« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

9 Reasons to Oppose Boehner 4.0 Debt Deal

1) Obama gets his full lifeline, long-term debt limit increase that will take him beyond the election ($2.1-2.4 trillion), without making any transformational concession.  There is no realistic roadmap to entitlement reform; not a single agency or program, domestic or mandatory, will be eliminated; Obamacare is off limits; there will be no balanced budgets, ever.  We will still add trillions more to the debt over the next ten years.  Yes, there is a second tranche that will trigger the latter $1.2-1.5 trillion increase, but unlike previous versions of Boehner’s plan, Republicans have no control over that trigger to use it as a precondition.

2) The only real cuts will be in 2012, when we cut $21 billion in outlays (just $7 billion in budget authority).  The rest of the $917 billion will be baseline cuts that permanently lock in the fundamentals of the Obama era.  This will overwrite and override the House-passed budget that remanded spending to pre-Obama levels.  In addition, the extra faux cuts create self-fulfilling fake interest savings, thereby double counting total savings.  Furthermore, how much of the discretionary cuts agreed upon for the first tranche of the debt increase will be from defense?  The White House put out a memo saying that “the discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending.”

3) What about the $1.2-$1.5 trillion in savings and entitlement reform from the super duper debt commission 19.0?  Does anyone really believe that this commission will be more successful than Simpson-Bowles?  That blue-ribbon panel identified policy changes that both parties liked and hated; it called for some cuts and entitlement reform – and more taxes; nevertheless, Obama threw his own commission under the bus.  We are really to believe that Obama would approve a commission report that calls for the good entitlement reforms without tax hikes?  Oh, but then there would be an automatic sequestration that would cut a commensurate amount of spending.  Really? See #4

4) So Obama’s punishment for raising the debt ceiling without adopting real cuts is that he must suffer a sequestration.  This sequestration cuts 50% from defense spending, while exempting all welfare programs from the process.  Keep in mind that much of the discretionary cuts triggered from the first tranche will include defense cuts.   Some of the remaining cuts will come from the government’s obligations to healthcare providers.  This will force many providers to dump Medicare patients, thereby forcing them into Medicaid and other Obamacare programs, which are conveniently firewalled from the sequestration process.  That’s some concession from Obama.  More precisely, it appears that he will be able to have his cake and eat it too.

5) At the very least, we should never lose ground from a deal that was forced by our superior leverage.  However, this plan paves the way for the committee to impose massive tax increases, including the expiration of Bush tax cuts [see Dan Mitchell's article and Erick's post].  The White House is explicitly saying that the commission will pursue a balanced approach.  There are times when no deal is better than a bad deal.

What if GOP leaders appoint those who will only propose cuts and no tax hikes?  Let’s just say they appoint Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann, and Jeff Flake.  There certainly won’t be any tax hikes, but Democrats will never agree to any entitlement reform.  See #1,3, and 4

6) This bill dramatically increases mandatory spending for Pell Grants – a pet stimulus handout to Big Education that Obama has fought for.

7) As we pointed out last week, Boehner’s budget authority for 2012 is higher than the authority granted in the House-passed budget.  Most of the 12 appropriations bills have already been drafted, while half of them already passed the House.  This means that extra spending will actually be inserted into the remaining bills.  The two largest non-defense appropriations bills; the Labor/HHS/Education and Transportation/HUD bills, are being saved until after August.  The Ryan budget blueprint achieved the most savings from these bills; $26 billion of the estimated $47 trillion in discretionary savings for 2012.  Boehner’s plan would allow liberal Republican appropriators to reinstate some of the spending to the most undesirable activities of some of the worst government agencies.  Congressman Steve LaTourette, a shill for Big Labor, is already agog over the opportunity to spend more on Labor.

8)  The one ancillary benefit of coming up with an agreement and avoiding the default Armageddon was that we would supposedly avoid a credit downgrade.  Yet, S@P has announced that this plan might not be sufficient to prevent a downgrade of our AAA credit rating.  Moody’s announced that they will take and wait and see approach; however, once the future cuts fail to materialize, and the debt continues to rise, they will inevitably issue a downgrade.   The bottom line is that we only addressed the debt ceiling crisis in this bill; not the debt crisis.  Remember that this debt deal is being portrayed as a victory for John Boehner and even the Tea Party.  As such, we would totally own any responsibility for a downgrade.

9) This bill will do nothing to help the economy because it doesn’t actually limit government.  Cutting spending is not just about saving money; it is about eliminating job-killing programs and government agencies.  How ironic that, despite the breakthrough debt deal, the market enthusiasm has been tamped down by a terrible report on manufacturing.  The languishing state of our manufacturing sector, as well as other major sectors of our economy, are endemic of the onerous regulatory state that costs our economy $1.75 trillion a year.  Consequently, even those who advocate for Wall Street at the expense of the rest of the economy, will be disappointed in the coming days.

COMMENTS

  • babykaboomer

    And this is already being spun as a sensible agreement between the grownups. Tea Party terrorists have been marginalized. I’m going back to bed.

    • briefsynopsis

      In the next 72 to 96 hours you will see the complete ownership of the economy being transfered from the Dems and Obama to the,……. “Tea Party” and Conservatives!

      Wait for it,.. wait for it,..

    • warrior300

      This deal stinks to high heaven. Once again Obama has gotten the best of the deal in every financial encounter with the new house that has come up this year. Not to mention the sell out by the GOP at the end of last year.

      The GOP establishment and leadership don’t give a rat’s behind, because they are going to be taking care of financially no matter what happens, and they have been more than happy to eat the left-over crumbs from the democratic table, after decades of being the minority party in Congress.

      The cuts agreed to are a total sham. If the GOP was serious about even the measly $4 trillion cuts, they would have used the media 24/7 to hammer home the seriousness of the breadth of deficit spending, and the egregious amount of deficits that have been forced upon the nation by Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress for two years. Now all the GOP has done is institutionalize those deficit programs. No revamping of Medicare, forget that. We may still be faced with a downgrading on our economic status, and the GOP couldn’t even amplify that argument.

      The agreement to set the debt limit until after the 2012 election is the most malefic part of the bill. It gives Obama a pass from what should have been the most politically potent argument of the GOP in 2012. Worse, it robs the American people of having both parties put their agendas before the public, and letting the people themselves make the decision as to which way they wanted the economy handled. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are laughing up their sleeves at this arrangement, and once it’s signed into law the laughter will be uproarious. What a bunch of buffoons are leading the GOP.

      We are already a leftist fascist society. All we need is for the economic house of cards to come tumbling down, and from that ramification the American people will learn that their precious constitution is more worthless than used toilet paper.

