« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Our Admiral Ackbar Moment — It Is A Trap

As you wake up, here is what you need to know.

John Boehner thinks he has the votes to pass his third plan out of the House. Work to make sure he does not by going to http://www.redstate.com/action and calling your member of Congress. Tell them to oppose Boehner’s plan.

Even if you are sympathetic to Boehner’s plan, here is why it must be killed — it is a trap.

Pay attention please.

Harry Reid and all the Senate Democrats have sent John Boehner a letter saying they will oppose his plan in the Senate. In other words, Boehner’s plan, given the GOP votes in the Senate pledged to vote against it, will get less votes in both the House and in the Senate than Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Here, though, is why it is important to kill John Boehner’s plan this very morning before today’s vote.

John Boehner’s plan will get to the Senate. Harry Reid’s plan isn’t even in final form and has not even started making its way through the Senate’s arcane processes. It is a trap.

Harry Reid will amend John Boehner’s plan and include parts of Reid’s own plan that make tax increases even more likely than Boehner’s already does.

Senate Democrats last night were beginning to talk about adding the Gang of Six’s very bad plan to it as well — a trigger that would be engaged should the Democrats then refuse to reform entitlements, i.e. a trigger the Democrats will gladly engage because the Gang of Six plan raises taxes, including getting rid of the employer credit for active duty military reservists and raising the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%.

Then the Senate Democrats will send John Boehner back his own plan and dare John Boehner to kill his very own proposal. Should he try, the GOP will look as hardline and unwilling to compromise as John Boehner’s acolytes have been accusing conservatives of being this week.

In other words, John Boehner, once he sends his plan to the Senate, will yet again get played and the GOP will be forced to either accept Harry Reid’s awful changes or be blamed for causing the nation’s default — the very thing the GOP has sought to avoid.

Oh, and should the GOP fold and pass the modified Boehner plan, they’ll still get blamed for us losing our credit rating. Even with Boehner’s revisions, the Congressional Budget Office says the plan doesn’t cut even $1 trillion. It doesn’t meet S&P’s requirements.

Well done, Republicans.

The only thing we can do is call our congressmen and prevent them from voting for this suicide pact. Go here now.

COMMENTS

  • davesinsanantonio

    the thinking that “we have to do something”.

    Holding the line is “doing something”!!!

    The maddening thing for us voters is that once these pols get to Washington, they begin to think we are too dumb to “understand”. We not only understand, but we REMEMBER!!!

    You have been warned!!!

  • bilduff45

    Is there any way we could hire the British to come to Washington and repeat what they did in DC in 1812?

  • bk

    Most of the Republicans are so terrified they will vote for anything at this point. So their choice is boiling down to:
    1) Vote for the Harry Reid plan to punt until 2013 if the TeaThuglicans manage to kill the Boehner plan in the House.
    2) Vote for whatever monstrosity Harry Reid returns that used to look like the Boehner plan and is perhaps worse than option 1).

    Unless Republicans are willing to reject all of the above and let the alleged Armageddon come, nothing is really changing.

  • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

    My apologies!

  • rj145

    The performance of the the Republicans in general, and specifically John Boehner, on the debt issue has been a collosal disappointment. The Democratic “leadership” is playing Boehner for all its worth, and he keeps coming back for more. Pathetic!

    How this party could degenerate from a position of strength to a pack of weak willed supplicants defies logic. Boehner seems so fearful that the Dems, aided and abeted by their “pimps” in the MSM will say bad things about him and his party, that he will go to any length to make a deal. Any deal. So much for lines in the sand.

    If the Dems and their president want to use the “nuclear option” by once again violating the Constitution, let them do it. The fiscal mess we are in now, belongs almost entirely to them. If they want to bring it all down by circumventing the House, the inevitable disaster that will follow will be theirs also. So “man up” John….hold the line!

  • BigRedConservative

    is Obama Darth Vader?

  • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

    Then his actions make sense and show deftness.

    Assume Boehner is a member of Codevilla’s Ruling Class. Who then is a threat? The dems or the Tea-Party freshmen?

    If the threat is the Tea-Party freshmen, how best to neutralize them?

    We are seeing a textbook example of the Embrace, extend and extinguish strategy that Microsoft used against Java.

    1. Boehner Embraced the tea-party ‘principles’

    2. He has ‘extended’ them on the continuing resolution, defunding obamacare, and now with CC@B.

    3. Welcome to the extinguish phase.

    The place to beat Boehner is on 2. My congress-critter–representative Daniel Webster, Florida 8–has been rolled on points 1 and 2. I expect him to follow the herd onto 3–but I am calling every day to give him hell about it.

    If the line does not hold, keep fighting, we can beat these bastards.

  • fpete13527

    nt

  • edintexas

    Given that the “Tea Party” wants to hold the line, in the context of the message sent by the comment, that is an unusual choice of terms.

  • anjinconsulting

    What makes it “a trap” now? That has ALWAYS been the plan from MItch, John, et al and it is the reason that Boehner even offered an alternative. Even CC& B could have been amended then sent for reconciliation. The only difference is that Boehner’s plan(s) gives Democrats and RINOs a better starting position to negotiate from.

    Credit downgrade is inevitable because the insane clown asylum willl not enact meaningful cuts and will continue to spend prolifigately. Republicans will be blamed in any case.

    Servicing the the deficit now will seem like a minor issue after inflation begins to set in. Conservatives in BOTH houses must hold line and call Captain Zero’s bluff; kill Boehner’s plan and offer up CC&B or deal with the consequences. Boehner and McConnell need to go.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    I respectfully disagree with EE’s angst.

    What is being depicted–from the dominant R-oriented perspective–is precisely the process that should be followed.

    The R’s are the “adults” who will [again] have passed a spending bill that properly originated in the House.

    The D’s can amend it and then pass whatever they desire ["Gang of Six" components included] and then THEY will FINALLY have COMMITTED themselves–as august Senators–to a specific plan.

    This is a Tipping-Point that they have assiduously–along with BHO–sidestepped because they have been the “children.”

    Then,, after the faulty-numbers of Reid’s proposal have been properly scored by the CBO [and subject to ridicule from Sauders-oriented D's, yielding erosion of political support], BHO will be asked if he supports this plan.

    Meanwhile, @ this point, 8/2 has come-gone and BHO will have been forced to make executive decisions [including payment of SS, etc.] which will prove that the sky hadn’t fallen and that will begin to antagonize the D-donors who will be seeing their special-interest contracts [dating back to the Stimulus] suffer from threatened funding.

    Then, a Joint Conference Committee will meet to discuss matters, openly [another innovation that the Tea Party Movement will applaud], and the ability to lay-bare the “jello”-component of this process will be enhanced.

    The GOP will maintain its edge, both politically long-term [with the asymmetry of the alleged-disgust with BHO/Boehner cancelling-out...to Perry's benefit] and operationally short-term [with the ultimate need for BHO to avoid vetoing anything that emerges dictated by his prior-dire predictions]

    Skepticism must not fall to paranoia, particularly when we are down to essentials [MANIFESTING CCB rather than depending upon this lingo--viewed by the D's as poison-pill--to be written into the final draft].

    If the process is permitted to play-out,Truth, Justice and the American Way will emerge triumphant!

  • edintexas

    rj145 wrote “How this party could degenerate from a position of strength to a pack of weak willed supplicants defies logic. Boehner seems so fearful that the Dems, aided and abeted by their ?pimps? in the MSM will say bad things about him and his party, that he will go to any length to make a deal. Any deal. So much for lines in the sand.”

    You expected something else? I’m kind of surprised the usual suspects have held out this long, though I’m hardly surprised McCain is attacking the “Tea Party Hobbits”. I’m not sorry I voted for the “lesser evil”, but once again he is verbally kicking me in the teeth,

  • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

    Where I think you are incorrect is your assumption that Boehner and the GOP will ‘finally’ offer a conservative, fiscally sound, principled solution after their ‘trap’ has been sprung on the dems.

    Nothing I have seen from the ruling class gop since Bush I has given me any reason to believe your scenario is in play.

    If Boehner’s bill passes, then I hope I am wrong and you are right.

  • edintexas

    will meet openly? I don’t remember this ever happening. It is possible that these committees have had open meetings and the MSM has simply ignored them, and there is no reason to expect they will report the rolling of the Republicans as anything other than great for the nation.

    “If the process is permitted to play-out,Truth, Justice and the American Way will emerge triumphant!”

    Just like it has happened every time the Democrats have rolled the Republicans? I think this is just a tad overly optimistic.

