Boehner’s New Plan – Even Deader

July 29th, 2011 at 3:46 pm | 75 Comments |

| Print

A few thoughts on the implications of Boehner adding a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to his debt-ceiling bill (which would now require that Congress pass a BBA before a second debt-ceiling increase could take place early in 2012):

Adding the BBA makes the bill very likely to pass the House. This addition appeases Tea Partiers, who had denied Boehner the majority he needs to pass it.

The Boehner bill as it stood on Thursday night might not have been able to pass the Senate; the Boehner bill of today definitely can’t. The very thing that makes the bill likely to pass the House – its Tea Party pedigree – will kill it in the Senate.

If Congress is really required to pass a BBA before a second hike in the debt ceiling, prepare for the same gridlock six or so months from now.

In order for the debt ceiling to be increased, Republicans and Democrats will have to compromise. That means especially that Tea Partiers will have to compromise. In a democratic republic, you don’t get to dictate policy to everyone if you only control less than a quarter of the votes. And threatening to bring the house down unless a supermajority of Congress agrees to the passage of a methodologically unconservative Balanced Budget Amendment is not compromising.

Beware the “second tranche.” The current battle over the debt ceiling has exacted a considerable price from Congressional Republicans and has risked an economic-fiscal-financial meltdown. Going for another round about this issue, when the players will be the same, seems like it might not be the most effective approach. I know the existence of a “second tranche” is one of the biggest differences between the Boehner and Reid plans (the latter would raise the debt ceiling until after the next election), but I think Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has shown some wisdom here in doubting the value of a second hike so soon after the first. The debt-ceiling debate has sucked up a lot of air that conservatives could have used to advance other small-government policies.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of adding the BBA to the Boehner bill is that it gives Republicans something more to trade away. The inclusion of the BBA will give Republicans some more negotiating room if there is to be a Boehner-Reid compromise package.

The following is one possible (perhaps, at this hour, the most probable) course of events:

  1. House passes Boehner + BBA
  2. Senate passes Reid-like bill
  3. Some compromise measure comes out of conference (this will very likely not have a strong BBA requirement).

The Senate will likely pass any compromise, and Republicans will have a stronger hand in negotiations over the compromise if the caucus stays united; anything that increases the power of Nancy Pelosi in negotiations will ultimately undermine the position of conservatives, and the more votes Boehner needs from Democrats, the stronger Pelosi will be.

If the economy crashes because of a refusal to raise the debt ceiling, Republicans will be blamed. The failed vote on the Ryan plan may have damaged the ability of Republicans to attack Obamacare for its cuts to Medicare; Republicans should be wary of closing off another line of attack in 2012. Obama increasingly owns the economy, and Republicans have been able to creep away from the disastrous tail end of George W. Bush’s economic policies. If the economy tanks and the debt ceiling is not raised, Democrats (and their allies in the media) will be pointing fingers at the “absolutists” in the Tea Party and GOP caucus who would not compromise. Those attacks will very likely work or at least muddy the waters enough to limit the effectiveness of the Republican economic critique in 2012. The economy already may be slowing down; refusing to raise the debt ceiling will be a way to take partial ownership of a double-dip recession.

No matter how “virtuous” or “pure” the Tea Partiers are, an Obama victory in 2012 would very likely close the door on the kinds of reforms that many conservatives would prefer. The numbers in Congress are against Tea Party-style reforms, and, in a democratic republic, numbers matter a lot. Rather than fuming or threatening or beating one’s chest in self-adulation, it is far better to engage in the hard work of rational persuasion, sober compromise, and hopeful deliberation. Will any budget “deal” be pretty bad from a conservative perspective? Probably. But we can work to make the least bad such deal possible. That’s what conservatism—and rational governance—is about.

Recent Posts by Fred Bauer



75 Comments so far ↓

  • Lonewolf

    Boehner’s new plan: “I’ll run the asylum according to the demands of the most disturbed, antisocial, hallucinatory and psychotic inmates”.
    It’s astonishing to see such a total lack of vision, foresight, logic, leadership, competence, flexibility, creativity, charisma and intellectual ability, all wrapped up in one pathetic man.
    I hate to resort to name-calling, but John Boehner is the a very definition of “schlemiel”

  • talkradiosucks.com

    “Rather than fuming or threatening or beating one’s chest in self-adulation, it is far better to engage in the hard work of rational persuasion, sober compromise, and hopeful deliberation.”