    • msbs05

      that I am physically sick to my stomach. I cannot believe Boehner sold us out like this. I expected it from McConnell, but was overwhelmed watching McCarthy and Ryan lie to us this is a good deal, that it wont raise taxes (does Boehner think we are stupid), that the cuts are real and will actually happen, yeah right. Even worse, we in the Tea Party worked very hard for the party to elect historic levels of new freshmen in order to fight for cuts. If they are not one of the 3 chosen ones, the voice of the tea party has been completely cut out, because there will be no debate on the committee decisions and no amendments. What did I spend my money on and work my butt off for? tax increases? no real cuts that dont even come up until 2013? no representation from my congress members? At least Nancy Pelosi told her caucus to vote their mind. Ours just stood in front of the camera and lied this is some type of good bill. We got nothing from this, absolutely nothing. Its bad enough to betray the right, but dont insult us further and lie to us. I am ready to break with the GOP. I have never voted for any other party, I have been loyal, I have donated money and time – but I will never again. They said they had learned their lessons and regained their principles. What a whopper that turns out to be, they are the same spineless, spenders as they always were, but now they are big liars too. I am done with them, done. I will be staying home for the first time in my life. It doesnt matter if the GOP does better in 2012, because they are no different than Democrats anyway. Guess I’ll start a food storage and wait for the finicial collapse that will someday come because of the idiots in DC that care about power and spending, not the people. Oh, and Allen West, dont send me any more of your donation letters, you’ll get nothing else from me. If you are unable to see that the only choice you will have at election time is raising taxes or cutting military beyond repair – yet will vote to box yourself into this deal with a yes vote, then you dont deserve my money. I feel the most betrayed by him, who should refuse these type cuts to the military, where talk is already going on to cut retirement for the troops that put their lives on the line. If our GOP cant support them from deep cuts, then perhaps we need us a union, because school teachers sure get a sweet deal and dont have to risk their lives.

  • Locked and Loaded

    although it sure depresses me too.

    What really ticks me off is that the Republicans are pimping out our defense to Obama and his horde of haters.

    • gracepmc

      Pretty much what I say. The price of crisis compromise before August 2 so Obama can have a 50th Birthday Party,raise some bucks and not have to deal with this again? Defense of country.

  • drothgery

    .. that there needs to be deal (the consequences of not having one are really, really terrible), and any deal is going to suck (I would have been very tempted to give Obama his clean debt limit increase, if only to limit the legislative sausage that gets created when major spending bills are crafted under extreme time pressure).

    Obama is president and the Dems control the Senate. There will be no transformational changes while that is the case. That we got even probably-90%fake cuts out of this scenario is a major positive achievement.

    • cwilson

      Don’t forget that “benefit”. See #5.

    • ghostship

      A major positive achievement?

      Really giving the Left everything they want in exchanged for NOTHING is a positive achievement?

      Yes, yes, We know that the Democrats control the Senate and WH. However, it doesn’t matter because the Republican controlled House has the upper hand. It has had the upper hand throughout this whole issue but IT WASN’T WILLING TO USE IT. In the end your just making excuses for the Republicans being too timid to stand and fight.

      Nobody expects Republicans to win every battle. However, WE DO WANT THEM TO TRY!

      JUST TRY!

      IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

      The Republican Party shouldn’t be AFRAID of a fight. We can RESPECT a Party that loses a fight if it comes back dirty, sweating, bloodied, and bruised.

      What is completely UNACCEPTABLE is a Party that is UNWILLING to fight because it might because it’s afraid it might break a nail.

      I for one don’t see why so many people don’t fundamentally get that.

      • drothgery

        I give up. We passed CCB in the House, When that didn’t fly in the Senate, Boehner scaled things back and passed something else that also didn’t fly in the Senate. What the heck else was he supposed to do? There is, in fact, not much time left, and the odds of Democrats acting like grown-ups is approximately zero.

        • ghostship

          “What the heck else was he supposed to do?”

          He should have said no. He should have been willing to shut down the government. He should have been willing to take a stand and say no further.

          But…but…but….we can’t do that. The Democrats and the media will call us nasty names. Like Republicans aren’t called nasty names on every day that ends in a y.

          You didn’t want to draw the line in the sand here. OK, fine then but is there any point at WHERE YOU WILL?

          At what point are you willing to draw the line?

          Where is the hill that your willing to die on?

          Because to me and many others it looks like there is NO PLACE that you are willing to draw the line and NO PRINCIPLE that can’t be sacrificed.

          We voted so the Republicans will go to Washington and fight not so they can negotiate our surrender.

          • drothgery

            Can’t do it. If it’s a choice between living with crap until we’ve got control of the government and can do something or holding our breath until we turn blue, then we live with crap. Sorry.

          • ghostship

            It has been pointed out OVER

            and OVER

            and OVER

            again that there will not be a default. You’ve either been living under a rock or you are deliberately going with the LIE that there will be a default so you can HAVE AN EXCUSE as to why the Republicans shouldn’t fight.

          • drothgery

            Without some measure to raise the debt limit, we were at very serious risk of defaulting very soon, with catastrophic side effects. Maybe not tomorrow, but not much longer after that.

            Playing chicken with the financial system is crazy.

          • dilligas

            to rephrase:

            Without some measure to drastically rein in spending, we are at a very serious risk of defaulting very soon, with catastrophic side effect. Maybe not tomorrow, but not much longer after that.

            Until the spending issue is resolved, raising the debt limit only prolongs the inevitable cuts that must come if this country is to continue to remain one.

            And we can’t even begin to talk debt resolution until we are serious about eliminating the deficit.

          • grandma

            I am totally demoralized by the “leadership.” They have zero testosterone, except to sodomize our posterity. It’s over.

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

        “Really giving the Left everything they want in exchanged for NOTHING is a positive achievement?”

        The left is hating this deal. They are livid. Senator Durbin is mourning the end of Keynesian economics. Knives are out against Obama for his 3rd “sellout” to the GOP – last Dec, April and now this. Its a Satan sandwich to them. The progressive dream is dying.

        Yes, the Republicans did try. Yes, they did fight. Yes, they did avoid Obama’s ‘clean debt ceiling raise’ and also his “tax hikes are balanced’ approaches. We on Republican side got more than he did. And yes, they actually managed, for the first time ever, to get a debt and deficit reduction goal attached to the debt ceiling increase.

        Could we do better? Yes, we can. And we must and will fight on. This is just step 1 on a long 12-step detox for Big Government.

        “We can RESPECT a Party that loses a fight if it comes back dirty, sweating, bloodied, and bruised. ”
        Well, Boehner sure got sweating, bloodied and bruised, and we didnt even lose. Not even a draw.

        We put a small downpayment on the $10 trillion in spending and deficit savings we are going to have to make.

        Not good enough for ya? I’m not thrilled either, but I am realistic. It’s fine if not living up to your high standards is unacceptable to you, but hyperbole to call this a nothing.