  • BA Cyclone

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Discussed supra has been the nuts/bolts, but the PR-component of this process must also be addressed, notwithstanding what the R’s would view as a series of revelatory outcomes that SHOULD translate into enhanced support.

    Baseline, from yesterday, is polling — that CHRIS MATTHEWS cited, believeitornot–suggesting that BHO’s numbers are plummeting, particularly in the battleground states.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/obama-s-battleground-state-blues-20110726

    Meanwhile, Rasmussen has consistently corroborated this, with the strong-positive/strong-negative “approval” differential now back-up to the “-20″ ballpark [reminiscent of the halcyon days of ObamaCare]…which BTW remains profoundly undesirable.

    The MSM-narrative is that [quoting Mika Brzezinski, in her simple-minded fashion, reinforced by strident colleagues such as Lawrence O'Donnell] the GOP’s frosh are “obstructionist”; meanwhile, the focus on debt/deficit provides the GOP a home-court advantage.

    Meanwhile, as BHO is marginalized, the legislative challenges are humorously depicted in yesterday’s “relationship” graphic in the WSJ; indeed, Andrea Mitchell is ceding the Congressional high-ground by noting incremental concessions to the GOP [such as moving from a clean-bill to recognizing the "painful" need for entitlement "reforms"].

    Finally, the issue of “jobs/jobs/jobs” is ignored by the D’s and relentlessly associated with GOP-proposals [as was emphasized by Roehner's rejoinder, Tuesday-p.m.].

    Thus, the House will have passed a document that most Americans [perhaps excluding the bicoastal-libs, who are terminally incorrigible] can view as accommodating reasonable bipartisan forces [remembering that some House-D's voted for CCB because of awareness of their electorates].

    Thus, the R’s emerge incrementally as responsible leaders…requiring only the White House to enact responsible legislation long-term. And if Moody’s/S&P/Fitch downgrade due to the absence of a credible long-term deficit-reduction plan, it will have transpired on BHO’s watch.

    As Libya stalemates, as Syria is ignored, as Iran continues to kill Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan…how can BHO envision a distraction…even if he were to conjure promulgating an “October Surprise”?

    “The Chickens Will Come Home To Roost!”

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Yes, I would anticipate that the GOP would either invite CSPAN to cover the event or, just like Cantor did a fortnight ago after the Cabinet Room meeting, a summary of what has transpired [excluding back-channel] will emerge immediately thereafter.

    Because I don’t think the D’s are rolling the R’s [noting their internal disarray, as the R's remain focused], the process will yield a series of events that will show how the Emperor is wearing no clothing.

    This is illustrated by Cummings expressing “worriment” [on Morning Joe] about what is now occurring in legislative proposals from both parties…even as he admits that people are finally confronting long-term issues.

    The beauty of the Tea Party Movement is that it is working WITH the GOP, with the latter gratefully taking into account conceptualizations championed by the former; the D’s are culturally behind in this regard, having been enervated in November and feeling bleak about the POTUS-contest [even as the R's envision a possible landslide].

  • http://undo4me.com WmCraig

    Legacy republicans who survived the 2008 are afraid. They had power, lost it through spending addiction, and show all the signs of an addict that needs a fix and will promise anything they can start next week as long as they get their fix today.

    What’s more, Legacy republicans were spend thrifts themselves. They see the big government as a great opportunity to enjoy the power of the appropriations. They may argue they would spend the money differently but there is no evidence they would spend less. Look at Boehners “big cuts” when Obama was on the ropes over the CR.

    New Republicans understand that if you want to reduce the deficits in the future you have to cut spending now. New Republicans have courage. New Republicans aren’t addicted to spending they are addicted to winning against the forces aligned to “fundementally” reshape this country.

    Either Legacy republicans face turn and face their fears now, or the boogy man in the closet of default will only get bigger next issue. There will never be a time that democrats can spin default and government shut down against Legacy republicans. Even if they had all three branches, Schummer Todd and Frank are going away. Legacy republicans are only interested in getting back in power, not in fixing the problem.

    What is the problem. There is too much power in Washington. It wasn’t always that way. Before Johnson power was more balanced and the states were the center of domestic matters. Legact republicans aren’t interested in dismantling the power in Washington, only in getting control of it by promising a change of direction.

    Unfortunately as long as this out of control bureaucracy exists to dominate domestic policy there will be people like Obama who will come into office who will abuse it to the detriment of the American people.

    New Republicans understand the problem is Washington. Not government, not liberals, not Boehner. They understand if you want to cut a trillion dollars from the federal government the only power they have that can’t be ignored by future legislators, is the power to cut spending now. The power to eliminate out of control regulatory agencies now. There is little differenc between eliminating 20% of federal spending right now and shutting down the government.

    New Republican realize that many people in this country would prefer to trash President Johnson’s great society and start over with a clean slate. Shutting it down can do this, pussy footing around with savings two or three legislative sessions down the road is what got us into this mess.

    WmCraig

  • Jeff Cooper

    I wouldn’t say Boehner’s leadership has been a colossal disappointment, but a disappointment nonetheless. I think he has done a good job of talking tough on this issue to the American people, which certainly will help keep up the impression to the uninformed GOP rank and file that he is working to get the Dems to see it his way. However, one must understand that Boehner is not a Tea Party conservative, nor has he ever been one. Many GOP members in the House jumped on the Tea Party band wagon after November 2012, talking the talk, because they sensed the obvious mood of the voters. But behind the masks, they are still NeoCons who only control 1/3 of the formula to get a spending bill passed. Compromising is all Boehner knows. One only hopes that he realize that the House has the momentum, has the will of the people behind it, and writes a bill that cuts spending and spending increases. Let the Reid and Obama continue to say the bill is DOA or will be vetoed. Boehner must continue to shift the burden of fault back on to the shoulders of the Dems. If he can’t do that, then perhaps he is not Speaker material.

  • bk

    It was intended to be humorous.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    This concept was discussed with Rep./Dr. Tom Price on 1/4/2-11 @ Toomey’s soiree [following joyous swearing-in], when we lauded upcoming output from a “De-Finance Committee”…and brainstormed [with Guzzardi]….

    What was appreciated then…and what has been consistently manifest since then…has been a MESH of “Legacy” and “TPM” components of the GOP. This has been oriented consistently towards recognizing that it is NOT contradictory to think/act incrementally, while reformulating accordingly,

    Note Toomey’s Senate-based leadership [infesting ALL of the cable-news outlets, regularly], recalling his prior 6-years in the House…and note this op-ed by Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick [PA-8] from Bucks County [NE of Philly].

    Here is his piece…
    http://www.buckslocalnews.com/articles/2011/07/24/opinion/doc4e29ba4907380236391459.txt?viewmode=fullstory
    …and here is my commentary thereupon…
    http://www.buckslocalnews.com/articles/2011/07/24/opinion/doc4e29ba4907380236391459.txt?viewmode=comments
    …which was intended to show how Mike the outcome-measure of his ongoing communications both with the local GOP-leadership and the local TPM-activists.

    Thus, although the RINO’s persist–including extreme-RINO’s dubbed DIABLO’s [Democrats In All But Label Only]–they are forced to find the “TPM”-component of their political-motivations…and to function accordingly.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    “… how Mike [handled] the….”

  • cardindrake

    Anything outside of 1 year has no force of law and is just a suggestion anyway. The 1 billion in spending cuts next year in the plan is the only thing that matters, and that is not worth fighting for. Just pass a clean 9 month extension and say that it is because that will give the Senate and the President time to act according to law and submit a budget to debate. Revisit this during next year’s budget battle. Republicans just don’t seem to be good at strategy. They really need to get one. How about the truth–the only way to save SS and medicare is to have massive cuts elsewhere. Do you want NPR and Planned Parenthood funding, and a million other wasteful programs or do you want to honor the commitment to the seniors who paid in to FICA their whole life? Republicans can position themselves as budget cutters and the ones trying to save entitlements, or they can continue to be seen as the ones who are going after social security. It’s called the third rail of politics for a reason. To do this, we need large painful cuts in discretionary spending and the federal workforce now.

  • bk

    always seem to fall hook, line, and sinker for the Democratic demagoguery: pushing granny off the cliff, etc. So the Democrats have created the problem – the “Bush recession” got started when the Dems took over Congress in 2007 – and they are doing absolutely nothing to fix it, just like they have done nothing to create jobs. And yet stupid voters keep falling for their lies.

    We saw yet another example recently with Hispanic voters. Obama promised that “immigration reform” would be at the top of his list if elected. With huge majorities in both houses he could have passed anything he wanted. Instead he spent 2 years on nothing but Obamacare. Now he goes in front of Hispanics and says, “Reelect me because you know these racist Republicans hate your guts. blah blah blah” And they fall all over themselves kissing his feet. Disgusting.

