As the sequester fight intensifies, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has been reduced to an increasingly hysterical message:
"We have moved a bill in the House twice," Boehner said. "We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something."
I think it's probably fair to say that Boehner, his other strengths notwithstanding, is not always as sharp when it comes to legislative details and public policy. The Speaker is relatively adept at reading talking points others write for him, and he can schmooze with the best of them, but he's often confused about the substantive angles to ongoing debates.
So, as Boehner starts to lose his cool in public, let's pause and help him understand the one detail the Speaker seems to have forgotten: in this Congress, House Republicans have done no work on the sequester. Literally, none. Boehner and his caucus haven't voted on an alternative; they haven't unveiled a substitute plan; they haven't shown up for bipartisan negotiations. Since this Congress has gotten underway, Speaker and his team have known this threat is coming, and they've done absolutely nothing about it except whine in public.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have put together a compromise plan that requires concessions from both sides
So when Boehner demands that senators get "off their ass," the Speaker isn't just being crude, and he isn't just being dishonest, he's actually been reduced to irony.
Indeed, the unstated subtext of Boehner's complaints this morning was, in the larger context, hard to miss. The Speaker seemed to be saying, "I demand that senators get off their ass in order to help save my ass."
Yes, Boehner is pleading with the Senate to help resolve this because he's simply too weak a Speaker to play a constructive leadership role on his own.
Boehner, who's unambiguously bad at his job, is offering the political world a stark reminder about just how ineffective he is when it comes to governing.
If the let-the-cuts-happen approach on the sequester seems risky -- especially with President Barack Obama blaming Republicans for everything from kids not getting vaccines to long lines at the airport -- the alternative for Boehner is worse.
Jump-start negotiations with Obama, and he would be slammed for engaging in out-of-sight, secret talks with a president his party doesn't trust. Raise taxes, and Boehner's courting trouble in his conference and endangering his speakership. Both are simply nonstarters.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) added that Boehner would lose his speakership if he struck a bipartisan compromise.
Let's not brush past the significance of this: with dangerous sequestration cuts looming, a bipartisan compromise is now impossible because the Speaker of the House is impotent. He can't turn off the threat he helped create because his followers won't let him. He can't delay the threat, either, because his followers won't tolerate it. And he can't compromise because those darned followers have deemed that unacceptable, too.
And so, left with nothing, Boehner cries out, pleading for the Senate to do what he cannot: govern.
Leave a Comment:
The game of political chicken continues. How do these irresponsible people keep getting re-elected?
An Ohio T-party spokesman was on NPR this morning saying that the threats of layoffs, longer airport lines, and children out of Head Start are akin to school boards cutting sports and transportation when levies don't pass; that the problems are elsewhere and all of the sequester scenarios being explained by Democrats and administration people are more dire that the reality that will occur. This is the rationale of people who have voted for Boehner and all of the other safely redistricted Republicans, and why they keep being re-elected.
If your department can't handle a 2% cut without layoffs and cuts in service, you should be summarily fired. Citizens just dealt with the same thing when payroll taxes went back up 2%.
Don't be gullible.
Shooter re-inventing the know-nothing-party.
Shooter,
You weren't in the military were you?
If you think that simply imposing a 2% cut across the board in ANY branch of government, or in ANY business is doable, please let me know what business you own. I'm always willing to add to my portfolio. Of course that will be AFTER I sell your business short and then buy it for pennies on the dollar.
plus it's not a 2% cut, yes it's 2% of the total budget but much of the budget is immune from the cuts. it works out to just shy of an 8% cut to domestic and 8% to military when the immune areas are ignored.
Shooter,
Do you not realize that the ENTIRE country will be affected by this? Not so much as a company stand point, but everything? Let's not forget that we are still bouncing back from a recession.
We need to get Boehner and his House of Obstructionists off their asses and force each and every man and woman who refuses to agree to a few tax loopholes for the super rich rather than allow these egregious hits to our economy and the American people. They need to be forced to stand up, one by one, and explain their reason for this preference.