        • avgjo

          either the Bush tax cuts get sunset or tax raises will ‘offset’ them. You’re right, it’s not nothing, it’s terrible.

          I sure am glad we have so many ‘realistic’ people on our side. It gets us great deals like this.

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

            If it leads to tax hikes, I agree that is a step back, but that is one trap the Republicans didnt yet fall into, also … Some conservatives have claimed that the opposite is the case. The Committee is boxed in on taxes:
            http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273237/does-baseline-box-committee-rich-lowry

            Cut, Cap and Balance didn’t extend the Bush tax hikes. Neither does this deal. No deal on the table would do that. The issue or risk is what the ‘commission’ does. Well, simple answer. The Republicans need to get together a ‘no tax hikes’ set of cuts and demand that as the 2nd tranche position.

            No tax hikes, period. We’ve agreed to a committee not to a result.

            The real issue with the Bush tax hikes is the ‘baseline’ depends on it to make Obama’s $14 trillion deficit look like $10 trillion. We make Bush tax cuts permanent and we have a $4 trillion ‘hole’ to fill.

          • gracie

            So how can this just be ignored? how can the commission reverse a promise that was made only last fall? Would someone mind to enlighten me?

            So are we losing the Bush Tax Cuts now or later?

            I do not see how any plan that extends the debt ceiling through the election and/or threatens defense by 50% be a victory for our side of any kind!

        • ghostship

          “The left is hating this deal. They are livid.”

          Really? Your actually falling for that?

          Listen very closely YOU are being PLAYED for a SUCKER.

          “Well, Boehner sure got sweating, bloodied and bruised…”

          Yes, with fighting his own Party!

          If he fought half as hard against the Democrats then we could of had a real victory.

          Maybe we need to send him a picture of Obama and Reid so he will know who the enemy he is supposed to fighting is.

    • Flagstaff

      Seems to be more like 99.9% fake. And there WILL be an increase in top tax rates, maybe even increases to the lower rates, if the Dem’s can pull it off; if they can’t they’ll try to raise other taxes, they won’t try to reduce spending.

      There is little point in considering any CBO analysis–static analysis is basically worthless.

      • ghostship

        Don’t forget this is BEST they could do and represents a STEP in the right direction.

        If THIS is their best then I shudder at what would have been their worst.

        Yet we are told this is a victory.

        God help keep us from any more such victories.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        As per the commission and 2nd “tranch” – The second tranch will require a VOTE of both houses of Congress, right? The commission just recommends, right? The only thing that is automatic is the 50/50 across the board sequestration with defense being 50%, right?

        I don’t see how the GOP, tea party or not, could support a bill that would arbitrarily cut defense without regard to threats etc esp after $400B Obama cuts the last 2 years.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          have said that absent a $4T real cut we will have a downgrade, I don’t see that there is enough risk of blame for tea partiers to vote for this bill. Agree?

          • Flagstaff

            I agree. But as you see, it passed with a coalition of Democrats and traditional Repubs.

            The same thing could happen with the output of the committee, so the makeup of the committee will be very important.

            What ever happened to open debate of pending bills on the floor of the Senate and House? I clearly remember such events happening when I was a mere yout.

            This whole issue should be an indicator to the country that we need a conservative Republican majority in Congress and a conservative Republican in the White House to get a conservative agenda to move forward. We really can’t do much with just a majority in the House.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            a resulting automatic confiscation that would gut defense and cut Medicare in exactly the wrong way to acheive reform.

    • kestrel

      As I have said before, the House needs to use the power given to it by the Constitution. Yes, it’s more difficult to do this when other parts of the government will fight you on it, but what do you think the point is of the division of powers? To do nothing, or only timid or symbolic things, until you control all of the power?

      Here’s a primer for you:

      if President Obama decided to pull out of Afghanistan tomorrow, there?s not much House Republicans could do about it except cavil. But just as the Constitution makes the president supreme in foreign affairs, it makes the Congress preeminent when it comes to federal borrowing and spending…. The people, quite emphatically, want out-of-control spending dealt with. Their representatives have the power to effectuate that desire. The president can try to insist on borrowing and spending more, but the House gets to say no ? and, on this matter, it is the president who should yield. That is not a constitutional problem; it is the Constitution in action.

      –McCarthy at NationalReview.com

      As I have said before, the House needs to stop worrying about the power it doesn’t have, and start using the power it does have.

      And by golly, every individual House member has a piece of that power in the form of his or her vote, and I sure hope they use it now. If for nothing else, I’d use it to ensure that proper debate occurs on this debt ceiling legislation. We are not talking about renaming an airport here, or creating “hamster appreciation month”.

      • westcoastpatriette

        Especially “the House needs to stop worrying about the power it doesn’t have, and start using the power it does have” and “every individual House member has a piece of that power in the form of his or her vote.”

        That in itself is justification for every member to hold fast to their convictions as a failure to do so reflects a lack of integrity. Seems so simple to me. Don’t panic. Hold your ground and let the chips fall where they may.

    • concap

      transformational change as long a people who think like you are in office in the Republican Party.

      Three steps back and one step forward is still two steps back.

      This has been the way of the Republican Party for the last 100 yrs.

    • snowshooze

      Said the rabbit to the cayote…
      I have spent the morning e-mailing my Sens. and Rep.
      The current bill is trash, and sometimes no deal is better than a bad one.
      Since everything is being built on castles in the sky… we need to get back to earth.
      There is no 10 year budget. It is a waste of time to discuss one… and it is purely a trap.
      We need the Balanced Budget Amendment.
      We need spending levels below last years levels.
      Ant debt ceiling raise has to be for less than one year, and only up to a 5% increase.
      All else is the briar patch.

      • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

        …to tell me that the media spin regarding the success of the Tea Party is only intended to get them to pass this pile of sh*t.

        At the same time, all the Demotards on TV are prancing around admitting there are going to be new taxes.

        And finally, another effect of saying that Obama got rolled is to get the independents to feel sorry for him. Those people will believe anything.

  • macbookben

    Braveheart? I’m feeling like William Wallace when he got stabbed in the back by Robert the Bruce.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Just a thought.

    • udtiger

      I have thought this was not the right time for this fight, but now that the battle is joined, then fight!

      This “deal” is an object lesson on what is wrong with DC, and the insidious corruption of principles that happens to those that go there. The above could only be considered a “great deal” by those with the warped mindest that comes from being in that cesspool for any extended period.

    • runner12

      This is a horrible deal with more smoke and mirrors and false promises of cutting the deficit through shady accounting,

      No on who claims to be a fiscal conservative could vote for this bill in good conscience. Anyone who does needs to go.

      It is also time we replaced both Boehner and Cantor.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        auto sequestration cuts. How could any Republican vote for this? I couldn’t and this isn’t even a tea party pe se issue.