  • ghostship

    Alas, Great Briton and Europe aren’t quite the military power they used to be. After going much further down the road of the nanny state than we have they’ve had little money left afterwords to spend on things like its military.

    I think the once proud British navy is now reduced to a single rowboat and some arm floatees. I kid. I kid. There’s no rowboat. :-)

  • cordpt

    Not even massive cuts elsewhere will save social security and medicare.

    Are you opposed to social security/medicare cuts?

  • cordpt

    n/t

  • cordpt

    I hope it’s a metaphor, not literal. Assuming so, what he heck does it mean? Not sending anything at all to Obama? Not raising the debt limit? That was never a realistic option. It won’t achieve nothing in terms of policy – government spending would actually climb up – and sooner or later the debt limit would need to be raised (even if you want to discount the economic chaos, I hope you’re not defending that America should behave like the most vulgar burglar and refuse to pay her creditors).

  • runner12

    To once again tell him to hold the line.

    As of 7: 28/Central time, his mailbox is full.

    Looks like the American people are making their voices heard.

  • jaykali

    They aren’t going to add tax increases when even their bill doesn’t have tax increases. Reid will negotiate with Boehner to get something he wants and that will get the bill done. Overall it’s not great but I think we have to understand that we could make this worse, you have to at least acknowledge that you could end up with a worse deal. That’s why Allen West and others have jumped on board. They knew that this was the best deal they could get.

    Now that being said, the deal will get worse as we have said the Senate will add crap to it. So we’ll see what the final thing is but we don’t own the Senate so unfortunately you have to compromise at some point. I realize you have Obama by the throat in that he has to sign ANYTHING that comes to his desk but Reid doesn’t feel that pressure. He is not up for election in 2012.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Did it hurt at all when you pulled it from your rear end?

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    We then support SS and Medicare with an appropriately entitled Poor Tax. W furthermore tell people there is no such thing as an entitlement. That they aren’t even entitled to the air they breathe unless they suck it into their lungs and earn it.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    n/t

  • bk

    After next week Congress is supposed to go on vacation for a month. Who cares when default might come or rationing of money might come or whatever. It’s clear Congress will pass something this week because they damn sure are not going to delay their vacations.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    BUT!

    we can still frame the argument that way. Appearance is everything. I works for them. Make them defend the choices.

  • cardindrake

    We will need to modify entitlements, but it needs to be a last resort, not what we want to do first. If the Republicans reform social security (another word for reform would be renege) without making large cuts elsewhere, our own base will revolt against us. And rightfully so.
    They have paid in almost 3 trillion in excess taxes to SS and medicare trust funds, and now it is gone. They aren’t going to just blindly accept cuts while we make token cuts elsewhere to the bloated federal budget. How about if raise the federal retirement age to match the SS retirement age? Better still, how about if we merge the whole federal pension system with social security? As Lindsay Graham put it, (talking about SS) defined benefit plans are a dinosaur.

  • Kyle-MI

    Do you really think these guys are that clever without some word of it sneaking out? There is always an anonymous staffer whose ego can be stroked in order to spill the beans. This argument is bordering on conspiracy theory.

    I am not crazy about the Boehner plan, but there are better arguments against it than this.

  • fpete13527

    …..ignoring those (like you) who are willing to spend enormous amounts of time to obfuscate in order to empower Obama’s vision.

  • ghostship

    The Republicans Party have not not been the “Adults” in this situation. They have been the “Girly Men” too afraid to take a stand on principle. They’ve bought into the Democrat fear mongering and have let the Democrats control the narrative by being to much of a sissy to stand up for the principles of fiscal responsibility and common sense.

    We don’t need “Girly Men Republicans” to cave to the Left. We need “Real Men Republicans” to stand up and fight.

    HOLD THE LINE! STAND AND FIGHT!

  • gunslingr45

    Hell yes! Is something like this what you want?
    http://www.redcounty.com/content/la-raza-members-beg-obama-become-dictator
    I don’t.

    HOLD THE LINE for our children’s sake!

  • udtiger

    Honest question, because I really do not know if CCB was subject to amendment or not.

    Assuming it could have been, this was always a possibility, which is another reason why Boehner should just call off this “deal” vote and inform Reid that CCB is all he’s going to get from the House on this issue until there is an “up or down” vote on it.

  • gunslingr45

    there is, I seen a pic of it once. It was a 14 footer and had a Ma Duce mounted on it. Would have loved to seen that 50 rattle off a few rounds and watched the boat sink from it. LOL

    HOLD THE LINE for our children?s sake!

  • gunslingr45

    more like what happened to the Dem party taken over by the left wing wackos. Now going on in the GOP it seems. Or maybe we just elected a bunch of WIMPS!

    HOLD THE LINE for our children?s sake!

  • cordpt

    No cuts will be made. Zero. These guys are too terrified of their donors and voters. They’ll be posturing the entire time.

    Senator Moynihan was absolutely right on this: the only set in which the Senate can take tough, unpopular, measure is behind closed doors.

  • dhoerster

    The Senate could take CCB, amend it, and send it back to the House, and let the House vote it down.

    So, basically, everything is a trap. Are you just advocating a stalemate? I guess I’m not sure how you envision this thing ending. Do you think the clouds will open and a ray of sunshine will descend upon Reid, like the Holy Ghost, and he will see the light and want to pass CCB as-is? And that same ray of sunshine will bounce off Reid’s dome and be reflected into Obama’s eyes, and he’ll also see the light and sign CCB?

    Get real! I have no problem opposing legislation – but crapping on Boehner when he’s the only guy trying to do something, is only causing division within the ranks.

    When you say “Hold the line”, what line are you holding? What do you really expect to happen? Ideally, yes – I would love to see CCB pass as-is. But it’s NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WE ONLY HAVE THE HOUSE OF REPS. Once we get the Senate and the White House, then let’s pass CCB. I’m all for it.

    But thinking that CCB will pass as-is right now is futility at its finest. You’re fooling yourselves, wasting time, and causing divisions to happen. That’s the real trap — you’re all falling for it. And the Dems are laughing their butts off.

  • averagevoterdotcom

    Erick -

    what is the medium term and long term strategy of the above short term tactical moves you lay out? how does it defeat BO in Nov 2012? how does it add seats to Congress? how does it keep the MSM from beating on us, and BO from lying about us, for the next 16 months?

  • Ausonius

    There is a prediction of only an 8% likelihood of passage.

    See:

    http://www.intrade.com/?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true

    This can only be good news, although InTrade is known to be volatile in the last stages of a prediction.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    1- Who believes Chuck Todd has the inside line on anything? Show of hands?

    2 – Yuval made the following point. He’s usually pretty good at this stuff;

    This bill should not be mistaken for a dramatic slashing of the debt. It?s not that, as that was clearly not achievable in this round (indeed, it?s likely Republicans could only expect less than this from other alternatives at this point, not more). It will take a different president to make major progress. But this bill is built on a pragmatic sense that every little bit counts, and it especially counts if it makes the next little bit both larger and easier to get. The revised bill counts as modest progress on both fronts.

    3- We are supposed to vote against the normal legislative process because we fear the potential outcome? That is, the Senate modifies a bill and sends it back to the House, where the House can reject the changes. And if the House does indeed reject the Senate changes we get the blame? I am having some trouble following that logic.

    There seems to be numerous people who a few weeks ago we called good conservatives and friends. But now since they see this bill as the best we can do at this time- they’re not or something less than reputable? Is that how we treat honest disagreements with our colleagues?

  • miconservative

    In our great democracy what on God’s earth is wrong with the legislative process operating under regular order? Dr. Sklaroff is right. At least at that point the Dems would be officially on the public record with actual votes for what they are for. Let them amend and send back to the house. The house can then amend also and send it back to the Senate. Let’s have this get done in the full view of the public instead of in the smoke filled room.

  • scottb

    Erickson gets his info but I haven’t read the plan yet and can’t find it. so until I can read the plan myself I will do nothing.
    Sorry Erickson but I don’t make my decisions on hear say. Where is the plan posted on the internet so all can read it?

  • miconservative

    with calls from Obamazombies telling him to compromise. That is where the majority of calls are coming from right now from what I hear.

  • miconservative

    You mean that RINO, liberal, sellout? (that is called sarcasm)

  • JSobieski

    If Reid tries to use a backdoor for tax increases, anyone who is paying attention will note that Reid’s original “plan” was not supposed to have an tax increases in it. The “trap” is only a “trap” if you think the House will vote for a tax increase. We have good reasons to feel confident that they wouldn’t.

