« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Caveat Emptor: Boehner Says There’s A Deal

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 7th, 2011 at 12:29 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

John Boehner says there is a 50-50 chance of a debt ceiling deal. Don’t expect him to advocate cutting the budget, capping spending, and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Boehner thinks a BBA is a “gimmick”, despite his prior support for one in the nineties.

The tendency of many conservatives these days, myself included, is to dismiss out of hand whatever leadership comes up with. The tendency of others is to embrace it wholesale and thumb their noses at conservatives skeptical of the leadership’s track record.

We should remember the Speaker sold us a bill of goods on the continuing resolution. Ultimately, it wound up driving up the debt, not driving it down. The $100 billion in cuts wound up being a few hundred million dollars in cuts.

I’m not hopeful. The one thing I can guarantee is that any deal John Boehner cuts is going to punt the ball. The question we must answer before giving it a thumbs up or thumbs down is just how far a punt.

Given Boehner’s lack of leadership in holding the line on cutting, capping, and balancing, I won’t hold my breath. But I am curious to see if it is a deal worth supporting.

Personally, my hope is that it so enrages conservatives, they finally find their testicular fortitude and hold the freaking line. It’s pathetic when Olympia Snowe is to the right of them.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • gawken

    I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed BBA, but I’m not consigning it to “gimmick” status. Simply, put, we are told time and time again that 49 of the 50 states have constitutional requirements for balanced budgets. OK, so all those who think that California, Mass, NY, NJ, among others have balanced their budgets over the last 20 years raise their hands. Does that make the BBA a gimmick. Would the feds be any better. WE have this so called wonderful entity in DC called the Congressional Budget Office, which supposedly “impartially” scores federal legislation. EXCEPT IT DOESN’T. It’s required to us the “new math” of whatever party happends to be in control. That’s how we got the charade of being told, with a straight face, that Obamacare would “save” trillions. So why woudl a BBA be any different?

    And why does DeMint think it would get through the Senate. Surely you’d have several hard lefties who would NOT agree to give UC to the bill to come to the floor. And I don’t think there are enough votes in the Dem caucus that would vote for cloture.

    In fact, this would tear the Dem party in half. Which maybe is DeMint’s purpose all along.?

  • earlgrey

    Activism requires real sacrifice of time, $. I am trying to square that with getting screwed by the people I am working for. Every day I have a choice to give of my time for this cause or focus more on work, family. Days like this make it hard to stay in the game.

  • edintexas

    Not the Dem pols, but the people. Cut, Cap and Balance is what people do all the time. It is an idea the voters can easily understand (if the Republicans can find the intestinal fortitude to even describe it to the people – their track record of communication says they can’t). Tearing up the Dem party would just be lagniappe.

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

    Republicans in the House need to realize that Speaker Boehner is going to get them slaughtered at the polls if he continues surrender to the Democrats. Holding the line must start with Boehner stepping down and the election of a new conservative speaker – not a party hack.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    They have 47 Republican votes for Lee-Cornyn-Hatch. They need 19 or 20 Democrats. I encourage them to keep pushing it and hold the debt ceiling hostage to a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment.

    The Democrats ultimately want to be able to spend more and I think they’ll be willing to take the gamble that they can kill the BBA at the state level.

  • gpclaw

    he is willing to increase the debt ceiling in exchange for passage of the BBA, Obama’s signature on the BBA, and then the BBA being sent to the states. Put differently, if the BBA doesn’t pass the senate, neither will the debt ceiling increase.

    DeMint has stated that his preference is not to raise the debt ceiling, but he believes that is what it will take to get the BBA through the senate, and past Obama’s veto pen. I tend to agree with DeMint on this.

    The BBA being proposed differs from what the states have, because the BBA doesn’t as much require the feds to balance the budget. What it does is place a cap on the amount the feds can spend each year – 18% of GDP from the previous year. Because spending would be based on GDP, the only way to increase revenue to the government would be to grow the economy. Tax hikes would be off the table, because tax increases would be an attempt to provide the feds revenue beyond 18% of GDP.

  • rightwingmom52

    I’d really like to know if my senators (AL – Sessions and Shelby) are among them.

  • luvnthebigsites

    why not kill 8 birds with the same stone and Repeal the 16th & 17th?? Say we do rocket docket the BBA with state approval and the POTUS. The Tax code is still broken. Senate seats can still be bought. I don’t think the BBA is a gimmick, But I do think without reforms elsewhere its a waste of time. Hold the stinking line or CR the bare necessities until the world record size epic failure is out of the white house.

  • wgsampson

    This is extremely serious legislation, it is not a gimmick, and most Americans would be in favor of it. If it doesn’t pass, then get the democrats on record for not supporting a balanced budget in this fiscal environment, and then beat them over the head with that vote for the next 15 months.