  • Wubbies World

    … spinning the “win” in the debt deal. All their doing is spinning to make us all love the Cr*p sandwich they want to force feed us, and they want us to like it.

    This whole situation is squarely on the heads of Sen Mitchell and Speaker Boehner. My anger has gone beyond reasonable with these people.

    If they just hung on to the balanced budget amendment being sent out to the states I would have been happy. That isn’t going to happen now.

    Primary purges need to launched in earnest. I know Rep Kristi Noem has earned my ire. I am looking for a replacement to surface to throw my support too in a primary.

    • Wubbies World

      It is Sen McConnell not Mitchell. I seem to make that error a lot. I guess it is easy to mistake him for being a democrat. it is no surprise.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        Republican vote a bill with these automatic defense cuts? I can’t believe West would vote for that. He just had a presser on the matter 2 days ago.

    • kestrel

      Your term “force feed” resonates with me. I was thinking, Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats, now Republicans are going to ram this down our throats. This is how it feels to me, and I’m not exaggerating.

      I confess I’ve had a soft spot for John Boehner ever since his “Hell No!” on the House floor the night Obamacare was passed, but where is the “Hell No!” now? Mr. Boehner is one of the architects of this bad deal. The “Hell No!” will do us no more good after our credit is downgraded and the interest payments sink us (and the economy tanks further) than it did after there was no stopping Obamacare. The tragedy of man is that there is both good and evil in every person, even if the evil is of passive forms, such as cowardice, laziness, or self-deception. I’m not saying that these are the Speaker’s particular faults, or to what degree — God only knows (I don’t doubt he’s a better man than me) — but something is desperately wrong with our leaders when it comes to the subject of the debt ceiling. While men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are extremely rare — and so it is no crime not to be one — yet couldn’t our leaders, in the absence of such God-inspired men, could they not give more credence to the input of rational, engaged, citizens who have cumulatively turned out in millions in repeated rallies all across the country in the last two years? We have never seen anything like this, yet our leaders forget it like it was yesterday’s bowel movement. God help us. Our country’s survival is at stake.

  • mkozikowski

    That is a start, but I say we oppose Boehner.

    Come November 2012, he must either step down as speaker or we will have to remove him from Congress.

    He is NOT good for the country. He opposed fiscally conservative actions since he was given the position.
    Perhaps it is time for a long, long vacation Mr. Boehner.

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

    “The only real cuts will be in 2012, when we cut $21 billion in outlays (just $7 billion in budget authority).”

    We need to treat each and every one of these numbers as a hard CEILING and not at all a floor, and continue to insist that the GOP House hold the line on the Ryan-based FY 2012 spending.

    “This will overwrite and override the House-passed budget that remanded spending to pre-Obama levels. In addition, the extra faux cuts create self-fulfilling fake interest savings, thereby double counting total savings. ”

    Moreover, the double win of INSISTING ON LOWER FY 2012 spending is that it could and would go directly into the ‘second tranche’ of cuts. A $50 billion lower FY2012 translates to ~$1T in ‘cuts’ in 10years.

    It’s quite disturbing how little it actually cuts in FY2012. We went to debt-mageddon over being unwilling to shave another $100 billion (3%) in FY2012?

    • melbedewy

      I’m sure there will be no cave-in on the budget.
      LOL

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

        See:

        http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2011/08/01/debt-increase-deal-includes-deem-and-pass/

        If the deal passes with the FY 2012 budget locked in, we can only fight that FY 2012 spending fight on appropriations now, not in budget.

  • clintonformccain

    The only way we would have been happy with a deal would have been if it:

    a) Had not raised the debt ceiling at all

    b) Had forced a BBA to be ratified by the House, Senate, and the states

    c) And, if it had permanetly banned all tax increases and reversed the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

    That’s doesn’t seem like much to ask. I’m surprised that Boehner and McConnell couldn’t get that.

    • dilligas

      A) While I personally would like to have seen this occur (aka: the “default” approach), I, and just about everyone else, recognized that it was not likely to occur. Even if it had not been raised, there would not have been a default on the debt, unless the executive branch CHOSE to spend the revenue elsewhere. This was the fall back position, the ultimate upper hand, that the GOP had during this process. If no agreement occurred, we would have had a balanced budget for a change (and one I could believe in).
      We want to see true spending cuts and a plan that starts to explain how the debt is to be paid off – not just reducing the rate of growth of the debt (aka: the deficit). [This would in essence be quitting cold-turkey -- otherwise we're just giving the addict another fix. If we get him the help he needs, there's a good chance the problem can controlled. On the other hand, if we give him his next fix, he'll be coming back for more later - and if you don't give it to him, he may look to others for 'help', but there's a good chance you'll find things went missing when you weren't looking.]

      B) If A, B was not needed – see comments in A. I’m mixed on the BBA personally. I can see it being abused just to raise taxes. Regardless, if congress doesn’t want to do this, it is something the states themselves ought to pick up. Perhaps this is another call to put senators back into the state’s hands (and not populist voting) so they have actual representation like it was supposed to be, but that’s another discussion altogether.

      C) I, and I’m sure most others, do not oppose future tax increases blanketedly. I do, however, expect to see real spending cuts that show that every effort is being made to control spending to be no more than needed for the federal government to operate before you come asking me for more of my money. I recognize that there are certain minimum functions (and associated costs) that are best suited to the federal government and have no problem paying for those. [Most of us draw the line differently - and that's were the compromise potentially comes into play.]

      Just think about it… We have a $14 trillion debt. We have roughly a $1.5 trillion deficit. The 536 in DC increased the deficit over Bush’s last budget by $1 trillion dollars the last 2 years. The current 536 can’t even find $1 trillion total to cut out of the deficit over the next 10 years – giving us another $14 to $15 trillion in debt. S&P advised we needed to cut $4 trillion over the next 10 years to maintain AAA. Even if we managed to get that from the 536 in DC, it implies accepting $10+ trillion in new debt over the same timeframe.

      When and how do we plan to pay for ANY of the debt?

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

      I am not one who ever felt ‘not raise at all’ was nor is practical. I am glad we have something rather than nothing. Nor am I in the camp of whining about what a horrible job Boehner did or that he’s a sellout etc. Boehner defended himself thusly:

      “Boehner told Republicans that their leaders went ?toe to toe with the Obama administration and the Democratic Senate for months on behalf of the American people. First they demanded a clean debt ceiling increase. We fought, they caved. Second, they wanted revenue to equal spending cuts. We fought, they caved. … ?This Speaker won,? Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) said. ?If you look at where the White House started and where they are now, it?s a big win.? ”

      Now, it is fine that the President has now, finally, 7 months later, been forced to acknowledge the weight of the Nov 201 elections. And it’s good that Boehner hasn’t made worse mistakes, but … what is WRONG with insisting on far more spending cuts and demanding/insisting that tax hikes be taken off the table? The problem is the spending so why allow the Democrats to make this about being taxcollectors for Obama’s Big Government? Why think that a tiny, incremental move in our direction is a big win, when it DOESNT EVEN UNDO A FRACTION OF WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE TO THE BUDGET?!?!

