« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Republicans Should Stop Reauthorizing Stuff they Denounced

There is an old adage that defines insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.”  What’s worse than insanity is hypocritical insanity, which may be defined as doing the same thing that your opponent did over and over again, while expecting different results.  Unfortunately, that is an apt description of the House GOP leadership of late.

During the 2010 elections, Republicans railed against profligate spending, Obamacare, and growing dependency from things like the Stimulus.  Now, they are extending and reauthorizing many of those offensive policies.  Last April, they continued the entire Democrat 2010 budget with a CR for FY2011 that cut outlays by a miniscule $352 million.  This week, they plan to pass a continuing resolution for FY2012 that will authorize more discretionary spending than their own “Ryan budget” by $24 billion.  This will pave the road for passage of an omnibus mega-bill in November – the very sort of reckless budgeting that they lampooned throughout the Pelosi years.

Last week, Republicans passed the 22nd short-term extension of surface transportation funding and the 8th stop-gap FAA reauthorization bill.  Their tepidness to pick a fight over their own transportation bills has led them to reauthorize Pelosi-era spending levels, along with wasteful public transit and beautification projects that are forced upon the states.  Additionally, they are on the cusp of paying Obama ransom for holding three free trade agreements hostage, by reauthorizing the Trade Adjustment Assistance – a superfluous unemployment handout to Big Labor.  We must also be vigilant of attempts by leadership to pass parts of Obama’s Stimulus 2.0.

On Wednesday, Republicans will be confronted with another opportunity to reauthorize a welfare program at current levels.  Sadly, it appears that leadership will pass it under suspension – without firing a shot.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is slated to expire later this month, and Republicans are planning to extend it until the end of the year.  TANF is the traditional cash welfare payment that is block granted to the states for low-income families with children.  The Feds grant about $17 billion annually to the states, and offer a $2 billion Contingency Fund for states with “special” economic needs.

In 1996, Republicans reformed this program (formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)) to cut perverse financial incentives for states to increase their welfare caseloads.  Instead of granting states more funding for increasing their caseloads, the new TANF program offered a flat grant to all states and incentivized them to decrease their caseloads.  This provision, along with some accountability measures for recipients, served as the bedrock for what was known as “the welfare reform of the 90s.”

Although Democrats lauded welfare reform as a major public policy breakthrough, and even took credit for its success, they surreptitiously repealed it in the Stimulus bill of 2009.  Section 2101 of the Stimulus bill brought back the perverse incentives under AFDC for states to increase their caseloads, by providing them with a $5 billion “Emergency Contingency Fund.”

Accordingly, Republicans must not ram this extension through the House under suspension.  Even though they are not reauthorizing the Emergency Contingency Fund, they need to scrutinize the program carefully to ensure that the it is headed on a downward trajectory, is expunged of all post-Stimulus spending, and is restored to the pre-Stimulus accountability regime.  A suspension bill is not the way to go.

Instead, Republicans should push Jim Jordan’s Welfare Reform Restoration Act (more information here), which not only restores the ’96 accountability measures to TANF, but applies them to the other 76 welfare programs (yes, you read that correctly).  While Republicans might be cagey about tinkering with Social Security and Medicare, they should be eager to pursue welfare reform.  It is a proven winner.  Moreover, welfare spending is right behind the largest two programs as our biggest expenditure.  Social Security will cost $727 billion this year; net Medicare spending will be $492 billion, but Medicaid ($274 billion) and Income Security Programs ($404 billion) will cost us $678 billion.  Why not go after the low-hanging fruit?

Republicans must use their mandate.  It’s time to stop reauthorizing Democrat failure.

COMMENTS

  • Ausonius

    This sentence stood out in the above essay:

    “Sadly, it appears that leadership will pass it under suspension ? without firing a shot.”

    RINO’s must be sent packing to the savannah: what other recourse do we have? And do not even say third party! That is not an answer short-term or long-term.

    Let the RINO’s leave and start a third party!

    Conservatives have one year to find leaders to run in primaries against entrenched RINO’s. I want to be optimistic that they can be found, and that they will oppose the RINO’s, and that they will win. I want to be optimistic that maybe, just maybe, a RINO or tow will see the light and CHANGE for the better!

    I am also a realist: the odds are against this. Time is against us.

    However…

    Business as usual and cowardice as usual will lead us to national bankruptcy, and possibly worse.

    I do not even want to contemplate the “worse” things.

