House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) held his weekly press conference this morning, most of which was devoted to ongoing fiscal talks. At one amusing point, the Republican leader complained that President Obama has failed to propose specific spending cuts, and 20 seconds later, said he wouldn't provide specific spending cuts.
But to my ear, the most important moment came at the 7:51 mark in this clip.
For those who can't watch clips online, Boehner was asked about a debt-ceiling increase.
"As I told the president a couple weeks ago, there's a lot of things I've wanted in my life, but almost all of them had a price tag attached to them. And, uh, if we're going to talk about the debt limit in this, then there's going to be some price tag associated with it.... I continue to believe that any increase in the debt limit has to be accompanied by spending reductions that meet or exceed it."
It's important to understand how insane this is, and the extent to which the Speaker of the House is, once again, holding the economic health of the nation hostage.
Let's briefly recap what happened last year, because it offers important context -- and offers a blueprint for where we're headed.
Almost immediately after being elevated to Speaker, Boehner clearly wanted no part of a debt-ceiling fight. He explained in November 2010, "I've made it pretty clear to [my caucus] that as we get into next year, it's pretty clear that Congress is going to have to deal with [the debt limit]. We're going to have to deal with it as adults. Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part."
By April 2011, under pressure from the far-right, Boehner proclaimed, "There will not be an increase in the debt limit without something really, really big attached to it." He didn't name a price at the time.
As the crisis began in earnest, the Speaker named his "really, really big" price: for every dollar in debt-ceiling increase, Democrats had to give him a matching amount of spending cuts. It was an arbitrary decision -- for nine decades, every increase in the debt limit had passed in clean bills -- but Boehner made up his own standard and stuck to it.
The result was a scandal for the ages. Every congressional Republican -- literally, all of them -- threatened to destroy the economy on purpose and trash the full and faith credit of the United States unless Boehner's made-up standard was met.
And now, as of this morning, the Speaker is creating the same crisis for the same reason, relying on the same arbitrary standard. This profoundly stupid fiasco caused enormous damage to the nation's economy, debt rating, and international standing, and Boehner is making a conscious decision to do all of this to us, again, on purpose.
If you missed Rachel's take earlier in the week, it's well worth your time.
For those who can't watch clips online:
"We can have disagreements on matters of policy. We can disagree on the ideological tales we tell each other about how to get to the best outcomes for the country. We can even disagree about basic values about exactly what kind of country we ought to be.
"But the thing you can generally assume about everybody who is in public service is that they are public servants, right? They want the country to be better off. No matter how you want to get there. Whether or not some people think you're wrong or whether or not some people even think you're dumb or misinformed, there's a general assumption that if you're involved in American politics, that at least means that what you want is a good future for America.
"You're out to help America, not hurt America. You want America to be stronger and better and healthier. Hurting the country on purpose when you know that's what you're doing violates the most basic thing that we think we can assume about why people go into public service, why anybody would go into public service. I think it means that what you're doing can't even be called public service."
Leave a Comment:
You're out to help America, not hurt America
Not if you're a Republican.
Same old song and dance. One thing about the GOP they never learn from mistakes mainly because they are to busy pointing fingers everywhere else instead of themselves.
As Charles Pierce puts it so succinctly today:
"It is important to remember the guiding principles of modern conservative power politics - nothing is ever settled, nothing is ever over."
It's WAY past time to end this shhit. Obama has no choice but to go with either the 14th Amendment or instruct the U.S. Mint to coin enough $ trillion coins and live off the seigniorage.
It is the fading dream of wistful old men. They reach for their Low-T solutions and public displays that re-invigorate their sense of power and relevance. Guys like Boehner, McCain and McConnell will not submit to a depressive realism about the fading dominance of the traditional right. Instead they struggle to maintain- to project a verisimilitude that their powers, relevance and moral stances have much more grandeur, popularity, and acknowledged superiority than they truly do.