    True, but this only applies to people who are rational, sober and hopeful. We’re talking about the tea party frauds here.

    • Frumplestiltskin

      sorry, even away from the Tea party crowd what are the Republicans pushing besides tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. Oh, and killing dirty mooslems.

  • tommyudo

    Three wasted days in this phoney “crisis” so as to save Johnny B’s worthless toosh.
    This guy should have never left that stool at the end of the bar on the 19th tee.
    Yet, he’s one of the more “moderate” ones in the GOP house. The fissures created in that party in the last few days cannot be repaired. The Frankenstein monster has escaped the lab and is terrorizing the peasants. It’s a beautiful thing to behold.

  • dante

    Your 1, 2, 3 is off (at least for my projections). Senate will first COMPLETELY vote down the House bill. Then they’ll pass their own, but ensure that it’s late (like, late Sunday night). That will go back to the House as opposed to being negotiated in committee. After that happens, it’s anyone’s guess, but it prohibits the Republicans from demanding hardly anything else in committee since there wouldn’t be time to vote on an amended Reid bill, go to conference, negotiate, go back to each house, revote, sign, etc.

    My (wishful thinking) take on it? Democrats in the House peel off 40 or so moderate House Republicans and pass something worthwhile and leave the Tea Partiers swinging in the breeze… I wonder if it’ll happen.

  • cporet

    When in danger, or in doubt run in circles, scream and shout. Herman Wouk
    We are governed by feral children. John Cole

    The pointless addition of the BBA that must be sent to the states for ratification before the debt ceiling can be raised a second time is telling. These people have no idea how the government works or even what the constitution says.

  • sweatyb

    “Will any budget “deal” be pretty bad from a conservative perspective? Probably.”

    I have no idea what this “conservative perspective” is, but I’m pretty sure you put the scare quotes around the wrong part of that sentence.

  • tommybones

    So, when push comes to shove, we may see the following:

    Compromise deal based on the Reid proposal, with significant Democratic support and just enough GOP support to pass.

    Boehner’s career is over.

    Democrat’s claim victory.

    Legislation ultimately is a huge win for the right wing.

    Legislation is also a huge loss for the country.

    Talk about insane….

  • valkayec

    Boehner is speaking now to explain to the House what his bill is. He’s put more spin in his speech than a pitcher can on a ball thrown from the mound. Sheesh!!

  • Kingofthenet

    Here is the problem with you Conservatives, in a word you LIE, even if we elect a Republican like we did TWICE in the last decade,and it doesn’t work out(as it never does) you will simply say, oh but he wasn’t a REAL Conservative, we want another crack at the White House to do it right.
    Second your ideas of where this National Debt comes from are off base, Hint:Most of it isn’t Obama: re is a chart from the White House:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

  • jamesj

    “methodologically unconservative Balanced Budget Amendment”

    Bingo. I’m all for cutting debt, but why in the world would you place an artificial limitation on what the country is able to do. Individuals don’t do that, families don’t do that, towns don’t do that, and civilized nations don’t do that. Its just plain stupid. I don’t see how it can be considered a “conservative” policy. It seems extreme and ideological to me.

  • jamesj

    “Will any budget “deal” be pretty bad from a conservative perspective? Probably.”

    I don’t understand how you can possible say something like this. It is just flat out crazy. It seems like the entire debate has shifted so far to the right that lifelong Republicans are seeing it as extreme right wing madness. I can’t believe some of these freshmen in the House don’t see what is happening as a historic victory for their point of view. Boggles the mind.

  • talkradiosucks.com

    I turned on Hannity’s show for lulz and heard Boehner’s ridiculous speech. This guy doesn’t have enough leader in him to set up a kids’ fishing pole. I especially loved the part where he claimed that his asinine bill — which requires a constitutional amendment that will never pass — has “no gimmicks”.

    Pathetic.

  • Charles M. Kelly

    Boehner’s bill just passed the house. The ball’s now in the senate’s court.

    I’d rather seen B’s bill—or any damn bill—make it than see the country default.

