« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Boehner’s REAL problem: If there is in fact a deal, will the GOP presidential candidates support it? ( I don’t think so..which is why there won’t be a deal)

By: gawken (Diary)  |  July 9th, 2011 at 11:14 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I have no idea what’s going to happen tomorrow in the negotiations over the debt ceiling. I hope that Fred Barnes is wrong; that conservatives are not going to get screwed again. Boehner is going to have problem with his caucus. It’s estimated that there now are 50 HARD votes against ANY debt ceiling increase, and possibly as many as 25 more  who will also vote NO.  So it’s a given that if there is a deal, the Pelosi will have exacted her pound of flesh to deliver the votes.

But Boehner has an even bigger problem, and it’s hardly been mentioned.  As soon as the deal is announced, everyone is going to stick a mike in the face of  all the GOP WH candidates..announced and as yet unannounced  (well..probably NOT Buddy Roehmer..sorry) and ask if they support the agreement.

And surprise, suprise..guess what?

Let’s count those who will be definitely opposed:

Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Perry, McCotter, Santorum, Paul, Bolton ( I’m adding him because I mlike him,  I hope he gets in..he’ll make the debates really interesting)

These all appeal to the Tea Party sentiment, and any bill that passes the House only because of Democrat support won’t be a good one for these folks.

So, who’s left, that might support the “Grand Compromise”..why, it’s Romney and Huntsman ( I’m sending Gary Johnson out to play with Roehmer)

And that puts Romney and Huntsman squarely between a rock and a hard place.  Both are probably inclined to go along with Boehner’s deal, but dare they do so. If they do support it, then the GOP field is effectively divided..cleaved along a clear ideological line.  And both would be effectively finished. Dead. They could continue to battle i the primaries for the title of ” BIGGEST SPENDING MORMON”  but they’d never win a primary. Romeny would lose NH.

So I suspect that Mitt ultimately opposes the bill. Huntsman will of course support it, instantly making him the MSM’s hand on favorite GOP candidate..

But then, what does Boehner do? What can he do. Force it through, in the face of near unanimous opposition from all those who want to be the Republican standard bearer against Obama next year? Right…that makes a lot  of sense..

And that’s why we won’t get a deal done tomorrow.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    Better get in gear and LOWER the debt ceiling…..

    Abolish the job killing EPA.

    Abolish the Energy Dept. – it does nothing to help America produce energy.

    Abolish the Education Dept.

    We need to stop all funding of non-essential programs.

    Stop all overseas aid.

    I know we will have to fight the enviro nazis and left leaning activist judges.
    But we must start ASAP.

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

    I posted a Rep Carter statement on how we should move forward: Regular Order.

    Boehner doesn’t need to deal with the dilemma of trying to carry a bad deal in the House. All he needs to do is pass a bill that WILL be voted AYE by 235 Republicans, one with no tax hikes in it, and then challenge the US Senate and Harry Reid to pass it there.

    Unless and until Reid passes something, the burden will be on them.

    There is a lot of the conservative agenda that cannot get past Reid or Obama. But tax hikes will not pass in the House either, so the compromise when it comes will have to be a smaller debt ceiling increase combined with a spending-cut-only deficit reduction. regular order will get us there.

  • YnotNOW

    probably about midnight on Aug 1st. Because the deal will have to happen to get something to pass the House and the Senate. Hopefully, because of the “House” part of that equation, the Tea Party / RSC caucus will reinfoce Boehner’s spine to make that a “relatively” palatable deal. They will finesse the “no tax increase” by calling them “closing loopholes” in exchange for making the Bush tax cuts (all of them) permanent, and they will make some real reductions to current spending (plus a bunch of smoke-and-mirror promises) and some tweaking of entitlements (plus more empty promises in the 10-year window). It will be a mess of good and bad, but it will happen.

    p.s. – and don’t give me the “we don’t have to raise the debt ceiling because current receipts will cover debt payments plus entitlement spending” – because we have ALREADY spent more than the debt ceiling allows. Geitner and team have been extending the deadline with “creative accounting” which would be considered kiting checks and put you in jail if you were a business accountant. They may be able to hide the cash flow beyond Aug 2nd, but eventually we have to pay up. Even if we balance the budget TODAY (which isn’t going to happen), the debt ceiling has to be raised just to keep the checks already written from bouncing.

    Expect a mess that we won’t like very much (nor will the Liberals), and then work toward a majority that can improve it in 2013.

    • rbdwiggins

      and public debt does not include entitlements, government benefits or agency funding.

