make them moderates or RINOs. My mistake.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            when it comes to limited government, or what that term even means to you. I do know, based on your endless droning, that you have no clue about what it will take to actually limit government.

          • Aaron Gardner

            nt

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            President Obama.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            trying to be nice.

            I promise, I won’t do it again. :-)

          • Tbone

            Give him credit for that.

          • Spiral

            Ok. Since you have no clue what I might support for limited government. Here’s what I think we should do.

            Abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Farm Subsidies, SCHIP.

            I guess I’d also through in selling off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and getting rid of subsidized housing.

            That’s about all I can think of off the top of my head, at 5 AM this morning.

            I don’t consider myself a Ron Paul type of libertarian, but I think when trying to limit government, we would be well advised to re-read the book, “What It Means To Be A Libertarian,” by Charles Murray.

          • jerry39

            Conservatives don’t need to draft a plan for not raising the debt limit because we have a plan that has passed with bi-partisan support that does raise the debt limit. But the existence of a plan is not relevant to my question – which is at what point on the spectrum of overspending and/or overtaxing does such a drastic step make more sense than business a usual?

            For instance would you say that Greece put their austerity measures in at the appropriate time – or would it have been better off for them and for the whole World had they taken drastic measures before it was too late?

            The nice thing about forcing the issue now – is that it can be undone immediately because the ceiling can be raised at anytime. If the drastic solution is forced on us like Greece, – we have no options to experiment.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            real austerity measures. And, the reality is that they are in defacto default on their debt. You’ve not heard the last of Greece – or Italy or Spain or Portugal for that matter – for a long, long time. Oh, and then there’s the disaster that passes itself off as the “Euro”.

          • acat

            Thought it was:

            Portugal
            Italy
            Ireland
            Greece
            Spain

            Did Ireland manage a reform I missed? Thought their economy had collapsed once their “economic miracle” (caused largely by having, at the time, one of the more business-friendly tax structures in *western* Europe) dried up?

            I do know that it’s far cheaper to hire technical support staff in Gdansk than in Shannon these days… even if the accent is a little harder on American ears.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            nt

          • jerry39

            been doing things as required by their creditors each time they get bailed out. Maybe not “real austerity” yet, but you get my point. They are raising taxes, cutting spending, laying off employees – all while their economy shrinks – their actions cause it to shrink more – requiring further measures – leading to a downward…. Spiral. Pun intended.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            is in no way a program that will right Greece’s finances. What they’re doing is a kabuki dance similar to the US raising the debt limit. It’s purely an exercise in mental masturbation and accomplishes nothing in the medium to long term. It’s the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a melanoma. Does a good job of hiding the problem while the patient rots from the inside out and dies.

      • Paul Seale

        We can disagree about policy, but what raised my blood pressure a notch or two is the implication that many of us who agree with CCB, but want to get as much as we can and fight anothre day, are nothing more than RINOs and cowards.

        I dont think Allen West, Fred Thompson or many Americans fit into that category.

        Do I share your concern about making sure things are done right in the future as a pose to letting things just go on? Absolutely.

        I also agree with your later point about Reagan noting the 86 deal was a major mistake.

        However, where I depart with you on the matter is operating in bad faith with those who are in DC right now trying to do the right thing – or people like my self who do not want to even get close to the cliff.

        Should there be restrictions on the proposed committee placed? Absolutely.

        Should we put pressure on leadership to make sure the numbers are accurate and they are sticking to what they say? It is a must.

        Are there people like Lugar who should be primaried? Without a doubt, yes.

        Am I willing to call out other conservatives and question their motivations for not wanting to play things right up to the edge or feel that things can be accomplished another way? No.

        I hope that makese sense.

        • Aaron Gardner

          If you take it personally and start defending those in D.C. of course you are going to be met with hostility. We are an activist site and you are telling the activists to sit down and shut up. To expect praise for this position is nuts.

        • acat

          Where we part company is your second-to-last paragraph.

          What you appear to be saying is that we should trust that anyone who claims to be a conservative has, in fact, got good reasons for doing what they’re doing.

          I simply do not agree with this. I do question your motivations for wanting to take a lesser plan as, from my perspective, we’ll suffer more damage for capitulating now than we would for calling Obama’s bluff, for holding the line another week.

          Mew

        • jerry39

          Know the idiocy of negotiating against yourself. It is a fair assumption that someone who knows better is either doing it because they are afraid or because they want to. I.e – coward or RINO. Its not name calling as much as deductive reasoning. Could it be wrong in certain circumstances, yes of course it could. But I think the burden of proof at this point is more along the lines of rendition than beyond a reasonable doubt.

    • amigag

      Paul, there is only one way the Conservative “movement” as you call it will be damaged is if we fail to fight and hold the line.

      Your comments are all over the board. Get off of the fence and get on one side or the other. As it has been said before, Lead, Follow, or get the H*LL out of the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • mirac777

      Some serious facts here:
      “You are betting the future of the country that people will blame Democrats and President Obama for a potential collapse of services (at best) and an outright default in our credit at worse.”