      He increased spending by $1 trillion per year. Per year. So the Republican position should have been “cut $1 trillion /yr” and the ‘compromise’ position should have been cut $500 billion. Right?

      After more reflection, and after seeing this reaction from a liberal, I have gone from thinking we did okay, to thinking we could do better:

      http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/01/five-things-for-liberals-to-like-in-the-debt-ceiling-deal/

      … I have to conclude that this deal has at least some slices of cr*p, and even if that is to be expected given that Harry Reid helped concoct the ‘deal’, that doesnt mean it tastes good.

      So, to answer your question, nobody demanded (b) BBA enactment, just get it out of the Congress, and that was negotiated down to a mere vote; we needed (d):
      (d) Real spending cuts of at least $100b in FY2012 and tax hikes off the table in any ‘deal’, plus get Ryan budget as the cap numbers for 10 years.

      What we got were caps that are above Ryan, a committee that may or may not put tax hikes on the table, a BBA vote that will be symbolic, and cuts that are pitiful.

      Victory? A tiny one. This is a compromise that is about as good/bad as the April compromise – a nothing deal that once again does change the direction a bit, but does little to actually take us very far in that right direction.

      We have about a $14 trillion hole. Given that huge hole, the actual FY2012 spending reductions are pitiful.
      I would have been happy with $100b in FY2012 cuts, when in fact we need far more than that.

      PS. I am for repeal of Obamacare, and every day that goes by without that being repealed is a day where the conservatives have NOT YET WON.

  • ideasmatter

    FICA tax holiday-expired.
    Bush tax cuts-expired
    10 trillion in new debt after baseline “cuts” this decade-certain.
    50% increase in federal spending in this decade over the last decade-certain.
    Downgrade of US credit rating from AAA to AA-likely.
    Demand for higher interest rates of government debt bonds-likely.
    Higher costs to service the debt-likely.
    Collapse of the Republic-possible.
    Collapse of the Republics trojan horse, the Welfare State Virus within it, eventual.
    Total cost to those suckers still paying taxes, per year, when above tax cuts sunset- 400 billion per year, give or take-ungodly.
    Fingers pointed at the tea party by both establishment parties-already happening.

    And we still have not seen this bill…to find out…what is…in…it.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    I called my congressman, I called Senator Rubio, and I wrote them emails expressing my displeasure about this phony “deal”.

    What people don’t realize is that we already have a built-in balanced budget mandate. That is the debt ceiling. If we don’t raise the debt ceiling, then we must have a balanced budget. The politicians are holding guns to our heads saying “we are going to destroy your economy unless you allow us to borrow more!” when in fact they ought to simply balance the budget.

    I am so depressed right now. Our country is going down the tubes and it seems our own party is working harder against us than our opponents! We need to recommit to 2012, take names, engage in the primaries, and repeal and replace any GOP phony who votes for this plan.

    Oh yeah, and CAN I GET A NEW SPEAKER PLEASE? This “deal” being pushed on us is all the more insulting because it’s been agreed-to by one of our own leaders.

    • snowshooze

      Glad you see that.

  • http://www.rightproadvisors.com erinmist

    I thought about making this a diary, but it’s not long enough. I can sum up the major points pretty quickly,

    The take-way here is that we don’t control enough of the Congress — and never will — to fix this. All this compromise tells me is that we are in fact truly doomed. And when you factor in American financial exposure to the Euro debacle, the tinderbox that is the Middle East, and the Chinese willfully toying with our manufacturing sector and financial markets, there’s precious little upside here. Even had the Tea Party run the table on its demands (an unrealistic expectation at best), the outcome is pretty much the same. At the core of this discussion — the DNA level if you will — is not whether we’re going to take the medicine, but when..

    Collapse of some sort is coming. We can inflict it on our children, or we can inflict it on ourselves, but it’s coming. All we’re doing is biding time till 2012 in the hopes that enough pro-growth legislation passes, and that Obama sulks back home to whatever state or country he wants to call home and starts writing books that will keep the progressive dream alive. But we’ve been there before — and the Party we call the Grand Old has let us down in spades upon shovels, upon, bushels, upon fields, upon mountains of more debt, promising us THIS TIME we’ll do better.

    While reading about the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the left over this agreement, I was tempted to say “well, if everyone hates it, it must be a compromise that was as good as anyone could get”, it still does not remove the “doom” factor, an element of this argument that I am increasingly prone to embrace.

    The objective fact that we are on an unsustainable path to economic oblivion has everything to do with our spending, and nothing to do with the argument we’ve just had over the debt ceiling, a mere sideshow to the main attraction: The Economic Collapse of the United States of America.

    As the recent video-gone-viral of the addict comparing drugs to Washington spending. I know first hand that addicts don’t stop and amend their ways until they hit rock bottom. Never, not once.

    Unless 2012 produces a “spending intervention” the likes of which no country has ever (peacefully) seen, there is no rehab, no alternative but to look longingly at the pictures of those poor souls of the Great Depression and how good they had it compared to what we will see.

    Socialism has never worked anywhere. Not once. Not ever. It is but a bandage on societal ills that seeks to supplant divinely inspired acts of charity to help our less fortunate, with the iron hand of government to force us to do “good” — whether Nazi Germany, North Korea, or the more benevolent Scandinavian models which are now being abandoned by those countries as fast as possible. It. Doesn’t. Work. Under the bandage is a cancer that ravages the body, and its removal is every bit as pernicious and painful as the most aggressive of these malignant tumors.

    Yet to save the body, you must endure the pain.

    When I was cured of an alcohol addiction, it wasn’t because my family and friends said “let’s incrementally ween him off” — it’s when they said, “for his sake, let him fail”. And when I did, only then — AND ONLY THEN — did I even consider an alternative to my behavior.

    And as I’ve watched this debate unfold, I’ve not cast aspersions to those who are addicted to this pattern of behavior, whether liberal or conservative, Tea Party, or statist. What I have done is empathize with 535 member of Congress that literally can’t help themselves. It’s like being stuck in a bar at happy hour with free drinks, and you’ve decided that today is the day you will stop drinking. It’s not going to happen. Only after you’ve had your 20 drinks, and are blind out of your mind, waking up in some sewer covered in body fluids that may or may not be your own, with your wallet gone, your family gone, and your car and house repossessed do you finally say to yourself, “ok…this isn’t working”.