    Now we’ll see if the Dem can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as adroitly as the Reps.

    • jamesj

      But the bill the House passed contains provisions that are unacceptable to the ratings agencies, Senate, and president, correct?

      • ram6968

        yeah, like a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, but a simple majority to cut ” entitlements”

  • Houndentenor

    The president isn’t going to sign a constitutional amendment, and there’s no way 3/4 of the states will ratify it. so what’s the point of a vote on it?

    Do we really want “unelected” judges coming in to fix things when Congress can’t meet its obligations? Anyone who has read that proposal can easily see that it allows far more ways for minority delegations to gum up the works. If you think the Senate filibuster creates problems, just wait until it is in both houses an takes an even smaller percentage to paralyze the government. It’s an insanely bad idea.

    • valkayec

      I agree that the House BBA is really, really bad…and the President will not approve it. But given all the hyperbole about the horrible debt – remember everything the GOP has been yelling for the last year about how broke the country is – and so many states with GOP governments, it’s highly possible to see a BBA being approved. I believe that if most citizens actually knew what was in the BBA and all the negative consequences as well as unintended consequences of it, they would oppose it where the citizenry the ones actually voting for or against it.

    • Kevin B

      Constitutional amendments don’t require the President’s signature. He doesn’t even get a say except the bully pulpit and maybe a single vote as a citizen.

      It does require a 2/3 majority vote in both Houses of Congress, which isn’t going to happen in this case.

      Then it needs majority votes in 3/4 of the states. That might actually be doable (it could happen strategically even if the majority of Americans opposed it), but since it won’t get out of Congress, it is a moot point.

  • think4yourself

    My view on a fiscal conservative; someone who spends less than they take in and balances the budget. My view on a GOP/TP person; someone who doesn’t care what they take in so long as they cut spending and don’t care if they pay their bills.

    The Balanced Budget Amendment is a smoke screen. First, you’ll never get an Amendment ratified and you’ll spend the next 6 months fighting about – and not dealing with unemployment or possible double-dip recession. Second, even if you did all the smart lobbyyists (on both sides) will be working for loopholes and it won’t be effective. As an example, look at the financial condition of all the States with BBA. I don’t hear any Tea Party stalwarts chanting “we want to be like California”.

    Better solution, Paygo. Every spending bill must be accompanied by offsetting with either spending cuts or tax increases. Oh yeah, we had that and the GOP ended it, right?

    • valkayec

      Or better yet the BPC’s Save Go which calls on Congress to set spending caps and has a trigger, a la the 1990 Balanced Budget Act, that take effect if those caps are exceeded. Moreover, any new spending must be paid for with new revenues or spending decreases elsewhere in the budget.

    • jamesj

      Full support for PayGo here. I can’t believe that at this point in time something like PayGo is considered “Socialist” by large groups of Republican voters.

  • Rob_654

    Senator Kent Conrad just reported in an interview that Minority Senate Leader McConnell has said the he will refuse to negotiate with Senate Leader Harry Reid on this issue.

    What is wrong with these Republicans?

    Well, we know what McConnell’s number one priority his because he has said so “Defeating Obama in 2012″ and apparently he will jettison the US Economy and watch Middle Class America further suffer to try and meet his number one priority.

  • Oldskool

    It’s dead already. I’ve had boners that lasted longer than Boehner’s bill.

  • indy

    It’s like watching college kids from the state party school getting ready for their final exams. Do nothing useful for almost a year, then pull all nighters in a pathetic attempt to catch up. I know we can all have utter confidence in a bill pooped out under such conditions.

    Democracy is a messy business, but fortunately oft times amusing.

  • SteveThompson

    While the issue of America’s debt ceiling is not yet resolved, the next fiscal issue facing the United States is already waiting in the wings. According to this article, there is a massive multi-trillion dollar underfunding of both public and private pension plans that, according to constitutional law, must be fully funded by American taxpayers at both the federal and state level as shown here:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/07/americas-pension-nightmare-making-bad.html

    As tax payers, Americans will be “on the hook” for these multi-trillion dollar shortfalls which will only get larger as interest rates remain low and the stock market remains volatile.

    • ram6968

      I’m not inpressed with a paper that opens with “what if” in it’s title

  • dafyd

    I need some one as objected as possible to please explain this quote me.