      FUTURE? What future do we have at $20 TRILLION in debt? If all your credit cards are maxed out and you have the choice to make your house payment, or ask the bank for 50k more in credit limits what happens? You make the house payment or go live under a bridge. The bank asks you if you are nuts and demands the 50k you already owe them or they will take everything you own.. There is NO future continuing with fast-approaching 2 trillion dollar yearly deficits!

      Daniel makes valid points here. Boehner is in a hell of a bind here. Why? he HAD the only viable solution and let it get blocked by the Socialists in the Senate! He had the opportunity to hold the line and demand a vote on CCB in the Senate! We needed that vote to identify the Senators who want to bankrupt America for the 2012 elections.60-66% of informed Americans support CCB. Now it has come down to a pathetic game of Socialist roulette with our impending insolvency staring us in the face. Again, there is NO FUTURE in continuing the drunken tyrannical vote-begging spending for America.Anything else is rooted in ignorance, whether you are a Repub or a Dem- this Inedpendent sees you for what you really are here: Progressives.

      • sovereigntynow

        Not sure if Horowitz realizes just how profound his realization has become. Conservatives believe the system can be changed by working within the system, and by sending ‘good people’ to DC. Both assumptions are proven fallacious by over 200 years of history. True change cannot come by adherence to the ‘rules,’ it must be imposed by the State’s refusal to play. When 2 or 3 States authorize their citizens to quit sending their taxes to DC and to send them to their respective state capitals instead – and those legislatures decide what their fair share of Constitutionally-mandated expenditures should be – only then will change come. Nullification of federal ‘law’ and starving the cancer of its blood supply is the only recourse to full revolt.Unless we face this reality, and soon, we are destined to destruction as a republic.

        • bigboy46

          Until the pols start recommending deleting whole departments, I will just sit back and laugh at this entire situation. Even though it is not a laughing matter, these DC pols just want the establishment to reign.
          The amount they are espousing to ‘cut’ is a joke all by itself. And they get all tangled up in knots over this? Come ON! Over ten years?! I dare you to do it in five years! Then watch the progressives howl. That would be worth the price of admission all by itself.

          • jpmhofct

            It is increasing becoming obvious the Speaker and minority leader do not fully support either the Budget passed or the Cut, Cap and Bakance bill.
            If they did they would not have immediately put forward alternatives when the Senate with complete compliance by the minority leader voted down and tabled those billsw with no altertnative presented..

            The minority leader then proposed complete capitulation to Obama and the Speaker put forth a minimal cut – no tax increase short term debt ceiling increase as though forcing Obama to come back again after deficit spending continues into 2012 is a victory.
            Even that weak approach will be rejected by the Senate or the President so they can continue to blame Republicans while they continue to call for more “TAX AND DEFICIT SPENDING”.

            Republicans must begin to realize broad based house cleaning to replace career congressional office holders will be necessary to get anytrhing meaningful accomplished.
            2011 election is fast APPROACHING AND 2012 ISCLOSE.
            Organized tea party like action will be absolutely necessary as the traditional party has failed. We need majorities in both House and Senate – and A President committed to reversing deficit spending , reducing debt and fostering economic growtrh to raise federal revenue. To do so it will be necessary to repeal Obama initiatives in legislation & regulation and appointments to courts need to be constitutionalists.

  • quill67

    Talks like a conservative but has not acted like a conservative. He must go.

    He did not “ground into double play” he walked up to the plate without a bat and hoped the other team would walk him. (andhe wants the players on his own team will not get mad or to question his strategy)

  • Spiral

    Daniel,

    Thank you for asking the question, “Where’s is their plan?”

    It goes like this:

    Step 1:

    In 2012 the Republicans must win control over the US House, the US Senate and the White House.

    We are only 4 seats short right now, 3 seats short if we win the White House because a Vice President breaks a tie vote. There are 23 Democrat Senate seats up in 2012, many in red states. We have an excellent chance. The US House is already in GOP hands and is very likely to remain so. As for the White House, the unemployment rate seems to indicate that Obama is a one term president.

    Step 2:

    Enact entitlement reform. Repeal Obama care. Confirm conservative judicial nominees to the federal courts of appeals and the US Supreme Court.

    You mentioned the Senate filibuster rule and the need for 60 votes to end debate in the US Senate. To that I would say 2 things:

    [1] Filibusters are not allowed on budget reconciliation bills.

    That’s how the 2003 Bush tax cuts got passed with about 51-53 votes in the US Senate. (That’s also how the Clinton tax increases got passed with a 51-50 vote in 1993 with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie.)

    So, it would be necessary to put Medicare reform, Social Security reform and Medicaid reform into a budget reconciliation bill.

    After 50 hours of debate and amendment, the budget reconciliation bill gets an up or down vote. No 60 vote requirement to end debate.

    [2] I support ending the filibuster using the Constitutional option.

    Back in 2003, in the early Bush years, the Democrats in the US Senate began filibustering conservative judicial nominees. Republican Senate leaders began doing some research on Senate rules and how the filibuster began and how the filibuster rules have changed over the years.

    The filibuster is not in the Constitution. The Framers of the US Constitution intended for both the US House and the US Senate to be run on a majority basis.

    How do we know this? Consider Article 1, Section 3.

    The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

    Also, Article 1, Section 5 states

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    When the Constitution says that each house may detremine its rules, this means that a simple majority may determine its rules.