    The House in that situation would vote down the amended bill, and rightfully accuse Reid of absolute double-speak. In a moment of crisis, Reid will be caught trying to insert a tax increase when the parties finally got together on a compromise. The politics of that would be extremely bad for the Ds.

    As a side note, there are at least a couple of D Senators who won’t vote for tax increase.

  • keysconservative

    to your question and it is this: Neither Obama or Ried want an actual solution to originate in Congress. This will open the door for Obama to unilaterally invoke the 14th amendment and raise the debt ceiling himself. Sure, to do so would be on shaky ground legally but he’s also the same guy who was held in contempt of court down in La. and not a word about it since, from the WH or the media.

  • miconservative

    Is a trap. When you hold the majority in only one house then the majority in the other house can amend anything they want. They could amend CC&B and take the cut, cap and especially the balance out of it. And I would remind everyone that the Dem Senate was elected by the “We the People” in just the same manner as was the House majority. As regretable as it is we cannot have a dictatorship of the House. I would also say that something must be done. Economic chaos is something this nation simply cannot afford and those of you who say it would not happen are kidding yourself.

  • Marcus_Traianus
  • miconservative

    You mean that RINO, liberal, sellout?? (Sarcasm again)

  • dhoerster

    I can’t understand what line they’re trying to hold. Something has to be done. August 2nd may not be a drop dead date, but that date is coming since we spend $100 billion more a month than we take in.

    I think what people forget is that this entire debate has basically shifted from a mix of revenue and cuts to how much are we going to cut. We won – fiscal sanity is winning. Take the win. Bickering about passing a bill that WON’T PASS AS-IS is only destroying us.

    I think idealism is blinding certain people. It happens on both sides.

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

    First, democracy has nothing to do with it. We live in a representative republic. If it was a democratic process then the CCB would pass because it is support by a large majority of the American people.

    Second, your point does not challenge anything posted by Erick.

    Third, why are you peddling Democratic talking points – dictatorship of the House. When did you start working for DWS?

  • Marcus_Traianus

    <a href="http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/579618/201107271800/Boehners-Plan-Is-Not-Perfect-But-It-Aint-Bad.htm"Boehner’s Plan Is Not Perfect, But It Ain’t Bad>
    By THOMAS SOWELL

  • silentcal2012

    “Is the Boehner legislation the best legislation possible? Of course not! You don’t get your heart’s desire when you control only one house of Congress and face a presidential veto.

    The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available. It is not idealism to ignore the limits of one’s power. Nor is it selling out one’s principles to recognize those limits at a given time and place, and get the best deal possible under those conditions.

    That still leaves the option of working toward getting a better deal later, when the odds are more in your favor.”

    Sowell joins John Bolton, Fred Thompson, Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour, Allan West and the other “unprincipled quislings and squishes”.

  • conservative_dan

    The Republicans are jumping through hoops for Dems that are “not there”. The Repubs should proudly wear the banner of the party of no, but the Dems are the NT party. Not there. Why is Boehner spinning his wheels? He already HAS a bill, cut, cap, and balance!! Why can’t anything in this world just make plain common sense. This is not the real world. People are savvy enough now to know whose fault this all is. Why else would President Crybaby lose in a landslide today? Because people know who is to blame. All the other crap about blaming the Repubs is media generated! Boehner should just fold his arms and say, “Here cut, cap, and balance. Your turn!”. And then???? Do NOTHING. Why do we need a new bill to do this with? How will this be any different than the cut, cap, and balance bill????? Why is Boehner so insistent on this one? It makes no sense at all.

    And to prove it makes no sense, my confusing ramblings here make equally no sense. How can you argue with nonsense?????

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Man down!

    Sorry.

  • GopTiger

    Did you read Jim Geraghty’s piece today about EE’s statement concerning how the House leadership needs to be instutionalized?

    It seems I wasn’t the only one to take exception to this exercise in shrillness.

    I think Thomas Sowell knows a thing or two about economics. I’ll stand with him.

    That said, I would be stunned if Obama signs any deal.

  • acat

    If you can show me that some actual fiscal hawks are in line for it, that McConnell and Cantor (and Boehner) won’t stack it with “senior deadwood” rather than actual conservatives like DeMint and Paul Ryan, then I could get on board with having one. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time and plays to the Dems’ advantage.

    Further, without a BBA being on the table – not talking about getting it *passed*, mind; just *on the table* – we’ll be revisiting this every couple years while our bond rating slowly sinks and interest payments balloon along with inflation.

    I see what you’re saying, but .. I do not think the Boehner deal is the best one we can get, and I intend to hold out for better.

    Mew

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

    Many of the supporters of Boehner’s plan keep screaming – “but that is the legislative process.” Yes, yes it is. You get a cookie. But that does not mean it is not a trap.

    Supporters of the plan also argue the if the Senate amends the measure then the House can simply vote it down. Yes, they could but Boehner will not. When has Boehner every held the line?

    If Boehner remains true to form, here is what will happen.

    1. House passes Boehner plan, which is a horribly weak plan that does nothing to solve the debt problem.

    2. The Democratic controlled Senate amends the bill to include elements of the Reid plan and the Gang of Six proposal. Thus making a horrible bill even worse. They send it back to the House.

    3. The House under the “wise leadership” of Boehner will balk at the measure. Boehner will reluctantly call for its passage as “the best we could get.” Conservatives will continue to balk and the House leadership will sell them out once again.

    4. If Boehner really remains true to form, the makes the bill worse before calling for its ultimate passage.

    Boehner has destroyed his caucus and we and we get a bad bill that gives Mr. Obama free reign and raises taxes. We then lose our credit rating and the economy grounds to a halt.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    NT.

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

    Remember the get “your ass in line” comment and the bullying threats, including firing of staff, by Boehner and his minions.

    Well it brought to mind a quote from General Eisenhower.

    “You do not lead by hitting people over the head – that’s assault, not leadership.”

    Memo to Boehner:

    Stop Assaulting Conservatives! Why don’t you try to lead with something that people will follow without having to be bludgeoned to death.

  • youngmonte

    It’s a trap? Really? Does Erick have so little faith in the tea partiers in the House that be believes they’ll be suckered into approving a tax hike because Harry Reid says it’s Boehner’s plan? I know Erick doesn’t like the Boehner plan, but c’mon dude, get a grip.

    The only thing that is important in this entire debate is how much spending we cut this year. All this nonsense about this plan and that plan and the BBA and what they mean ten years from now is ridiculous and all those who believe those plans would mean anything beyond Oct. 1 are delusional.

    We should never have made the debt ceiling this big an issue. It was a tactical mistake. It takes us away from what we should be talking about – Obamacare and jobs.

  • JSobieski

    Erick is saying that the Reid bill (which is largely illusory at this point) will be crafted to look a lot like the Boehner bill, but with some tax increases. The trap that Erick is talking about is inherent to the requirement that the Senate and House ultimately sign off on the same bill.

    The rationale for the trap is that given a tight time line, the House would feel pressured to accept the Boehner “with a tax increase” proposal given (1) the urgency of the situation and (2) the resemblence with the original Boehner bill.

    The “trap” that Erick is talking about exists with every bill the House votes in favor of. The Senate is always free to pass a worse version of a House bill and see if the House will swallow the manure.

    Debt commissions are irrelevant. Hasn’t that already been proven? The House as currently consituted is not going to approve a tax increase. My comments are limited to the specific type of trap that the diary talks about.

  • __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__

    Called this morning and his ‘reason’ is that Boehner 2.0 actually cuts spending.

    To call a 20 billion –what’s that? 30 seconds of spending–a cut when its against a baseline 7% increase in spending is to be complicit in a lie or to be a fool.

    Since he seems to be an honest man, with many good points, I can only conclude he is a fool.

    Informed his staff I will be working to primary his butt.

    grrrrr.

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

    You claim that the important thing is how much spending is cut yet the Boehner plan makes no serious cuts. You complain about people talking about what it will mean 10 years from now yet it is Boehner and the House leadership who are making the bogus 10 year predictions. You say the debt ceiling fight is a tactical mistake yet it was Boehner who refused to fight for spending cuts because the debt ceiling was our fight to make.

    Forget about Erick needing a rest. You need an education.

  • JSobieski

    I do think it made sense to demand some cuts in exhange for raising the debt ceiling. As acat said, this isn’t a hill to die on, but it is a good spot for a sniper (or something like that)

    In my view, we should have extracted some cuts and built on the political momentum.

    We both agree that substantively, there is little difference between these plans given how backloaded all of the plans are.