    • red_oakster

      Where is the caucus? The leadership in the House is very responsive to its membership because every seat is up for election every two years. House leaders have no room at this point to impose their views on the caucus. Boehner certainly can’t get do any “grand bargaining” without his members’ blessings.

      The silence of the leadership is not notable. The silence of the freshman and tea partiers is deafening.

      • Ausonius

        This is the time for assertiveness, and to force the “Old Guard” (i.e. RINO’s) to admit their mistakes.

        I can understand the silence up to a point: perhaps the new Tea Party members are waiting before opening their mouths, never a bad idea! :)

        But I suspect that we need them very soon to force the issue: do we stop the Dems or do we continue to play nicely with them?

        God help us if they buckle and start toeing the RINO line!

        • ora09

          Check it out, Eric. Maybe they stoped listening to you.

      • jacobite

        This item is valuable as a preview of a Romney administration. As long as the GOP insists on nominating candidates who are moderates, there’s not much reason to vote. The only reason to vote in the ’12 election would be for a candidate who will repeal every O’bwana law, EO, and regulation. Even with GOP control of both Houses of Congress, Romney won’t do it, just as Boehner goes along with these current outrageous programs.

  • d_lamar

    It’s very simple. Did the candidate who wants my vote in 2012 vote to appropriate any sum of money for one or more of these programs:

    1. Planned Parenthood
    2. NPR
    3. Acord (or whatever it’s called now)
    4. Tarp
    5. NLRB
    6. EPA
    7. Anything related to cap and trade or related to global warming
    8. Any of Obama’s stimulus
    9. Any authorization of Obamacare
    10. Any tax increase
    11. Any increase in the debt ceiling

    If the answer is yes to any of these, that candidate will not get my vote.

    In other words, I’ve had it with the career politicians and the good ol’ boy Washington elitists who campaign on a conservative platform, and then vote another way.

  • Wubbies World

    It still angers me how much the Republican Leadership is corrupted mild version of the Democrat masters of Washington. More purging in the primaries is a mandatory task we must still do.

    Boehner needs to go and be the first one shown the door!!!!

  • johnt

    Goldwater I believe. This is what happens when grown adults are terrified of a ignorant and vindictive media. Moreover, when many of them hold similar views as the party they obstensibly oppose.
    They cede the field to the fanatics hoping they don’t get beat up, protecting their own rear ends.

  • JSobieski

    What you are really advocating is for a limited government shutdown or at least positioning for such a shut down in order to get more of what we want. Ultimately, that the is the leverage that we have. We either give on X to get on Y, or we dig in for another partial shutdown showdown.

    What is the cost/benefit analysis of such brinksmanship at the current point in time? I ask this question honestly, as I don’t have a strong sense of what the answer is.

    • aesthete

      Unless we can guarantee that a shutdown will be painless (i.e., that B Obama won’t authorize his toadies to cancel the VA and SS checks first), then a complete government shutdown isn’t worth it. OTOH, if Republicans gain control of the White House and the Senate, as it appears they will, then a shutdown can be managed, be relatively painless, and therefore should be a tool in the Republican armory.

      • JSobieski

        I know that people like to pound their chests in the name of doctrinal purity, it seems like our side is actually being smart.

        I am a bit concerned with what I call the Bachmann strategy for success:

        Push the government to shut down without even proposing a way to avoid the shutdown.

        If we all become Bachmann’s, our side will lose.

      • acat

        There’s simply no way to avoid the pain, and kicking the can has not done anything but pile up more pain in our future.

        The end of the rails are in sight, the gravy train will stop. There is no siding, there is no more track. The only question is how it ends.

        Mew

        • JSobieski

          It will be hard if not impossible to get anything meaningful done while Obama is still in office.

          Does it make sense to for broke now (ie shutdown) and potentially get him re-elected as a result?

          Or do we draw a line in the sand with our guys and say you will go to the mat on this in 2013, regardless of who is where, or who controls what–with the idea that we get some more arrows in the quiver?

          • acat

            I think it’s a gamble to believe they’ll do anything different in 2013 regardless of who’s in the White House.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            1994 was a very odd event in that for a brief period of time, Congress led and the President followed. Of course, the end result was not the big change that we needed.

            Every big change in US law has been led by the President.

            FDR was needed to enact the New Deal.

            The Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty needed an LBJ.

            I don’t see it as being helpful to push a shutdown now. If we are going to pick a hill to die on, I would choose 2013 and prudence affirms that decision.