They need to held individually responsible for taking this decision which could harm a lot of Americans. Make them state explicitly why they refuse to close a few tax loopholes on the super rich and why they prefer, instead, to see so many Americans suffer the consequences of their actions.
We are paying these people to work for us, and have every right to demand that they explain their refusal to do so.
Shooter and the rest of the morons who come here are living proof of the accuracy of Richard Hofstadter's observation about the "pseudo conservatives" - today's (bowel) movement conservatives:
... its exponents, although they believe themselves to be conservatives and usually employ the rhetoric of conservatism, show signs of a serious and restless dissatisfaction with American life, traditions and institutions"
“Their political reactions express rather a profound and largely unconscious hatred of our society and its ways -- a hatred which one would hesitate to impute to them if one did not have suggestive clinical evidence ... The pseudo-conservative, Adorno writes, shows 'conventionality and authoritarian submissiveness' in his conscious thinking and 'violence, anarchic impulses, and chaotic destructiveness in the unconscious sphere…… The pseudo conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition.'"
Boner - What a Joke - he sure has alot of Gall and Nerve to project his mouthfull of BS after the congress has shelved over 300 proposals - he wants to talk tough about getting off your A$$ ? Yeah take another 2weeks off to do What for America - What a Goofball !
Imagine taking 2% of your heart or kidney or a car tire etc. Some things are really hurt when taking parts that they can not afford to lose.
Here we have let our democracy be destroyed by those who forgot the spirit by which it was created. Short sighted idiots. See the effect the filibuster has had now Reid...a thousand paper cuts. The sequestration is just so unnecessary...cutting our wrists to sell blood. Just say no.
Somewhere business retrenches by flat percentages every day. You tell Dept heads to cut costs by 2% and let them figure out how to do it. 2% is nothing. If you're going to freak out over 2% you don't belong in management. But hey, keep screaming like stuck pigs, it just demonstrates for the entire country what privileged characters you think you are, and how useless your management skills are.
Keep up the good work.
Shooter,
As a general rule, private businesses have much higher overhead than a government agency providing a similar service. For example, private health insurance companies have overhead roughly ten times that of Medicare.
Cutting 2% by reducing overhead is very possible if overhead accounts for more than 10% of your operating costs. However, if overhead is less than 2% of your operating costs (as is the case for Medicare and many other governmental programs), overhead cannot be the focus of your cost cutting -- provision of services must be cut.
Add to that the fact (which you ignore) that programs subject to the sequester are faced with an approximate 10% cut, and there is no option but to lay people off and cut services.
I realize these pesky facts get in the way of your aspirations to propagandize, but since you keep making a big deal of how easy it is to cut a program without reducing services or laying people off please address how an agency that spends 95% of its appropriated budget on salaries and services is supposed to absorb a 10% funding cut.
Arithmetic -- what a concept.
John- drive by has his thing about the 2% today. It's in every thread, in every statement he makes, and it's totally wrong. Cuts will be a lot worse than 2% and their effect a lot more serious, but drive by will never see that. He's a professional troll who has been banned by sites because he finds a meme and never deviates from it, regardless of the evidence against him. Sorta like a stalker, he's single minded to a fault.
Just ignore him. They hate that.
rwsgate,
He is not a troll, he is something far worse -- a wannabe propagandist.
Trolls should be ignored, propagandists should be disproved lest their rot take hold.
I think the Republican party sees a real messaging upside in the sequester. If the sequester occurs, it sets a lower baseline for projected spending, which means any Democratic budget which attempts to restore any of the cuts can then be attacked as "massive, out-of-control, spending increases!" even if projected spending levels in such a budget would be lower than the previous year.
Everyone seems to prefer to let the sequester occur and then fight over the budget afterwards instead.
This isn't sarcasm, but I truly believe that Boehner is going to become more irrational as the days go on. Booze kills the "editor" side of the brain. The boy can't help himself -- not a great attribute for a politician or for that matter, a Speaker of the House.
Maybe he should try absinthe instead of vodka..