      Article I, Section 8 is explicit in its mandate, and the Fourteenth Amendment requires that “valid” public debt, i.e. bondholders, are paid first.

      The legislative process determines where, or if, any remaining public funds are spent. Unfunded liabilities are no more than just that… unfunded.

      • YnotNOW

        And will need to get paid, sooner or later. Our government is lawless enough, we don’t need to be even worse by not paying the bills for liabilities incurred. Such would send a private business accountant to jail.

        • rbdwiggins

          Unfunded liabilities are non-contractual interests, and they are not worth the paper they are written on.

          I agree with you that they should be paid, but the government is under no obligation to actually pay them.

          • YnotNOW

            there may not be a LEGAL contract to pay a retiree their Social Security check, nor to write a check to pay their Medicare bill to their doctor, but it is a legal liability.
            Because there is no contract, there may be some wiggle room on how much to pay, but the requirement to pay would hold up in a court of law.

          • rbdwiggins

            They’re “pay as you go” schemes, and by the legislative process, Congress can choose to end the programs at any time.

            Just ask the dealer’s and bondholder’s of GM and Chrysler about their position and the validity of the debt.

            It is the same for Social Security and Medicare benefits.

            Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)

            2. A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of “accrued” interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 608-611.

            (a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608-610.

            (b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of “accrued property rights” would deprive it of the flexibility and [363 U.S. 603, 604] boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. Pp. 610-611.

            ( H/T- Berlau )

            Morally and ethically I’m with you, but we are talking about the federal government’s power of the purse, and especially those powers reserved for Congress.

          • YnotNOW

            in that Congress reserves the right to change the law. And they could do that at any time that they have the political will to do so (which won’t ben soon). (note that bondholders in Chrysler and GM is not a good example, because the Administration subverted bankruptcy law without a change in the law – which was actually an illegal act), but the law as currently written “entitles” recipients that meet the criteria to payment. In order to legally alter or eliminate the payment requires a change in the law, not just a budget. As such, it is currently a legal liability under current law.

  • izoneguy

    WH asking for “major, unambiguous tax hikes.”

    http://twitter.com/#!/JimPethokoukis/statuses/89791168782675969

    Message back to Obama – Hell No – Go choke on your debt.
    Let us know when you want to repeal ObamaCare.

    • earlgrey

      Everyone expects him to cave in a big way.

      • izoneguy

        Boehner does not have to cave on anything. He has the stronger hand.
        I say let America “default” on Obama’s watch.

        • rbdwiggins

          on its debt obligations. The revenue stream is too high, and the Fourteenth Amendment is explicit in its mandate.

          It’s up to conservatives and like-minded Republicans to educate and forewarn the electorate, and then, hold Obama personally responsible for the economic pain his administration plans to intentionally inflict on the elderly, minorities and military families should the debt ceiling not be raised.

          Given the hole cards dealt by the June Empsit, Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans are holding a straight flush. It’s time to call Obama’s bluff and expose his empty hand.

          • izoneguy

            That is why I said “default” – nudge nudge wink wink.

            You know the democrats will say that America is “defaulting” when that is not at all true. 2.6 Trillion dollars a year goes to the Feds. They have done a terrible job in managing Americas treasure. They are all pirates.

          • rbdwiggins

            in my response. Didn’t mean to imply you were wrong.

            After paying valid public debt, it’s up to the legislative process to prioritize the remaining expenditures of public funds.

            Given $2.6 Trillion in Revenues: Defense- $600 Billion, Entitlements- $1 Trillion (As Currently Constructed), All Remaining Functions of Government- $500 Billion (Including Debt Service, Payroll, Benefit and Pension Contributions), Debt Reduction- $500 Billion (War and Extreme Natural Disaster Exceptions).

            Increase the Scope of Government- Restructure Entitlements.

            Under those austerity measures, it will still take nearly 30 years to retire the public debt unless the private sector economy grows exponentially or entitlements are restructured without increasing the size and scope of government.

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

            There will be no default and unless the Obama administration, unconstitutionally and with malice aforethought towards our economy, stops paying bondholders.

            Obama will be the one doing that, nobody else.

            The debt ceiling not being raised OTOH will cause a Govt shutdown, and the stopping of checks to recipients, if the money runs out.

            “hold Obama personally responsible for the economic pain his administration plans to intentionally inflict on the elderly, minorities and military families should the debt ceiling not be raised.”