    Then raise the heat on the leadership too. Mitch McConnell needs to understand that if he won’t carry the Cut-Cap-Balance banner, then Jim Demint, Mike Lee, et al will not support his leadership any longer. The same goes for Boehner.

    McConnell and Boehner both could get this votes on. Do it already.

  • http://www.skiloveland.com skicougar

    I believe he meant what he said on his 2010 post-election speech, but he and republican members in congress just don’t have the spines to what needs to be done or are just beltway repiblicans.

    I am quite certain that the congress gop will be had, will splinter some, the people will lose confidence in them and Obama will slither back into the white house.

    We’ve got another 5 years of 9 to 10% unemployment, rising prices everywhere, increasing debts and government intrusion to come. I was optimistic in November, but the past 6 months have been a dose of reality.

    I recommend Voda and lemonade or Newcastle beer to cope.

  • JSobieski

    Obama will have no opportunity to sign or refrain from signing the BBA.

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

    to actually pass a balanced budget or NOT raise the debt ceiling and have it imposed.

  • gpclaw

    And I learned something new today.

  • gpclaw

    Hatch-Lee amendment – S.J. Res 10

    Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.</blockquote)

  • sarg01

    1 Socialist Party
    51 Dem Party
    1 Connecticut for Lieberman Party
    47 Republican Party

  • drfredc

    A Balance Budget Amendment may have it’s own unintended consequences.

    CA has a 2/3rds majority required to pass budgets — it’s resulted in more and more liberals getting elected to office. This happens because they can promise more and more, and point to fiscally responsible GOP unwillingness to vote to get over 2/3s as the problem. Prior to this 2/3rd budget deal, CA had a relatively decent balance between GOP and Dems. No more…

    So be very careful in supporting a BBA. IMHO, the Constitution already has a balanced budget requirement in the Preamble — the federal government is supposed to preserve liberty to ourselves and posterity. This can’t be achieved if we are borrowing against our posterities futures. The GOP efforts might be better focused on bringing the Preambles guidelines back into the active portion of the Constitution. It’s a key part of the Constitution that liberals like to ignore because it has many restrictions against their socialist spending regulatory wishes…

  • rightwingmom52

    I would blame it on being blonde, but I’m not. Or having a senior moment, but not quite there either. Just one of those brain freezes.

  • zooboy

    Count on the feds to try every possible, and impossible, way to ‘boost’ the calculated GDP.
    Gotta close all those loopholes somehow.
    Sorta like how their inflation calcs are always MUCH lower than what I personally experience.

  • melbedewy

    meaning 38 states….good luck with that.
    Plus, like states “required” to balance the budget (California anyone) they can just float bonds to “balance” the budget and rely on fake revenue estimates.
    See-it’s all a dog and pony routine.

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

    to run a railroad. But I concede there are good arguments on the side of a BBA. I just think the conditions for raising the debt limit should be immediate and not dependent on the const amendment process. Plus, I do NOT favor raising the debt limit. I would not raise it and have a balanced budget imposed de facto.

  • ghostship

    The Republican’s control the house. If they truly wanted a balanced budget then all they have to do is say no.

    This BBA in exchange for raising the debt limit is just another dog and pony show.

  • gekster

    Why no noise from them, when almost all of them said they were going to Washington to make noise and cut spending and taxes?
    Where did they go?

  • gawken

    Does the BBA include a supermajority requirement for tax increases..

  • averagevoterdotcom

    but I do think that demint sees it as a defining vote and usable against Debtocrats next year.

  • averagevoterdotcom

    from the sure thing movie?

  • averagevoterdotcom

    in constitutional amendments.

  • bcomber38

    The democrats don’t get blamed for anything.the msm will see to that.Old ladies going over the cliff.Poor starving,Sick dying.I don’t trust republicans.Wobbly sort of people.

  • sowa1

    Democrats are voted out of office. I hope the American people are not fooled by Obama’s talking points, because he is doing it for re-election. do you really want Obama and Pelosi???? The U.S. is so deep in debt already because of them. The Economy under President Bush was GREAT for the first EIGHT YEARS, the the DEMOCRATS took over the House and Senate. That’s when the spending started. President Bush did not have veto power, it was the other way around. He was forced to sign bills if he wanted money for out troops. Wake up people.

  • jlsankot

    on Rush yesterday regarding the debt ceiling. Can’t quote anything but he made a lot of sense. Of course, you won’t hear it on any news broadcast!

  • saltlick

    Because I think we need to see if Boehner started crying. Obama never cries.

  • ag8tor

    For once Boehner and the rest of the Republicans need to show unity and guts in getting what they want. The Dems had no problem with this the last 6 years and got everything they wanted. Will someone once and for all remind these suppposedly learned people that they have the MAJORITY in the house (where funding is controlled) and that they should use this leverage to get what they want. The Senate is worthless anyhow and will follow an idiot like Reid over the cliff. Let them! Have some guts and STAND YOUR GROUND! There were no deals when the Dems controlled the house. There should be NONE now. Let them explain why nothing is being done. Use their non-compliant attitude on them in 2012.