  • cordpt

    We should never have made the debt ceiling this big an issue. It was a tactical mistake. It takes us away from what we should be talking about ? Obamacare and jobs.

    The party that tries to use the debt ceiling limit as leverage is always in an extremely weak position because, as Senator Gramm used to say “you should never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot”.

  • carolina

    reach agreement (I experienced this first hand as a senate staffer).
    However, given the pressure, I expect them to reach some kind of agreement in conference.
    Conference meetings are not usually ‘public’, and I doubt this one will be ‘public’. I don’t remember any record of Conference ‘votes’. In other words, this process provides ‘cover’ for everyone involved, including the dems.

  • GopTiger

    Geraghty’s comments were in his Morning Jolt Newsletter. You may need to sign up for it to get the whole thing. I can’t find a direct link to the entire piece.

    But I’ll copy the section of the Morning Jolt newsletter concerning EE.

    From Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt:

    “By the end of the day [http://tinyurl.com/3uyhgq8], Erickson appeared to be
    calling
    for the institutionalization of the House Republican leadership:

    Because Harry Reid denied CCB a vote through a procedural motion, John Boehner
    produces
    a crackpot plan that rips the conservative movement apart at the seams and after
    taking two stabs at it, still can’t get to the promised $1.2 trillion in cuts
    he
    initially claimed it would have.
    The bill is being whipped against by Pelosi (which CCB was not) and will likely
    draw less Dem support than CCB. The bill is said by Reid to be DOA in the
    Senate.
    But Boehner believes that it is strategically smarter to die on this hill and
    force
    it down Senate Dems throats rather than try to do that on a bill in which he has
    the support of all his members, all the movement, and 66 percent of the
    American
    people.
    These people need to be put in a mental ward.

    Mental ward?
    This is blasphemy! This is madness! [http://tinyurl.com/2uchef]
    “This . . . is . . . Reaganeque!” cries Fred Barnes [http://tinyurl.com/3szp4xn]:

    Would Reagan support the Boehner plan for cutting spending while agreeing to a
    hike
    in the debt ceiling? I think so. He would see it as the best deal that’s
    attainable
    at the moment. Sure, he would favor deeper cuts, lower spending caps, and a
    balanced
    budget amendment, too, but he would recognize those can’t pass now. He wouldn’t
    let his pursuit of them keep him from achieving something substantial now.
    By first grabbing what he could, Reagan opened the way to driving tax rates down
    later to the level he wanted all along. The result: an economic boom that
    lasted
    for a quarter century. He accepted a tradeoff between military and domestic
    spending.
    The result: we won the Cold War.
    Lots of politicians are smart. Reagan was wise. He knew that, in politics, you
    never
    get everything you want in one swoop. You take what you can get now and, if all
    goes well, come back for the rest later. It’s fine to stand on principle. You’d
    be hard pressed to name a Republican leader who was more principled, as a
    conservative,
    than Reagan. But Reagan applied his principles over the long run, and that’s why
    he achieved so much.”

  • zornorph

    I swear, I sometimes don’t understand the thinking here, but I’m in favor for the Speaker’s bill and sent a message to my Congressman Allen West telling him I appreciated his vocal support for it.
    After the disaster what was Hastert/Delay, I am quite appreciative of Speaker Boener.

  • clintonformccain

    Even Harry Reid isn’t trying to push a tax increase at this point. I really don’t see that one coming back from the dead this weekend. The only thing, and I mean the only thing, the Dems care about at this point is a big enough debt ceiling increase to get them through the 2012 election. Reid’s efforts to water down the Boehner brew will be aimed at that sole objective. It is quite possible that, in the return volley, the Senate Dems will swallow hard about add some real cut “sweeteners” to get a longer ceiling increase.

    One thing is absolutely certain, unity maximized Republican leverage. Splitting the caucus weakens the hand.

  • Tavern Keeper

    That the house sent over. I’m sorry but I really am failing to understand the “hold the line” argument. We’re not “holding” anything. We’ll probably get our credit rating lowered (which is BS anyway, but that’s another discussion) even if a plan is passed, but it will DEFINITELY be lowered if we don’t. Its a question between maybe costing us trillions in interest, or definitely costing us trillions in interest.

    The Boehner plan is far from perfect, but its better than going into default. And I do agree that if the Senate amends it and sends it back to the House, then the GOP has to kill it. And I believe they will.

    Checkout Allen West’s defense of the bill. He has a good take on it.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Another funny thing is that you actually seem more concerned with tearing Erick down than the actual issues being discussed.

    So, who’s staffer are you exactly?

  • Carner_York

    Why didn’t Reid make changes to CC&B and send it back to the House? Let’s say he does it with Boehner’s new plan and the House refuses to pass it with the changes. Who looks worse, Dems or Repubs? I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that the GOP gets most of the blame. At that point they can vote against the changes and walk away rightly sayng that they did their job. Of course that is what they should have done with CC&B.

    The big picture is that no cuts will be made regardless of what plan is passed. When has DC ever cut spending? Baseline budgeting does not allow it. The most important thing IMO is that no long term deal is passed. This issue must be front and center till November 2012.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Not raising the debt ceiling doesn’t equal default. We bring in enough each month service our debt. Default has a real meaning and throwing the word around when it doesn’t apply does no good.

  • youngmonte

    …so I’ll try one final time.

    If you’ll notice, I never said that I support the Boehner plan. Yet your post assumes I do. I was merely saying that for a guy who professes such love for the tea partiers, he apparently thinks they’re pretty stupid.

    It should be pretty clear from my comments that I believe any plan that rests on what will happen over the next ten years is not serious, that includes the Boehner plan as well as cut, cap, and balance. The only thing that is serious is what we do with appropriations bills this year. You remember appropriations bills – they’re the ones that spend money.

    If we want to cut spending this year (and next year, and the one after that,…), appropriations bills are where our efforts should be. So let’s get this behind us so we can get back to work on getting a Republican president and Senate that will allow us to tackle entitlements and really sut spending. But we are wasting valuable time on an issue that when all is said and done will not do very much to shrink government or defeat Obama. I think it was a tactical mistake. It was the wrong fight to pick.

    And for Erick to constantly go ’round the bend as he does on an issue that will have so little lasting impact on the budget or the country is silly. He does need a rest.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    Or be prepared to.

    The world will not end if we don’t borrow Trillions more.

    It might if we do.

    We (meaning conservatives) can live with less government. I thought.

    We were living with HALF the spending less than 15 years ago. And it was still WAY TO BIG THEN.

    That is more than enough room to balance the budget and still have government overreach.

    Shoot the hostage.

  • Tavern Keeper

    I agree, it isn’t “default.” But its a difference between probably having our rating lowered, and definitely having our rating lowered. Probably costing us trillions in interest, versus definitely costing us trillions in interest.

    I don’t think we need to be so quick to throw in the towel.

  • lineholder

    According to the left, all this talk about debts and deficits is caused by a cult of centrism that is consuming the realm of politics! Plus, this is generating a phenomenon called “Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop”, which is undermining the general belief in Keynesian economics in the general public as a whole.

    Given that Keynesian econ has the cornerstone on which the left has been able to justify increased governmental spending, they are now contemplating that their entire progressive economic system may be at risk.

    Krugman has even pronounced (and lamented) that President Obama is actually a moderate conservative who is leading this new cult of centrism.
    No, the left is laughing, but notice how different their focus is from those of us on the right?

    As to the CCB and Boehner’s plan, CCB is the better plan when it comes to long-term reductions in spending, which is what the major credit agencies like Moody’s and S&P are looking for right now. Yesterday evening, after Boehner’s plan was scored by the CBO, one of the smaller credit agencies proceeded with a downgrade to AA+ from AAA. If Boehner’s plan is what goes forward, we might as well accept that this is what the larger credit agencies will do as well.

    Reid’s plan got scored slightly better than Boehner’s, but it would lead to the same downgrading of our credit status. The only bill that doesn’t is CCB.

  • JSobieski

    Using your analysis, CCB is cutting 150 seconds of spending instead of 30 seconds.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    As part of my political giving Webster received a significant donation from me last year.

    The letters have already begun from him and others for 2012.

    I have been keeping my powder dry thus far for precisely this reason.

    I will NOT be giving any money to anybody who supports this and will likely be looking at primary opponents to fund.

    If you want my donations force a BBA and don’t tell me lies about why it can’t be done.

  • jaykali

    Ya that socialist RINO.

  • Aaron Gardner

    So Boehner’s plan will still lead to a downgrade. So would Reid’s.

    If Boehner hadn’t already thrown in the towel we could avoid the downgrade. At this point it is inevitable.

  • GopTiger

    I like Erick and I agree with well over 95% of his goals for this nation.