    JohnRGuardiano “Never before & on no other issue, I think, has the media been more biased & hostile to conservatives than on the debt ceiling.”

    What media is he refering to? Who or what is Main stream Media? Fox news gets Millions of viewers and we all know what they do. Thier website is always spinning the titles of their headlines to make the presisent look as bad as possible. So what the hell is he talking about? Mr. Bauer maybe you can explain it to me?

  • Thucydides73

    Just curious, but I have a hard time understanding the logic that Boehner is part of the problem when the house has passed a budget, and passed two solutions to raising the debt ceiling. At what point, does Reid actually have to do something? What about the committee leaders in the Senate?
    Also, Reid’s outline is DOA when it is presented in the house. Does that make Reid’s plan extremist and a mere exercise in partisanship?
    Democrats have only offered complaints and shots during this entire time. It’s time for them to own part of this and offer detailed solutions. If not, then just admit , they are guilty of nothing but playing politics..

  • talkradiosucks.com

    “I need some one as objective as possible to please explain this quote me.”

    It’s John Guardiano. There is no rational explanation for his abject idiocy, especially on Twitter. He makes Bill Kristol look like a mental giant.

    Best summary of today’s Boehner nonsense that I’ve seen, courtesy of a clever commenter at TPM:

    “Great. He polished a turd, now Harry Reid is about to put it in a paper bag, light it on fire, and put it right back on Boehner’s porch.”

  • talkradiosucks.com

    “Just curious, but I have a hard time understanding the logic that Boehner is part of the problem when the house has passed a budget, and passed two solutions to raising the debt ceiling.”

    He’s part of the problem because the only things he has managed to pass are bills he has already been told will not pass the Senate. He’s passing them to score political points with the mouthbreathers in his caucus, not because of an actual desire to write law.

    “At what point, does Reid actually have to do something?”

    When Boehner passes a bill that is actually rational and acceptable to all aspects of the government, not just the tea party frauds? Regardless, Reid has been “doing something”. For quite some time.

    “Also, Reid’s outline is DOA when it is presented in the house. Does that make Reid’s plan extremist and a mere exercise in partisanship?”

    If I assume you’re raising this issue honestly, then what you’re missing is that the deals being offered are not equal but opposite in intention and policy. The Republicans have already been offered a deal that gives them most of what they want; the Democrats have not. The deals that the GOP have *rejected* are more friendly to GOP interests than Democratic interests *already*.

    “Democrats have only offered complaints and shots during this entire time.”

    This is complete bullshit.

    And let’s not forget that this is the only time in the history of this country that the party in opposition to the executive branch has taken the nation to the brink with respect to the debt limit in the first place. It was raised DOZENS of times under Republican presidents with no hostage-taking by the Democrats. (Yeah, Obama stupidly voted against it. Protest votes are not the same as this idiocy.)

    The bottom line is simple: the GOP has become so radicalized that the only way Boehner could get anything to (barely) pass the House was to design a bill that he knew would never pass the Senate or get Obama’s approval. “Playing politics” describes it to a tee.

    • Thucydides73

      The Senate has yet to pass a single piece of legislation on this. That is a fact. Reid would not even submit his plan to a vote in the Senate. Why should the House even acknowledge something that has yet to be voted on?
      The complaints are not bullshit. What plans did Reid or the President offer this summer or Spring? What budgets have they submitted for CBO scoring? The only thing the President offered was his budget, which he is required to submit. That piece of work only increased spending and offered no choices on the cuts that we are going to have to make. A true leader leads by example, and the President has fallen very short on this matter. Heck, he did not even have the courage to submit the Bowles-Simpson package, which would have put Boehner in a pickle (and would have been good policy to boot).