    So I propose a new strategy come 2013, if we’ve failed to take the House, the Senate, and the White House — let it fail. Embrace massive debts, massive entitlements, massive quantitative easing, or whatever else will bring about the Grecian, Irish, Portuguese, and Italian-like collapses that are inevitable. The down side is that our lives will suck for a few years. The upside? The press will certainly love us (those that are still employed), and finally — once and for all — we can fix Washington and restore American exceptionalism in everything from science to industry to values.

    I’m looking around and my kitchen’s on fire. The firemen have shown up with gasoline and matches and have sprayed down my bedrooms, living room, and basement. Off to the side stands a small child with a single bucket of water. I can certainly try to put the fire out, or I can let it burn and rebuild.

    With each passing day, I feel akin to the Founders who faced a similar scenario — burn it down, or try and save it. They opted for the fire. I’m not yet asking “who’s got a match?”, but it’s getting more tempting everyday, especially now that I know in 4 months, a little girl, our fourth child, will be born unto this world, and do I saddle her with a collapse I could have endured for myself, rather than letting her pick up the pieces of our generation’s “what’s in it for me?” and “I paid into the Ponzi scheme, someone owes me!” mentality.

    With each passing day, the optimist in America that Ronald Reagan put in me as a teenager now wonders where that person is. We have it within us — unlike any other country on earth — to be great. But where is the will…where is the will?

  • strikeeagle

    NT

    • snowshooze

      NT

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

      the debt ceiling debate went from a pro forma exercise to debt-mageddon.

      …. but the actual budget has yet to change that much with it.

      • earlgrey

        Where has it changed? Main Street? Wall Street? Capital Hill?

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

          The political ‘culture’ has changed from 2007-2010 when it was all about how much MORE Government can do. The “Obama Era” was being massaged by liberals as the New New Deal, we wer going to so socialistic.

          Nov 2010 and Tea party has changed that, they chewed up and spit out Obamacare and the Obama big govt agenda: Now we (most of us) know the Government is doing too much and must do less. Cut the spending.

          Political center of gravity has shifted, that is what I mean by culture changed. But have any laws changed? Nope. Budgets? Not by much, yet.

          This is far far far far from over. $10 trillion left to cut. Obamacare left to repeal. Socialism left to undo.

    • avgjo

      Only 22 voted against that idiot Boehner’s bill.

      The rest sold out.

      We can’t trust them.

      And before any ‘smart kids’ start telling me that I can’t predict behavior based on one vote, let me remind you that I said the same thing when Boner sold out on the CR; and here we are.

  • kyconservative

    Call your GOP Congressman (if you have one) and tell his or her office a vote for the Obama/Boehner/Reid compromise means a third party Tea Party opponent in the 2012 General Election….and then if this passes, we follow through and exact retribution.

    • rightwingmom52

      We need to find candidates who are conservative, or Tea party if you will, to run in primaries. Are you involved in your local party to do this? That’s a good place to start.

  • standingonthewall

    Sorry. I just could not make it all of the way through. I became ill after point 4 or 5 and had to quit reading. “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”

  • amigag

    After reading the threads here and others, I can only come to this conclusion:

    Boehner/Cantor were either blackmailed, a 45 was held to their head or they were bought off. Now I’m assuming they are both intelligent men.

    Those are the only reasons that intelligent men would betray their Country and the American People.

    If you watched the 3:30PM Boehner speech and those with him, they were trying to defend the indefensible.

    FWIW, I called every Ohio Rep except one(ran out of time at the moment) and I voted against the sham bill.

    I also asked John Boehner’s staff person to tell him to pull this sham bill, and send Harry a CCB Part2. Also he was destroying chances for 2012 for the Republican race.

    That’s all I have to say, as there is nothing else that can be said with this Obamacare Part 2, known as the sham debt-ceiling bill.

    Sick of the lies from them all. I can’t stand to listen to them any longer.

  • dmacleo

    during all primaries and 2012.
    make sure they all know we are happy to pay their moving out fees.

  • azrally

    Seems this is the new talking point from the statists. Along with “it’s the best we could get with 1/3 of the government”. If they consider looking at the right direction and then going in a completely different way, then we’re heading on that new “right” course. Tea Partiers hang strong and write your representatives consistantly for the months to come regardless of the outcome of today’s votes. . .

  • trutexan

    who played out all these possibilities months ago. Instead of working on a budget like Rubio is talking about, it was all a set up to marginalize the Tea Party. Obama will use the fact that no good came from this bill and it was all driven by the Tea Party and conservatives.

    Rick Perry is the only one the media will pay attention to that can tell the real story of what happened. He’s the only one dynamic enough to tell the truth on the campaign trail.

    • tea4me

      He’s the only one. *sarcasm*

    • JSobieski

      Most negotiators would advise that your initial offer have enough wiggle room so that the end result is acceptable. Apparently we started off making significant concessions that our own representatives later said were unacceptable. Put another way, people are complaining about Boehner 3.0 for flaws that exist in Ryan ’12 Budget and CCB. It makes no sense for people happy about CCB to be so despondent over the latest piece of crap being voted on today.

      Lack of real “cuts” — No plan voted on in the House called for an actual annual cut in spending. A true spending freeze would have generated $9T in savings over 10 years, and no Republican proposal got close to that number.

      Lesson learned: If you want real cuts, you have to propose a plan with real cuts. We didn’t, and as a result we didn’t achieve the objective.

      Don’t use DC speak for inflated numbers only to complain later. People like talking about the “trillions” of dollars in “savings” that the Ryan budget and CCB would bring. All of those numbers were based on phony baseline budget-speak, but conservatives embraced the numbers because they made things sound good. Now, we complain that the $2.3T in “cuts” are phony, but we have already embraced such double speak. It would be a lot easier to reassure people concerned about “drastic cuts” if we just said, spending will continue to rise.

      Lesson learned: If you use the language of statists and are a conservative, the end result will not make you happy. We would be far better off today if we had sad “cuts, what cuts?” in talking about the CCB. Once conservatives start using the word “cuts” to describe 5% increases, the battle is lost.

      Chess playing and negotiation also involves having some range of expectations of what your opponent is likely to do. Within a 7 day period, conservatives have gone from the confidence of thinking that we can force D’s to constitutionalize a 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases to fearing that we won’t be able to stop the House from voting in favor of tax increases.

      Lesson learned: Nobody is as competent as you hope, or as incompetent as you fear.

      I don’t see ANY chess players in DC. Conservatives lost by giving away most of their pieces at the very beginning. Mushy moderates don’t really care about much, so its hard to declare them winners or losers.

      The bottom line is that conservatives were not outfoxed in some type of chess match. Both the Ryan budget and the CCB involved “cuts” that paled in comparison to what a true freeze would accomplish. We allowed ourselves to think that CCB was so great when it wasn’t, and we had no room to manuever after that.

      Why was CCB embraced so readily and so enthusiastically by conservatives who wanted real cuts and entitlement reform when CCB offered neither?