    Rule 5 of the US Senate, which states that it takes 2/3rds, was an attempt by the 1959 US Senate to, essentially, pass a Constitutional Amendment without having done so. Thus, Rule 5′s 2/3rds requirements for Senate rule changes are of no effect.

    Former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd used the Constitutional Option several times, using parliamentary tactics to change the Senate’s procedures without actually changing the text of Senate rules.

    Bottom line is this. The Senate filibuster rule should be changed because some of the conservative agenda, including the confirmation of conservative judicial nominees, can not be enacted with a 60 vote requirement.

    As you wrote. We may not have 60 Republicans. And if we do, we may not have 60 conservatives.

    We need to end the filibuster, especially the judicial filibuster. Miguel Estrata and Carolyn Kuhl were 2 federal appeals court nominees nominated by Bush and defeated by the Democrats via the judicial filibuster. It must not happen again. Certainly not to a conservative nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

    Can I guarantee that the 2013 US House, US Senate and President will govern more conservatively than the 2003 through 2006 version?

    No. We would be better off, perhaps, if we elected a Libertarian US House, US Senate and President. Or a Constitution Party US House, US Senate and President.

    But unless we are all going to bolt the GOP and join a minor party like the Libertarian or Constitution party, we work for a GOP sweep in 2012 and then encourage the GOP Congress and President to save this country from financial ruin.

    That’s it. That’s the plan. We do have to ask the voters in 2012 to elect Republicans. We do have to encourage elected Republicans in January 2013 to enact a conservative agenda. But that is how it should be done.

    Trying to enact a conservative agenda by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling will not give us the result we want.

    The Wall Street Journal, Fred Thompson, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Bill Kristol and others are correct.

    But that is our plan.

    • amigag

      Spiral, Your Step 1
      Step 1:

      In 2012 the Republicans must win control over the US House, the US Senate and the White House.

      Predicting the future is the same as counting your chickens before they are hatched. You don’t make today’s decisions based on that.
      You play the hand you are dealt, not the next hand. I play cards and don’t fold my current hand with the thot, well the next hand will be great. Hey, maybe the next game I’ll win. LOL

      Get with the program.

      • Spiral

        I did not say that a GOP sweep in 2012 is 100 percent guaranteed.

        I only said that a GOP sweep, GOP control over the US House, US Senate and Presidency is a necessary precondition for more limited government.

        Notice I said a “necessary” precondition. It is not a sufficient condition because, of course, the GOP Congress and President would need to enact conservative legislation.

        Not guarnanteed either. Of course.

        • ghostship

          Even if the Republican had the House, Senate, White House, and the Courts those Republicans would not accomplish a single thing since there is no desire on their part to fight for Conservative principles.

          You are as bad as the Democrats about money. They promise that if give them their tax hikes and debt limit increases they promise that this time they give us those spending cuts in the future. They never do.

          You’re the same. If you just elect more Republicans we promise that next time we really really will fight for those Conservative principles of yours.

          Sure. like we haven’t heard that line over and over again just to see that it never happens.

          We Conservatives are tired of empty promises. We want you to walk the walk.

          HOLD THE LINE! STAND AND FIGHT!

          • concap

            The Republican Party is morphing and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

            A new branch of the Republican Party is inadvertently being formed by Republicans who refuse to advocate their social concerns on the state level and move to the fiscal right on a federal level with the most of Republican Tea Party movement.

            Most of the current Republican Party is morphing with the Moderate Democratic Conservatives who are being forced to move to the right by the radical hard left, thus insuring a social leaning branch of the Republican Party.

            Some on the site say, NOT ME! I would never join up with the Democrats.
            Well, it?s the Moderate Democrats that are joining the Republican Party, most calling themselves Social first conservatives and supporting the RINOs.

            Please note, I did not say all Social first Conservatives were converts from the other side.

            I know some on RS are getting tired of hearing this from me, but this is my windmill. I see more people on RS starting to make the same point and that?s a good thing.

          • 1stRichard

            I made an entry on what they need to morph in to, the center of Conservatism, why it matters.

        • jerry39

          nt

          • Aaron Gardner

            His goal is to not see his own fears come true. You can’t debate a guy like that.

          • Spiral

            I don’t know. We’ve never gone through with not raising the debt ceiling before.

            It’s really experimental politics and experimental economics all rolled into one.

            Now, the problem is this. Just because the government can not borrow money does not mean that the government is not legally obligated to pay.

            So, about the feds have to welch on 40 percent of the feds obligations. And Obama gets to decide which 40 percent.

            Now, I can anticipate the argument that some Republican US Senators have a bill that will tell Obama whom to pay and whom not to pay.

            My opinion is this. Why don’t these people who support this legislation get down into the details and write up an entire budget which would cut federal spending by 40 percent immediately, since they think that not raising the debt limit is an option for us?

            I think it’s because even these tea party Republicans don’t support cuts of that magnitude.

            And if we are going to cut spending immediately by 40 percent, not only should some Congressman, some Senator, draw up a budget for it, we should have a debate over it, since this is how we are going to live until the next election or until folks decide a 40 percent reduction is too large.