          • acat

            I think, though, that it’s more accurate to say that the major changes to the constitution of our body politic – including the ones that actually changed the Constitution – require sustaining a supermajority for an extended period.

            Conservatism, on the other paw, has been – in recent years – very powerful but short-lived waves. Reagan would have needed another two terms, ala FDR, to really roll back liberalism .. and Bush 1.0 hardly provided them.

            The Contract with America, which set up the oddball scenario of Chairman Gingrich leading the way, was – likewise – short-lived.

            My hope is that the Tea Party will not be a short-duration wave, but a sea change on par with the 1960s radical peace groups who reshaped the Dems right out from under LBJ.

            My concern is that Liberals have, historically, been far better at the long game than Conservatives.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            I dunno about that — can you think of a successful Democratic Presidential candidate post-1960s who was actually anti-war? I can think of plenty who were pro-*stupid* wars, but that doesn’t really differentiate those Dems from LBJ.

          • acat

            The lack thereof, in the party of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ would appear to prove my point.

            The anti-war hippies now rule the roost at the DNC.

            Obama may have continued Bush’s pro-Iraq-war (and pro-Afghan-war) policies, but his stated positions and most of his actions are clearly anti-war to the point one wonders when the next shoe will drop.

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            any democrat who thinks he can get more votes that way.

            I really don’t think most of them care one way or the other. Clinton bombed kosovo and Iraq, and Obama bombed the hell out of Libya.

            It is all just rhetoric to them. Obama, is mostly a cypher, if he believes in anything it is just to give away things to people who might support him, blacks, unions, whatever.

          • acat

            .. would appear to confirm my point.

            The Dems are now anti-war, and will likely remain so unless we reach a point where an external threat to our very existence once again exists.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            Here’s a liberal congressman praising Obama on Libya:

            http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/150749-liberal-congressman-applauds-obamas-libya-plan

            Here’s Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell doing the same:

            http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maddow-and-odonnell-praise-obamas-libya-speech-compare-to-nobel-prize-message/

            You’re going to have to define “anti-war” and “pro-war” better, IMO: very few people are “pro-war” in the sense that they see young men dying on a foreign battlefield as an inherent good. Very few people would be “anti-war” in the event of a truly existential threat to the US.

          • acat

            to prevent having to use a great deal more in the future.

            See also Issac Asimov’s quote “Violence is the last resort of the incompetent”… The second part of the quote clearly indicts the incompetent for not resorting to violence sooner… and as a result, needing to use far, far more.

            Far as I can tell, there are two reasons the anti-war left haven’t bolted Obama’s camp – first, nobody is seeking the Dem nom, and second, no U.S. soldiers are dying in the streets of Tripoli. Should either of those change, I expect a mass exodus.

            As to your final paragraph, it is of course argument-by-absurdity. Of course nobody wants to see young men – of any nation – dying in useless war. That said, the Dems used to have a much more .. kinetic foreign policy than they have shown since LBJ.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            really helps matters much, unless cats have a heretofore unknown ability to prognosticate the future :)

            First of all, it is difficult to categorize Reagan as “pro-war” under the definition that you’ve provided. Use of force during his presidency (besides Granada) was limited and centered around funding, occasionally training, and rhetorically supporting anti-communist insurgencies and regimes. Was this incompetent? IMO, no: it’s certainly not outside the bounds of debate to criticize Reagan, but I can’t think of any intervention which would have helped our goals. (Hawks at the time wanted troops in Afghanistan, for example.)

            Secondly, both Libya and Bosnia were explicitly stumped for by Obama and Clinton, respectively, as wars whose aims were to prevent further tragedy. To borrow your phrasing, a willingness “to use a little violence now to prevent having to use a great deal more in the future” sounds a good deal like Obama’s rationale for involving us in Libya. To wit: “We knew that if we waited — if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.”

            Third, a substantial portion of Democrats authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and plenty continued to support them in theory while decrying GWB for running them “ineptly”. (See: Clinton, Hillary and Biden, Joe.)

            Fourth, liberals have supported intervention in many cases in the past. Liberals had been pounding the war drum for Iraq in the Clinton administration, and only dropped it upon Bush taking up the cause. Sudan and the DRC are still popular go-to spots for an extra war or two. Indeed, a good deal of the Responsibility To Protect doctrine (which appears to be in vogue in certain sectors of the Obama administration) is predicated on the notion that 1) pre-emptive war is necessary to avoid Rwanda-like tragedies, and that 2) the world will probably get involved too late in the event of Rwanda-like humanitarian crises. The difference between this and what you articulate above seem fleeting to me; it certainly does not seem to be the case that the Democratic party is monolithically unified against pre-emptive war. (For that matter, whether they are or not tells me nothing about the wisdom of a strategy which has us invading every country that is a potential threat, hindsight being 20/20 and all that.)

