Speaker Boehner is Out of Touch with Reality Favoring Wealthy over Middle Class

This morning on Chris Wallace's show on Fox News, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Speaker Boehner appeared.  Just like the election the Republicans lost this debate with Wallace as Boehner refused to give specifics telling Wallace he wasn't going to debate with him.  What an arrogant fool Boehner came across this morning which makes you wonder if he is now playing to the hard right which is a prescription for disaster.    On the other hand Secretary Geithner came across with the reasoned approach.

Boehner: No ‘Difference’ If Revenue Comes From Middle Class Or Super RichBy Igor Volsky on Dec 2, 2012 at 9:46 am 

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who has refused to support raising marginal tax rates on the richest Americans in order to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, told Fox News Sunday that it doesn’t matter if the government raises revenue by reducing programs or eliminating tax deductions that also benefit lower and middle class Americans or asks the wealthiest to pay more:

CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): You talked about the fact that the President won and you came out with a concession the day after the election and they point out that the president campaigned on raising tax rates, you know, and it was the big issue, between him and Romney, and, they say, just as he had to cave, after your victory, in the 2010 midterms, now, it is your turn to cave on tax rates. 

BOEHNER: Listen, what is this difference where the money comes from? We put $800 billion worth of revenue, which is what he is asking for, out of eliminating the top two tax rates. But, here’s the problem, Chris, when you go and increase tax rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow, after that income, the small business income, it is going to get taxed at a higher rate and as a result we’re gonna see slower economic growth, we can’t cut our way out of this problem, nor can we grow our way out of the problem, we have to have a balanced approach and what the President wants to do will slow or economy at a time when he says he wants the economy to grow and create jobs.

Despite Boehner’s rhetoric, there is no economic evidence to suggest that taxing income above $250,000 hurts the economy. In fact, business thrived during President Clinton’s tenure, as the wealthy paid more. 

There is a clear “difference” to where the “money comes from,” however, and asking higher-income Americans who have benefited the most to pay more is fairer than gutting critical entitlement programs during a slow economic recovery. While middle-class incomes have stagnated, America’s top income bracket has enjoyed a period of exceptionally low tax rates thanks largely to caps on investment income and tax cuts put in place by former president George W. Bush. These super-rich Americans have fared well under President Obama, too; corporate profits are skyrocketing and the total number of millionaires in the US has exploded during his term. 

After reading what Boehner had to say this morning, I am beginning to understand why House Republicans are blocking a bill that would keep the Bust Tax Cuts for those making less than $250,000 and get that off the table.  This group of Republican Congressman have the ability to equate raising taxes on the middle class doesn't hurt us any more then raising them on the wealthy.  Are Republicans in the House that stupid?  I can guarantee you if I lose $1,000 to taxes and more, it is going to hurt a lot more than someone worth millions losing $10,000 or even $100,000.

Boehner has officially gone over the cliff with the rest of the House GOP who are too pigheaded to see they are costing votes with Middle Class voters including this longtime Republican who right now is going to have a hard time ever voting for another Republican for Congress after what we are seeing out of this House.  The lack of empathy in the Republican Party for those less fortunate is driving a lot of us up a wall.  Yet they consider themselves Christians?

A lot of members of the House came from the Middle Class who went to Congress but are now millionaires even though the cost of living is high in DC.  Wonder how that happened?  Could it be they are bought and paid for by the wealthy Republican donors?  Think this whole mess has the capability of showing how corrupt Congressional Republicans are as they are in the hip pockets of the GOP wealthy donors, the Chamber of Commerce, Big Oil, and Casino Owners for starters.

They should be smart enough to understand that the GOP only won the House because of gerrymandering and lost the popular vote big time in House races.  Even with gerrymandering, the Democrats picked up 11 House seats, two Senate seats, and the White House yet Boehner and the GOP in Congress think they have the upper hand?  Stupid Party is the correct name for the GOP along with arrogant, boneheaded, and stubborn.  Could threw in a few more words but I will stop there on this beautiful Sunday morning.

On the other hand, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner was very articulate and represented the Middle Class taxpayers very well on Fox this morning:

CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): Last question, can you promise that we will not go over the cliff? 

GEITHNER: No, I can’t promise that. That is a decision that lies in the hands of the Republicans, that are now opposing increases in tax rates, if they recognize the reality, that we cannot afford to extend the tax rates we have the basis for an agreement that would be good for the American people.

WALLACE: And the President bears no responsibility, it is all up to the Republicans? 

GEITHNER: Chris, ask yourself this question, why does it make sense for the country to force tax increases on all Americans, because a small group of Republicans want to extend tax rates for 2% of Americans — why does that make any sense? There is no reason why it should happen, we can’t afford the tax rates, that is like the deep tragic lesson of the last decade, we and not afford them and will not get through it, to the end now, without a recognition of the Republicans to that basic reality and that will be the responsible thing to do and my judgment is, they are going to do it because there is no alternative to that. 

And then you have this from Speaker Boehner, in addition to there is no difference between tax hikes for the wealthy and middle class, where he gave no real information but seemed flustered and flabbergasted that Wallace would have the nerve to ask him for specifics:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took to Fox News Sunday to counter Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s fiscal showdown proposals, claiming, “We’re nowhere — period. We’re nowhere.” 

But when host Chris Wallace started to press Boehner about specific aspects of the GOP’s counter plan, Boehner avoided any details and refused to say which tax deductions Republicans could cap or eliminate: 

WALLACE: What is the biggest proposal you’ put on the table since the election in terms of raising revenue from closing loopholes and deductions?

BOEHNER: You can cap. There are a lot of different ways but you can cap deductions at a percent of income. One way to get there. You can eliminate certain deductions for those, the wealthiest in our country. You could do all of that. 

WALLACE: Let me ask you a couple of specifics: would you eliminate or lower the home mortgage deduction? 

BOEHNER: There are lots of ways to get out there, there are lots of ways to debate or negotiate with you, but if you can sign the bill into law, I would be happy to. 

WALLACE: … Charitable deductions? You are a big charity guy. 

BOEHNER: The President has seen a lot of the options from us. There are a lot of them put on the table and I’m hopeful the conversations will continue.

Boehner is avoiding specifics, just as Republicans are recycling Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan — including voucherizing Medicare and significantly cutting Medicaid — which voters largely rejected when they re-elected President Obama. Wallace went on to press Boehner about whether Republicans will allow the economy to go “over the fiscal cliff,” and Boehner acknowledged, “There is a chance.”

You just want to shout at your TV to Boehner -- Republicans LOST!  The American people had their say and chose Obama and his policies for four more years.  Republicans have shown they are a bunch of sore losers who cannot believe the American people were smart enough to see through their arrogance and support of the wealthy agenda.

The GOP war on minorities, women, veterans, poor, teachers, fire, police, civil service, and gays for starters or those of the 47% show a party that doesn't understand the middle class.  We spoke very loud in this election with our votes, our donations, and our volunteering for the Obama campaign who represents the middle class very well.  Obama didn't win by giving gifts to all of us as alleged by Romney on why he lost.  Obama won because he represents our best interest against a Party that has become the party of the wealthy donors.

When I heard that a Romney Administration planned to do away with regulations on oil and gas, it did me in as there are some pretty unscrupulous oil and gas people who would wreck the environment if they didn't have rules and regulations.  Romney it was also alleged (Republican sources) was going to stop bribery investigations in foreign countries by US citizens dead in their tracks was another reason not to vote for Republicans.  Then there was turning the National Parks back to the states so oil and gas could have their field day to make more money.  How about telling people here illegally to self deport and challenging legal Hispanic Americans on their votes as part of the GOP Voter Suppression in Battleground States?  Then there was the definition of 'rape' as another form of conception or the personhood bill granting a fetus the right to property, or denying contraceptives paid for by insurance companies, banning all abortion, treating women like second class citizens, etc.