            I think that we could cut the federal government by 40 percent. But I think the way to accomplish this is by gradually raising the age of eligibility for Medicare and Social Security and cutting Medicaid matching to the states. Do I think a GOP Congress and President will go this route in 2013 if they win in 2012? Maybe. Maybe not.

          • Spiral

            Since I keep hearing that Social Security checks will still go out, the math does not seem to add up. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid is where the money is. That’s what must be cut.

            But the tea party folks seem to be saying that this is what they would tell Obama not to cut. It doesn’t add up. If we are going to get into experimental politics, we have to know what we are getting into.

            Without a detailed budget with the 40 percent immediate cuts layed out, I can’t support this tactic.

          • jerry39

            But I think its because your 40% figure is too high in terms of what would have to be cut. The figures I have heard seem be more in the 15% to 20% range. That all of debt payments, social security and medicare (i think), military, and veterans benefits could be paid every month with a nice chuck left over.

            Again, my point is not in support of an immediate forced reduction of whatever the actual % is. It is only that we cant view the consequences of failing to increase the debt in a vacuum. They must be compared with the likely alternative and the likelihood that the Dems will cave.

            So if CCB scores a 7 out o 10, Boehner plan scores a 3 out of 10, and failing to raise the debt ceiling scores a 1 out of 10, and there is a 50% the dems would allow default to continue versus passing CCB – we could loosely calculate the relative values of holding the line. 50% (as a negative) of a 7 becomes a 3.5 and 50% of a 1 (as a positive )becomes a 2. Nothing scientific about any of those numbers, and you could throw in a few hundred more variables, but I think they demonstrate why holding the line is a good strategy. Not an absolute guarantee of victory, but not something that should be discarded for fear of the unknown either.

    • anjinconsulting

      Better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.

      What you have outlined will not be possible if we cannot even do the two simple things we said we would do when we sent the freshmen to congress.

      The Republican leadership is as spineless and entrenched as any invertebrate parasite and the “right” people you cited are nothing but enablers.

      • powertothepeople

        and in order for it to make sense it would be

        “Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”

        And to be more correct in the translation, it would be

        “Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodillas!”

        “It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”

      • Doc Holliday

        .

    • Brian Darling

      Do you think Republicans will control government forever? Nope. Even if they control government for the next 4 years, how would a conservative Senator prevent the RINO wing of Republicans from passing another TARP, NCLB, Medicare Part D or new earmarks? Do you think the American people will elect 30-40 more Jim DeMints or Olympia Snowes?
      And when the liberals come back into power, they will use your “Constitutional Option” to ram big government down your throat — and it will be your fault because you made it easier for them because you wanted to make it easier to grow government.
      “Reform” of the filibuster is unwise – http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/12/01/filibuster-reform-is-unwise/

      • Aaron Gardner

        Well said Brian.

      • JSobieski

        Obamacare includes a provision that inserts a Senate and House rule that prevents repeal of Obamacare. So we are going to need to hit the issue of Senate rules whether we want to or not—unless we decide to give up on repealing Obamacare.

        • gekster

          when we can’t control the Senate forever.

          • JSobieski

            Most people think that if Obamacare is not immediately repealed, it will be with us forever.

            I also think that knowledge is inherently helpful.

          • gekster

            get control, they shove it at us again, no gain.

          • JSobieski

            Denying the truth about the fillibuster and the Constitution is still denying the truth.

            Conservatism is all about embracing truth, not living by false illusions.

            Either you support the Constitution, or you support something else.

          • gekster

            If we end the filibuster, we control the Senate forever.

          • JSobieski

            There are no guarantees in life. Any adult understands that.

            I never claimed that fillibuster doesn’t sometimes help us. I never said we would control the Senate forever. You debate straw men very well, but is that really what you want? Do you not want to strive for more than beating up straw man propositions?

            I thought conservatism meant taking the Constitution seriously. I must have missed the part where Burke describes how justice is determined by an explicitly partison analysis or demands that the correct analysis must “always” help one side or “never” bite another side in the rear end.

            If you don’t think repealing Obamacare is important, I am not all that interested what you think.

            So run along with your search for guarantees, certainties, fairness, unicorns, and whatever falsehoods about the Constitution help you sleep better at night. After all, thats what liberals do the twist and turn the Constitution…

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

    Meanwhile, the clock ticks ? and the programs only grow, Obamacare begins to take root, and not a single agency from the Departments of Education, Labor, HUD, Commerce, etc. are threatened with elimination. In fact, they are still expanding.

    • BA Cyclone

      We have to do both. At every turn when we have a point to negotiate, particularly when the GOP “only controls 1/2 of 1/3 of the government” we have to extract cuts from leviathan.

      Buckling now and getting nothing but fake cuts will make future negotiations all the more painful and frankly embarassing for the conservative view.

      No free rides for the statists.

  • http://www.sheetanchor.org Sheet Anchor

    beach, with the force pinned down and dying, “Gentlemen, we are being killed on the beaches. Let us go inland and be killed;” and he and his courageous men lept up and opened a gateway forward from that beach. They risked everthing – everythiung; and without taking that risk, the invasion would likely have failed. Sometimes you have to be willng to risk everything to succeed.