            I dont fully understand this point. Obama cant borrow more and cant pay all those bills, so some bills wont gets paid. The govt will have to shutdown.

          • rbdwiggins

            “The government will have to shutdown.”

            Obama will pick the winners and losers of the remaining available public funds.

            Or, he could downsize all non-essential departments or agencies to match receipts.

            A slowdown maybe, but a total shutdown would be a political choice.

            Hold him accountable for his choices.

        • earlgrey

          Republicans will take the blame. Bill Kristol, C. Krauthammer have both indicated concerns over what the Rs will deal on this.

          Obama is a bully and there are so many that wont’ see that. I cant get why.

          I heard DJs on a syndicated morning show talking about (one of them is pretty clearly conservative and the other was for Perot in the 90s), and the one guy (that followed Perot) defended Obama for turning down offers from Republicans to meet with him to discuss the debt limit deal right after Obama’s presser on this . I pay to listen to this show, but if I have to listen to someone I would normally consider reasonable defend Obama on this, than I’ll have to reconsider.

      • carolina

        Politico has an article about Boehner pulling out of the “big deal” and limiting the discussion to cuts only. No tax hikes (reduced loopholds) at this time. I think he is wise to take this stance. I don’t trust BO & the dems as far as I can throw them. Hopefully the GOP gets control of Congress in 2012 – then we can address the ‘big’ issues.

        • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

          There is not a darn thing we can do to change Boehner or any of the other incumbents unless “we the [conservative] people” get out of our comfy chairs and get to the local Republican Party committee meetings and get involved in party politics with a vengeance. It’s really that simple.

          I wrote this up a while back about “what to do” to change Boehner and it’s as true now as it was then.

          http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2011/03/22/want-to-change-john-boehner-it%E2%80%99s-up-to-the-conservatives-in-his-district/

          Indeed, it’s precisely because the conservatives in his district are NOT uniting politically inside the Republican Party in sufficient numbers, and elsewhere across the country, that he feels no need to stick his neck out and fight. The safer thing to do is cave. As Speaker, he has two constituencies. First, his district — to remain Speaker, he as to get re-elected. His second constituency is all the other Republican House members. As long as he doesn’t see rumblings across America that things are changing in the voting ranks of the Party in the individual congressional districts, he figures the House will look pretty much in 2012 as it does now. So why take a chance at doing something tough and hard? That might upset the apple carts back in the individual congressional districts. All is well right now, in his view.

          Threats from splintered grass roots conservative tea party and 9.12 and other groups are just that — threats from splintered groups who will end up splitting the vote between multiple conservative candidates, probably, in the primaries. Posts at Redstate and other blogs won’t change the Republican incumbents. Until the incumbents see all the conservatives coalesce into a united front where it really matters — inside the Republican Party — Boehner and Cantor and McCarthy and all the rest have nothing to fear, in their minds.

          And they’re right. They’ll start to feel fear if, and only if, conservatives start to fill up significant numbers of the vacant precinct committeeman slots back home in their districts.

          Thank you.

          For Liberty,

          ColdWarrior

  • chrysostom15

    In 2012 the Bush tax cuts expire. Unless their is a GOP president to sign a tax cut, along with a GOP Sentate to pass it — the 2012 tax cuts will expire; or the GOP will require an agreement/compromise with Obama. Obama will be a lame duck and not be facing election again. He will have no incentive to pass a tax cut. Taxes will rise.

    Unless there is a GOP president, who will sign a repeal of Obamacare? Obama will not.

    The real battle is the 2012 election. Let’s not blow that by overstepping. In 2010 the GOP took over the house BECAUSE Democrats overstepped and passed Obamacare.

    If the GOP pushes to cut The Department of Education (which I think should be eliminated and I don’t see how it is consitutional to have), it will LOSE that fight and will risk its chances in 2012. Same for pushing for 2 trillion in cuts without agreeing (on paper) to raise taxes.

    The GOP should agree to close tax loopholes starting after 2012. In 2012 taxes will already need to be cut to preserve the Bush tax cuts. Whatever the GOP agrees to raise in taxes can be cut back in 2012 — no harm done. However, the GOP needs to make a compromise deal in order to win in 2012.

    A lose in 2012, means the bush tax cuts are gone; Obamacare stays, and taxes will be far higher than they would be under anything Obama is asking more.

    Obama is not looking to increase taxes; he is looking to pain the GOP into a corner to help his own reelection. The GOP cannot take the bait. If the GOP takes the bait, Obama will have another card to playin 2012, helping his re-election chances.