All of this public stroking of these illusions of old white men is unseemly. They believe that their manly white dominance will rise again, and the country will benefit from the generously sprayed seed.
Is it any wonder why Boehner and the GOP don't care how much they F up the nation? This is the rub of what the old boys have always done with the nations in their control- they always used nations as an adult toy.
The difference today is that we find their activities juvenile, destructive, and disgusting. We refuse to be toyed with in this manner. Boehner and his old boy network simply do not understand that the far Right is provoking a growing rage against them in the country- the 70% of the US who do not always vote GOP.
You sure about that, John? My guess is that's it's more than 30% that are swayed by this sort of Boehner idiocy. I think people like Boehner, who've believed the nonsense they believe for far too long -- simply have to be run over.
As sure as Thaddeus Stevens had to be when he entered Congress in 1849.
.
TC had it right, because even after the Civil War, the South continued on, because for them, "nothing is ever settled, nothing is ever over." Romney was a landslide in the Confederacy. So I agree this will go on and on and on so long as the structural support for the Red State Blue State replay of the Civil War remains and perpetuate itself. Ultimately it will be overthrown by the structural reform of proportional representation like in Australia- what FairVote.org calls "Choice voting" and goes by the more confusing poli-sci term "single transferable vote").
This will require Congressional super-majorities needed to pass electoral reform legislation, and a massive progressive grassroots organization in the states to drive through ratification.
It is a modest proposal to close this long chapter of the forever re-animated confederacy.
Disgusted I have been waiting for that lesson on the 14th Amendment...Where exactly does does it vest any authority to the President?
You still haven't figured this one out, Lawyer Boy? Holy bejebus! Damn they sure do bring 'em up dumb in PA.
GOP Slogan--"Party First."
It always has been.
I may be dumb but at least I can read...you simply resort to insults rather than answering a simple question.
John, I wasn't talking about whether or not it would go on and on and on. I know that. That's the way the right-wing authoritarian mind is constructed. I was talking about the 70%-30% figure. I think it's more even.
You might be able to read, but you can't comprehend, Lawyer Boy. It's already been explained and you either refuse to acknowledge it or you can't understand a simple thing. There's only so much that can be done to help the learning-challenged like you. Hope you get it figured out.
beg to differ. Funny you have yet to provide a rationale explaination....
Why not throw Article 2 Section 8 under the bus as well.
Well of course you beg to differ. But a discussion with someone like you is a waste of time. Like I said, I hope you get it figured out. Good luck.
The number you see bandied about is 30 to 40%. It is debatable how accurate polls can be about an absolute hypothetical like "Will you always vote republican?" For example, I recon many of those "always vote republican respondents voted for Ross Perot. So I go with the 30% number which is commonly used.
A memorable example was Bill Maher last year:
Yes, I know he is not a pollster, but his 30% number is backed by google-able studies on the question.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debting incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
No mention of the President there...if anything the only reference is to congress..."public debt...authorized by law".
But then again why not use your interpretation, in fact why not expand the President's powers under Article 3, and perhaps someday a President will decide, hey that free speech thing, yes well, I think we should quash opposition voices...slippery slope.
But you have it all figured out.
Enjoy your confusion, windmill tilter.
John, if 47% (hehehehe...) voted for Mitt Romney, the biggest liar and most dishonorable man to ever run for President and who had nothing but a reality-denying platform, I can't imagine that 30% - 40% is just too low. Unfortunately.
Very unfortunately.
At least right now. Now if Dems would take on the responsibility of educating the public, which they have irresponsibly declined to do for over a generation, I certainly believe the number of people who would vote Republican "no matter what" would go down. But the reality-denying nature of the Republicans simply has to made part of the "brand." It isn't right now, though it should be.
If you are saying that the GOP will always get at least 40% of the vote I am with you.