    Great Americans have time after time, at the critical moment, risked everything; and time and time again they succeeded. This is one of those times. We must be williing to risk everything to preserve the nation.

    House freshman, you are now on the political beach. We must get off the beach. You must risk everything to succeed. Let us go inland and be killed. Open the gateway; it is the only way to succeed.

  • owise1

    Texans remember the battle cry at San Jacinto, ?Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!? The battle at the Alamo is well-known throughout the world. Something like 189 men held off Mexican forces exceeding 2000 men for nearly two weeks. All of the defenders died, but they died fighting and they died for a purpose greater than themselves. Their efforts gave General Sam Houston enough time to pull back his forces and prepare a defense that led to Texas? independence a little more than 6 weeks later.

    As a Texan, I?m familiar with the ?battle? at Goliad, though I?m not certain that anyone outside of Texas knows much about it. There?s a good reason for that: it wasn?t a battle. The 300+ men under the command of James Fannin surrendered to a Mexican force of about 900 men. They gave up the fight. They believed that they would be taken captive and eventually returned to their homes. Instead, Gen. Santa Anna ordered them to executed. They were all marched onto open prairie and shot, their bodies collected into piles, and burned. Their surrender gained them nothing personally, and it did precious little to help the cause of Texas independence.

    There comes a time when men must stand and fight. They may not always win the battle, but by fighting they give others the wherewithal to eventually win the war. Men who surrender a just cause for personal or political gain usually find out later that they gained nothing personally or politically.

    Thanks to the folks at RedState for beating the drums and calling on our elected representatives to hold the line. Fight the good fight. If we must die politically, let this be our Alamo. Don?t let it be our Goliad.

    • Spiral

      Trying to repeal Obama-care or enact entitlement reform while the Democrats control the US Senate and the White House is like landing on the beaches of France without guns or bullets.

      You will not get the result you want.

      We must work for a GOP US House, US Senate and White House in November 2012. This would not guarantee limited government. But the chances were be improved.

      • owise1

        By my count, the Republicans are the only ones with either ammunition or a strategy. The House passed CCB. That’s their plan. They should stand by it. Let the Democrats rant and rave. Let the President talk. Where’s their plan? When the Senate finally passes their own plan (whatever or whenever that might be) then the two plans will go to conference committee to try to reconcile and bring the result to an up or down vote in both House and Senate. It is the failure of the Senate to do its job and the President to do anything more than vote “Present” that has brought us to this point.

        Do you honestly think that you and I are the only people that have noticed that the President is an empty suit and the Democrat Senate hasn’t produced a budget plan for more than 2 years? Don’t sell the American people short. They may not be fully engaged right now, but I have no doubt that by this time next year, when elections are just a few months away, they will be fully engaged and they will be able to see through all the flak of the Democrats, the President, and the Media.

        The bottom line is that I haven’t seen anything since CCB that stands a chance of diverting a reduction in the US credit rating. Reid’s “plan” won’t. Boehner’s plan won’t. The President has no plan, so obviously it won’t. So, if nothing that is out there is going to prevent a default and credit reduction, then why should the Republicans abandon the only plan that will? Why would they want to put their fingerprints on a plan that cannot succeed at what it was supposed to do? That’s what I meant by a Goliad-like surrender. Better to fight for a plan that can succeed and be blown out of the water than to surrender to a plan that will fail, and still be blown out of the water.

  • anjinconsulting

    an Army captain asked Marine Colonel Chesty Puller for the direction of the line of retreat, Puller called his Tank Commander, gave them the Army position, and ordered: “If they start to pull back from that line, even one foot, I want you to open fire on them.” Puller then turned to to the captain, he replied “Does that answer your question? We’re here to fight.” – excerpted from “Marine, The Life of Chesty Puller”

    Conservatives in congress would do well to emulate Puller in response to Boehner’s assinine rant. Pardon the pun; it was intended.

  • wennejunk

    “The reason is simple. You don?t really believe in limited government, and, despite the rhetoric, lack a true sensitivity for the pernicious effects of big government.”

    All you can observe about anyone is what they say and what they do. They’ve been saying one thing and doing another for years.

    The mask slipped when the GOP finally had all three branches, after years of rhetoric – and did nothing except expand government further leading to the loss of an opportunity we may never get again or only when its too late.

  • http://www.sheetanchor.org Sheet Anchor

    is dead on arrival in the Senate. Democrats always siezing the initiative, and establishment Republicans cowering in fear. The Republicans need to stand firm on CCB and BBA.

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

      Reid’s announcement is another good reason to vote FOR Boehner’s plan.

      If we are headed for default ANYWAY, put the ball completely in their court.

      This is now the 2nd GOP House plan, probably 2nd to pass the House and ONLY plans to pass that far.

      Reid has NOTHING. Even Democrats havent seen his bill yet. His own bill is garbage and DOA in the House. And the resistance from conservatives has served as a useful back-stop that the Republican caucus CANNOT compromise further.

      We will get to a “Boehner plan or default” moment for Reid and Obama. Do they want to kill it? “Go ahead, make my day”

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Why does anyone think the post 2012 Republican Party will be any different with Boehner and McConnell still in the leadership. We controlled all three branches of government under Bush and these guys were still scared of their shadows and caved to the liberals. What magic formula is going to give them a spine after 2012?