          • acat

            You misread me a bit, I think. The Soviets knew Reagan would fight if pressed. They also knew Carter wouldn’t.

            Carter used violence as a last resort to try to get the Iranian hostages out. Reagan used the threat of competently administered violence and succeeded.

            Mew

          • wonkish1

            When Congress led in 1995-99 we had some of the best legislation of the last century including probably the most conservative bill of the last century, Welfare Reform.

            Also, if you only knew what we were weeks away from having back in 98 before the Lewinsky broke. We almost had it all!!!!

          • JSobieski

            Welfare reform, when you consider all the loopholes and subsequent rollbacks, was not on the whole a tremendous achievement of the type that we seek to achieve now in terms of budget cuts.

          • wonkish1

            Its first serious rollback of a major social program in the western world and you think that is a small accomplishment.

            Plus the spending cuts they forced in the 90s were quite large. Also they actually had the ba11s to shutdown government. And when they did they got a deal from Clinton that Obama and the Sen Dems wouldn’t give if hell froze over.

            Plus once again you have no idea how close we got to having it all in 98. If Lewinsky even broke 5 months later than it did this would have been a very different country. And still to this day nobody knows what was negotiated at that time.

          • JSobieski

            compare the “win” of welfare reform to the magnitude of the Obamacare defeat, and it is clear that one is orders of magnitude more important than the other.

            A country without Obamacare with unreformed welfare is far better than a country with reformed welface but intact Obamacare.

            My point is that the high water mark of change with a resisting President is a low water mark.

          • acat

            See my notes above. The Dems grab and hold power long enough to change the constitution of the body politic. The conservative wing has, thus far, not managed to hold onto the reigns of the GOP long enough to do that.

            Yes, we came very close under Chairman Gingrich… but, in the end, it fell apart.

            We came, IMO, equally close under Reagan, but the lack of a strong conservative to replace him let the GOP run loose again.

            I’m hoping that, with the Tea Party banner to rally under, that perhaps this time we’ll stay in control of the GOP long enough to make some real changes.

            I’ll repeat what J. Sobieski said in clearer terms. The dollars saved by holding Clinton’s short-and-curlies to the fire and passing welfare reform are as nothing next to the dollars we’re about to lose under Obamacare.

            Mew

      • wonkish1

        But, I guess the GOP isn’t bright enough to pull that one off.

        It would have be done legally, they couldn’t got to the SuperPAC’s, 527′s, and 501c’s themselves, but if you have an ad ready to play and another one if he threatens SS and Medicaid. He takes the bait and lies about SS and Medicaid being shutdown and you could have him by the short and curlies.

        • JSobieski

          getting unduly pessimistic on our guys thinking why don’t they do something without being honest about what the do something means.

          We have a veto power over the government through the House of Representatives. That is more than we had two years ago, but its not enough for a rollback unless we just go 100% to the matt. Doing that is the one thing that could save Obama.

          • wonkish1

            nt

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

      than the debt ceiling because it would have taken default on the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

      But yes, any real push back has to be willing to play a game of chicken against Democrats. We have to be willing to become more morally blunt in denouncing the policies and tactics of the Dems in order to win media battles in which the left highlights “victims” of shutdowns.

      The American people are with us on Liberty and Obama. But many would stay home if we don’t stand up to the Obama, Dems and the media.

      more later

      • rightwingmom52

        I’d just note that it’s hard to play chicken when you are actually a chicken.

        • acat

          Should I be surprised, given that 5 is your middle name? (cheshire grin)

          Mew

          • rightwingmom52

            That one was really pretty easy. It was just kinda sitting out there waiting to be said.

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

      We dont want or need a shutdown.

      All we want is for Republicans who CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives to ACT like fiscal conservatives.

      It’s real simple. You pass the lower spending levels and fight like heck in the conference to keep it that way.
      You do NOT give an inch without getting more in return.

      This is NOT a shutdown strategy, this is simple, basic “do what you say you are going to do” politics.

      Cut the spending. Cut the spending. Cut the spending. Cut the spending.

      Democrats will fight us? Fine, we can compromise. But for goodness sake, dont give up “Without Firing a Shot”.