But that is a different statement. The importance of the distinction is that the set of persuadables is larger. If you think of the US electorate over the past 50 years shows an even 50 50 split, then if you think of it as equivalent to saying 40% of people will never vote for anyone other than a republican, then the leans GOP persuadables are 50 minus 40, or 10%. The distinction means it is not just 10%, but closer to 20. Note also there is a similarly large set of persuadable voters on the leans Dem side. Why is the distinction important? Because direct activism has a much larger set of targetable persuadable voters than crumbs like 2 or 4 percent of the vote.
The audience of people who will consider voting for the other party is more like 40%, so engaging them directly can reap huge huge payoffs.
Just try to explain...
SnrDon. It is debt already incured. Congress already approved it. The President has the authority to "pay" it. It was discussed, in depth several times last year when the GOP were playing their same BS games. It's been discussed at least once this week.
Article I, Section 8, Congress has the authority to "pay it".
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
So the President is completely blameless.
Yes, the Congress holds purse strings. We have a divided Congress, so then what can the President do before this President?
Emphasis mine, but Pres. Bush recommended we cut taxes, they are called Bush tax cuts. Then he built up a case with convenient facts (and on borrowed money) to go to war. Yes Congress continued funding it, even though it was off budget. How can we deny these facts?
Now Pres. Obama is left with a steaming pile and recommending Measures he deems necessary and expedient. We voted for this.
Just as we all must live with all that deficit that came from Bush recommendations and Congress went forward, although there were a significant number of people that did not vote for him, especially pre 9/11, it is not that clear he won the first term, then 2nd term was because he scared everyone and he/they just kept piling up more debt.
Our current President thought we needed jobs and revenue, but the partisanship caused even more debt. When we could have had more jobs, but McConnell knew best, the President must fail. Along with him ALL of US.
There are debates over philosophies and all the b.s. about the election campaigning. But I am thoroughly disgusted with this Repugnacant desire to undo the New Deal at all costs. Doesn't matter about what Americans want, they throw out reasons to overturn the will of the people.
They are looking out for the rich, they are always talking about the trickle down. Proven it does not trickle down, it goes wherever the rich can hold onto it and any jobs go out the door with it.
They hate the New Deal and they think they can wrest power from the hands of the people, "cuz they know best, trust them". Sounds like a royal aristocratic way of looking at this.
Keep up the delusion, witness the party fading, when the party is all they seem to care about. Partisan power.
I see it very clearly. The period they are so wishing to rebuild is not really the 1950's, it's the 1920's whose excesses led to Great Depression. The 50s is an image of getting the common working man getting ahead (the common working man being defined as what?) Narrow definitions that Bill O'Reilly mourns. Those like himself, no pinheads allowed.
Congress needs to stop trying to control the President, control the voters and continue the obstruction of the peoples' will.
It's amazing that he thinks he can play havoc with the global economy without any fear of payback.
Unless this is more GOP bluster to cover over their eventual caving in.
It's more influence from that nut-nut Grover.
Please recall that there is no way at all [1] for the House Republicans' chickens to come home to roost for a minimum of 47 months.
[1] I leave aside the "second amendment remedies" so beloved of the Right.
Call him on it and hang him with the result .
Like Urkel, they wanna create a disaster then proclaim in their most whiny voice "Did I do that?"
Urkel was funny and an entertainer. Boehner considers himself as a political leader, so his rejoinder "Did I do That?" isn't funny!
No, his and his Republican brand are providing us all with much to reflect upon. Mr. Boehner's latest reckless utterance is dangerous, and tragically pathetic particularly in light of Boehner's misappropriated idea he's a leader of anything other than political madness at this particular moment in our nation's history! -Kevo
Why bother negotiating with these people?
Make an offer and if they don't agree walk away.
Simple and effective.
Why can't the Democrats grow a pair?
It will be most humorous when they let the Bush Tax cuts expire and the alleged fiscal cliff goes fffffttt like a silent fart. People go about their business and notice no change except for the whimpers from Republicans.We can deal with the debt ceiling after they capitulate
WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS.
Terrorists who are holding the entire global economy hostage.