    • Spiral

      There aren’t many 100 percent guarantees in life.

      So, there is no guarantee that if a GOP candidate wins the White House in 2012 and the GOP wins both the US Senate and US House in 2012 that things will change.

      However, unless we conservatives are all going to join a different political party, like the Constitution party or the Libertarian party, we must work for a GOP sweep in 2012.

      As long as the Democrats control either the US House or the US Senate or the White House, they will block entitlement reform. They will block the repeal of Obama-care.

      GOP control over all 3 levers of power is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition for more limited government.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        Spiral’s whole position for the past two day has been to wait for 2012. Now he admits that even if the Republicans win complete control in 2012, it is not a guarantee that the GOP will do anything.

        2012 is his fantasy. Let us deal with reality now.

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

      Repeal Obamacare, Ryan budget, CCB, BBA, etc. would be law… if we had the House, Senate and WH.

      Ryan plan ASSUMES THE REPEAL OF OBAMACARE.
      The Obamacare that the House voted to repeal in the first 100 days.

      Things would be LOT different.

  • 1stRichard

    I do find it interesting that I had made a recent entry clearly affirming all those on the left of the Constitution, RINOs, those that have no morality stand with monarchists, nationalists and fascists, and no one challenged it.
    Reagan poisoned the debt well and Obama drank from the debt well and spread this poison over this nation. The wealth that the government provides is a false wealth perverted and bastardized because it is no longer tied to any real wealth except for the ability to forcibly, at gunpoint if necessary to take from the private sector and to print notes calling it wealth. This liability is servitude because you become dependent on your socialist allotment. At the same time it causes inflation, you pay more and get less from your government notes you may call money. Our government has done a grave injustice to us all and future generations, they have placed a perverted debt on our wealth, placing us in servitude to the government and this by definition is slavery. Furthermore, our government has burdened us with restrictions, this bureaucratic central planning, excessive development of bureaus to regulate us, to concentrate government power, and this by definition is tyranny. Some cry the old socialist motto tax the rich but with the top five percent paying around fifty percent and about the bottom half paying nothing, look at the results. The government regulations to spread our wealth have only created monopolies, concentrating our wealth in those chosen by the government and rewarded them with bailouts, another socialist failure.
    My self and the Tea Party place our trust and faith in the true wealth of this nation, the people and individual capitalism, and this being separate from the federal government. As intended by our Constitution we are separate, self-sufficient in our States, our Town and City, and in our communities and homes for our protection. We should have our own police, fire, schools, healthcare and all the essentials funded locally and nothing essential funded by the federal government beyond those powers enumerated by the Constitution. Those that have strayed from the basic principals intended in our form of government, both State and individually have lost their freedom and may be too ignorant to understand, they are in a Nanny State mindset, irrelevant. One way or another they will end up eating this crisis, the sooner the better, there may be some pain on this side of the fence but continuing on this path will be much worse, as history and current events have shown.

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

    This year, Obama’s FY 2011 budget is spending 24% of GDP. Obama’s budget plans for 10 years forward show it never getting below 22% of GDP. That is Big Government, a Government that swallows more of our nation’s wealth than ever before.

    Our challenge is to shrink that burden. Our goal is to get Federal spending relative to GDP down to 18% of less, or that is the RSC goal. Or in Cut Cap and balance it is even higher, at 19%. These are not enough, actually. Our tax levels are around 15% of GDP, and if you do not want tax increases, that is where you need to go.

    Cut Cap and Balance does only a fraction of what needs to be done. It take 10 years to get half-way there, or 19% – 10 years!The cuts are too small and taike too long. In the meantime we add trillions in debt.

    What we REALLY need to do is cut $500 billion in spending ASAP, in 1 or 2 years, to cut the deficit in half. It can be done because spending increased by $1 trillion in 3 years.

    The cuts in Cut, Cap and Balance are about 30% of what needs to be done. The watered-down Boehner plan, is a mere down-payment, a fraction of what is needed.

    What this means is that ALL of the debt ceiling ‘deals’ WERE NOT AND WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE THE SOLUTION TO THE DEBT CRISIS, OUR OVERSPENDING, AND OUR OUT-OF-CONTROL GOVERNMENT.

    All the debt ceiling ever was and is, is … leverage. Leverage to cut spending and deficits as the ‘price’ for a debt ceiling increase. No more. I agree with this sentiment:

    “Trying to enact a conservative agenda by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling will not give us the result we want. ”

    Our options are to take a harder line into default, or take the cr*ppy Boehner bill and pass the ball into Reid and Obama’s court. THEY can decide to go to default over this, or accept this downpayment on right-sizing spending. But as we do either one, let’s acknowledge that we will fight again over the FY2012 budget numbers, fight for the Ryan budget, fight to repeal Obamacare and defund it in FY2012, and fight to lower the spending now. The spending remains and will be far higher than we can afford.

    Do NOT take acceptance or passage of the Boehner bill as an acknowledgement or sign of giving up on the need for much much more in the way of spending cuts and budget reform.