House Republicans did a good job of telling the Country what they think of women with choosing all males for the conference chairs and then throwing a bone to a woman for the Housekeeping Chair of the House. This is not the Republican Party I grew up in and certainly not the Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower.

Republican Party still doesn't get it -- they can change some of the rhetoric but if they don't change their policy, they are not going to get back the votes of us who didn't vote Republican for the first time in our lives.   I realized how far the GOP had gone hard right after joining Republicans for Obama.  As it stands now, I will never vote for another Republican for federal office.  Today I am staying GOP to be a thorn in their side and vote for the more moderate (used to be conservative) when they run in the primary.  Because of the GOP going hard right, a lot of us who considered ourselves conservatives are now considered moderates.  You don't win elections by trashing the middle class voters who were at one-time your base but have been thrown under the bus in favor of the Tea Party, John Birchers, and wealthy donors.

Congressional Republicans deserve to lose big in 2014 after their obstructionists tactics for the past four years.  Only a few Republicans have woken up but the vast majority are sticking by their obstructionist tactics putting Party over Country.  They deserve to lose in 2014 and lose big.

What is Wrong with this Supreme Court?

What happened to State's Rights?  It is obvious that this Supreme Court who struck down the Montana campaign finance law has overstepped.  This decision is Corporate rights yes and States Rights no.  When did conservatives quit believing in state's rights?

For 100 years Montana had their campaign finance reform in place that was put there by the vote of the people of Montana to counter the corruption of the legislature by two silver mining companies who had bought and paid for office holders in the Montana Legislature.  Now the SCOTUS has decided that Montana citizens 100 years ago were wrong.

I cannot believe this court has inserted themselves in state finance laws ensuring the more corruption will take place in elections.  The very idea that a Corporation is a person who can give unlimited amounts goes against the very fabric of fair elections.  Individual citizens are limited to spend $2500 in the primary and another $2500 in the general for federal candidates but the Koch Brothers can spend whatever millions they want for a candidate from their corporation and are now pledging $400 million to buy this election.

It is time the American people stood up and ignored the campaign ads from the Super PACs and vote for the person they feel is the best person for the position.  These rich billionaires who pay a small percentage in taxes are out to take over America and destroy the middle class.  When I first heard someone say that I thought they were nuts, but not any more.  Some of the wealthy of this Country like the Koch Brothers are definitely out to buy a President and members of Congress and are basically telling the middle class that we don't count -- only the wealthy and their money now count in this Country.

Yesterday when Justice Scalia went after Obama on immigration, I was appalled at his venom.  When you are named to the SCOTUS, would think you would be held to a higher standard but conservatives like Limbaugh applauded Scalia because he took after Obama.  What was Scalia thinking with the attack on this President or any President?  What if a more liberal justice had taken after President Bush.  The hypocrisy of the conservative pundits is beyond belief today.  Now if the Obama order on immigration is challenged, Scalia must recuse.  That was stupid and childish.

Last night  I became totally embarrassed by the Republican Party and their sell out to corporations and the big money because that is the only explanation for the Romney win when in the early states he didn't even reach 40% of the vote but he was shoved down our throats.  Now the SCOTUS has interfered in State's Rights in a 100-year old Montana Law and some Republicans thinks it is great.

This is not the Republican Party I voted for the first time in 1968.  If things keep up like this, I am not sure I will continue to remain a Republican.  I am not alone as more and more Republicans are questioning what has happened to the Republican Party that is now bought and paid for by big donors.  Rasmussen has this gem today that more than half of Americans don't believe either party represents the American people::

53% Say Neither Party Represents American People

That is very high percentage and shows there are major problems looming in both parties thanks to these two candidates neither who should be President IMHO.  How Republicans are managing to blow this election and drive long time Republicans to vote for a Libertarian candidate who is more Republican than the Republican candidate is one for the record books.

Last week Speaker Boehner said Obama was part of the cover-up on Fast and Furious because he invoked Executive Privilege.  Did he say the same thing when President Bush claimed executive privilege on the firing of US Attorneys by Karl Rove since he was not a cabinet secretary?  Now Cong Issa has declared that he believes the White House knew nothing.  I disagreed when people first said it was a witch hunt but after learning more, it sure looks like the House Leadership will do anything to embarrass Obama to help Romney.  Issa told the truth on Sunday so will the Speaker apologize or is he going to continue to be a hypocrite.

As you can tell, I am totally fed up with the leadership of the National Republican Party who seem to be bought and paid for by the big donors like the Koch Brothers who want to run America and have no rules or regulations including minimum wage.  People like the Koch Brothers are the reason we have unions.

When I can watch MSNBC and discover is it more honest on the SCOTUS rulings then Fox News, there is a real problem.  Michael Medved did a really good job with his appearance on MSNBC.  He gave straight answers which is missing in a lot of conservative pundits as they have turned into pretzels many times to defend Republicans of today and the nominee Romney.  Some have defended Romney more than they ever did President GW Bush. It makes you wonder what is their agenda because Bush was a conservative and Romney has always governed as much more liberal who never met a fee he didn't like as Governor of MA.

Today I voted in the Oklahoma Republican Primary and at least I didn't want to vote 'none of the above' like I did in our Presidential Primary.  Making progress.

Congress Back in Session -- Hold on to your Wallets

This is not a good start to the year -- debt ceiling needs raised, no budget for FY12, and the estimated amount to deficit with bills passed in the House last year in ten months was $1T.  This is your Congress at work.  Yet they wonder why their ratings are so low.

Looks like big Government Republicans are still in charge in the House like they have been since the GOP originally took the House in 1994, lost it in 2006 and took it back in 2010.  I thought we sent our Representatives to DC to cut the budget not have business as usual and cave to the Democrats over and over again.

Now we learn the  budget from the House of $1T was passed on December 16th to keep the Government open.  You mean to tell me that they couldn't find more cuts.  Bet regular citizens could find a lot of cuts they missed but then they would have to tell their districts no and there was an election year coming up.  Must admit that I missed the passage of the $1T budget bill to keep government open as I was getting ready for Christmas and a trip to Denver and then Phoenix for the Insight Bowl after Christmas.  How convenient to pass all this while people are involved in various activities during the holidays.

Congress should not even be in session after October 1st when the new fiscal year (FY) starts because there should be a budget in place to begin the new fiscal year.  Years ago the new FY began on 1 July but then in the traditional wisdom of Congress, they decided they wouldn't need continuing resolutions if they moved it to 1 October.  Congress still cannot get a budget agreed to and more continuing resolutions are passed even though the date was moved back.  That is no way to do business but it is also wrong to do business as usual when there is such a huge deficit.

Believe we need new leadership in Congress starting with both parties in the Senate.  I am not even a little impressed with the Republican leadership in the Senate and less impressed with the Democrats.  Mitch McConnell from the Republicans and Harry Reid from the Democrats are two leaders who need to give up leadership as neither one has the capability of putting the American people first.  As a whole, Senate leadership is really bad.

In the House, Pelosi and her group have no intention of doing was is best for all Americans as they prefer class warfare.  On the Republican side we have been disappointed that the House under the leadership of Boehner cannot even get the leadership to work together.  It seems that Cantor and Boehner are not on the same side a lot of times and has led to some dysfunctional moments.

Would have loved to see Mike Pence as Speaker of the House but he is running for Governor of Indiana so this will be his last year in Congress.  The people of Indiana are going to be very fortunate to have Mike Pence as their next Governor.  I am hoping that after four years as Governor, he will be our nominee for President in 2016.  He was one of my early favorites this time, but he felt the calling of Indiana.  Please feel free to donate to his campaign for Governor at http://mikepence.com/ to help make sure he is Indiana's next Governor.  He is going to be sorely missed in the House.

Cong Steve King who like Mike Pence can say more in a minute than most can say if five minutes will be there to protect conservative values and try to get more Republicans in the House on the side of cutting the budget and especially regulations.