And "price tag?" How about, you get paid a salary. Anything more is bribery or ransom and therefore illegal.
There are some statements that are strictly for public consumption. Boehner is not going to allow a hostage situation because of what will happen in the next elections. The smart Republicans who have been in DC for a few cycles will vote for the tax cut because they want to keep their jobs. Boehner does not have a suicide wish. Most politicians understand the importance of getting reelected. Anyone who votes against the tax cut for the middle class is going to have a target on their back in 2014. There will be establishment Republicans and Dems going after the people who vote against the tax cut.
Sorry Mike, have to disagree - didn't you listen to them the last time that was right before our credit rating got down-graded! These people are wacko, that once again they want to hold hostage the US and for what tax cuts for the rich - the nerve!!
One thing I will say is that the GOTP make the "Ladies of the evening" look like saints, they've prostituted themselves to stay in power, well, I'll see them in 2014 and let's see if WE can't shut them down!
They're asking where are the Democrats offer. They've been told Oabama has given 2 offers. What more should the Dems do? They've proved they can't be trusted even after making a deal. "Here's my offer, take it or leave it".
And Boehner has had the tax "extention" for the middle class for 4 months and has not brought it to the floor. It's up to him to say what bills come forward.
Marge my friend, I haven't learned a thing. - Homer Simpson
Let us all remember all of this in 2013.....Lets vote these clowns out so we can get on with the business of repairing our country! These elections HAVE to become as important as the Presidential elections. GOP is an embarrassment to this country and themselves!
Too bad there are no elections scheduled for 2013.
SanInPhilly, I think you meant 2014, when we will have a chance to increase the Democratic majority in the Senate and work on taking back the House.
Interesting. So, to bring this to a personal level that would also profoundly impact many large corporations and would collapse the government: no one should ever be allowed to buy anything on credit or with a loan, because then you are spending beyond your means.
well need to start flooding the teapublicans office with phone calls emails faxes etc...
well like the first time America knows who and why our ratings and economy is not working and yes
we all are looking at you Beohner!!!! you have the teapublican face now.
Republicans continue to act as if they won the 2012 Presidential election and gained seats in the House and Senate. No, no, and no.
President Obama and congressional Democrats hold all of the marbles right now. They need to use them wisely and forcefully to right this ship of state and give no quarter to shameful blowhards such as Boehner and his ilk.
Not if they're responsible.
For all the rhetoric about not negotiating with hostage takers, we spent forty years in a "balance of terror" with the Soviet Union precisely because they could destroy quite a bit of the world. And the House is in the same situation: they're acting as though they're willing to use suicide weapons against the people of the United States.
The adults in the Congress and the Administration might scream and throw things in private, they may beat their chests (or their heads against the walls), they may quote The Danegeld to each other endlessly. But unlike the House Majority, they're not willing to see the people of the United States suffer massively in order to prove their manhoods.
So the hostage takers have leverage.
Now, me, I'd be very tempted to announce that absent a rise in the debt ceiling the Treasury will fund operations by selling US gold reserves at market rates. You want to see the Republican Base freak out? I think most of them have put all of their lifes' savings into gold. I wish Geithner would announce those gold sales if only to see real tears from Glenn Beck.
Notice your terminology.
"weapons against the people of the United States."
"the hostage takers have leverage."
Both these things are crimes. We do have leverage. Arrest the traitors! Especially since they tried it last year, we saw the damage, and they have stated themselves that they know it will do damage. It is premeditated harm to the country they have sworn to serve. They are criminals. At least have them explain themselves in front of the Justice Dept.
Not until you replace the Supreme Court (which would require Bills of Impeachment to originate in the House.) Because you're going to have a very hard time finding nine judges in the entire United States who won't tell you that acts ex officio by members of Congress enjoy absolute immunity.
I am fed up with these guys who think the American people are clueless about what the GOP has done to this country!!!! call this cry baby and complain 202-225-6205
The U.S. is one of the very few countries to even have a debt ceiling. And I cannot see a reason for its existence, except to allow the Teabillies to hold America hostage.