      You ingored my point: If something that passes the House but cannot pass the Senate is extreme was is the reverse not true as well? The House wants far more cuts than the Senate wants and they want the cuts to be front loaded not back. Boehner could have gotten his bill passed much easier if he had more cuts in year 1,and not using futile projections to make cuts in years well out. The Reid plan is even worse. It depends on cuts from reduced military operations in Iraq and Afghan to get the majority of its cuts. The remainder it hopes to get from a “more efficient” government. The House wants real cuts, not something that will depend on the security in the future nor on some phantom idea of making governement more efficient. Again, Reid could have been smart: Why not cut defense spending and corporate welfare (the ethanol subsidy would be a perfect test)? Heck, why not even go after Federal user fees (mineral rights, grazing rights, fees to use National Parks, locks on the inland waterway, etc) to raise more revenue? Reid and the Democrats did not want to do this because they never wanted to put something done that they would have to answer for. He followed the President’s lead and it has not served the country well. Nor do I think it smart politically, since it lets the Tea Party dictate the debate.

      • ram6968

        you are looking at here and now, a very narrow window….go back to the govt shutdown crisis and study the sequence of events moving forward…..it would save me a lot of explaining…..and read the book “the art of war” republican plans were apparent a while back and the president has been steps ahead all the way…..and even the donald helped out by killing the birther issue

  • Thucydides73

    Personally, I think it pure folly to try to cut expenses that are projected out many years in the future. For one thing, those budgets will rarely have any impact since it is difficult to know what the revenues will be nor what the conditions will be in the country. Who will control the house in year 3 or 4, let alone the White House and Senate? This talk of baseline for those years is really a pointless debate. Heck, the current White House baseline includes the impact of the AMT in future years, despite the fact that Congress adjusts for it almost every year. The point is not to score a cheap shot over the White House, but rather to show that these long term projects are meaningless.
    Cutting spending this year is a start and starting the process of tax reform is another good start. However, this process will not be resolved until 2012 election. The country needs to clarify the vision of the future: a more regulated economy with a government that puts more emphasis on wealth redistribution or a economy that puts more emphasis on entreprenuears and rugged individualism.

    • TerryF98

      “The country needs to clarify the vision of the future: a more regulated economy with a government that puts more emphasis on wealth redistribution or a economy that puts more emphasis on entreprenuears and rugged individualism.”

      If you think the GOP is offering your second choice then you are shit out of luck mate. Corporate whores and licking the boots of the super rich would be more like it.

  • Nanotek

    McConnell won’t negotiate with Reid and will filibuster Reid’s bill — at what point do responsible conservatives walk away from the modern Republican party?

    • Pavonis

      Reid’s pretty much already given McConnell 100% of what he asked for so McConnell’s not making any sense. Perhaps Reid should just introduce a truly liberal bill (return tax rates to …uh… Reagan levels while cutting corporate subsidies and wasteful military spending). Just to point out to the American people what Democrats really stand for.

    • ram6968

      he doesn’t want the leader of the senate to do what the leader of the house could not do…..and/or he wants the president to be a one term president, whatever the cost

  • Rossg

    I just have to pose a few questions regarding the BBA issue. Do any states have such an amendment in their constitution? Don’t states borrow at one time or another?

    With a BBA, does not this country block itself from financing important matters that suddenly pop up. Of course, I suppose the BBA could contain a clause allowing for some leeway, in these cases. But it seems dangerous to box yourself in. I mean, businesses borrow (meaning they decide to spend more than they take in). They do it be dispaying the net worth that supports the debt. Isn’t that what government does?

    • Pavonis

      I think 49/50 states require balanced budgets of some sort in their law. But many states have found ways to cheat through creative financing. What is happening to many states now should chill any supporters of a BBA. When the economy crashes, so does revenue and states are forced to lay off thousands of police, firefighters, and teachers. Wouldn’t it be better to build up money reserves in good times and run deficits in bad so that services like public schools, police, etc… aren’t disrupted? Any balanced budget requirement precludes this possibility.

    • hisgirlfriday

      I can’t speak to other states but Illinois has a requirement in its Constitution that spending not exceed estimated funds available but that doesn’t stop any deficit spending.

      So clearly a Constitutional balanced budget requirement is not the key to any sort of fiscal sanity.

  • talkradiosucks.com

    “The country needs to clarify the vision of the future: a more regulated economy with a government that puts more emphasis on wealth redistribution or a economy that puts more emphasis on entreprenuears and rugged individualism.”

    You must be a third-party optimist, because the current version of the Republican Party couldn’t care less about either of those. The GOP exists to exploit the poor, stupid and religious to support the interests of the rich and the military-industrial complex.