  • westcoastpatriette

    California no longer requires 2/3 majority to pass a budget–only if the budget includes a tax increase. Any tax increase requires 2/3′s majority. Hence, the budget just passed was passed with a simple majority of Democrats and they were furious because they were unable to get any Republicans on board to include a five year extension of a previous “temporary” tax increase. So, the budget was passed without any tax increases–which is a good thing.

    I am not sure I agree with you that the reason we have a huge imbalance of Dems and Reps. is because of the 2/3 requirement. I think it has more to do with people not paying attention and being apathetic toward politics.

  • napensnake

    they just aren’t getting the media attention. Every once in a while, some of their voices slip through the media blockade.

  • DaveWT4

    Boehner, Cantor, and the entire GOP House Leaderhsip need to be replaced. It’s obvious they are nothing more than squishy milquetoast RiNOs, eager to please and get along with the Establishment.

  • jrfoleyjr

    Why does anyone think that Speaker Boner has climbed out of bed with Obama and Reid?

    With the current corrupt administration track record, how can anyone think that passing a magical BBA will force a balanced budget?

    These communists/marxists will do as they damned well please, regardless of law or constitution, until they are removed from office. PERIOD!

    As for the balless linguini spined ilk of The Boner… we need to start weeding out this type of politician early in their careers.

    Be it resolved that the outcome of current budget negotiations can be summed up this way for the American tax payer: BOHICA

  • jrfoleyjr

    …perhaps you have not noticed that potus really does not give two hoots what the constitution says? He has his marxist agenda to put in place before he is voted out. When he is done with the USA and its constitution, it wont be worth anything.

  • morninginamerica

    Any balanced budget amendment needs a limit on taxation, I know limiting the feds to 18% of GDP sounds like a limitation, but a lot of good people didn’t think we needed the Bill of Rights either. Of course, they were honorable men; that’s not where the problems originate. Why not the 18/18 amendment to limit spending and set a top rate for income taxes?

    Changing rates to increase revenue and score political points cause all our problems. A flat rate would be the best. Ten to fifteen percent would bring in more revenue than Washington can imagine — from all over the world. It could be as simple as an excise tax on paychecks without all the fancy footwork at the IRS. There would be no penalty for success as is the case with a”progressive” income tax.

    If we don’t cap rates, the big spenders will simply run spending up against the balanced-budget limit and tell us the Constitution commands us to raise taxes.

    By the way, what’s wrong with setting a budget at the same number of dollars spend last year or the year before? That wouldn’t be a cut.

  • gpclaw

    But, it does require a 2/3 majority vote in both houses to increase taxes, or to implement any new taxes. However, the 2/3 requirement would not apply to reducing taxes.

    Not quite what your looking for, but it would appear that they gave the tax issue some thought.

    I agree with your idea of a cap, or better yet a flat rate. Another idea would be make so that the top rate can only be X% higher than than the bottom rate, so that any attempts to increase tax rates on the rich would require raising them on everyone else. After all, we know how important it is for everyone to “pay their fair share”.

  • acat

    Perhaps Hatch-Lee’s authors realized this and decided to postpone that debate until after they’d solved the spending problem…

    Mew

  • gpclaw

    I don’t thiink the BBA is as much needed today, as it is tomorrow.

    We already see how difficult it is for the current crop of GOP congress folk, under perfect conditions, to hold the line on the debt ceiling, What are the chances that in the future, the same conditions – very unpopular president, slow economy, an electorate that actually gives a darn about the debt – to support a similar stand. There is a reason that the debt limit has been raised every time, regardless of the make up of congress, or who occupies the White House.

    Congress is completely incapable of being fiscally responsible. If we have to rely on always having the perfect make up of representation in congress in order to live with in our means, then we are doomed. The electorate is too fickle, and eventually, some of today’s support for fiscal responsibility will fade, just has it always has.

    The closest way of tying the hands of congress, now and in the future, is a BBA. Also, assuming it’s ratified, the BBA serves as a mandate from the states that business as usual in DC will no longer stand.

  • ihateliberals

    will get bigger and the debt ceiling will be raised and the country will be going to Hell in a hand cart. Tht is the promise of John Boehner. There is no Republican leadership. There are only Republican Puppets right now. Eric cantor, John Boehner and any multitude of RINO’s need to be thrown out of congress. JOhn McCain, Mitch McConnel and any number of RINO’s in the Senate need to be thrown out ASAP. As long as we let these liberal Republicans run things nothing will ever get better. Right now it looks more like the Democrats are the majority in Congress instead of the Republicans. They continue to get what they want and the Republicans look like fools. kWhy are the Conservatives? Why aren’t they raising Holy Hell over this leadership and the decisions it is making. I guess in 2012 we are going to have to clean House again?