Trillion dollar coin. Simple.
AGAIN:
President Obama won a second term. By running against Republican policies. Your House conference LOST seats, and would have lost more, if not for blatant gerrymandering post-2010 Census. You lost Senate seats. YOU. LOST. Losers don't set the parameters, for ANYTHING.
They do if they have a doomsday weapon.
The GOP just don't get it. This people are insane. Can I expect another four years of obstruction and temper tantrums, while nothing is done legislatively. I am sick of all these GOP Neanderthals and their hubris and arrogance.
Yes.
It bears repeating what Maddow has been saying for a long time and I quote, "Speaker Boehner is NOT good at his job".
You couldn't invent a character like Boehner. The closest I can recall is Otis from the old Andy Griffith Show. Otis was the town drunk.
Not even close. Otis was a warm, generous, decent human being with a substance abuse problem. Boehner is only one of those things.
Yes, and Boehner's substance isn't even cool; he's addicted to spray-tanning solution. If you meant he's a human being, I would doubt that assessment.
I couldn't find a character, nor could I invent one. Boehner's definitely his own species. I hope Otis forgives me for tarnishing his spirit.
Otis was a great guy. I'm sure you're forgiven.
But in my humble opinion, there is a character that Boehner can be likened to; Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, played brilliantly by Andy Griffith in Elia Kazan's "A Face in the Crowd".
It's the perfect depiction of JB's aspirations of demagoguery.
I just hope his is the same happy ending.
Patti, you are a class act and I completely agree with you.
Right now there is a deal on the table that would ensure that no taxes go up for 98 percent of the US. The President said he would sign it immediately. And Boehner can think of nothing else to do but issue ultimatums?
It is painfully obvious that the GOP is holding up tax breaks for the middle class, for everyone under the top 2 percent, in order to not offend their wealthy cronies. Tom Cole let the cat out of the bag and he is called "courageous" for standing up to Norquist? Since when is telling a lobbyist "no" in order to represent the actual voters "courageous?" The GOP standards have become comical.
Filibuster, obstruct, attack Susan Rice for intelligence decisions, DO NOTHING. The GOP playbook has not changed. We need to finish the job and remove the House Tea Party wing nuts. A party cannot govern if their core belief is that Government can do nothing but start wars and protect the wealthy.
Steve, earlier today you mentioned that Republicans had no leverage when it comes to raising taxes on incomes above $250K. At this point in the negotiations, I think Boehner simply is trying to find some leverage.
I also think that the pressure will be on Boehner to not have another debt-limit fight, so right now he's probably just trying to keep the Tea Party off his back for a while.
Boehner is only worried about keeping his job as Speaker. He can only keep that position if enough Republicans support him. The majority of his caucus is scared sh*tless by the Tbaggers.
I'll let you finish the syllogism...
The GOP leaders do not care what happens how it affects the USA credit rating, the financial markets and the citizens of this country all they care about is getting their way and they are willing to do what ever is necessary to achieve that.
President Obama DO NOT cow tow to these tactics of theirs, do not let them force a deal so they can protect the top 2% dig your heels in we support you and agree with you. We may need to go over the financial cliff then new legislation can be introduced to give the bottom 98% back the tax breaks currently in effect. It is time someone stood up to the GOP leaders and their complete disregard for the economic future of this country to get what they want for the 2% of the top earners to get wealthier those same people who manipulated the financial world that created the mess we have all had to deal with the past 10 years.
Here is a tax cut that I agree with, Stop Deficit Spending and Reform Congress. They will give themselves a 3% raise this year. And why do they get free health care for life? Go to thepetitionsite.com and search for Stop Deficit Spending and Reform Congress and sign. I would love to hear how they tell us why they are entitled to these benefits. I mean they do want to cut entitlements don't they? Well they should start with their own to show they are REALLY SERIOUS about signing the middle class tax cuts.