  • Kingofthenet

    To House Republicans, LOL, no…, ROTFLOL:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bZXCkoRs5g

  • zephae

    @Thuc:

    You asked what have the Senate Dems and the President offered, to which I respond where have you been the past two months with the Biden talks, presidential summits, and countless different deals and negotiating point reported in the press? Your argument seems to rest on the idea that “if I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist,” which is like saying “backroom deals don’t exist.” How ridiculous is that?

    And it’s even weirder to see you complain, in your insistence that the Dems should’ve copied Boenor’s strategy and passed bills ending corporate welfare and the like, that the Dems should’ve just been more openly partisan instead of trying to find a deal that will work. I mean, its very odd to see someone criticize that one party isn’t playing politics enough.

    We lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans and call their plans radical theater because they refuse to make concessions. The dems took tax reform off the table, put entitlements on the table, offered to eliminate the AMT, and put numerous other items up for grabs, but were rebuffed every time. You may be right on the political strategy, but we shouldn’t be thinking about this issue in terms of who played the game better, as you are.

  • Steve D

    BBA is a lousy bargaining chip because it’s convoluted and doesn’t prohibit “creative financing.” What we really need:

    1. A line item veto amendment.
    2. Zero-based budgeting. Budgets are justified starting at zero, not the previous year’s level.
    3. Bills must pertain to a single subject, with separate vetoes for sections of bills that somehow evade this rule. Or maybe more effectively, extend the line-item veto to sections of bills.
    4. Make it easier for States to call conventions for proposing amendments, say ten States. It would still take 3/4 (38) to ratify, which is a very high bar. Check out the Liberty and Equal Rights Amendments if you think it’s easy.
    5. All savings realized by cutting services revert to the Treasury. This will forestall the tactic of holding the public hostage by cutting popular services while bureaucracy continues to function.
    6. Mandatory spending (Social Security and Medicare) is tied to revenue. Link benefit levels to revenue so the funds remain fully funded.

  • Steve D

    “beating one’s chest in self-adulation”

    You forgot flinging poo. Very important.

  • KEBoedeker

    If the REAL goal in all of this brouhaha is to substantially reduce the deficit going forward, can some sane person tell me why you walk away from a deal that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion ($3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in new revenues) and put forward a plan with less than $1 trillion in deficit reduction? That gesture makes it very clear that the deficit is not the real target of the tantrum.

    • anniemargret

      They are desperately trying to tag Obama with a mess, so that they can fulfill the GOPs’ dream of “I hope he fails.” This is a morally bankrupt party; so insane, so filled with hate, with frustration, with failed ideas, with bitterness and jealousy, that anyone that votes for these useless nihilists will be accomplices to destroying the society. ‘

      Yeah, I really do feel that way.

    • Bunker555

      KEBoedeker, this has nothing to do with cutting the deficit or raising the debt ceiling . This is all about gaining momentum toward winning the 2012 General. Scoundrels in both parties will tell any lie to show that they are winning in this impasse they have created. The deficit and debt issues should be discussed on their own merits/demerits. I think the Dems are doing a poor job by detracting from the central themes that resonate with a vast majority of people, i.e., students, elderly and indigent. The sane part of the GOP is letting the Tea Jihadis and Tea Baggers lead them down the road to total destruction. The current crop of GOP Presidential nominees are in hiding. Haven’t seen any substantive opinions coming from them. Perhaps Palin and Perry will both enter the race and muck it up even more. As things stand, Obama will raise more money than any GOP candidate and ream them in Nov/2012. The 80 odd Tea Baggers are already dog poop and will get primaried by real Tea Christians.

      Come Tuesday we’ll have a better picture of winners and losers. Couldn’t strongly agree more with anniemargret’s comments about the GOP :
      “This is a morally banktupt party”

  • sdspringy

    Americans, the majority who face budget issues every day have no sympathy for your point of view Bunker.

    Requiring Washington politican to operate by the same rules as most states and households is not going to make the TeaParty/Republicans look bad.