The amount of regulations that are being added almost daily is mind boggling -- Obama added $9.5B in new regulations just in the month of July 2011.  Through the end of March 2011, the Obama Administration added close to $40 billion in new costs for regulations and rules to the economy, more than twice the Bush rate.  Was disgusted with the rate of Bush regulations and rules but never gave a thought it would double with the next President.  Couldn't find a tally on the end of the year but will post when it is available.

That gets us to the Republican primary where we have three big Government types running against two small Government types.  Romney, Santorum, and Newt by their records are for big Government while Paul and Perry both from Texas are for small Government just disagreeing on how to get there.  The Republican Party looks poised to have our nominee be a big Government type so will regulations/rules continue to cost the taxpayer no matter who wins the Presidency?  Sure looks like it from where I sit.

We see more and more conservatives referring to Romney as Obama lite.  Based on his record as Governor of Massachusetts, we would have to agree with that, but Romney is not running on his record as Governor.  He wants you to only takes what he says today as the facts no matter he was Governor from 2002 to Jan 2007.  Even in 2007, was a member of the moderate Republican Mainstreet Partnership who opposed Sam Alito .  He now is in the hip pocket of Wall Street and K Street lobbyists and we are supposed to believe everything he says when he has flipped flopped on over 30 issues?  Give me a break!

Will someone explain where all these big Government Republicans came from or have they been masquerading as conservatives which seems the logical conclusion.  For every Allen West (R-FL) or James Lankford (R-OK) we have twice as many in the House who believe in earmarks and pork and want to bring home that bacon to their district.  It is time for voters to actually look at who they are electing and vow to stop returning someone to Congress who is a big spender and start electing more small Government types.  In the months ahead those small Government types running for the Congress will be spotlighted on here as people to support.  We will also be going after the big Government types from both parties.  This is not about the left or the right but about electing men and women to Congress who will do the right thing for the American people not line their own pockets.

Hold on to your wallets because Congress is back ready to spend/waste your tax dollars on not only necessary expenditures but a lot that are unnecessary in this election year as they believe more spending for their district is more votes for them.   Time to send the big spenders to the unemployment line.

Went to National Review for some updated commentary and once again was not disappointed.  Now you can read the real facts about what is about to happen:

What Happened? What Now?July 29, 2011 12:36 P.M. By Kathryn Jean Lopez 

I am hearing some optimism about this morning’s move. It relies on this understanding of events: 

House GOP leadership had two problems last night. One was obviously getting his plan out of the House, getting Cap, Cut, Balancers on board. The second: John Boehner needed to give Harry Reid something that he could change. It’s now the Balanced Budget Amendment. 

That second point is a positive spin on what really happened: The whole GOP caucus simply did not buy Boehner’s optimism about forcing Reid to pass an unamended bill. And so by adding the BBA language, the House forfeits the possibility of Harry Reid passing the Boehner bill and sending it to the president untouched. 

So what does the new path look like? This tweaked Budget Control Act will pass the House. The Senate will strip out the BBA language. It will pass the Senate. When it goes back to the House, Boehner loses some of his caucus again, but Pelosi will have to get some of her members on board. If this is such a crisis moment, Democrats are the party in power. Boehner negotiated with his caucus and got an imperfect bill that the Democratic Senate could work with — with a statement of principles in it including the BBA. Then the Democrats, who do run Washington, after all, will have to step up to the plate. 

Ball’s in your court, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, in other words. 

Enter the commenters …  

Read More at National Review from Katheryn Jean Lopez

This is a brilliant plan to put the ball in the court of Obama and Reid who have assured Americans that without raising the debt ceiling, the United States will default at midnight on 2 August.

Would hope after all of this that some people in the Congress actually understand that the Democrats still run Government with the Senate and White House in their hands.  We can change that in November 2012 but we have a long way to go before that happens.  Time for Republicans to play it smart and keep backing the Senate and Obama into a corner with passing these bills even if the Senate tables them on the orders of Obama.  Then take it to the people how obstructionists that the Senate and Obama are with their refusal to do what is best for the American people by getting the deficit under the control.

It is a tailor made campaign issue that needs to keep being pushed:

House Leadership passed several bills on the debt ceiling that the Senate wouldn't even vote on  electing to table instead.  Is this an example of bi-partisanship that Obama and Reid claim they want?  

Then we always have "Where is the Senate budget?"

This afternoon is  much brighter then it was yesterday at this time.  There is an old saying where there is a will there is a way and the House Republican Leadership are living up to that saying.  No one has worked harder than the Republican House Leadership and its members to try and put a bill together that both sides should want to pass.  The catch -- Democrats got so used to getting only Democrat bills rammed through the Congress for Obama to sign in 2009/2010, that now they balk at any Republican ideas to lower the deficit in a meaningful way.  The Democrats need to grow up and quit acting like spoiled brats.

Fred Barnes: Reagan and Boehner, Two Peas in a Pod

This article by Fred Barnes is so true and matches my memories of Ronald Reagan as President -- always thought of him as the President who was willing to take his gains in increments and then all of a sudden the Democrats would realize he had won the day and got most of what he wanted.

That should be a lesson to some conservative ideologues who want it all now or nothing.  They probably should not play poker -- Reagan was the master of the winning poker hand against the Democrats.  Smile on his face, good natured, not threatening and all of a sudden he had what he wanted when he started off.  He gave a little to get a lot eventually.  He was in no hurry and willing to take his time because he knew with a Democrat Congress he would have to play it smart.

These two paragraphs by Fred Barnes sum up President Reagan and why he was able to get so much accomplished because he didn't just say NO!

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.

This should be a lesson to those Republicans who are against raising the debt ceiling under any circumstance.  If they asked themselves what would Reagan do, they wouldn't like the answer.  It is also why when some of them use Reagan to bolster their side, they are not being honest.  He was a man that put Country first, Party way second, and re-election at the end.   That's how it should be so when Obama tries to channel Reagan he fails miserably as well.

Reagan was his own man who loved America and always did what was best for all Americans and our Country.  His upbeat personality made him likable because he didn't go around threatening fellow Republicans in public if they didn't do what he said.  He would be appalled at what he would see from some Republicans today who call themselves conservative Republicans when they are more Libertarian than Republican.

Fred Thompson is correct -- GOP got what it wanted -- Don't Push It!  Paul Ryan Backs Boehner Plan!  John Bolton: Former ambassador John Bolton has just released a statement of support for John Boehner’s debt ceiling plan, arguing that the speaker of the House’s plan is good for “all conservatives, especially those concerned with American national security.”  

Those are just a few of conservatives with their comments on the Boehner plan.  Are they going to be called names and RINO's by the Tea Party and some members of Congress now?  That seems to be the mantra of some so-called conservatives who put themselves and their ideology first.

President Reagan was right in the 80's and his philosophy is right today.  When you don't control the Congress and the White House, you take your wins and live to fight another day which the House Republican Leadership understands well.  Shame on the ones who are more beholden to the Tea Party for their reelection then they are at putting America first.  We didn't get in this hole overnight and we are not going to get out of it overnight.  We cannot afford to lose the credit rating and default?  Those members who put the wishes of the Tea Party first don't have a clue about how Ronald Reagan governed and most likely don't care.

Reagan and Boehner, Two Peas in a Pod

5:34 PM, Jul 27, 2011 • By FRED BARNES 

What would President Reagan do in the debt limit battle? That’s unknowable, but we do know what his goal would be: get the best deal possible under the circumstances. Reagan never let the perfect or the unattainable keep him from achieving the good.

Reagan spent the 1980 campaign promoting a 30 percent, across the board tax cut on individual income. It would be phased in over three years, starting in 1982.

Since Democrats controlled the House by a sizeable margin, Reagan couldn’t get exactly what he wanted. True, he could have held out for a 30 percent cut – and probably gotten nothing. Instead, he trimmed his tax proposal to 25 percent over three years, starting in 1983, and Congress passed it in 1981.

Reagan’s tax cuts weren’t the only reason the economy soared, but they were a big one. And those cuts turned out to be a down payment on a further reduction in tax rates in sweeping tax reform in 1986. If he hadn’t compromised five years earlier on tax cuts that lowered the top rate to 50 percent, it’s unlikely he’d have succeeded in cutting it to 28 percent in 1986. 

Reagan faced a similar situation on national security. In the campaign against Jimmy Carter, he’d advocated a tough stance against the Soviet Union that included an expensive military buildup. Most Democrats were opposed. 

He made a deal, if only a tacit one. Democrats would go along with a surge in defense spending and Reagan would accede, to some extent anyway, to higher domestic spending. Deficits grew, but the groundwork was laid for winning the Cold War. 

Now, back to the debt limit fight. 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.

... 

Source:  Weekly Standard

The Real World: Costs of Republican Intransigence

This article is well written and to the point.  Some Republican members of the House and Senate need to understand they represent all their district and/or state not just the Tea Party.  The threats coming out of some members like Jim DeMint in the Senate made my blood boil with his comments in an email from World Net Daily and is exactly what Koffler is talking about.

DeMint has NO plan but he is threatening the House Members to vote 'NO' on any debt ceiling rise or they will be out of power for years.  What's he going to do, join with the National Tea Party leaders to take out Republican incumbents that don't vote the way he wants.  For $29.99 you can also join the World Net Daily campaign to fax all House Members using DeMint's comments.  NOTE:  Wrongly identified the cost of faxing at $29.99 to Jim DeMint originally when it should have been Joseph Farrah of World Net Daily:

Farah was referring to Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina who told ABC News today that Republicans who support raising the debt limit without first passing a balanced budget amendment and massive across-the-board spending cuts will be out in 2012.

"You're gone," he said, "destined to be swept out of Congress by a wave of voter anger. Based on what I can see around the country not only are those individuals gone, but I would suspect the Republican Party would be set back many years. It would be the most toxic vote. I can tell you if you look at the polls, Democrats, Republicans, independents, they do not think we should increase the debt limit."

Farah says DeMint is absolutely right. 

If he is so powerful, why couldn't he get a vote on the House debt bill which the Senate tabled.  There is a reason he is not in leadership as we are seeing right before our eyes -- he only has one agenda 'my way or no way' which is also the agenda of Obama.  Now DeMint is also telling House Republicans what to do?

Bad way to run government because in negotiations are the name of the game so often and no one usually gets everything they want.  You make the best deal possible and live to fight another day.  We should be thankful we even have the House because without the Republican leadership, a Pelosi house would have given Obama a blank check which many like DeMint have conveniently forgotten.

Did DeMint and others along with the National Tea Party actually think that winning the House was going to be the way to ram their conservative agenda through with Obama in the White House set to veto.  If it was, naive is the word.  So is DeMint going to use the debt ceiling to raise more money to defeat Republican incumbents who don't do what he says?  Time will tell.

This is one Republican not wanting to risk the credit rating of the United States to score political points and understands that we only control one leg of the three legged stool to get things passed and signed into law.  Looks like we elected a group of people who don't understand how government works and are part of the 'my way or no way' crowd which doesn't work for either side and is not 'The Real World.'  The people with backbones are going to stand up and be counted by voting for the House bill while others continue to whine and run to the media.  I have called several offices of Republicans to give them my support on getting the cuts necessary to raise the debt ceiling and not take a chance of what could happen with default.

The Costs of Republican Intransigenceby Keith Koffler on July 27, 2011, 10:16 am 

The GOP is set to self-immolate. Which is fine for starting Arab Springs, but real bad for governing and gaining power in the United States. 

Republicans have before them two options – one by House Speaker Boehner and the other by Senate Majority Leader Reid – that extend the debt ceiling without raising taxes. 

Obama will sign either one in order to avoid a default, you can be sure. Republicans are in the drivers’ seat. And they’re going to throw it all away because the cuts aren’t enough.

I have a plan. It's not a good plan, but it is a plan.
Photo by Keith Koffler

Republicans are right to seek a deal that makes vast cuts in spending. President Obama has raised spending to a 25 percent of GDP, the highest ever.  

But they are wrong to insist on their perfect world in which entitlement reform and discretionary spending cuts solve the deficit problem without any tax increases at all. Because unfortunately, the United States is part of the Real World. 

Let me describe The Real World: 

Republicans do not control the Senate or the presidency. 

This is not because God made Obama president and Harry Reid majority leader.   

The American people did. And God is not going to interfere and make Obama and Reid do serious entitlement reform and major cuts to spending. If Republicans want these changes, they need to elect Republicans to at least one of these positions in 2012. 

In the real world, the amount of taxes currently collected by the federal government, at about 14.5 percent of GDP, is currently at its lowest level since the presidency of Harry Truman. The last year of the Reagan administration, it was just above 18 percent. Did you know that? 

That’s not to say that taxes shouldn’t be right where they are, and that Obama isn’t seeking an increase in taxes so he can keep spending as high as possible on the health reform law and other “investments” – aka “spending” – that are the things that really get him out of bed in the morning. 

Excerpt:  Read More from Keith Koffler at The White House Dossier Blog

It is so refreshing to read these articles from someone who is not afraid to tell it like it is.  Shame that some Republicans are not facing 'The Real World' and prefer to live in their fantasy world where they control everything.  Sorry to burst DeMint's bubble but as has been said before he costs us some seats in the Senate along with the Tea Party Express by getting involved in primaries when they should have stayed out.

Then we have the DeMint backed Senator Lee of Utah who won't vote to raise the debt ceiling until a balanced budget amendment is passed which means a NO vote for a long time.  No way is a budget balanced amendment passing the Senate this year or next but like his mentor DeMint and others they will risk taking control of the Senate to grandstand by saying they will vote NO about raising the debt ceiling without even reading the bill.  One of GOP candidates voted no after signing a pledge to vote yes on the Cap, Cut, and Balance -- Michelle Bachmann followed the lead of her mentor Ron Paul to vote NO against her own pledge.

We call on House Republicans to stand tall and pass the best bill they can get that Obama and the Senate will get on board.  It is not going to be perfect -- far from it, but if they don't pass a bill and the United States defaults, then the House will be blamed.  Forget entitlements for now as they are not going to be part of this debt ceiling bill because there are not enough votes in the Senate.  Just be happy there are no new taxes and time to vote as Majority Leader Cantor has said instead of whining.

Fortunately, most thinking members of the House are not willing to take that chance and we expect a bill to be passed out of the House that the Senate can vote on and Obama can sign if Obama doesn't move the bar again. Those Republicans voting to increase the debt ceiling will be our heroes for putting America first and not default despite pressure from the Tea Party who has vowed to defeat them.  They will have put Country before Party and their own reelection.  Now that is what you call sacrifice.

Boehner: The President Wants a Blank Check; Krauthammer: Obama Address was a Campaign Speech; Obama Tried to Channel Reagan

Going to start off this morning with Speaker of the House John Boehner's Response to the Obama 'Campaign' Speech.  No one has worked harder than John Boehner to get this done but everytime he thinks they are near an agreement, Obama changes his mind which looks to a lot of us that Obama doesn't want an agreement.  Obama has never negotiated in good faith on the debt ceiling which is becoming more clear by the day.  Obama has one thing on his mind -- reelection and how he can fool the American people again.  This speech by Boehner that responds to Obama's speech details what has been happening:

Boehner’s Response: The President Wants a Blank Check
by Fox News Insider
July 25, 2011




NOTE: If you can stomach watching Obama's campaign speech, it is at the end of this post.

Will admit that I did not watch Obama's speech last night because frankly I didn't figure he would have anything new to say except to continue to blame Speaker Boehner and House Republicans.  Thought it would be better to view it in the morning. Wasn't wrong -- it was a campaign speech as he cannot help himself as he needs to blame everyone else. Think he believes his own press clippings that he was the 'annointed one' because he has to be the biggest narcissist that anyone has seen in politics.

It is never what is good for the Country but what is good for his reelection -- has been that way from Day One. Even stimulus and bailouts were geared to how to help his big donors. Never how can I help the American people as a whole. His answer to Red State America was to sick the EPA on us even more and when a disaster happened in Texas and Oklahoma, take months to approve disaster assistance.

The House and Senate had a framework agreement which Obama turned down on Sunday because he changed his mind on what he wanted at this late date. Obama is not fit to occupy the office of President when he gives a campaign speech on such a serious issue. Don't think he cares if we default because he will just blame the House which is filled with Representatives from every state who are not going to take the blame lying down when they know Obama is the problem.

The word out of the White House is Obama has been studying President Reagan on how to talk to the American people. News for Obama, he is no Ronald Reagan because Reagan spoke from the heart and if he had to compromise for the good of the Country, he would. This occupant of the White House is all about reelection and nothing more. Obama is treating default like the Clinton/Republican stand-off of government shut down which is two totally separate issues and if Obama cannot understand that, then he shouldn't be President. All this is nothing but posturing by Obama is score political points for his reelection campaign. His speech last night which is at the bottom of the article was more rhetoric to try and sway the American people that only he knows best.

Obama wasn't involved in debt ceiling talks until recently as he has been flying around the country on the taxpayers nickle attending fundraisers for his campaign. You would never have seen past Presidents out campaigning/fundraising with a debt crises looming. They would have been right in DC involved in the talks. Not Obama -- he came flying in with weeks to go on the talks giving his demands which keep changing.

Obama walked out of one negotiation session he called for at the White House, and then stormed into the White House Press Office Friday Night furious at Boehner and Republicans to gave a press statement which showed his anger at Boehner for quitting the talks after they were going nowhere.  Obama had changed what he would accept once again.  He said he would VETO the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill out of the House before he even knew the details of the bill. That should come as no shock as he signed the Obamacare bill without anyone reading the bill to see what was in it -- typical out of liberal Democrats.  Does Obama not want to sign a Republican debt ceiling plan?  He never did provide one of his own -- all he provided was demands on what he wanted not what was good for the Country.

It seems like Obama has held more press conferences in the last few weeks than all year as he tries to convince the American people that it is the mean old Republican's fault as they won't listen to him. He acts like a spoiled brat that keeps taking his basketball and going home when he doesn't get his way.

This article about Charles Krauthammer's comments last night showcase what is wrong with any negotiation involving Obama -- it is all about politics and his reelection which leads to most people's conclusion that he doesn't care about the Country.

Krauthammer Reacts to Obama Address: This Was a Campaign Speechby Fox News Insider
July 25, 2011 

After Monday night’s address by the president and response by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Bret Baier and his political panel reacted. Steve Hayes and A.B. Stoddard weighed in, A.B. saying that when it came to the president, his speech was “exactly what [was] expected.” Hayes suggested that the president’s remarks completely ignored the progress of the last few days. 

The critique most noteworthy, however, may have belonged to Charles Krauthammer who said he believed Obama’s speech was a purely partisan campaign speech. 

“He kept using the term ‘balanced approach,’ which is a word tested in the polls to appeal to Independents.” 

Krauthammer also pointed out the comparison Obama tried to make to President Ronald Reagan in the former commander in chief’s ability to sway Americans on a particular issue. 

“Remember what he said to Eric Cantor? ‘You call my bluff, I’ll go to the people?’ This is his attempt … let’s see if it works.”

******

Speaker Boehner's Speech as Prepared for Delivery

Good evening. I'm John Boehner. I serve as Speaker of the whole House -- of the members of both parties that you elect. These are difficult times in the life of our nation. Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why. Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio. I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America. Where most American business make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual. I've got news for Washington - those days are over. President Obama came to Congress in January and requested business as usual -- yet another routine increase in the national debt limit -- we in the House said 'not so fast.' Here was the president, asking for the largest debt increase in American history, on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.

Here's what we got for that spending binge: a massive health care bill that most Americans never asked for. A 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs. And a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours. The United States cannot default on its debt obligations. The jobs and savings of too many Americans are at stake.

What we told the president in January was this: the American people will not accept an increase in the debt limit without significant spending cuts and reforms.

And over the last six months, we've done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country. . .something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our government, and help small businesses get back on track.

Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support. It's called the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' Act. It CUTS and CAPS government spending and paves the way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which we believe is the best way to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have. Before we even passed the bill in the House, the President said he would veto it.

I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all.

Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president's demands changed.

The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won't be there for them and their kids unless significant action is taken now.

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.

You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill - one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate.

Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate, and be sent to the President for his signature. If the President signs it, the 'crisis' atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces.

The individuals doing this work will not be outsiders, but elected representatives of the people, doing the job they were elected to do as outlined in the Constitution. Those decisions should be made based on how they will affect people who are struggling to get a job, not how they affect some politician's chances of getting reelected.

This debate isn't about President Obama and House Republicans ... it isn't about Congress and the White House ... it's about what's standing between the American people and the future we seek for ourselves and our families.

You know, I've always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people. And right now, we have a government so big and so expensive it's sapping the drive of our people and keeping our economy from running at full capacity.

The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you're spending more money than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it.

There is no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt. Break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future.

We are up to the task, and I hope President Obama will join us in this work.

God bless you and your families, and God bless America.

******
Now if you have made it this far, be prepared for Obama's attempt to morph into Ronald Reagan which he failed:

NY Times Breaking News: House Speaker Boehner Pulls Out of Debt Ceiling Talks

UPDATE from the White House Dossier:

Deficit Negotiations Break Down Over Taxes

by Keith Koffler on July 22, 2011, 6:51 pm

President Obama stormed into the briefing room this evening to proclaim that deficit negotiations had broken down, accusing House Speaker Boehner and Republicans of walking away from a deal because they refused to include any tax increases.

I just got a call about a half hour ago from Speaker Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations that we’ve been engaged in here at the White House for a big deficit reduction and debt reduction package.

The agreement that was on the table apparently would have reduced the deficit by about $3 trillion, including what Obama said was $1.2 trillion in “additional revenues.” This, he said, would have been less than the Senate “Gang of Six” proposal that some Republicans have signed onto.

But Republicans accused the White House of backing away from an earlier commitment to take tax increases off the table, putting them back on after the Gang of Six proposal emerged the middle of the week.

Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor claimed a deal was never close.

Obama has asked Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders to come to the White House at 11 am Saturday for another meeting, if only to agree on a way to lift the debt ceiling before markets open Monday.

The first sentence says all anyone needs to know about Obama -- looks like he doublecrossed Republicans and then got mad when they walked out.  Storming in the WH Press Room shows that when he doesn't get his way he gets mad.  This from the President who spent weeks out campaigning ignoring the debt ceiling and then expecting to get his way on everything.   Reminder:  Gang of Six proposal is for a budget not the debt ceiling which Obama still cannot seem to get straight.  Is it on purpose?
*****
This goes to show that you cannot deal with Obama as a Republican.  All those rumors released by the White House mouth pieces about a deal was near were nothing more than smoke and mirrors to make it look like Obama was doing something when he was still the stubborn little kid who didn't get his way so was taking his ball home.  The "I Won" Obama needs to get a clue that you broker a deal by both sides giving not demanding his way or no way which looks to be exactly what happened.

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Friday, July 22, 2011 -- 6:05 PM EDT
-----

House Speaker Boehner Pulls Out of Debt Ceiling Talks


The Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, said Friday that he had broken off talks with President Obama on getting a budget deal to avert a government default.

Mr. Boehner said that Mr. Obama wanted to raise taxes too high and won’t make “fundamental changes” to benefit programs such as Medicare.

Top Republican aides said Mr. Boehner would now work with Senate leaders on an alternative aimed at averting a market-rattling, first-ever federal default.

Source:  NY Times

Good for Speaker Boehner.  Now Obama can say he tried but no one will listen and take the weekend off to go play golf as he has nothing to do.  I would have more faith that the House and Senate can work something out if Reid wasn't head of the Senate.

John Boehner: 'No Deal' On Debt Ceiling, Democrats Have 'Done Nothing'

Seems for the last few weeks every time we turn around we are hearing from the media that Speaker Boehner has cut a deal with Obama and the conservative pundits and media go nuts.  This is one of those 'Read my Lips' kind of moments where the Speaker told it like it is today:  Democrats have 'Done Nothing' on the debt ceiling.  In the Senate the Democrat leadership led by Reid along with Obama from the White House let people think the Budget outline had to do with the debt ceiling when it is the Senate budget that has been missing for two years and even now the details have to be filled in.

Speaker Boehner remarks from today on the House floor are below:

"Mr. Speaker, there is a huge gulf between Washington, DC and the American people. They are dealing with tough times. They’re struggling to pay their bills. And they look to Washington, they see politicians who can’t stop spending money -- their money. 

Listen, we’re broke. We need to stop the out-of-control spending spree that’s going on in Washington, DC. 

The House has acted. We passed a bill that raised the debt limit, cuts spending, puts in place real reforms in place, and requires Congress send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment. It’s called ‘cut, cap, and balance.’ 

We’ve done our job. The Democrats who run Washington have done nothing. They can’t stop spending the American people’s money. They won’t and they refuse. 

The Senate Majority Leader says they still won’t offer a plan to cut spending. Or a plan to raise the debt limit. Frankly, that’s irresponsible. 

Mr. Speaker, where is their plan? 

President Obama talks about being ‘the adult in the room.’ But where is his plan to cut spending and raise the debt limit? 

We’re in the fourth quarter -- and we’re fighting for jobs, we’re fighting for the future, we’re fighting for the American people."

We thought the most important part of the article were the above words of the Speaker without editing.  Here is the rest of the article:

John Boehner: 'No Deal' On Debt Ceiling, Democrats Have 'Done Nothing'
AP/The Huffington Post 

First Posted: 7/22/11 01:18 PM ET Updated: 7/22/11 01:19 PM ET 

WASHINGTON (AP/The Huffington Post) -- Speaker John Boehner declared Friday that the House has "done its job" toward resolving the impasse over raising the government's debt limit and said it was time for the Senate to act. 

"There is no deal. There is no agreement in private" with Democrats, Boehner told reporters at the Capitol as the Senate was voting on a bill pushed through the House by majority Republicans which is called "cut, cap and balance" in pursuit of an accommodation on raising the government's debt limit. The legislation was killed in the Democratic-dominated Senate on a procedural vote by a 51-46 margin. 

Treasury's borrowing authority expires Aug. 2, and the government will be facing default at that time in the absence of legislation to raise the debt limit. 

A testy Boehner said at one point that "at the end of the day, we have a spending problem," blaming that on Democrats and then abruptly declaring an end to his news conference. 

Boehner's appearance came after days of partisan wrangling and the Senate vote on GOP-backed legislation tying an increase in borrowing authority to a substantial program of spending cuts, including restraints on Social Security and Medicare. 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called on Democrats to produce their own plan.
After the Senate voted to kill the "cut, cap, and balance" bill, Boehner took to the House floor to blast Democrats. 

Read More at:  AOL/Huffington Post

Where is the Obama/Senate plan to reduce spending to produce an agreement on the debt ceiling?  Are they going to remain MIA and let this Country go into default which has never happened before?  Are the Democrats too lazy to come up with a plan or is their plan to blame it all on Republicans who have a plan?

First thing cancelled if the Government defaults should be the birthday party for Obama in Chicago which is actually a huge fundraiser as he continues to keep campaigning which seems to be more important than any financial crises.  Ground the VIP fleet for any trips unless it is an emergency until this whole crises is solved.  Also cancel golf games, parties, etc. of the President using our nickle.  If he cannot come up with a plan, then he needs to quit using our tax dollars for his own enjoyment.  No vacations and no pay for Congress and the White House should get some movement.

If the American people have not taken vacations this year in large numbers, then why should the Obama's be on more vacations this year.  Trip to Brazil during Spring Break, Michelle Obama's trip to Africa with family, and now the Chicago trip as well as a vacation on Martha's Vineyard all on the taxpayers nickle should have everyone up in arms.  That is just a tip of the iceberg for the needless trips they have both taken.  Going to NC for Habitat for Humanity Home is not a necessary trip for Michelle and should be cancelled unless the DNC wants to pay for it.

If the Democrats want to cut the budget, start with cutting the Obama trips around the country along with overseas family trips.  It would be nice if Obama acted like he cared about the American taxpayer just once instead of fleecing us for his and his family's enjoyment.  No more campaign trips unless the DNC pays the full price for AF One would be my demand if I could have my say.  We are over a year out from the election, he has no primary opponent and he is campaigning like he has a big primary.

McConnell: Real Solution to Debt Crisis Unattainable With Obama in White House (Understatement)

The latest from the Professional Politician Obama is that Social Security and Disability Payments due on the 3rd of August could be impacted if the debt limit is not raised by midnight on August 2nd.  Nothing like scaring senior citizens which the Democrats and Obama have been doing for years.  It is a proven fact that revenue to the Federal Government will pay for entitlement programs and the interest on the debt so there is no need to scare seniors in thinking they won't get a check.

Have a few suggestions that could be used to start cutting the budget starting in the White House:

1.  Ground Air Force One -- no campaign appearances for fundraisers or trips for his family to take a vacation like the latest trip to Africa.  Most families cannot afford a vacation this year but the Obama Family keeps taking them on the taxpayers nickle loving to visit overseas. 

2.  Take back the 8% pay raise to White House staffers which was obscene to start when Civil Service and Social Security received 0% pay hikes for two years in a row. 

3.  Cancel 34 CZAR positions.  Obama has appointed 39 CZARs (not subject to Senate approval) and Reagan - 1; Bush - 1; Clinton - 3; Bush - 4 which means all together the previous four Presidents only had nine (9) while Obama has 39.  Best estimate is the individiual CZARs make $175,000+ and supervise staffs of ten which all together would equal $1M per CZAR.  The budget deal already defunded the CZARS but here is what Obama thought of the agreement he signed for the budget: 

Republicans cried foul over Obama’s move. 

But after signing the legislation Friday that funds the government through the end of September and cuts $38 billion in spending, Obama issued a signing statement saying he would ignore the part about his czars, arguing that defunding those positions violated his constitutional authority.  

“It’s not surprising that the White House, having bypassed Congress to empower these ‘Czars’ is objecting to eliminating them,” Mike Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said in a statement. 

“It’s not surprising that the White House, having bypassed Congress to empower these ‘Czars’ is objecting to eliminating them,” Mike Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said in a statement. 

4.  No more weekly White House parties where they fly in food from all over at taxpayer expense. 

5.  No more vacations on the taxpayers nickle.  If he wants to go to Martha's Vineyard pay for it himself including Secret Service protection. 

6.  Combine EPA, Department of the Interior, and Department of Energy into one agency.  If it was good enough for Homeland Security, it should be good enough for those three and save the expenses of duplication and make it more efficient.  That looks like a pretty good savings. At the same time eliminate duplication in the various agencies -- Education is a great place to start.

7.  Do an across the board cut of all new employees unless they can be proven to be essential and cut the number of 7000 SES civil service employees to essential only.  At their top pay ($179,700) that would be quite a savings.  

8.  Ground the VIP fleet of the Air Force unless the trip is critical.No more Congressional trips overseas unless they can certify that it is critical they make the trip.  Same with the Secretary of State and her people that cannot seem to stay in DC as they fly around the world.  If Prince William and his wife Duchess Catherine can fly commercial, why can't US government officials?

Those are a few suggestions that would start to save money.  All they need to cut the deficit is some good old fashion common sense.   We agree with Senator McConnell that as long as Obama is President there will be no solution to the debt crises as he sees no need to cut back spending but he does want to raise taxes so he can have more money to waste.

McConnell: Real Solution to Debt Crisis Unattainable With Obama in White HouseTuesday, July 12, 2011 By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
of Kentucky, speaks to the media after their
 caucus luncheon on Capitol Hill Tuesday,
 June 14, 2011.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

 WASHINGTON (AP) - In unusually blunt and combative language, the Senate's top Republican says White House offers to cut long-term spending amount to "smoke and mirrors" and directly challenged President Barack Obama's leadership in debt limit negotiations. 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell charged Tuesday that Democrats and the Obama administration were relying on budget gimmicks to give the "appearance of serious belt-tightening."
"After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable," McConnell said. 

Obama has been pushing for $4 trillion in a 10-year deficit reduction proposal. But House Speaker John Boehner, after seeking to forge a deal of that magnitude, told the president that a smaller, $2 trillion to $2.4 trillion deal was more realistic. A deal is essential to win Republican votes to increase the nation's debt ceiling by Aug. 2, or risk a government default. 

McConnell said Republicans will "do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn't default on its obligations." 

But he dismissed the cuts the administration and Democrats have proposed as gimmicks.
His comments underscored the seemingly inflexible bargaining positions that have created an impasse between Obama and GOP lawmakers as they struggle for agreement on budget cuts as the price for maintaining the government's ability to borrow. 

McConnell's remarks represent an escalation for Republicans, who had earlier acknowledged that bipartisan negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden had managed to identify up to $2 trillion in spending reductions. Details of those cuts, however, were still being worked out.
McConnell accused the administration of leaking its proposals for spending cuts to the media without details. 

"The lack of detail concealed the fact that the savings they were supposedly willing to support were at best smoke and mirrors," the Kentucky Republican said.. 

Excerpt:  CNS

President Who Began 2011 Saying "No Cuts" Now Poised to Sign Largest Spending Cut Since WWII

Visited the Speaker's site to get the facts not spin we are hearing from both sides. Ended up leaving my comments after reading some of the more naive remarks I have seen yet by posters. If this is indicative of what people are learning about government in the public schools, we have a problem. This lack of understanding that it takes three separate entities, House, Senate, and President to get a bill signed into law is mind boggling to be kind. There are only two ways a President doesn't sign a bill and it becomes law:

1. The President vetoes a bill and 2/3 of the Senate and the House are required to override for the bill to become law. (Override a veto)

2. The President doesn't veto or sign the bill for ten days (not including Sunday) and it becomes law unless Congress is adjourned. If Congress has adjourned, the bill does not become law after ten days (not including Sunday) because of no action by the President. (pocket veto)

The Supreme Court also plays a role in the rare instances where a new law is challenged in the court system ending up at the Supreme Court for a final decision. A law passed by both houses of Congress and signed or pocket vetoed by the President can be overturned by the Supreme Court or even portions of the law thrown out.

Consider the above on how a bill becomes law the Government 101 tip for the day.

If Republicans only control the House, the chances of certain agenda items passing the Senate and being signed by the President are zero, zip, nada. These people going after Speaker Boehner on giving Planned Parenthood and NPR a separate vote as part of the negotiated agreement are showing how little they know about how the Government works.

The idea that the $38+B is worthless is unfathomable. It is a start that we never would have had without Democrat negligence on the FY11 budget.  How hard is it to understand if the Democrats had done their job there would be NO $38B in budget cuts and no vouchers for DC students? Also there would be no separate vote on Planning Parenthood and NPR funding that will put the Senators and House members on record if they support funding these two groups. Do some people not understand basic politics and how to play the game? It sure looks like it. 

As Speaker Boehner has pointed out Obama was saying "No Cuts" at the beginning of the year, but is now going to sign into law the FY11 budget with $38B in cuts along with restoring vouchers for DC students. If that is not a win for the Republicans in the House, not sure what is. Obama reminds me of the typical politician that is pushed into a corner and then spins the result. There is no way to spin going from no budget for FY11 by Democrats to 'no budget cuts' at the beginning of 2011 to caving on $38B in budget cuts to save funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR. That hasn't stopped the Obama White House from frantically spinning away with the help of the Obama media that this is what the President wanted. Obama is 180 degrees opposite of John Kerry spinning his Iraqi funding vote that he was for it before he was against it -- Obama was against the budget cuts before he is for them. Democrats and some Republicans have a habit of flip flopping for political gain.

President Who Began 2011 Saying "No Cuts" Now Poised to Sign Largest Spending Cut Since WWII
Posted by Speaker Boehner Press Office on April 12, 2011

White House spin merchants are in overdrive this week, contending that their boss – who just months ago called for a spending freeze that would result in no cuts to federal spending levels – will be getting most of what he asked for from Congress when he signs into law the largest non-defense spending cut in American history. The White House-spun yarn goes something like this: “Despite his January call for zero spending cuts, the president has actually always been in favor of spending cuts, as long as they are cuts in mandatory spending. And since the final agreement contains significant cuts in mandatory spending along with significant cuts in discretionary spending, it means the president won.”

Here are the facts:

Republicans believe dramatic reductions in both discretionary and mandatory (“autopilot”) spending are essential to help reduce uncertainty in our economy and create a better environment for job growth, and the agreement makes historic cuts in both types of spending -- just months after President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress called for zero cuts and claimed spending cuts would hurt the economy.

Democrats note that some of the spending cuts in the agreement were proposed in the president’s budget, but disingenuously fail to note that many of those cuts were used in the president’s budget to offset additional or new spending elsewhere. In the context of the agreement, those cuts are now real cuts – chopping billions of dollars off the baseline, rather than being used to offset other Washington spending sought by the administration.

As Chairman Paul Ryan said Tuesday, the agreement "[secures] tens of billions of dollars in spending cuts, forcing the President and his party’s leaders to retreat from their reckless spending spree. The historic spending cut turns the page from Washington’s pervasive culture of spending, sending a welcome signal to job creators and cleaning up the unprecedented budget mess left by the last Congress.

The agreement cuts nearly $40 billion compared to FY 2010 spending levels (nearly $38 billion compared to the March 4 continuing resolution) – the largest non-defense spending cut in American history – and will cut $315 billion from the federal budget over the next decade, clearing a path for the landmark Path to Prosperity budget offered by Chairman Ryan, which cuts trillions more over the next decade. The bill also eliminates the ability of students to draw down two Pell Grant awards at the same time, saving an additional $35 billion over the next 10 years.

The gross spending cut in the bill is nearly $45 billion. The total spending cut would be nearly $45 billion had the Speaker not fought for – and won – a $5 billion increase in defense spending, which is included in the agreement.

As a result of the agreement, the federal government will spend $78.5 billion less than President Obama proposed spending this year.

The agreement eliminates one Obamacare program, cuts a second nearly in half, and eliminates four of the Obama Administration’s controversial “czars” – including the president’s health czar charged with overseeing his government takeover of health care, his auto czar responsible for managing the federal government’s takeover of U.S. auto manufacturers, and his climate change czar tasked with implementing the president’s job-crushing national energy tax.

The agreement secures Senate votes and debate on de-funding of two presidential priorities – Obamacare and Planned Parenthood – while saving the successful D.C. school choice program Democrats have been trying to eliminate for years.

The agreement includes zero earmarks – a stark contrast to two years ago, when President Obama accommodated a Democratic House and Senate and signed into law a massive omnibus spending bill containing an estimated 9,000 earmarks.

The agreement makes real cuts in discretionary spending and includes no tax increases. After initially opposing any spending cuts, the White House and Congressional Democrats abandoned that position during negotiations and tried to cut their losses by demanding tax increases and trying to prevent virtually any cuts to discretionary spending. Republican negotiators rebuffed this gambit and forced the White House to accept an agreement with a mix of cuts from both discretionary and mandatory spending programs, and zero tax hikes.

The agreement terminates more than 40 ineffective programs at the U.S. Department of Education alone, including Educational Technology State Grants, Even Start, Advanced Credentialing, Mental Health Integration, Exchanges with Historic Whaling Partners, Women’s Educational Equity, Tech-Prep Education State Grants, Smaller Learning Communities, Legal Assistance Loan Repayment Program, Thurgood Marshall Legal Opportunity Scholarships, and B.J. Stupak Olympic Scholarships.

For a full list of federal programs that are cut or eliminated by the agreement, click here.

Strong believer in the Department of Education is out of control with grants that do nothing except line someones pocket. It is an agency that needs brought back under control by putting it under another cabinet department and getting them out of day to day operation of the public schools. Understand that the Education Department at the Federal level is necessary for certain items like standardizing graduation requirements around the Country that allow states to increase standards but not lower them. An idea to make it a separate agency sounded like a good idea but it was turned into a disaster. It seems to get worse not better every year.

If you can combine all the various agencies into Homeland Security, why not do the same with other agencies and cut the bureaucratic red tape? Too many separate agencies and departments has led to a very bloated payroll under Obama starting with the Czars to oversee the various departments and agencies. Cutting government positions has ceased and now the Federal Government is adding positions and becoming overmanned once again which leads to more red tape.

On a Senate Call, a Glimpse of Marching Orders Courtesy of Sen Schumer

The fact that Senator Schumer is taking orders from Democrat Senate Caucus on how to deal with the Republican House should not shock anyone or the fact they want to portray the House Speaker and members of the House Republican Caucus in a negative light for the media.

What does shock are two things -- first is that this comes from the New York Times and second that Schumer's staff was dumb enough to leave an open mic so the media could hear his instructions to fellow Democrats.

Anyone who knows Speaker Boehner knows he is his own person and not beholding to the Tea Party movement, the Tea Party Caucus or any other group. He will meet with the Tea Party but has stayed independent which Democrats already know but why let the truth get in the way.

When the Democrats talk about the 'extreme right wing,' they don't have a clue about the Tea Party. Most Tea Party members are not 'extreme right wing' but are Americans who are fed up with overspending of the Government along with overreaching by the Government into their daily lives. That is not 'extreme right wing' but American patriotism. Liberal Democrat like Schumer and Boxer have gone so far left that anyone with common sense seems 'extreme' to them.

March 29, 2011, 12:30 pm
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

Um, senators, ever heard of the mute button.

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.How news is made . . .

Source:  New York Times

Byron York: Pelosi's Partisan Parting Shot

Pelosi continued being arrogant yesterday and is still refusing to acknowledge that she and her tactics in the House played a huge part in the loss by the Democrats in the mid term.  Byron York nailed Pelosi in his assessment today -- she was partisan to the end.  The look on her face when someone voted for Hoyer was priceless, she was shocked and tried her best to smile while he had a shocked look but with a grin.

The voting for Speaker turned out to be very interesting yesterday with John Boehner getting 241 votes from Republicans (Boehner did not vote); Pelosi 173, and then the fun began shortly after the voting started as 19 Democrats refused to vote for Pelosi. Some of those 19 like Dan Boren were not about to take the heat they received last time from voting for Pelosi for Speaker.

While not being formally nominated Heath Shuler (NC) received 11 votes: Altmire (PA), Boren (OK), Cooper (TN), Donnelly (IN), Holden (PA), Kissel (NC), Matheson (UT), McIntyre (NC), Michaud (ME), Ross (AR), and Shuler (NC). John Lewis (GA) received two votes: Barrow (GA) and Giffords (AZ). The funniest came out of California where Cardoza voted for Costa and Costa voted for Cardoza -- Pelosi couldn't even keep all of her own state. Other Democrats receiving one vote were Cooper (TN) - Kind (WI); Kaptur (OH) - Lipinski (IL); Hoyer (MD) (look on his face was priceless) - Schrader (OR); Answered Present: Bishop of GA.

Can imagine those who voted against Pelosi were breathing a sigh of relief as she droned on and on about herself and how well she did as Speaker before introducing Speaker Boehner. If people like Boren and Altmire had voted for her, they would have started off in the hole with voters.

Her remark about the size of the gavel that Boehner was using did not go unnoticed since she carried one much bigger from the House Office Building to the Capitol with a huge smirk last year. She is one of the most arrogant people we have ever seen in the House. Very happy to know that she now has to fly commercial as the Speaker's plane has been given back to the Air Force.  It is no longer sitting at Andrews AFB waiting for "Queen" Pelosi to fly family and friends to and from California and who knows where else. Right there is a huge savings. Now if we could just ground Obama, it would be a start on the deficit being solved.

This article from Byron York is a sample of what is being said across the net -- it wasn't only us that thought Pelosi was classless and wanted it all about her yesterday while introducing the new Speaker, but now the person we consider the number one political correspondent has weighed in with his comments:

Pelosi's partisan parting shot

By: Byron York 01/05/11 4:18 PM
Chief Political Correspondent
Washington Examiner

At mid-day Wednesday, it fell to now-former Speaker Nancy Pelosi to introduce her successor, John Boehner, as he was sworn in as Speaker of the House. Some might have forgotten, but four years ago, on January 4, 2007, it was Boehner (not the departing Dennis Hastert) who introduced Pelosi when she first became Speaker. A look at the two speeches -- Pelosi introducing Boehner and Boehner introducing Pelosi -- shows striking differences. Boehner's 2007 speech, coming after Republicans were trounced at the polls in November 2006, was self-effacing, gracious, and non-partisan. Pelosi's 2011 speech, coming after Democrats were trounced at the polls in November 2010, was self-serving, sharp, and partisan.

Start with Pelosi introducing Boehner. The outgoing Speaker began with some boilerplate about the importance of the occasion and then turned to a subject she has addressed many times in the past four years: herself. Her time as the first woman Speaker, Pelosi said, "means that more doors are wide open for all of America's daughters and granddaughters." Then Pelosi cast herself as the defender of America's children in general, "their health, their education, the safety of the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat."

Pelosi then launched into a list of Democratic legislation -- college loans, financial regulation, and, especially, national health care (which she referred to as a "patient's bill of rights.") that was passed during her time as Speaker. That led to a recitation of Obamacare talking points. "It means children with pre-existing conditions can get coverage; young people can stay on their parents' plans until age 26; pregnant women and breast and prostate cancer patients can no longer be thrown off the insurance rolls; our seniors are paying less for needed prescription drugs; [and] taken together, this will save the taxpayers $1.3 trillion," Pelosi said.

She wasn't finished. Pelosi touted the Lilly Ledbetter Act, veterans' legislation, and ended on a commitment, not observed during her time in the Speaker's chair, to evaluate every piece of legislation on the basis of whether or not it creates jobs. Only then did Pelosi offer a few kind words for Boehner.

Contrast that with Boehner's speech introducing Pelosi on January 4, 2007. It was about 40 percent shorter and began with Boehner celebrating Pelosi's achievement as first woman Speaker. "Today marks an occasion that I think the Founding Fathers would view approvingly," he said. "And my fellow Americans, whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, today is a cause for celebration."

Boehner then looked back to the day in 1995 when Republicans took control of the House. After a brief tribute to Hastert, this is what he said -- all of what he said -- about the GOP time in power:

There were some great achievements during those 12 years that followed; there were also some profound disappointments. If there is one lesson that stands out from our party's time in the majority, it is this: A congressional majority is simply a means to an end. The value of the majority lies not in the chance to wield great power but in the chance to use limited power to achieve great things.

There were no laundry lists, no talking points. Following that brief statement, Boehner went on to pay tribute to "the battle of ideas" that takes place in a democracy, and then he handed the gavel to Pelosi. That was it.

Quite a difference from Wednesday's ceremony.

Read more from Byron York at the Washington Examiner