    But on this tactical question, I believe he is wrong. I respect his right to a different opinion.

    My quibble isn’t over our differing approaches about how to skin this debt ceiling cat, but with the over-the-top statements suggesting the House GOP needs to be institutionalized.

    This type of rhetoric is counterproductive at best and destructive at worst. It won’t help Erick influence the process long after this episode is a distant memory.

    Just as a practical matter, I don’t think you gain any influence with elected officials within your own party when you suggest they need psycholgical treatment when they disagree with you. Do you?

    Your question- “so, who’s staffer are you exactly” suggests that anyone who agrees with the Boehner Plan and questions EE’s inflamed rhetoric MUST be a Congressional staffer in Boehner’s back pocket.

    Is Thomas Sowell a “staffer”? I guess Allen West and Paul Ryan and Laura Ingraham and Haley Barbour are now just “staffers”. Geraghty must be a “staffer” too since he brilliantly deconstructs some of the shrillness.

    No, I’m not a “staffer”. I’m just a citizen who think Thomas Sowell and Jim Geraghty just might have a point that some need to really consider before they start recommending those who disagree be institutionalized.

  • Tavern Keeper

    But isn’t that the same thing as saying bachmann can’t win the white house, so why even try?

  • lineholder

    yesterday evening, from AAA to AA+. If you need the link to name the agency, I’ll try to find it, but I was just surfing around and didn’t save it. Sorry

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

    Unless it was to attack Erick.

    Now as to the other points you raised. I do remember appropriations bills. I remember the budget. And I remember continuing resolutions. All of which Boehner and his minions caved on either before or after passage.

    Boehner and the House leadership did not fight on the earlier issues because they said the debt ceiling fight was our fight. Now they have botched that fight.

    Boehner has a proven track record of failure. The debt ceiling fight is the only possible fight in which we can force serious reform. 2012 is not guaranteed if Boehner and the House show an unwillingness to stop the President.

    Boehner made promises. Erick is holding him to those promises.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I only suggested you were a staffer because you have been focusing on Erick rather than the issues. You aren’t attacking a plan, you are attacking a person.

    If Erick’s rhetorical device gets your blood going so much that you feel your time is best spent attacking him rather than attacking the issue, or specific point he is making, then I will continue to call you on it.

    As far as your multiple appeals to authority, I could care less. Citing someone who is wrong on an issue doesn’t make you or them correct just because they are big whigs.

    If you follow what has actually happened from the CR to now you would see that Erick has been right time and again and most of these others you cite have agreed with him. It is only now that their fear has captured them that people like you decide to use them to attack Erick.

    Now, I will end this comment with one question for you…

    58 Senators have said they will oppose the Boehner bill. This is more than opposed the Ryan plan and more than opposed CCB.

    How do you expect the Boehner bill to pass the Senate, and why should we support it rather than the more popular CCB?

  • cordpt

    It will never happen. And the largest spender in the world suddenly stop paying its creditors it’s probably the closest to economic apocalypse we’ll ever get. We aren’t talking about a controlled government shut-down like in ’99, museums and public libraries closing doors.

    Anyway, what’s exactly your point? Not raising the debt limit would actually increase spending, not lower it. You wouldn’t’ live with less government, you’d live with more government that would be delaying the payment of its bills (not to mention what would happen afterwards: the expansion of the federal government have generally occurred after big economic depressions; and the government would simply inflate their way out of the problem, destroying the private savings of the American people). It’d incrase the interest rates on debt, transfer payments, etc.

    Every time lawmakers voted for spending hikes and tax expenditures they’re actually raising the debt limit. These votes are basically to decided if the American government is going to pay the bills as schedule or fail to make schedule payments and pay them later.

    So, where’s the gain? At least Boehner’s plan, as flawed as it is, cuts something. Killing the hostage doesn’t cut anything at all – it increases spending. Why would any conservative support this is beyond comprehension.

  • acat

    I suppose I shouldn’t assume that things like that are common knowledge or something.

    We agree that commissions are useless. We’re where we are thanks to commissions.

    My concern is that the Boehner plan leaves money on the table – there’s more that can be extracted from the Dems, and our representatives have an obligation to go get the best deal possible. Holding the line and demanding an actual vote – not a “vote on whether to have a vote” – on CCB in the Senate gets us closer to that.

    Obama says to never let a crisis go to waste. The thing about crises is, they’re double-edged. They can cut both ways. I would prefer for the GOP to not let this one go to waste, but that’s what they seem dead set on doing.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    The unanswered question remains unanswered.

  • dhoerster

    Yes, I agree that CCB is probably the only thing that prevents a downgrade. But I believe that Obama and the Dems will risk the downgrade to prevent fiscal sanity to be signed into law. They’ll take the risk because they believe that their ‘blame Republicans’ line will hold once the downgrade occurs.

    From the Dem’s perspective, this isn’t about protecting America; it’s about protecting their power. You mentioned how the Dems are contemplating their entire progressive economic system may be at risk — they won’t sign the death warrant which is CCB.

  • cordpt

    The CCB pledges to cut $111 billions next year in spending but doesn’t even specify which spending – we only know it’ll be discretionary spending, but that’s all. We all know how easy is to cut “spending” in abstract – even Reid can cut $3 trillions of spending.

    Even if the CCB could pass the Senate, ratifying a constitutional amendment is a long process that could take years.

  • acat

    This is really kind of obvious.

    Boehner isn’t prepared to crash the car. He shouldn’t be the one driving.

    Mew

  • usastandup

    the reason we tapped the Strategic Oil Reserve was to get cash??? I could not find another good reason for that action.

  • conservative_dan

    I’m watching the WH spokesman talking up the Reid plan. Boehner is walking right into a trap. After they pass Boehner’s plan. The Senate will reject it. Then, riding in on a white horse, will be Reid’s plan. And naturally, to vote against such a sensible plan, as the Republicans would want to do, means the Republicans are to blame for the default. Why are the Republicans too stupid to see this?? Reid’s plan is a piece of real crap.

  • Aaron Gardner

    And it really isn’t the same as Bachmann, whom I don’t support. Bachmann has plenty of chances to win, I don’t think she will, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a chance.

    There really isn’t a chance that we get out of this without more rating agencies dropping our rating.

  • JSobieski

    The Reid plan does include $1T in pure phony Iraq/Afghanistan cuts
    It also includes defense cuts while closing off the debt ceiling issue until after the election.

    A vote to table is a vote against. Getting caught up in the procedure is not productive. Voters construe the vote to table as a vote against. Campaign ads are often based on “procedural” votes.

    The differential on all these plans is minimal when you look at FY2012. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, including the BBA which will take a couple of years to pass and includes a 5 year implementation window.

    Remember the basketball with Michael Jordan anology. At this point, Obama benefits from a hurricane–we don’t. Its kind of like picking a bar fight against a guy with no teeth.

  • Aaron Gardner

    tick tock, tick tock

    crickets chirping

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

    For the past two days cordpt has argued that CCB is dead because it will need 4 Senators to vote for it. Yet, he champions the Boehner plan when the challenge is 8 Senators.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    You got 57 states, 114 Senators, nope, still not getting any! Shux!!

  • JSobieski

    There are a lot of good arguments against the Boehner plan, but the proposition that D support for CCB will be easier to get is silly.

    Neither plan is going to get any D support as is. This is about winning the game of “who is trying to appear most reasonable” when the Aug 2nd deadline passes.

    It is also about what ultimately is passed after the Aug 2nd deadline passes.

    We all want the same goals, we just disagree on tactics. However, to assert that the road to passage is easier for CCB than for some further watered down plan isn’t true.

  • jerry39

    with a mind towards future influence of those in power, he begins to lose his influence over those in power. His influence exists because he represents the conservative voice with integrity. Sure, he could probably elect to become a George Will anytime he wants. But if he does, someone will fill the vacuum . There is no cult of personality here. Most of us have had to deal with the corruption of good men we trusted time and time again.

    As I cancel my subscription to the Weekly Standard with no regrets today, I could just as easily take RS off my favorites bar tomorrow.

    So I stand with Erick because he is right, not because he is Erick, and most assuredly not because he is sowing the seeds of influence by being a go-along get-along guy.

    I would suggest if certain elected officials and commentators dont want to be vigorously challenged, then they should stop feeding us a line of crap.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    Your proposition that we must be PREPARED to shoot the hostage is absolutely correct.

    Reid must KNOW in the core of his being that we WILL shoot the hostage.

    Then he will pass CCB and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

    It will be the only way to keep money flowing to his voters.

    Your second and third suppositions are flawed. A government shutdown doesn’t cost more unless we cave later and agree to spend what we are fighting not to spend.

    You are conceding a loss when a loss is not inevitable. The entire POINT of a shutdown is to FORCE spending cuts of large proportion AND pass a BBA. If we use the debt ceiling to do this then it WILL NOT cost more.
    Think victory instead of conceding before the fight.

    Second. An abrupt shutdown of government where over half of the government is still CAPABLE of being funded will be much less of a disaster than having a catastrophic collapse of government brought about by a totally uncoordinated, totally unfunded shutdown as will happen when the MARKET refuses to raise our debt ceiling AND/OR refinance our current debt.

    Imagine Greece with all of the protesters fully armed. That will be America because we are all armed. Where do you think that leads?

  • cordpt

    passing a balanced budget amendment, or any amendment, requires different voting thresholds in order to be sent to the states for ratification? Like a 2/3 majority?

    Of course you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t write that comment.

    It’s in the Constitution.

    Geez, it has come to this…

  • Aaron Gardner

    8 votes that you still have not provided an answer on how we get.

    Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock

  • GopTiger

    I’m not attacking a person, especially one I agree with almost always.

    I am suggesting that- in this episode– his rhetoric is way over the line. And he is burning alot of bridges that don’t need to be burned.

    To answer your question, I don’t expect the Boehner bill to pass. Nor do I expect CCB to pass. Why? Because Obama doesn’t want a deal. But at least, at the end of the day, the GOP House can say they passed several bills and Obama rejected them all.

    I’ll repeat that: Obama doesn’t want a deal. A deal was never in the cards in the first place.

    He wants to be the “adult in the room” who had to raise the debt ceiling because Congress is so full of children who couldn’t get their act together (or at least that is how he will attempt to spin in).

    Unilaterally raising the debt ceiling gets him the “clean” debt ceiling increase he wanted all along and (he thinks) allows him to play the “essential man” who cared more about the Republic than his own party. Of course, that thinking is BS, but he-he is a liberal-thinking in BS terms is what they do.

    To paraphrase you, now that I end this comment, I’ll ask you a question:

    Is suggesting the House GOP leadership needs to be institutionalized an “attack” on them as people?

  • runner12

    NT

  • Aaron Gardner

    Erick was saying that if they really believe that the Dems aren’t screwing them with these stupid deals then they have lost their marble and are no longer being logical.

    But you have personalized this one statement so much that I don’t think you will ever see that.

    Good day.

  • GopTiger

    Pence backs the Boehner Plan.

    Seems like alot of people are ignoring the good Admiral today.

    Mike Pence gets it. So does Thomas Sowell. So does Paul Ryan. So does John Bolton.

    When will others?

  • youngmonte

    Erick’s post had nothing to do with holding Boehner’s feet to the fire. He was suggesting that tea partiers are dupes who could be fooled into voting for a tax increase just because Harry Reid told them to. It’s stupid and it’s nonsense.

    As I said numerous times, I believe Boehner made a serious tactical mistake making the debt ceiling the central focus of the debate on spending and then raising expectations by setting his benchmark that the spending cuts would exceed additional debt. It follows that I also believe Erick is even more wrong in wanting this to be the issue on which conservatives fall on their swords. This is a fight we cannot win with just control of the House and a month from now we’ll all look back on this and wonder why we exerted so much energy for so little gain (if any), becasue I can guarantee you no one here will be happy with the outcome.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Here is what she said in a presser today:

    What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget..We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.

    That is what I call counter productive rhetoric, it isn’t even in the same league as what Erick said.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Pelosi: What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget..We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.

  • JSobieski

    If the D’s do panic on August 3rd, what is more realistic:

    (1) 2/3 vote to support a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority to raise taxes in the future and $111B in immediate cuts

    OR

    (2) They swallow $25B in immediate cuts, try to act they are responsible, and tell their base they can undue the cuts in 2013. This option leaves open some trivial amendments for face saving purposes.

    The point of the Boehner bill is to put political pressure on the D’s by appearing (to those in the mushy middle) to be the adults in the room. It is only that pressure which can make the D’s do anything. The BBA part of CCB is a poison pill for a D like an amendment requiring 2/3 votes to cut taxes would be for us.

    The proper analysis of these plans needs to presume that it is already August 3rd and the winds of panic (not rational thought) are starting to spread. The D’s don’t want the Boehner bill to pass because they are confident (who knows whether they are right) that they will win the blame game if it doesn’t.

    The CCB is already just a watered down version of substantive reform. We are now in the realm of 99% politics and 1% substance. Given that reality, it is not silly or RINO to suggest the Boehner plan as a purely tactical move.

  • runner12

    sense on the part of the GOP which is something they appear to be lacking.

  • GopTiger

    I fully expect left-wing radicals to make incendiary comments about conservatives. It is who they are.

    What disappoints me and many others so much is when a conservative uses incendiary rhetoric about other conservatives.

    I’m not angry with Erick.

    I’m saddened.

  • runner12

    Well said!

  • Tavern Keeper

    The Boehner bill will not pass the Senate. It has no chance. Neither did CCB, but we didn’t make the same arguments that we should’t pass that.

    It’s not perfect it’s the first debit ceiling increase in the history if the US that IS TIED to spending cuts. Ideologically is a movement in the right direction. Practically it falls far short and has no chance of passage anyway. But I don’t think it’s a trap in the way it is being characterized.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Also, aren’t you really just engaging in what you have said you despise? You are refusing to hold Dems accountable for rhetoric far worse than Erick’s.

    You are focusing on a conservative instead of focusing on the awful rhetoric of the actual enemy.

    Sounds like you just pick and choose what to be offended at. Odd that you feel it is ok for you to instruct Erick but is is wrong for Erick to instruct others.

  • runner12

    Is that what some so-called conservatives have been reduced to? Moral victories.

    In case you haven’t noticed, we are a little late in the game for moral victories. I wish we were not, but we are.

    The clock is ticking and we need to WIN, not be content because we gave it a good try.

  • Aaron Gardner

    If you have been following cordpt in this debate you would understand that he has indeed been using this precise argument on CCB. That is why I am putting the question to him.

    He has consistently said that CCB is dead because it can’t get passed in the Senate. He says this is why he supports the Boehner bill.

    Having taken that position it is incumbent upon him to answer how we get those 8 votes needed to pass the Boehner bill in the Senate.

    I understand what you are saying, and largely agree. We were doomed to failure and capitulation when CCB went down.

  • runner12

    Just because icons endorse something does not make ir right. That is group think, not critical thinking.

    As far as Sowell and Bolton go, I can think of several other things I have diagreed with them in the past. Ryan voted for TARP, so that is another thing I have disagreed with him on.

    No clue what Pence is thinking.

    But if you want to play the personal endorsement game, let’s play. Jim Demint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee have all come out against it. I don’t know about you, but I will take my guys over your guys any day of the week.

  • jerry39

    As Erick points out – the Boehner plan doesn’t save our credit rating. If it gets passed – we get the blame for the rating decline, while not making any realistic cuts and possibly leading to tax increases. Where is the freaking upside?

  • mspector

    I acknowledge without hesitation that I am about as far from being a Washington insider as is possible, and therefore am not privy to even the faintest hints of any real knowledge of the arcane workings of the Beltway mind. However, from my perch in the dim and distant I have divined at least one fact: Washington is all about the deal.

    I hear Obama calling for “compromise”, without even bothering to tell us what the positions to be compromised are (at least, as he sees them). I hear Boehner “standing strong” on spending and then proposing a plan that he says will cut $1.2T and then announces an oopsie: it will only cut $800B but don’t worry, we’ll tweak it. Everything the GOP proposes Obama threatens to veto and Reid suffocates in the Senate. So what does “compromise” consist of? At the end of the day it consists only of giving Senate Democrats what they want so Obama will sign it and “the deal” will be made. Monty Hall would be very proud.

    So here’s the deal: if the reality is (as it appears to be) that the Democrats will only approve a bill that unleashes a new round of spending by raising the debt ceiling and opens the door to a new round of tax increases, then let’s not play. Pass the plan we want in the House and let it die in the Senate or on Obama’s desk. Let Reid take responsibility for what the Senate does and let Obama take responsibility for the whole package. But above all let us not cave to Democratic intransigence by giving them what they want with a fig leaf of promised future spending cuts that lets us pretend that we’re actually winning something.

    You see, we don’t need a deal. Obama needs a deal. He needs a deal (which will not be made by him) so he can posture as the problem-solver. He needs a deal so he can go to 2012 without having to address the economy. He needs a deal so he can pander to his base.

    We don’t need a deal. We need a solution. If the game is in fact “Let’s Make a Deal”, let’s not play.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Like the Earth being flat and GLobal Warming. All the smart people know this Runner.(sarcasm off)

  • Aaron Gardner

    I would appreciate if you didn’t try to act as if I have.

  • sparkyva

    Boehner has one thing going for him and that is years of experience. He knows the game. He has held the republicans together for 2 1/2 solid yeas. Lets not go assuming he is stupid. He has made mistakes in the past, been on the wrong side of some issues. But for the fore mentioned 31 months he has held the line. He knows what the stakes are. He knows how the game is played. Abandoning him right now is weakening his game. Lets help him play out this hand. History is often fickle to politicians, and Boehner may well end up on the trash heap by 2013. But right now he is doing the job, fighting the fight as best he can with what he has got. We may loose, but if we have to loose, and do loose the right way, we will sweep all the Sweet Old Boy’s (use the abbreviation please) out this next election.

  • carolynr

    What is the matter with the MSM including FOX? The reason they don’t want a solution is that it will kill Obamacare. So, Erickson…time to get this out there. Second..HOLD ONE TO YOUR SEATS FOR THIS:

    IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free… The offer is true.
    Mort Zuckermann , US News and World Report, a Democrat, was interviewed
    on Fox and confirmed it. IBM has confirmed it. You won’t believe it .

    IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free…

    What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J.
    Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration
    before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce
    healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama
    Administration’s adamancy that the United States of America simply had
    to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most
    dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned
    forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, “Tell me more!”

    And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this
    program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?

    And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings,
    President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was
    proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one
    trillion dollars – a private sector program costing the taxpayers
    nothing, zip, nada, zilch – said, “Thanks but no thanks” and then
    embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in US
    history?

    Well, it’s all true.

    Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said in
    a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he offered to provide the
    Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare
    claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama
    White House turned the offer down.

    Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcR_bLBHcJo

    of The Wall Street Journal’s Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:

    “We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the
    healthcare system by $900 billion…I said we would do it for free to
    prove that it works. They turned us down.”

    A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration took
    place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama Administration’s
    stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by FOX News confirmed,
    via a spokesperson, that Mr. Palmisano stands by his statement.

    Speaking with FOX News’ Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief
    of US News & World Report, said,

    “It’s a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of
    both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more
    comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is
    certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very carefully
    And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that proposal, it
    was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And it’s really
    puzzling…These are very, very responsible people and don’t have a
    political ax to grind.

    In Mr. Obama’s shunning of a private sector program that would have
    saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures,
    presented to him as he declared a “crisis in healthcare,” he proves
    two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private
    sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth
    in both his political declarations or espoused goals.
    National media seems to have taken a pass on this. It would tend to substantiate the
    idea that the Pres wants things to ” fail ” to then require that the Gov take over the task.
    NOW…THIS IS NOT A HEALTHCARE BILL…IT IS A TAX BILL..
    LET BEOHNER AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IN ON IT

  • JSobieski

    The RINO comment was further upstream. You clearly didn’t call anyone a RINO, but if you want me to include the disclaimer I will:

    Aaron Gardner did not call anyone a RINO for disagreeing with him on this issue.

    I replied to you as part of the entire stream of comments. There are a lot of people here insulting Pence, West, et all as spineless sell outs. You are not one of them.

    To the extent that I implied you were, that implication was unintentional.

    Cool?

  • JSobieski

    You need a 2/3 vote to approve a constitutional amendment. The House vote fell well short of that. In fact, there isn’t even any definitive language for the amendment proposal. The act said what language must be included, but it wasn’t the actual language itself.

    The BBA language in CCB is one step above spending caps and debt commissions—phantoms, mere phantoms.

    We are arguing over fake cuts, phantom amendments, and unenforceable caps.

    The real difference is $85B of cuts in FY2012. Everything else is pure politics.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Since I didn’t suggest such a thing it had no purpose being in a reply to me.

    Next time you reply to me deal with me, not some other commenter who is saying stupid things.

  • JSobieski

    My response to you was the part at the top–explain how we get there? We get there because D’s lie and politicians posture.

    Note that I never said “Aaron Gardner” or “you” with respect to the RINO comment.

    The bottom part of the comment tied in to previous comments in the thread.

    There are plenty of examples where people at RS respond in part to a specific person and provide comments broader in scope within the same unit of work—ie the same comment.

  • Aaron Gardner

    nt

  • uselogic

    He’s been a big disappointment. Better than Grayson by far… but just another Caspar Milquetoast Republican, nonetheless.

  • cordpt

    You’d be willing to not raise the debt limit, therefore increasing the government spending and handling Obama the 2012 election just because of a temper tantrum?

    I don’t think so, but I don’t know what to do of your answer. You don’t address a single point of my reply.

  • Aaron Gardner

    You’ve failed to answer direct questions for the last week.

  • cordpt

    If you actually believe that Reid would be afraid of the Republicans not raising the debt limit, I have no idea what I can tell you.

    The idea of making the debt limit increase depend on a constitutional amendment – each term of the congress up to 200 amendments pop up; in the entire history of the US, only 27 were ratified – was always a matter of optics. Like the Dems a few years ago that wanted to end a war in return for their debt ceiling vote. Parties do this kind of grandstanding all the time, but it’s just that.

    Let me ask you something: what do you think about the liberals who thing Obama should pass another big stimulus package and raise taxes to close the deficits? I think they’re even more weird than regular liberals because a normal person doesn’t believe Obama can pass those things with a solid Republican congress. Don’t you agree with this?

    I think this is a very good post / video about this issue:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272991/bye-you-could-zero-out-discretionary-spending-daniel-foster

    As Foster says:

    The question is are we getting the best deal possible, given the current environment, in exchange for raising it? Reasonable people can disagree on the latter, but not the former, unless I?m missing something.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    Pretty good chance we could force a BBA in this situation.

    We have all of the leverage.

    I think we can all agree Obama isn’t going to fail on debt service, he has already said as much and in this regard the 14th Amendment WOULD apply.

    He also isn’t going to fail on sending out SS checks. Sending them costs nothing as others have pointed out. They don’t affect the debt ceiling. Screwing with it can’t be justified because the proof is easy and widely available. If he messes with SS he is absolutely dead and so also would be a lot of Dems in 2012.

    I think he will mess with military expenditures but not pay. He also won’t do anything extreme here because that would spell certain death in 2012. So expect some programs to be canceled or put on hold. When we are broke they will all be canceled so the way to maintain a strong defense is to risk a smaller hit now.

    We also know related to these three issues, that the money is there with plenty left over. Same with Medi-Care. That is an easy argument to win.

    Why do I think we have a good chance at forcing Reid to find the votes for a BBA?
    Because once we cover those three things 90% of the spending that is left is leftwing big government spending. 10% would be stuff conservatives support.

    It will be Reid’s supporters, most of whom cannot well support themselves, that will be weeping and wailing and gnashing teeth. Telling him to DO SOMETHING.
    I firmly believe we can hold our own base while Obama and the left loses theirs.

    I also believe the left cannot, for the reason noted, withstand an 18 month shutdown. We could. So again we have the leverage they will have to cave first.

    I personally believe the BBA (depending on which one) is worth spending everything on.

    $23B in cuts this year, $1.2T over 10 years is not going to save the US. Whether we have $24T or $25T in 10 years is not significant. Either way we are bankrupt.

    As for why the left can’t push a stimulus, etc. the answer there is simple. Republicans, even the RINOs, recognize that is totally outside the realm of politically viable. And they would get nothing of consequence for it.

    I view the current argument pretty simply. None of the proposals on the table from either side will have any appreciable affect on the national bankruptcy coming down the pipe. That includes btw the Ryan plan.

    If we are going to fight we need to focus our efforts on a battle that will make a difference. Why struggle, risk everything in a battle which even if we win we still lose? That is the Boehner Plan.

    Why are we trying to sell ourselves on insignificant cuts now, with a promise of future cuts that history shows WILL NOT HAPPEN, but even if they DID HAPPEN would still not make a difference?

    I firmly believe this is a stall tactic on the part of the establishment to buy time until we go back to sleep. And we will.

    This is why a BBA is so important. Pass that and the stall gets them nothing.

    How could the left pass a stimulus and a tax increase on the richest 1%? Pass a good BBA. I would accept both, and yes it would be me paying, if we got a good BBA out of it.

    It might be a high price to pay but 10 years from now it would look like a bargain.

    This is a fight we can win and it is worth paying the price to win.

  • hendrig

    For once I don’t need to contact my Democrat Congressman. He will vote against it anyway.