    And try as you might to keep looking back eight years ago to place Obama’s problems at the feet of the former President looks more feeble each passing day. Bush’s worst deficits only exceeded 480 Billion per year.
    Obama now runs 1600 Billion per year, that is staggering and you have to be completely blind not to recognize that fact. So far the Democrats have offered nothing. Not a single Democrat plan has passed either House. Obama/Reid have provided no leadership, no legislation. Boehner has been publicly battling his own party while Obama/Reid sit on their hands.
    This has not gone unnoticed in eyes of the voting public.

    • talkradiosucks.com

      “Americans, the majority who face budget issues every day have no sympathy for your point of view Bunker.”

      You’re lying through your teeth as usual. Public support for the tea party terrorists is lower than it has ever been before.

      “Bush’s worst deficits only exceeded 480 Billion per year.”

      If true, only because he was too dishonest to actually account for and pay for his lie-induced war and his giveaways to big business and the rich.

      Does it hurt when you make your nose grow so fast?

      • sdspringy

        Reid’s plan failed to pass in the House, even Democrats voted against it. Reid’s plan couldn’t even reach the floor in the Senate, it was dead on arrival.

        You and yours are unable to explain away how under complete Democrat control that the deficit expanded to 1600 Billion per year. To continue that stupidity will be harder to explain back home to your constituents than attempting to stop maddness. The 23 Democrat Senators up for reelection in 2012 are acutely aware of this fact.

        If anyone thought that Bush/Republican were irresponsible for spending soo much please explain your complete acceptance of 1600 Billion in deficit spending now.

        • talkradiosucks.com

          “You and yours are unable to explain away how under complete Democrat control that the deficit expanded to 1600 Billion per year.”

          It’s been explained a zillion times. The problem is that “people” like yourself ignore the facts and just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again, pretending like the economy and the budget were in great shape in January 2009 and Obama just came in spending like a drunken sailor.

          I don’t see anyone saying they are happy about the current deficit. They just find it somewhere between laughable and sickening that a bunch of self-righteous, ignorant “tea party” morons go on and on about Obama’s deficits while conveniently ignoring that Bush and the Republicans are responsible for a very large chunk of it. None of these people said a word as Bush and his cronies wasted TRILLIONS of dollars on NOTHING.

      • JimBob

        You’re delusional and void of any facts. Phoney with out doubt.

    • Bunker555

      SDSpringy,

      The bigger issue I was trying to make is that a lot of people pinned their hopes on Obama cutting down the military to size right away, and spending the savings on infra-structure, education, and helping people come out of a cycle of dependence. The same argument that we used against the Soviet Union to escalate the military-industrial complex, has now become a daily tirade against the Chinese villians. Unfortunately, we owe them a lot of money and are highly dependent on them as trading partners. What happened to capitalism? Survival of the fittest? Competitive advantage?

      Waging adventurist foreign wars like Iraq and Afganistan are totally destructive the our well being. We have not won a war in over 60 wars, in spite of the growth of military spending which is greater than the rest of the world combined. We need to invest in productive assets, not killing innocent women and children in foreign lands. It’s become part of our thinking that a large military is good. Wait till the Chinese increase their sphere of influence and if we still agree that militarism is a solution to our problems. Just look at Japanese over the past hundred years. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Japanese get their just desserts (from China), in the next 50 years. It will be pretty bloody. Taiwan may happen before that, and what are we going to do? Start another war?

      The Tea Baggers are a bunch of economically illiterate racists who are the products of free market fundamentalism started by Reagan. Now that the GOP is earning the wrath from the old Tea Baggers for planning to touch entitlement programs, the tide will turn. By the way, the rich bankers, hedge fundies, and monied classes are doing better than ever. They have no compassion for the down-trodden and people who need a restart.

      Where is Terry98? with his “If you lie long enough,………………………………… logo

      • Grace

        Bunker555, speaking of Reagan…

        Came across something today on Redstate (of all places) with respect to CA Republicans and their view of Reagan in the 1960′s. Have to share it because it chillingly nails today’s teahadists in its description:

        (from the Redstate post: http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/07/29/on-goproud-and-cpac/)

        “This was a time when the Republican left wing would often make open war with conservatives. If you think it’s bad now, look back to what they used to say about Reagan and conservatives before he beat Governor Brown the Elder in 1966:

        The previous year, Kuchel had blasted the conservative Republican movement in California as “A fanatical, neo-Fascist, political cult, overcome by a strange mixture of corrosive hatred and sickening fear.”