      I am offended that we our giving the Democrats their spending preferences in a week when the people rejected the Democrats, and doing it without extracting ANY concessions.

      That is bad politics and bad policy.

      • JSobieski

        you have to threaten a shutdown.

        Unless you have some magic potion for making Obama and the Senate more conservative.

        The House has already done the things you have asked for. So the question is do they play chicken and risk a shutdown or do what they are doing.

        There are essentially 2 choices to proceed: (1) small ball and (2) shutdown.

  • cwilson

    when the new 2010 Congressional Majority didn’t replace Boehner. In fact, not a single member of the 2009-2010 “leadership” was replaced for the 2011-2012 term (who were, in turn, the same “leadership” from 2007-2008, and 2005-2006). (And then when Mr. Ban-the-Light-Bulb Upton was given a chairmanship — “Oh, I pinkie-swear I’ll repeal the law I sponsored and got passed…” Still waiting…)

    Same failed leaders == same failed policies, same “put on a show, but cave and backdoor the Lib legislation once the heat is off”.

    Can somebody please primary these people? Boehner, especially…

    I’m really starting to wonder if my energies are better spent preparing an escape plan for my family, than engaging in the Sisyphean task of restoring Constitutional governance (and yes, CW, I *am* a Precinct Committeeman). With “leaders” like this, it’s like pouring water uphill, or pushing on a string.

    • aesthete

      It amazes me how little reshuffling of the chairs the aftermath of the Bush administration prompted. Hopefully Boehner and co have more brains than they’ve demonstrated thus far, because it’s pretty darned obvious that the voting public won’t accept a Republican party that doubles down on foreign wars, “nation-building”, and social issues without doing anything about the debt or the economy.

    • luvnthebigsites

      Leadership in the house is Key. For all the fanfare given to the executive branch our fate rests on the next speakers shoulders (and leadership skills). With Luck and the Grace of GOD we should be able to throw another 60 rookies at the house this go around with very stern keyboard demands of ideological purity… (no offense CW)

      Boehner’s gotta go. Period. The next house “majority” needs to know that… And I think we need to collectively demand it.

      • YnotNOW

        about the need to replace the Republican leadership in Congress. Unfortunately, the Party did not learn this lesson, and benefitted from the Tea Party revolution in 2010 (and probably ’12, too), even though it was not for their benefit.

        This will be a long fight to restore our country. The task may indeed seem Sisyphean. That is when the dedicated patriot will stand firm.

        • luvnthebigsites

          If their Majority flips the other way, Just like when the the Progressives got the numbers to take over the Democrat party… They bet the Farm on a Paul Krugman piece and lost HARD didn’t they? Boehner didn’t capitalize, The Idiot made excuses for them.

          My argument… Lets all join forces and take the ‘em down.

  • mort

    to find candidates to replace the current group of those who voted for continued spending and increasing debt. The primaries start in six months. Get on the warpath as soon as we find out what our new districts will be. Are those incumbents in power delaying that process to give us less time we to find challengers?

  • http://www.riversedgealliance.org Robin Smith

    I posted this Tweet earlier:
    “If Cong GOP had defunded Obamacare,Plnd Prnthd,other big cuts this yr,election debate would be more than “GOP protecting the rich”? #tcot 6 hours ago”

    Because ALL spending has to originate in the US House, there is no excuse to find ourselves with a growing $14 Trillion debt, a looming Omnibus bill and another Continuing Resolution, programs like Obamacare et al still funded.

    I hear the argument that we need a GOP Senate to get anything done. The Senate is not filabuster proof and does have a few Senators who would likely vote with the GOP on a few issues due to re-election pressures in their own districts, not the national liberal talking-heads.

    Now, the elections of 2012 provide the perfect setting for a failued candidate to rail against the GOP: You’re protecting the rich; you’re wanting to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, the poor.

    So, the GOP is going to run on economic principles and the Democrats are going to victimize citizens. Congratulations to the GOP for handing Barack Obama and the Democrats their platform.

    WAKE UP!

  • GregInFla

    for exposing what these CRs do. A CR is a vote for Pelosi policies.

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

    Bravo to Redstate for exposing the spineless behavior of House Republicans in the FY2012 budget. After all the posturing votes, this is where the rubber meets the road, and the House leadership is failing.

    We sent the Republicans to stand up to Obamacare, Obamanomics, and the tax-and-spend machine that is out of control.

    “Republicans must use their mandate. It?s time to stop reauthorizing Democrat failure.”

