Boehner crashes and burns

[Joy in Mudville]

Here's Boehner's failure and the failure of the current Republican mindset.

Boehner could have fashioned a bill to extend Bush era tax cuts for anyone making less than 250,000 and incorporated the various areas of agreement in terms of spending cuts and the curb on the growth of social security benefits.

He needs 218 votes to pass the bill.

There are 201 democrats and 234 Republicans.

Based on last night's vote tally you can assume that at least 40 Republicans refused to support the Plan B bill. With a lower threshold (250,000 as opposed to 1 million) you can assume you would lose even more Republicans.

So let's say he can get 100 republicans on the bill. If Pelosi can deliver 118 democrats (seems highly likely) then you avoid the cliff. If you remove the curb on Social Security benefits you gain many more democrats but do lose some more republicans.

This is the way we actually used to make laws in this country.

Instead, Boehner tried to craft a bill that received universal republican support even though it would never get through the senate and Obama promised a veto. A failure of leadership.

[SemiAuto]

Why the Republican rebels are right.

The media is atwitter about Boehner’s failure to control his troops, because they believe that President Obama has gained a tactical victory from it. But as a policy matter, it’s far better that Republicans pass nothing, than pass a tax increase without any accompanying reform of our runaway spending on health-care entitlements.

No deal is better than Boehner's deal.

The way we actually used to make laws in this country is how we ended up in this predicament in the first place.

[Joy in Mudville]

Why the Republican rebels are right.



No deal is better than Boehner's deal.

The way we actually used to make laws in this country is how we ended up in this predicament in the first place.

No deal is better than a lousy deal only if you want all the tax rates to permanently go back to Clinton era levels.

Here's something the cliff jumpers have failed to realize. Under house rules only Republican sponsored bills get through committee or get voted on on the house floor.

So, the notion that we can somehow go over the cliff and then next year simply pass a tax cut for anyone making less than $250,000 a year is suspect because the bill is supposed to start in the House and I don't see Boehner allowing a vote on such a bill.

There is a chance that such a tax cut could be enacted in a conference committee (a Senate amendment to an ominbus spending bill perhaps) but that's not going to happen, if at all, until march or april and there's still no guarantee that the republicans won't throw a hissy fit and shut the government down over the perceived insult to the fabulously wealthy.

The economy has proven incredibly resilliant in the face of the European meltdown, BP oil spill, debt ceiling default, and various other Republican tom foolerly. My sense is that the fiscal cliff will knock a percentage point off of gdp growth but that the economy will still manage to see anemic growth throughout 2013.

[SalisburySage]

Stop lying. Obama has put forward budget proposals with spending cuts in detail which is more than the Republicans have ever done.

Obama also moved (this was a mistake in my opinion) off his stance that taxes should go up for people making 250,000. When you consider that the Bush tax cuts are one of the main drivers of our current deficit agreeing to keep the vast majority of them in place is already a major compromise. He further compromised by agreed to curb the growth of social security benefits even though social security has not been a driver of our deficits and, in most of the past years, has actually led to lower deficits.

If the Republicans really wanted to avoid going over the fiscal cliff they would have taken Republican Representative Cole's advice and agreed to the 250,000 number and passed a bill extending tax cuts to everyone making less.

I did not realize how ignorant you are of the facts. When you said, ":Bush tax cuts are one of the main drivers of our current deficit", I knew it was hopeless to even discuss the issue with you.

And Obama has NOT offerred any meaningful spending cuts, in fact Obama’s Plan Has More Spending Than Spending Cuts. So don't act like its the Republicans that are the problem. The problem is Barakka Obama and his desire to reconfigure America into a socialist dictatorship.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/...#ixzz2FjqYaBQL

[johnpolitics]

Cut spending by getting rid of the lazy FEMA lawyers. They are worthless.

[SalisburySage]

Cut spending by getting rid of the lazy FEMA lawyers. They are worthless.

Now John, in the spirit of Christmas I took you off my ignore list, I was hoping we could get along.

[Joy in Mudville]

I did not realize how ignorant you are of the facts. When you said, ":Bush tax cuts are one of the main drivers of our current deficit", I knew it was hopeless to even discuss the issue with you.

And Obama has NOT offerred any meaningful spending cuts, in fact Obama’s Plan Has More Spending Than Spending Cuts. So don't act like its the Republicans that are the problem. The problem is Barakka Obama and his desire to reconfigure America into a socialist dictatorship.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/...#ixzz2FjqYaBQL

Lets go the non-partisan center on budget priorities to find out just who the ignorant one is here...

By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.[1]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

Let's look at the math used to draw a conclusion at such variance with your view of reality...

Most of the Bush tax cuts were scheduled to expire after 2010 but were continued for another two years in the December 2010 tax compromise. We added the cost of extending them further from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.[21] Together, the tax cuts directly account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008 and $3.6 trillion over the 2009-2019 period. Finally, we added the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amounting to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.0 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — over $230 billion in 2019 alone.

As for Obama's detailed budget plans, which would have brought down the deficit. Here are the links to his budget proposal.