    This is the real #1 mistake the activists are making, treating this as the Waterloo, BigEnchilada fight. In fact, the terrain here is NOT good for a Big Fight. Our leverage is more limited than in other situations. The better terrain would be the FY2012 budget itself, aka Govt shutdown if we dont come to agreement.

    We should NEVER accept a compromise as anything more than ‘this is all we can get NOW, but we need and will fight for and demand more as soon as possible’.

  • JSobieski

    You are in favor of “drastic tactics” for a plan that reduces spending by $111B in FY2012.

    I am in favor of tactics that are comparable to the goal to be achieved. Everybody pounding their chests at how tough they are over $111B in cuts (the CCB plan) is kind of fooling themselves.

    If we are going to push a plan that Obama can’t stomach, lets go with the Ryan budget from this spring or even the Coburn $9T plan.

    If the point is to fight, lets fight over something meaningful.

    if the point is to make a deal, then cut the deal and move on.

    Seems to me that the CCB is now the worst of all worlds—drastic tactics for meager gains. Brinksmanship for a plan that doesn’t address entitlements, cuts a meager $111B from a bloated baseline, and allows us to pat ourselves on the back by the hope that accountants and lawyers won’t be able to make the BBA meaningless (hint: California has a balanced budget amendment–do they have balanced budgets?)

    Fighting for CCB is fighting the Nazis after you already give away the mountains of Czechoslavakia.

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

      I am with you on this.

      One reason I am on board with going along with Boehner’s dishwater watered-down CCB compromise is that it is perhaps the best we can get past Reid at this point, and the CCB bill is ALSO a compromise.

      The BBA vote requirement is IMHO not relevent to current spending, and in the end could have no meaning, as it could die in the states anyway. hard to pass. … SO, you have cuts and caps left. Boehner plan has them, they are just tamer versions. The dishwater can and should be strengthened, by treating any number as a ceiling that must be lowered.

      “If we are going to push a plan that Obama can?t stomach, lets go with the Ryan budget from this spring or even the Coburn $9T plan.”

      Correct. They should have started with a $10 TRILLION cut as the starting point, and then worked on it from there. The could have/ should have not tried a big plan, but simply kept it to “raise the debt ceiling through FY2012 only if we agree on the spending in FY2012 and here are the $250 billion in cuts in that year that we need.”

      The debt ceiling debate is not the last debate on this matter – ITS ONE OF THE FIRST OF MANY. WE NEED MORE OF THESE. The GOP needs to gear up and get ready to fight for the Ryan budget numbers in FY2012.

      • Spiral

        Even if the GOP House caucus unites behind Boehner’s bill, I don’t think GOP leverage on this debt ceiling is very high.

        The Democrats know that the Republicans don’t want to put us in a “default situation” (and by that I mean not only missing a payment to boldholders, but also missing a payment of federal obligations).

        So, all along when Republicans were linking the debt ceiling increase with reductions in government spending, it seems like the Democrats really haven’t moved.

        The Democrats look at the debt ceiling deadline and figure, “Heck, if the Republicans want to self-destruct by not passing a clean, no strings attached, debt limit increase, let them.”

        Or maybe the Democrats have had doubts about this strategy, so they have chosen to included fake cuts in their debt ceiling increase plan.

        The bottom line is I never really expected much in the way of spending cuts, real, actual spending cuts, as long as the Democrats have the control that they have. The Democrats are in political trouble and they need a crisis in which they can implicate the Republicans. This debt limit crisis might be their only hope. I imagine we will find out in a few weeks.

  • sarg01

    … there’s no reason it can’t be removed with reconciliation.

    All spending and taxing is budget-affecting. All budget-affecting provisions can go reconciliation.

    The Senate landscape is extremely favorable, such that even a 75% defeat in close elections STILL gives us control of the Senate. I’m more worried about losing some of our margin in the House.

    If your concern is we don’t defeat Obama … well, there’s no way we’re eliminating Obamacare with Obama in office, no matter how much spine we show.

    Conservatives have not held both houses of Congress and the Presidency and the Supreme Court since before the Great Depression. The closest we came was under GWB – if you call him a conservative. Even making that leap only 2005 and 2006 had more than a 1-seat majority in the Senate.

    Yes, everyone agrees, the R Congress of 2005-2006 didn’t take care of business. And they paid for that. So did the nation.

    Obama is on Carter’s trajectory, but the Dem tilt in Congress from 1979 isn’t there today. A 1980-style win for the Reps will give us more power than we’ve had in 80 years. It’s not incidental that those 80 years were spent expanding government.

    The end of the Obama administration will also mark the start of an economic recovery. It will be “Morning in America” once again.

    That’s why 2013 is different from today.

    • JSobieski

      so than no bill to repeal Obamacare can be voted on.

      So reconciliation won’t work since you need to change the rules of Senate, which requires 2/3.

      Just saying that there are little procedural nuggets the D’s will throw out when the time comes. Kind of like the 14th Amendment argument that Clinton threw out there.

      • lineholder

        I remember reading that statute in O-care, but the way I read it is that nothing included in the bill could be repealed.

        But the provision that included the 1099 form requirements has been repealed individually.

        How was that possible? What is the difference? Am I reading this incorrectly?

        • JSobieski

          additional procedural hoops for us to jump through if we aren’t willing to exercise the constitutional option.

          No statute can preclude the repeal of itself. To do that requires a constitutional amendment.

          Similarly, no Senate rule (such as the fillibuster) can stop the Senate from using a majority vote the change the rules.

          The reason why this issue wasn’t raised with the 1099 forms is that the D’s wanted to repeal the 1099 provision. When they are not cooperative, look for all sorts of slimeball tricks.

          Very similar to the 14th amendment argument Clinton made. Totally new argument–never made in the 150 years since the amendment was enacted. Doesn’t stop the D’s from raising it now and pretending that it is legitimate.

          • lineholder

            .

      • Spiral

        I don’t like the filibuster because it basically mandates bi-partisanship.

        Since it is a rarity when one party or the other holds 60 or more US Senate seats, enough to end debate, the current filibuster/cloture rules basically say:

        You must work with the other party. After all it doesn’t just take a majority to pass something in the US Senate. It takes 60 votes. For that you must reach across the aisle and act in a bi-partisan way.

        There are 2 big problems with this, as I see it.

        For one, we already have a Constitutional mandate for bi-partisanship under certain electoral, balance of power, circumstances. If one party holds the US House and another party holds the US Senate, you can’t pass legislation without some degree of bi-partisanship.

        Second, I think bi-partisanship is often bad, not good. One party, the Democrats, is beholden to all kinds of awful interest groups. Unions. Trial lawyers. Race-baiters. This near perpetual mandate of bi-partisanship means that no legislation will ever be enacted if it does not meet the approval of the Unions, the Trial Lawyers, the Race-baiters and so on.

        This is what led to the judicial filibusters of some conservative judicial nominees. The liberal interest groups were actually the ones who made the decision to defeat Bush’s judicial nominees for the US Court of Appeals through filibuster. Miguel Estrata and Carolyn Kuhl. Both great constitutionalists. Neither are sitting on the federal courts.

        This bi-partisanship means that even if the voters signaled that they wanted conservative government, by putting the GOP in control over the US House, the US Senate and the White House, the filibuster/cloture rule of the US Senate basically nullifies that electoral result. If there are 41 Democrat US Senators who just want to nullify the outcome of that GOP election victory,

        Democrats tend to think of all Republican election victories as being illegitimate. Examples: 2000 (Florida recount) and 2004 (Ohio).

        I don’t think we can turn this country around as long as the Left is always given a veto power, via the Senate’s filibuster/cloture rules, over any and all conservative legislation and conservative judcial nominees.

      • avgjo

        Senate rules changes require 2/3. But the Obamacare statute to which you refer is supposed to have changed the Senate rules. It didn’t pass with 2/3 of the Senate. So does it still stand?

        • JSobieski

          The only constitutional rule in the Senate is majority rule (with a few specific exceptions). Your point is correct that Obamacare purported to change Senate rules even though Obamare did not comply with Senate rules on rule changes. Clear evidence that the Senate rule on rule changes is irrelevant.

          I am not seriously worried about the Obamacare immortality provisions, but I raise the issue solely to point out that the fillibuster rests on similarly unstable footing.

          Senate rules only survive if the majority acquiesce to them.

  • dajeeps

    Between what we’re doing today and reducing the size of government. Surely there is some correlation between money and size of governement, but CCB doesn’t close all the holes (if any at all) while the government is still hovering over the financial system like dracula and has enterprise by the testicles. So what if the stuff government wishes to be honest about is limited to 18% of the economy, what about the rest – like the off budget stuff, and making people do things it wants with everyone else paying for it indirectly? It’s too much power in government that is the real problem. The BBA will only make all of the financial and regulatory landmines government plants for us worse by necessitating under the covers statism and economic planning.

    I could see having this fight if included in the demands was at least repeal of ObamaCare; but I would take it way past that and put repeal of many other things out there too, like the EPA, Department of Energy/Education, NRLB, HHS, &c. But we aren’t doing that. As far as I can tell from watching some House committee hearings, we’re rubberstamping business as usual, with little changing in the greater scheme of things except for the seating arrangements.

    If I imagine a world without entitlements and leaving the regulatory structure intact, I do not really see that much change in the things that really kill our economy. A world with the regulatory structure greatly abridged, with entitlements in a reformed state (like real and voluntary savings programs), seems far more desireable to me when it comes down to being able to make a living, and save and invest for the future. And I’d rather have that one than throw the baby out with the bathwater trying to get rid of entitltments all together.

  • scott88

    Is it strategy or ideology?

    Questioning the ideology only makes me think that you have chosen the wrong intermediary by trying to get the GOP to be the vehicle for change. I agree that the spending has to end.

    No this is a strategy issue and what I am most upset about is what you advocate as being the point by which you have chosen to take a stand. For some reason you think it’s ok to hold hostage one of the greatest assets the country has created – it’s credibility. Why don’t we just go out and send 20 million of our citizens between the ages of 20 and 30 overseas and tell them not to come back? It amounts to the same thing.

    If as you say and I agree it’s a budget issue then the showdown ought to be
    in a budget debate. But instead the GOP have decided to draw a line in the sand on a matter of paying what we have agreed and authorized, and needlessly put in jeopardy a national treasure. Shame.