      We didn’t lose a chess match—we lost a race by shooting ourselves in the foot before approaching the starting line.

      Our error was not in allowing Boehner X.0 to pass. Rather, our error was to start with CCB in the first place.

      • Scope

        that I am so in agreement with your positions on the negotiations. This.

        Why was CCB embraced so readily and so enthusiastically by conservatives who wanted real cuts and entitlement reform when CCB offered neither?

        And also didn’t touch Obamacare as far as I can tell.

        • JSobieski

          (1) Budget stuff is complex, and not everyone has the time to effectively educate themselves
          (2) Leaders of the conservative movement (I include both elected officials as well as talk radio hosts in this) failed to do what they did in the Meyers nomination and immigration debates–they failed to look under the cover and point out the flaws in CCB.

          I specifically remember Hannity talking about his criteria for an acceptable plan (criteria that the CCB failed to meet) while in the same breath pointing out how he supported CCB,

          CCB was such a great slogan none of the trusted conservative voices out there said anything negative about it. Fact of the matter is that if Rush, Erick, Hannity, some critical tea party politicians, etc. don’t say anything bad about something, a lot of people just won’t look under the covers.

          The irony is that those same weaknesses came to back bite us with Boehner X.0. All of sudden, explanations of 10 year budgeting and base line budget increases came to the forefront. By then it was too late.

  • tea4me

    She’s the only one *that matters* that’s been standing against this the whole way.

  • jj98

    Wonder why the House voted (unanimously) to build a new post office in some backwater town immediately before voting on the Boehner bill last Friday? It was a payoff for something, quite possibly a Yes vote for Boehner’s sellout bill. The other 227 payoffs won’t be uncovered because routine Congressional bribes are not “fit to print” in the mainstream media.

    Don’t think that a Congressman didn’t sell out simply because he voted No. They always buy more votes than necessary to assure the desired outcome even if a few members flip flop or show up too drunk or stoned to vote right. Only the minimum number necessary have to walk the plank. The most vulnerable are allowed to “stand up to the leadership”.

    • Scope

      Even though the House Republican supposedly singed off on “pork” it will be interesting to see what pork projects come out of this deal. I have the feeling that the Cornhusker kickback will be small potatoes, now that many have learned to hold out for even more.

  • runner12

    have a lot of explaining to do regarding their vote for this monstrosity. I cannot figure out Pence. He has stood up against the leadership before, why did he cow in fear? I do not want to believe that it had anything to do with him running for IN governor. It cannot be that. He must have his own bizarre reasoning.

    As for Ryan, I am sincerely asking myself what he has stood up for against the establishment, except for the Ryan plan. I’ll admit, that took a lot of guts to touch Medicaid and other entitlements. But even in that he did not address the third rail of politics, Social Security.

    Does anyone else know of any other time he has stood up to the establishment? I sure hope he has. In the end, it may be his budget plan that saves him from being primaried.

    • JSobieski

      If you can point to any plan voted on by the House this year that actually cut anything (as opposed to baseline “cuts”) I would love to hear it.

      You supported the CCB with all sorts of “hold the line” enthusiasm.

      Lets see:

      The CCB did not touch any entitlements

      The CCB did not involve any real cuts. A real freeze in spending would have been almost twice as a good in terms of the resulting debt.

      The CCB was in fact the establishment GOP plan

      Sounds like everyone who supported CCB have some explaining to to. The difference between CCB and what we ended up with is the difference between running to ruin, and merely jogging to ruin.

      We ended up where we did because we started with the CCB, and people supported it like sheep.

      • runner12

        I am not asking an unreasonable question here. I am simply asking why two Congressmen who have made fiscal conservatism their soap box voted to approve a bill, that did nothing to solve our debt crisis. This bill is just like the others that you have mentioned in the House.

        With respect, Jsob your railing against CCB when people were caving was unhelpful at best.

        Was CCB perfect? No, it was not. It was an actual compromise that would have resulted in a BBA, which would prevent future Congress’ from racking up spending. Without a BBA, even the Ryan plan is only as enforcable as the current Congress. The only saving grace of the plan was the BBA. It was also the only plan out there that did not result in a downgrade of our AAA rating.

        While we are on the Ryan plan, it is not perfet either. In my opinion, it takes too long to acheive a balanced budget and it does nothing about Social Security. Like CCB, it is a good starting point.

        Lastly, I do not appreciate condescendng remarks about me following CCB like sheep. I sincerely thought it was a reasonable starting point and the meme that it was establishment is laughable. The leadership sold CCB down the rive like they sold the Ryan plan.

        While we are on Ryan, let me just point out that I think your emotional reaction to honest questions stems from your unwavering support of him. I get that. Listen, I want a good explanation from him. Do you think that I want one of the rising stars to turn out to be a squish? Hardly. I would be grateful to anyone who can name one time that he he voted against something the leadership wanted. Then I could say that he was truly one of us and just missed the boat on this one.

        • snowshooze

          We need to get rid of them.

        • JSobieski

          Moreover, I make up my own mind with respect to whether something is a good idea or not. It was not until Boehner 2.0 that the proper criteria for a good plan were identified by conservative blogs and talk radio—-too late for CCB.

          You say that the BBA is the reason why CCB was so great, but Boehner 2.0 had a BBA, and you opposed Boehner 2.0. The fact that the House didn’t have 2/3 votes for the BBA and the fact that there was no actual proposed amendment ready for a vote didn’t lead anyone to characterize the BBA in CCB as a gimmick.

          CCB was a very bad place to start a negotiations. Given the bad starting point, its hard to imagine ending up any better than we did. When you negotiate, your position never gets better after you start—it gets worse. Instead of chastising Pence and Ryan now, it would have been far more helpful to voice opposition to the CCB before it got so far along.

          The BBA is a gimmick one level above spending caps. Lots of states have a BBA, and most states have been carrying deficits over the course of years. When you factor in off-budget expenses and other more nuanced accounting gimmicks, a BBA is about as solid as the obligation of the Senate to pass a budget, or the obligation of the SS trustees to ensure that payments go out.

          The dislike people had for Boehner 2.0 was just as overdone as the warmth of the embrace that people had for CCB. That is my point. The difference between the two in the big picture was de minimis. In a world where we have a $14T debt and deficit that exceeds $1T, the CCB and Boehner 2.0 are indistinguishable.

          The mistake was not going from CCB to Boehner 2.0, the mistake was starting with CCB in the first place—and with regards to that mistake, there was a lot of company.

          It is funny how things like baseline-based “cuts” never got mentioned with respect to the CCB, but became the talk of the town when it came to Boehner 2.0.

          It is also curious as to how the same people who are now deathly afraid that the Republican House won’t be strong enough to oppose tax cuts thought a week ago that it was even possible to get a 2/3 in either the House or Senate (much less both) to enshrine a 2/3 requirement for future tax increases.