A news report on the budget proposal...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sends-fy...145523152.html

and the actual detailed budget proposal listing specific cuts.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/TRS

Text from the actual budget's introduction on cuts and savings...

In the Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings volume, the Administration details the 210 cuts, consolidations, and savings measures that are proposed in the 2013 Budget. These proposals total more than $24 billion in 2013, and $520 billion through 2022. First, we have identified programs that are no longer needed and should be eliminated. For example, the Budget proposes cutting programs within National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering Research that were designed to have a limited duration and have already achieved their goals. We are also proposing to cut an Air Force satellite system that is no longer needed to meet mission requirements. Other cuts target duplicative grants programs whose activities can be accomplished through existing programs. Second, we have singled out opportunities to consolidate programs that are duplicative of each other and could deliver more for less if combined. For example by consolidating the Bureau of the Public Debtand the Financial Management Service, the operational arms of Treasury’s Fiscal Service, to share a single administrative, management, and leadership structure, Treasury can save taxpayer dollars while better leveraging the expertise and resources of the two bureaus to strengthen and modernize financial management. Finally, there are a range of actions that we are taking to save money in the operations of Government. These range from the commonsensical—reducing the use of expensive overnight express shipping, using video teleconferencing in the place of costly travel, and migrating forms and publications to digital formats—to the more ambitious such as consolidating regional offices across the country and shutting down excess data centers.

Pages 3,4, and 5 of the report list almost two hundred specific federal programs that would have seen budget cuts or elimination under this budget. Pages 5 through 6 list programs that the president proposes to consolidate in order to reduce cost.

Nothing that the republicans have come up with in the past two years approaches this level of specificity and seriousness.

So, who's the person who doesn't have an adequate grasp on the facts here?

Let me put it to you in plain language. You are wrong.

[johnpolitics]

Now John, in the spirit of Christmas I took you off my ignore list, I was hoping we could get along.

I noticed that. OK I'll try some Christmas spirit.

[Joy in Mudville]

The way we actually used to make laws in this country is how we ended up in this predicament in the first place.

What do you mean? The civil rights act? The Marshall Plan? The Reagan/O Neil budget compromises? "Ending Welfare as We Know it"?

There's this asinine notion out there that the way to pass laws is via strict partisanship. The exact opposite has proven to be true.

[SalisburySage]

Lets go the non-partisan center on budget priorities to find out just who the ignorant one is here...



http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

Let's look at the math used to draw a conclusion at such variance with your view of reality...



As for Obama's detailed budget plans, which would have brought down the deficit. Here are the links to his budget proposal.

A news report on the budget proposal...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sends-fy...145523152.html

and the actual detailed budget proposal listing specific cuts.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/TRS

Text from the actual budget's introduction on cuts and savings...



Pages 3,4, and 5 of the report list almost two hundred specific federal programs that would have seen budget cuts or elimination under this budget. Pages 5 through 6 list programs that the president proposes to consolidate in order to reduce cost.

Nothing that the republicans have come up with in the past two years approaches this level of specificity and seriousness.

So, who's the person who doesn't have an adequate grasp on the facts here?

Let me put it to you in plain language. You are wrong.

Apples and Oranges. I repeat:And Obama has NOT offerred any meaningful spending cuts, in fact Obama’s Plan Has More Spending Than Spending Cuts. So don't act like its the Republicans that are the problem. The problem is Barakka Obama and his desire to reconfigure America into a socialist dictatorship.

All that verbiage pages of lists not withstanding before Obama our National Debt in 2009 before Obama was $12 trillion in just 4 yrs of Obama it is now our public debt is now more than 16 Trillion. He has added 4 trillion to the National Debt.

[Joy in Mudville]

Apples and Oranges. I repeat:And Obama has NOT offerred any meaningful spending cuts, in fact Obama’s Plan Has More Spending Than Spending Cuts. So don't act like its the Republicans that are the problem. The problem is Barakka Obama and his desire to reconfigure America into a socialist dictatorship.

All that verbiage pages of lists not withstanding before Obama our National Debt in 2009 before Obama was $12 trillion in just 4 yrs of Obama it is now our public debt is now more than 16 Trillion. He has added 4 trillion to the National Debt.

You can bold text, you can stamp your feet, you can put your fingers in your ears and say "nanny nanny boo boo" but you are still wrong and ill-informed. The fy 2013 budget proposal list specific budget cuts. The president is the only politician in Washington that has actually put forward detailed spending cuts and cost savings.

The president also went against his own party by offering a specific formula for curbing the growth of social security benefits. A year ago he was also willing to put medicare on the table. He's not the problem. Sorry to break it to you but you are wrong.

[ms maggie]

What I hear is Boehner would have a deal by now if he did not have to consult his party members. And it is these party members who are following the wishes of their constituents. This makes Boehner a good leader. So are democrats asking him to be a great leader?

There is a hope of competency.

[johnpolitics]

Every is talking about these guys watching the movie Lincoln, maybe they should read "Profiles in Courage" instead. If there is a deal it will be just for those making under $500,000. The Congress is too disfunctional for a grand bargin.