I prefer hemlock.
He shall be flinging the windows of congress open shortly.
"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
You are all spot on. How'd ya do that?
Democrats have done plenty...they just haven't done what he wanted (although even if they had he would still reject it)...
Personally I would love the media to start demanding specifics from the republicans...I don't see that happening anytime soon because gridlock and partisan dog fights are to good for business
when boy,,when are you going to do you job and pull your head out of your 4th point of contact. stand up be a leader that your suppose to be.
Kinda hard for him to do that with the bottle he's also got up there keeping him from feeling his self inflicted wounds.....
Three martini politics
well we know where he goes to smoke and drink when he can not get out side.
..."moved a bill in the House twice..."
What is he referring to?
Last year they passed absurd bills, which mean nothing this Congress...
As Nancy Pelosi (sp?) said in her news conference a few minutes after Boehner, that was last years congress that passes a few bills, which by the way could not pass. This is a new congress and they have done nothing. Also, the House must originate spending and revenue bills. He cannot expect the Senate to cover his ass.
The Senate is trying to do something. I got a newsletter with a link to a petition from Senator Mark Udall this morning supporting what is essentially the President's proposal.
I am still in the process of reading the article in the new issue of Time (March 4) about health care costs. Every member of Congress should read this article which is about how the health care industry is ripping the American people off. The Republicans keep saying that we have to cut Medicare, but it is not Medicare, which is a method of paying for health care; it is the way health care is billed that is the problem. Make the so called non-profit hospitals pay taxes and cap executive compensation, and much of the sequester could go away.
There are several points of how Congress works which Mister Speaker, clearly, does not understand.
re:bflynch and the Time's article about health care fraud: We need to understand that the United States does not have a health care system. What we have is a for profit disease care system. The industrialized agriculture system, the pharmaceutical conglomerate and the insurance industry have a vested interest in getting us sick and then dictating what drugs we're allowed to have access to and how much of it will be paid for. There is absolutely no incentive to promote health and well being in this country because the profit for such a population does not exist.
This will become the broken record, Boehner calling out the Senate to save himself from his own substandard caucus. That news conference yesterday was like watching a student council at a middle school, and the placement of women represenitives combined with McMorris speaking gives the impression that Democrats have dozens of women ready to lead, and the Republicans have none...
Don't pay any attention to what RoJo says. He's a jerk!
Charming. I guess he 'forgot' to mention that his 'bills' are no longer relevant and the House needs to PASS SOMETHING NOW.
Boehner knows that he can pass nothing more than the tantrum-esque bills his caucus conjures up time and again, and have absolutely no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the Prez. His inabilty to lead has gotten him into a lose-lose situation. We're beginning to see the reactions of a badger backed into a corner.
You know what, with the 13 yr. olds ruining Congress who fail to understand what their jobs are - as tough as it will be let the sequester happen. Far too many Americans (let alone the tea-baggers) really fail to connect the dots of how "essential government services" they take for granted. Should the sequester happen - they will find out exactly how much they've taken for granted and will howl when they don't get their services. It's a shame that far too many of the American people "haven't a clue" yet continue to parrot the talking points. Sometimes you must let the "chickens come home to roost".
Your point is well taken, Zora, except that I don't want to see the sequester actually take effect. The effects will last and people will forget how we got there and President Obama will be blamed in the end.
But back to your point, I've often asked my conservative friends what part of government they'd like to see thrown out, since they're so much in favor of limited government. Is it public schools, road repair, the EPA? How about air traffic controllers or port authorities? Couldn't those just be on the "honor system"? Maybe food inspectors and firemen are superfluous. Truth is, I haven't gotten an answer yet. I'm waiting.
Boehner needs to realize the public is not going to buy his explanations. Should the sequester happen it will mean dems will retake the house and senate (filibuster proof). We've had enough of these Bush tea party 1% goobers ruining our economy and democracy. Enough is enough.
Well, bjobotts, all of us on the MaddowBlog have had enough of Boehner's explanations, but the people elected to the house are representing specific communities, rather than large, generic areas like senators or the president. And the Tea Party is alive and well and all fired up in certain pockets.