          The train had already left the station when CCB became the Republican plan. To blame Pence, Ryan, or anyone else in the “establishment” for an error made by the movement as a whole is simply unproductive.

          • runner12

            The Boehner bill included a vote on the BBA, not passage. CCB had the BBA in the legislation, thus if it passed it would go to the President to be signed and sent out to the states.

            I might also point out that CCB received more votes than Boehner. CCB was also supported by Pence and Ryan. Maybe you are saying they should have been criticized for supporting CCB and not this?

            Another point of fact. The Boehner bill included another useless commision and a two-tiered plan, two things which CCB was without.

            I might also add that I did not see your opposition to CCB come out in full force until the Boehner bills started flying. This leads me to question your motivations. It appears to me that you are trying to deflect criticism of the Boehner plan by blasting CCB.

            You also do not seem to be a big fan of a BBA, which begs the question as to whether you think our Federal government should be held accountable at all. If not a BBA, how do you suggest we cap spending in Washington? What is your
            plan for holding our government accountable?

            As to your assertion that the support for CCB was over the top, I think you misread the situation. No one was saying that it would solve all of our ills or that it was perfect. What ” hold the line” meant is that we will go no further than the CCB. It WAS our compromise. It should have been our hill to take a stand on.

            I might also ask what starting point you would have used in these negotiations?

          • runner12

            I might also remind you that CCB was never proposed by the leadership. It was proposed by the RSC, led by Jim Jordan. It was they who forced the leadership to look at it.

            That would be the same Jim Jordan who dared oppose Boehner and who has been reportedly threatened with redistricting for his ” disobedience.”

            Yes, that Jim Jordan, he has establishment written all over him (sarc).

          • runner12

            That would also be the same RSC who took the Ryan plan and improved upon it. They added in reform for SS and presented a plan that balanced the budget in a shorter amount of time.

            These are hardly establishment proposals.

          • JSobieski

            It was in fact that very change that resulted in people like Flake changing their minds.

            I am very much saying that everyone should be criticized for staking out CCB as the initial position. That goes for Ryan, Pence, Boehner, et al.

            BBA is as much a smoke and mirrors gimmick as the Gramm-Rudman spending caps that were the basis of the Boehner plan.

            The only way to hold DC accountable is by constant viligence, and no BS “hope and change” in things like a BBA. There is no substitute for keeping pressure on elected officials and educating the public.

            Last week our team was comprised of people who could force 2/3 of the Senate and House to approve a constitutionalized supermajority for raising taxes.

            This week people are chewing out our leaders because we don’t think they can resist raising taxes?

            Who is flip flopping here? The pundits are flip flopping far more than the politicians are on this issue.

            I spoke up more after Boehner was getting crushed because I so much fo the criticism of his plan also applied to the CCB. Even people like Sean Hannity were articulating their minimum requirements for a solution (requirements that the CCB couldn’t meet) while at the same time expressing support for CCB.

            The entire debate was a flop. Ryan and Pence deserve some the blame, but they are not the heart of the problem.

            My starting point would have been a freeze. No cuts, just a real/true freeze. Alternatively, through in an inflation adjustment of 2% so you can say that spending each year will go up. That way we could say that we aren’t going to cut anything. This is a good starting position because it is an opportunity to educate voters on baseline budgeting. After you negotiate from that, you can end up with (1) a more educated population, particularly with respect to “drastic cuts” and (2) far more real savings. The BBA stuff was not substantive. I can support it as a political club to use in hitting D’s, but it is not substantive.

            My questions for you are:
            Who starts a negotiation thinking that our final position is our initial position? Does anyone negotiate for car or house purchases that way?

            Why did we let our leaders lead with a position that we believed to be barely acceptable?

            Why did the Boehner plan receive so much scrutiny but the CCB didn’t? Why weren’t we discussing the difference between real cuts and baseline-related “cuts”? Why wasn’t there actual text of the BBA that people wanted to enact?

            The statute on the BBA listed three things that it needed to include, but language actually embodying the amendment was never actually prepared much less approved by a 2/3 majority of the House. Any thoughts as to whether the House is actually able to approve the BBA? the vote on CCB was NOT a 2/3 vote.

          • runner12

            people has not kept spending in check so far. We need a BBA and please point out to me where in the Boehner bill the BBA was not just a symbolic vote.

            I looked back on all the posts on CCB here when it was first proposed and you were no where in sight to ” educate” us on how bad CCB was.

            As to your ” freeze” idea, I am not sure what you think that would accomplish excepting giving Obama what we wanted, which was a clean debt ceiling raise if I am understanding you correctly ( clean raise, then freeze spending?). Has that ever worked in Washington?

            May I also point out that you are wrong on Hannity. He did support CCB, but he has been promoting the Mack-Penny plan that does not work off of baseline budgeting.

            Also, there was an actual text of a BBA bill, it even had a name. The Lee-Cornyn-Hatch BBA bill. This was no ” BS” hope and change. It was REAL change and the only thing that could bind further Congress’ from spending.

            Sorry, Jsob but you are johnny-come-lately on this one, blatantly attacking CCB in order to attack those who discredited the Boehner bill. No one said it was the perfect bill, it was a compromise that we could live with. But go right on ahead and defend those who supported the bad bill yesterday.

            BTW You never walked back your statements regarding the ” leadership” pushing CCB, even though you were woefully uninformed as to where it
            originated.

          • runner12

            I do not see any point in keeping this discussion going. Nothing that you have said has convinced me of anything other than that you are trying to point out the flaws in CCB to criticize those who were against the Boehner plan as well.

            You accused CCB as being pushed or created by the leadership, when it was not.

            You said that there was no text to a BBA, when in fact there are several. The Lee-Cornyn-Hatch being the best one out there, as it severely limits Congress to raise taxes to balance the budget.

            No one is arguing that baseline budgeting is a good thing nor that CCB was the fix-all to our ills. We would need to pass either the Ryan budget or better yet the RSC budget to accomplish the change that is needed.

            However, this battle was not over voting on a budget. It was about proposing cuts and a step towards fiscal responsibility to avoid a downgrade in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. CCB was far from perfect, but it was a sensible plan that anyone with an ounce of common sense should have supported.

            But the leadership only brought it to vote to appease the fiscal conservatives and shelved it like they have the Ryan budget and the RSC budget. They did not fight for it at all, so we will never know what we could have accomplished had they held the line.

            You can put down the pundits or people like me who said “hold the line” every day of the week, but it does not make you any more right. Within the last few days, people like us have been called hobbits, terrorists, evil, etc. I have gotten to the point where it does not bother me anymore, even when it comes from our own side.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          I do think a yes vote was defensible to protect America from Obama’s default threat.