        These skeptics were joined by Republican State Assemblyman Howard J. Thelin, who endorsed Gov. Brown shortly before election day. Thelin called the Reagan campaign “a conspiracy of powerful, well financed forces dominated by extreme views,” and so Reagan’s defeat was “vital to the future of the Republican Party. ” (Wash. Post, 10/28/66).”

        “A fanatical, neo-Fascist, political cult, overcome by a strange mixture of corrosive hatred and sickening fear.” Sound like the group of hostage-takers we’re dealing with today?

        “a conspiracy of powerful, well financed forces dominated by extreme views,” sounds exactly like the Koch-funded teahadist ‘movement’ bent on destroying the country today (having already devoured the GOP).

        This extremist BS has been coddled, funded, and tolerated by the GOP for decades. The teahadists are nothing more than Birchers in tri-corner hats. Heck, the Birchers were CPAC sponsors last year! We can only hope those California Republicans of the 60′s were right, that the logical end-point of the madness started with Reagan is the destruction of the GOP as we now know it.

        • Bunker555

          ^+1 Grace, The link seems to be broker, however,reading the abstract, I get the picture. Probably something to do with enabling cookies, will fix. Thanks.

    • ram6968

      it’s amazing(or maybe not) how many people equate running a country to running a household……incapable of deep comprehensive thinking

      • sdspringy

        The all too typical response from the Left is smear, demean, and belittle. Bunker loves the term “Tea Bagger” and beseeches Terry (originally known as TeaBagger) for some backup smears and support.

        Grace throws in the new “Teahadists” because now the Dem/Lefties “feel” as though their agenda is being held hostage. Oh why must they have to explain their stupidity where spending is concerned?

        Unfortunately for both the continuing attempts to lay blame one only one segment of the political class is ignorant and juvenile. Bunkers adventurist wars could have ended anytime since Jan 2007. Dem had complete control of the House and Senate, guess what they approved Bush’s surge strategy.

        The Dems could have ended the adventurist foreign wars on Jan 20 2009, they had complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency. What did they do??? Implemented Bush’s strategy in Afghan, a surge and even used Petraeus, ie Betrayus as you Lefties like to call him. Amazing by any explanation that Dems continued or repeated every Bush strategy they complain about.

        And now the only explanation is according to Bunker and Grace is that the largest legislative victory on both the national and state level in the history of the United States resulted in Tea Baggers, Teahadist, racists, illiterate, fanatical, neo-Fascists, taking office. Ignorant and juvenile is what you are.

  • sdspringy

    Well this is kinda an important fact for ya, its not 2009. This is 2011 and the deficits are still 1600 Billion per year.

    Obama’s budget proposal for 2012 continued the massive deficit spending, he seems alot like you thinking its still 2009. Unfortunately for him and you the Senate Democrats threw that crap pile of proposals away immediately.

    This is also very very important for you, Democrats don’t have to repeat these same failed policies of Bush.. You may want to consider this fact. Democrats could have and should have made those changes. They didn’t, in fact they made them worse.

    Your short on reality

    • Bunker555

      A 10% cut in “offensive” defense spending per year over the next ten years will fix the deficit issue. Obama will wait till his second term to jam it down the throat of the Tea Fascists.

      • Bunker555

        This is what the people told the GOP last Novmber:
        “I think, you know, we’ve got to have everything on the table right now,” Cantor said. “That’s also what we heard from the people on November 2. … Everything should be on the table. I don’t think we should leave any stone unturned while we’re trying to do what most have in this country have done, which is tighten the belt, which is to try and live within our means.”

        That’s a tall order. Only a handful of Republicans have said on the record that they would be open to consider cutting defense spending, which is the largest discretionary portion of the federal budget
        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/30/cantor-defense-spending-cuts-on-the-table/#ixzz1Tk3ebXCM

  • Bunker555

    All Frum Forum threads are dead. Maybe everyone is out celebrating prematurely.

  • Bunker555

    Another Nate Silver piece:

    “In short, as a philosophical matter, tax increases are probably even more anathema to Republican voters than defense cuts. But as a practical matter the reverse may be true.”

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/how-far-will-republicans-go-to-avoid-defense-cuts/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter