Don't go off the deep end here. The 111th Congress was well and truly gridlocked, remember? One of the themes just about everybody ran on was DO SOMETHING!! Speaker Boehner can't look any more ridiculous if he slows things down in the 112th after campaigning on fixing Congress. He can't look any more hypocritical for re-igniting the culture wars after beating the deficit drums. He can't look any more stupid for "so be it" and "read my lips" after all that stuff about "jobs, jobs, jobs."

My conclusion: he's really incompetent and perhaps was put in the position because he hasn't a clue. If I ever get within fanswat range, the man's a prime target.

God! I miss Speaker Pelosi!

hey lay off bawlling boehner its plain to see he is an exremly emotional and very sensative man you folks dont wont to make the poor man cry again do you lol

Perhaps it is not about how it makes him look, but how it positions republicans for 2012.

That's what Bush and the Republicans did for eight years. They sought out the least needy among us and gave them trillions. Then they borrowed another trillion from China and gave it to Wall Street. Then Obama was sworn in and another trillion or so in "off budget" war costs suddenly came "on budget." Then the Republicans tried like hell to add almost another trillion to the deficit by making Donald Trump's tax cut permanent. Then the Republicans suddenly got all upset and worried about all the spending and debt. They started putting on revolutionary war outfits and marching around with STOP THE SPENDING signs. Then they decided that public broadcasting had to go. Maybe Social Security and Medicare, too. What, you may ask, about billions in corporate welfare for Exxon Mobil, General Electric and JP Morgan Chase? What about that evil socialized medicine that Congress members receive, which they hate for us but never seem to complain about when it is for themselves? What about all those relief checks for the sprawling, picturesque family farm of one Michelle Bachmann?

Not on the table. None of it. The right has a barometer for deciding on how to ration government assistance which seems to be based on how much you don't actually need government assistance. The less you need, the more you get.

Agreed. So I guess cutting funding for the arts would fall into the same category - how may people could be cared for under Medicare, etc. We (as in you and me) and the politicians have got to stop doing this selective pet projects/cuts. Obviously everyone has their favorites - don't cut what I like or think is important, but cut what that yahoo over there wants. We have to cut everywhere and take in more cash. I would love to get a huge house, a boat and a sports car, but I would be paying for it until I die and then my heirs would have to continue paying for it. 2+2=4, not 6 or 8 or 12.

Maybe you can explain math to the geniuses in the repub party, who for 30 years have insisted that 10-5=20. The supply siders keep telling us that if we cut taxes, we will bring in more tax money. It reminds me of the the old SNL sketch with the company that makes change....they don't charge for their service, just give you 4 quarters for a dollar, 10 dimes for a dollar, etc. When asked how they can make a profit, they say "volume".

I'm a NASCAR fan, (there, I've said it and I feel better), but I have always questioned the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard sponsorhips. How is the sponsorhip of sports and entertainment any different from the military sponsoring a WWE smackdown event, or a wet t-shirt contest?

Sponsorship of the arts is in a different category in my personal opinion, because art enriches the lives of everyone, even in categories that you personally may not appreciate. For example, I'm not a big fan of modern art, but many out there are, and government sponsorship allows some of it to happen, just as has been done by governments throughout the world for literally centuries. On the other hand, as much as I may like NASCAR, (go Montoya!!!), I also recognize that it doesn't enrich the lives of people like art, or music, or theater. Is our nation better off for having Jimmie Johnson as a 5-time NASCAR champion? Will that feat be discussed a couple hundred years from now and be appreciated by people around the world? If so, the future must be pretty dull. On the other hand, when we look at art created thousands of years ago, (such as the King Tut exhibit that just opened up here in the Twin Cities), people are still awestruck at its beauty and craftsmanship, and are able to get a glimpse at a lost world.

While I see your point, I must respectfully disagree equating the National Endowment for the Arts and NASCAR, (I never thought I'd mention those two things in the same sentence. Cross that off my list of things to do before I die!).

I'm sorry, but I really don't feel that the federal government should not be funding the arts or NASCAR (which I like too) or other non-essential things at this moment. We have to chose what we are going to go into debt for. I would rather see SS, Medicare, and other programs stay solvent over funding arts or race cars. And at this point who cares how we got here - we are here and we owe a ton of money. It's not going to majically go away. Do you really find it that important to load up on more debt so people can see a mummy? I am oversimplifying here but I live in Chicago where there are MANY cultural and historical venues and I have no problem paying for them. If they lose any funding they get now, then I will pony up the exrta 5 or 10 dollars. Yes, I know that this doesn't help the underprivleged/poor but I think they would rather get food stamps or welfare or some financial aid for college rather than spend an afternoon looking at paintings or relics. I could be wrong, but I think my priorities are pretty close.

I have yet to see the repubs get serious about deficit reduction, especially when it revolves around giving more tax breaks to the rich and the corporations. If they were serious, they would first do the simplest thing: fix social security by removing the cap on income that pays FICA tax, which is currently capped at $106K per year. So I end up paying the same in FICA each year as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. In no definition of the word "fair" would such a scenario come up. Eliminating that cap would fund Social Security at 97% of its obligations. Quick fix, and Social Security is nearly fixed. Go ahead and raise the retirement age a bit, or means-test social security so that millionaires who don't really need the money won't get so much of that. There, Social Security is no longer a budget issue. Just to make sure it remains that way after it is fixed, put the money in a lock box, as has been proposed time and time again, so that the money in the trust fund can't be raided to make the budget deficit look better than it really is.

Next, eliminate tax loopholes that allowed 2/3 of US corporations to pay no taxes at all last year, through expedients like making your headquarters a PO box in the Cayman Islands. Same for upper income people....eliminate those tax loopholes that allow them to pay less of a percentage in taxes than you and I do.

After that, go after the government agency that continually ranks as the single most wasteful government agency of all, the Pentagon. There is enough waste there to fund arts, education, and more without a problem. The total Pentagon budget, including "black" programs, is estimated to be between $700=800 billion. If even 10% of that is waste, which is probably a low figure, then there is $70-80 billion right there. And that is without putting our troops in danger or jeopardizing the combat readiness of the military. $10,000 toilet seats? Really?

Since repubs won't even bring up a single one of these options, much less consider them, I can only conclude that their zeal for budget cutting, after allowing Bush to raid the treasury for years, is little more than their backdoor attempt to eliminate funding for programs that they have hated for years, and are now manufacturing a "crisis" to achieve what they have failed to do for decades. Fortunately, more and more people are starting to see this for the cynical power play it really is, and come 2012, they will be severely punished at the polls.

I'm with you Uffdaguy on the cuts, but anything we save has to reduce the debt, not just be redistributed. I mean if I am in huge credit card debt and I say to myself "I've got to stop buying starbucks coffee on my credit card" and then go out and use the $6 a day and go buy movie tickets instead and still put it on my credit card, does that reduce my debt? Am I the only one that sees it that way? I really am annoyed at both parties and their spending ways. By the way you may think I am a right winger/Republican but I am a Libertarian (fiscally conserative, socially liberal) and I don't think we are that far apart polically thinking. But I don't play the blame game - I just want to pay our bills. The republicans don't have to manufacture a crisis unless you think 13 trillion in debt and counting is NOT a crisis.

I sincerly hope you are right, people need to wake up, get their head outa thier butts and pay attention. Realize how bad they are being screwed and elect someone with the interests of all the people not the select few.

Skip, the tax cuts for the rich are precisely the redistribution of wealth that you oppose. Repubs have said repeatedly that tax cuts don't have to be paid for in a budget like spending has to. That flies in the face of simple logic and actual economic data. How do you get into debt? You spend more than you bring in, pure and simple. The repubs operate on the nonsensical idea that if you bring in less, you'll bring in more. That is what supply side economics is all about, and we have seen it fail miserably ever since Reagan employed it. Taking the example you used, if you have huge credit card debt, the horse is already out of the barn, and while cutting the spending will prevent the debt from getting any higher, no amount of spending cuts is going to pay that bill. The only way to do that is to pay more each month on your bill, taking a second job if necessary. In other words, you need to bring in more money to pay your bill. The repub approach is to pay off your bill by cutting your hours at work, because in their minds, the less money you bring in, the more money you will bring in. They need to immediately stop the ridiculous tax cuts, and repeal many of them, especially for the highest income brackets. Corporations need to be taken to task for the tax cheats that they are; there's no need to raise their taxes, just get them to pay what they are supposed to pay.

Yes uffdaguy I am with you. You seem to think I am for tax cuts. When did I mention that? You can't seem to get off the blame train - you keep venting about the "Repulican tax cuts for the rich". I don't want them either. You have never brought up the other politicians in the room. They spend too. Like I said I don't like any of them. To continue to spout off about who did what to who doesn't do anything. But to make you happy I agree - get rid of ALL tax cuts! In fact increase taxes AND reduce spending. I can't spell it out any simpler. We are on the same side pay up and then pay down - but don't keep spending at this level. I get it - you don't like Republicans. Me too. I also am pretty wary of the Democrats who spend too.

I'm not saying I am always in favor of dems and their spending programs, just that of the two parties, they seem to be the ones who are being the most realistic in terms of how to deal with the problem. Personally, I liked Paygo when it was in effect. You set a reasonable figure for the budget, and then to go beyond it, you need to cut something else or raise revenues to pay for it.

As for not liking repubs...I actually used to go by the idea that you voted for whoever you thought would do the best job. As a result, I was often voting for repubs almost as often as dems. Then came W, and he completely changed the game for me. Since that time, I haven't voted for a single repub, especially as the policy platforms have become more and more extreme. I wish they would show some sanity, and go back to the party of Eisenhower, instead of the party of Bachmann. I keep wondering if they have specifically decided that they aren't going to allow adults into the party.

Whatever - I wrote about cutting all spending and paying off our bills. Nothing else. I don't care who does it - just do it.

Social Security vs NASCAR? Medicare vs "the arts"? Etc., etc. ... "divide and conquer"; false choices and distractions, one and all! Playing directly into the Rape-Public-CON right-wing extremist paradigm.

Some simple, and relatively minor, adjustments to our nation's currently way-out-of-whack tax policy, and ending the pointless (and seemingly endless) six wars, and those "deficits" (deficits mainly in honesty and decency) disappear like "magic", with the dreaded national "debt" close behind. Doesn't anyone remember how, only about a decade ago, we were running surpluses to the extent that @!$%#s like Greenspan were warning of the "danger" of paying down our national debt too quickly? Anyone who tries to tell you we couldn't - easily and quickly - do that again is feeding you BULL@!$%#. Yum.

Some time ago (not all that long ago), someone posted the following site on this blog; I'll re-post it here because it's fascinating, fast, fun and VERY INSTRUCTIVE to see for yourself how relatively simply the present "crisis" (remember, BULL@!$%#) can be averted:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget

http : // www nytimes com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Enjoy! And don't say I didn't try to warn you...

How original - Rape-Public-Con-right wing extremist. I don't trust either major party but apparently you are lock step in with one of them and they give you names to use. I usually see this from the right. Yes about a decade ago we did have surpluses (and higher taxes which is fine by me). I don't know if your post was directed at me, but all I want is to get back to the surplus days so I am with you on that. Remember the Democrats control the Senate and the Executive office so tell them to get on with it. There is plenty of blame to go around and probably most of it goes on the Republicans. So now what. The current administration is prosecuting the "six" wars you write about and apparently the President and the Dems will do anything tax-wise that the Repubs want (wow, are they that powerful). I'm not sure how to read your part on the debt - are you saying that we really don't have a huge debt to mainly foreign entities or is that all a "Rape-Public-Con" smoke and mirrors thing. Now that would be magic!

Where's the like button for this post. Well said.

I agree that the Republicans are trying to run The House like a business. Boehner is a company man. He does as he is told, nothing more, nothing less. He's middle management: the mouthpiece, the rule enforcer, the taskmaster, and the executioner. His gavel is a sledgehammer, for crying out loud. I'm surprised that he doesn't wear a black hood.

I agree, Joe. They seem to be crafty and cunning and have long range plans. I think they desire a dictatorship for themselves, wherein the rules are always in their favor.

I've always felt that they have an 'anything goes' philosophy, encompassing lies, distortions, and underhanded dealing that boggles my mind in order to achieve their feudal, self-serving goals.