  • phenne

    You are right — the Repubs need a commincator to get their message to the people. Conservatives have a stand on everything, and convictions to back it up (unlike the Leftist Obama).

    I liked having to look up a word — la-gniappe …

    Regional Note: Lagniappe derives from New World Spanish la ?apa, “the gift,” and ultimately from Quechua yapay, “to give more.” The word came into the rich Creole dialect mixture of New Orleans and there acquired a French spelling. It is still used in the Gulf states, especially southern Louisiana, to denote a little bonus that a friendly shopkeeper might add to a purchase. By extension, it may mean “an extra or unexpected gift or benefit.”

    Neat.

    And, kudos to Texas! Executing a real scumbag. Obama’s weenie attempt to have it stopped, running it up to the US Supreme Court = FAIL.

    Gotta love it.

  • earlgrey

    It is my cat’s name.

  • messup

    Congress has the sole responsibility for “making law(s).” Period. So, We The People have spoken to our Representatives…they don’t listen. We the Elite People govern We The People and will do anything to maintain and keep the “status quo.” That goes for holding on to power, either Republican or Democrat ( both will say anything to further We The Elite People’s positioning in Washington DC).

    The “trifecta” – RNC, DNC and handmaiden MSM are complicit in keeping We The People at bay with misinformation (re:COB figures), disinformation (Wall Street, read Griftopia, or true unemployment, the real housing crisis) and “new speak” QE1, QE2, etc.”no monetizing of the debt (anybody remember that?).

    It’s about time We The People wake up America, and realize We The Elite People are playing us like an accordion. We The People are the monkey dancing at the end of a cord, cup in hand making “cute little People’s sounds” awaiting passerbys throwing pocket change our way while We The Elite People play a happy tune.

    VOTE this coming 2012 Election. Massive fraud is on its way. God Bless America

  • phenne

    All well said!

    Bottle it and get the friends on AM Radio to blast it out.

    I, for one, would like all of my AM Radio favorites to back up their “I like what ___ has to say; we are good friends” talk we a segment on each of their programs DEDICATED to “unified idea desimination.”

    Whaddaya think? ;-)

  • sccrenny

    I’m afraid both Voda/lemonade AND Newcastle are in order. Maybe a toke or two to boot!

  • minncon

    I’ve said it from Day One, and I’ll say it again: ANYONE BUT BOEHNER.

  • wtaylor0552

    I don’t know if you noticed but both of our senators voted in favor of the streamlining act the other day. It essentially handed over the advise and consent powers granted to the Senate to the Executive branch for “some” executive branch appointments.

    Yes they both gave the lunatic in chief the power to make appointments without the consent of the Senate. So in order to save themselves a little bit of work, they doomed us to Obama’s unfettered appointment authority.

    It’s time for both of our senators to take their exorbitant pensions and let people who respect and adhere to the constitution take over their jobs, maybe the newly elected members will find a way to take back the authority their predecessors so willingly gave away.

  • wtaylor0552

    We can not let the momentum of the last election slip away because of reports we hear coming out in the old news outlets. Don’t fall into the same trap that the Republican leadership has, we can never get them to like us unless we become democrats, and the sooner that message gets through to our elected officials the sooner we can get real change.

    I don’t mean Obama’s change, I refer to the rudderless ship of state we find ourselves prisoners of, the change we need is a return of constitutional adherence, and only we, through our voices and our votes, will ever make that happen.

  • wtaylor0552

    A flat tax still leaves room for our elected officials to “game” the rates. I can hear my senator saying “Lets write this small change to the tax code, they’ll never notice and I can do my buddies a favor in return for those lucrative donations they make to my campaign war chest”.

    The “Fair Tax” makes more sense in that it is a consumption tax, the numbers I hear are 22-23%. EVERYONE pays them and along with the removal of the income tax every dollar you make, you take home.

    In one fell swoop we free business of the highest corporate tax rate in the world, we take away our elected officials ability to amend the bloated tax code, we enable ordinary citizens to decide how much or how little they pay in taxes, and perhaps my favorite part, we eliminate the internal revenue service. It’s a win -win scenario.

  • wtaylor0552

    How many Americans do their taxes in April and are ecstatic that they got some money back form the government? It’s part of the game, when tax rates began began getting to the point where average Joe was going to get angry about writing that four thousand dollar check every April 15th our government passed a law to make us pay “withholding taxes”.

    To the average taxpayer the bite didn’t seem as large and most of them were forced to overpay so that when April 15th rolled around they got a “refund”. Today most people are tickled to death to get a refund from the government, never even considering that the government has had interest free control of their money for the entire tax year.

    It is past time for the American people to stand up and say “no mas”.