Deficit spending is the only thing keeping the economy afloat now.
Congress and Senate should be on the same health plan as the rest of the federal employees and unless they spend 30 years in elected service at the fed level should not be given health for life
Then why is Bain-er and the wingnuts doing what they're doing?
Regardless of the last election - the republican majority in the house will goosestep (with heil!) along behind Boehner, blocking any legislation from the administration. That is a sad fact. They have shown no inclination whatsoever to represent the best interest of the public. The system allows them to do that. The only solution is to vote them all out in the next election. They have to be made aware of that. So far they don't think the public matters.
I agree that repubs will march in lockstep, but not because they are following Boehner. He is "leading" from behind, doing what the Tea Partiers are telling him to do, with the threat that if he doesn't, he'll be primaried like Lugar and all the others who refused to follow the Tea Party line. If Boehner tried to make a compromise, he would immediately discover that he couldn't get more than a very few repubs to follow him. This is why the grand bargain failed last time....when he took it back to his repub House colleagues, they let him no in no uncertain terms that they would not support him when it came to a vote. They made it less embarrassing for him to walk out of the negotiations than to lose with his own party in a vote. History is repeating itself, and I fully expect we will go sailing off the cliff...or curb, or whatever.
Once again...
WE... are being held hostage. Tax cuts for the middle class... higher taxes on the rich. Get it done! Work out the other details later.
Some Republicans NEVER learn. And, they need to have a good dose of Karma.
When are they going to put down the gun they keep pointing at Americans?
What can we offer them, we try to say it plainly and stretch hand out, but they instinctively reach to waistband behind their back (since they can't wear a holster in plain sight) and draw their weapons.
I would offer the expansion for jobs would be the very first priority, that would bring in revenues. See, there is the offering.
Can we start there and get the tax rates for Middle income and below to the president and sign it? We would get certainty.
So, which would be worse to Rs? Raising minimum wage or tax increases? Let's start to think about it in terms of solutions for our country.
They really do need to raise the rates on millionaires, above $250K is what is voted into WH.
DO THIS Congress. Stop trying to win the election and do something. First, jobs, jobs, jobs. Not cutting so many jobs, where can we cut spending without throwing out jobs for Americans.
If we have to let them expire, then so be it. But can't you say yes, the voters want tax fairness and not be the only folks that suffer, like they HAVE BEEN.
Millionaires are not suffering. Many millionaires and billionaires threw millions of dollars down the toilet for electing candidates. So, they think that was a wiser investment than hiring people, which would have created a whole lot of revenue and economic stimulus.
I believe the President should respond with 8 clear and simple words to Mr. Boehner and his ilk: THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS
Awesome Lori... Five Star Rating!!!!!
What is so massively unreasonable about presenting that if we are going to increase revenues and increase the debt ceiling (thus enabling our government to spend even more than they have) that some specific cuts need to be on the table?
Raising the debt ceiling doesn't enable the government to spend more money, Lisafp. Again conservatives seem to be confusing the fact that since the term "debt ceiling" contains debt that must invariably mean that lifting the ceiling allows for more debt. That's not how it works. The debt ceiling has to do with how you issue bonds and pay those bonds and the rate of those bonds. You can lower spending a great deal, but still have to raise the debt ceiling to pay off your debts. The national debt is not synonymous with the debt ceiling. Now yes, if spending goes up this can then necessitate that the ceiling be raised if we choose to pay for that spending by the issuing of more bonds. But if we choose to pay for spending a different way- say via taxation or by printing money or by investments- then we do not have to raise the debt ceiling. So do the two sometimes correlate? Yes. But you're wildly misrepresenting and confusing that correlation.
Maybe if the "debt ceiling" were re-named the "credit limit" it would be easier for more people to understand. Most of us have credit cards with "credit limits" on them.
Isn't it amazing that this President is the first one in history to have to fight to get the "Debt Ceiling raised? Ronnie raised it 18 times without any debate. It's always been consider "routine maintenance".