    Absolutely! The failure to use their mandate is an insult to conservative supporters. Now why isnt the conservative 180-member strong or so wing of the GOP caucus NOT up in arms and rebelling over this failure to cut spending and stick to the Ryan budget?!?!?

    That is the question not answered. Boehner etal have take the ‘easy’ route of rubber stamping Obama’s overspending. They have GOT to stop it now.

    one brilliant tactic would be to pay for Obama ‘stimulus’ with spending cuts.

  • dajeeps

    Just curious if they’re waiting to see what comes from there before picking the battles they want to fight. I’ve heard that a group of senators, 36 of them, asked the committee to go big on spending cuts and tackle tax reform. Of course that doesn’t mean the committee will do anything productive at all, but at least there is some appetite to deal with those things in general body. Perhaps if nothing happens from that, the House GOP will start moving on some of this stuff.

  • sowa1

    All I hear is “Republicans are to blame for everything that’s wrong in Washington”. Bull! The House Republicans have done their job, it is the Senate DEMOCRATS that have not passed anything. Everytime the Republicans try to do something we all want, where are the people ? No one is standing with them. If Obama and the Democrats get back in office in 2012, this Country is doomed. Look what happened when the Democrats had all three Houses. In less than three years, Obama and the Democrats have destroyed the Economy and every other Department in the Government. Stand with the Republicans (Tea Party also), they are one and the same. Vote Democrats out that have been in office for more that two terms.

  • ihateliberals

    So far with the RINO’s in charge you would never know the Democrats lost the 2010 election. John Boehner may not be a liberal but he might as well be. There is no Republican leadership period not as one post suggested just in the House. With leaders like Mitch McConnell, John McCain in the senate and John Boehner and Eric Cantor in the House who needs Democrats? The Tea party has been a complete failure. They won the election and have let the republican Elite bury them. They aren’t making any noise either in the House or on the street. Conservative still seems like a dirty word to the Republicans.

  • rj145

    There is much rhetoric about the possibility of a Republican takeover in the Senate and the Whitehouse.Based on their present performance in the House, they have provided little incentive for Independent and crossover Democrat voters to enable those victories. Is this party “leadership” stupid or just suicidal? It is only the fate of our Republic that hangs in the balance while they do deals and conduct business as usual. Pathetic!

  • drifter

    The Democrats and many of the Republicans must go… They are all treating the American people as fools and stooges.

  • travis690

    Why do we waste out time listening to and supporting you? You are not even willing to go with your 2008 budget for 2012 like you promised last year.

    I’ll give the Democrat branch of the Big Government party one thing over you guys: At least when they promise more government spending, they deliver. With you Repulicans, you promise less government spending, but NEVER deliver on that promise!

    I doubt that the collective Republican leadership will grow a spine between now and next summer, but rest assured: You will pretend to have one come next election season.

    Sadly, all you do is pretend.

    Your follies are making us look more like Europe. Do any of you understand WHY this nation was founded? It was to GET AWAY FROM Europe. I don’t think enough of you believe in this nation anymore.

    America used to be a special place; now it’s just the united States. (Yes, I did mean the capitalization as it appears; that’s the same way it appears in the Declaration of Independence.)

  • funwithknives

    Simply put: We did not do what we knew to be correct. We are now paying for it, as all “bargains” eventually do get reconciled.
    The time for choosing your poison’s strength is basically over. America has seen what Progressivism does and has planned for us. If that is not enough of a kick in the pants, then what is? Alinsky, Cloward-Piven and the rest, are known roads with a detailed map. The rest is simply details and refining plans/actions as we proceed.
    We are the choice America needs. Has the case been made yet? Just as a salesman will tell you in confidence ,that most customers do not know what they really want or need, the same applies here. Real Conservatism, Small Gov’t, free enterprise, etc.,have not been around for so long, there is no Frame of Reference.{see:Hegelian Dialectic} The Stand starts here but ,face it, there is no end. The Lessons will need to be re-taught and absorbed, again and again. Wasn’t it Ronnie Reagan who said we were *always one generation away from losing liberty forever? * This is our time and there is no other.
    “Together, We stand,
    divided We fall,
    Come on now People ,lets.. get on the ball,
    Let’s work TOGETHER….” {Thanks to W. Harrison}

    We got the numbers,and the incentive. What’s not to like?

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    I’m as pro-life as the next guy, but zeroing in on Boehner’s failure to defund Planned Parenthood above all else ignores a treasure trove of reasons to punch Boehner’s ticket in a primary.