I wouldn't be so certain that right-wing extremists are going to cause the GOP to lose in those localities. Some in their base think they're doing an excellent, patriotic job. [big sigh]
@JL - I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for an answer. And really I don't want to see sequestration enacted either, but maybe all those right wingers not getting a response when they need something, or going to a government funded museum/park that will be closed, or not receiving an answer about their check not being deposited might just awaken these people that also don't have a clue and refuse to face reality.......
Just saying.
Okay, I get it. You are no fan of the Speaker. But this is your conclusion:
So, will the Senate? Will you bash Reid and his inability as well, next? I doubt it.
Rob: So you don't see the utter dishonesty of touting bills from last year as being valid this Congress? Are you satisfied that the only Republican in charge of a Branch of Congress misleads so brazenly? You are aware that the House holds the purse strings, right? This is designed to mislead Americans, this notion that the House has acted, and you want to help promote that... how sad for you...
RobDon,
There is a little problem here, called the Constitution of the United States of America.
Article 1, Section 7.
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;..."
So, since the impasse between the two parties is over raising revenue, demanding the Senate go first is simply an attempt by the GOP to get its way without having to negotiate or compromise. And, as such, will be ignored.
Does not Boehner need to get something to Reid and the Senate, this Congress, first? Or do you prefer to overlook that part on your way to better opportunites of finger-pointing yourself?
Is the alphabet is still A...B...C... even in the Republican alternate reality?
He's not saying they are still valid. He is making the point that the Republicans made two attempts to offer alternatives BEFORE it became a crisis. Others disagree with their alternative, but they have two passed bills to show their position.
And, speaking of dishonesty, President Obama is touting the effects of the sequester as if all of it happens on March 1st. He is giving numbers that are the effect (in his view) of TEN YEARS of cuts (in growth). Don't you think that is dishonest?
The House is said to hold the "purse strings" but that does not apply to eliminating loopholes. John seeking enlightenment, listen up here. The Senate can introduce bills that raise revenue by eliminating loopholes, they have done it before. Here's Senator Levin's press release upon introducing the Cut Unjustified Tax (CUT) Loophole legislation in Feb. 2012. (Hope this helps clear up incorrect information...don't you just love the info on the Internet?)
NeedMoreCoffee, no, Boehner does NOT need to get something to the Senate first, they are free to act independently and to send something to the House.
Look, I'm not trying to make enemies or be a smart a** (although my wife often says I am...and she knows me best), I genuinely enjoy discussion and debate. But both sides don't do that, they talk in extremes that are misleading at best and flat out lies at worse. IMHO
Not if it's a budget bill. The Constitution says the House originates budget bills.
a different phil...you need to get a different tune. Your statement is not true. First, the constitution does not say anything about "budget bills." It does say all "revenue bills" must originate in the House but this has been interpreted to mean to levy taxes in the strictist form. Eliminating loopholes is NOT levying taxes. See the link above I used to show a loophole elimination bill originating in the Senate.
Reading is a good thing.
So, that means the House is excused and they can claim we did our thing twice last session, so we're done?
I hope they will realize this is a job they signed campaigned hard to get. They seem content to work 8 days in January and 11 days is Feb while we are facing extremely serious sh!t.
Because they gave some revenue last year does not mean it's check mate for them and against all the rest of us. Saying the President is not doing anything. Well, now they realize that is bogus, because the President proposed stuff and won election, so it is now (past) time for Congress to act.
We are all tired of watching the tennis ball volley, it's time to end this ridiculous match.
sandy...I never said the House had an excuse. As for their schedule, both the House and Senate work even when not in session (or at least that is implied, but to your point, who really knows). I also never said the President is not doing anything, if you read some of my other posts I've even stated his strategy. You are correct the President won his election but so did the Representatives...
I'm tired of teh tennis ball volley, the playing of politics, etc...too. But I do NOT think cutting 2% of the budget, still spending more this year than last, is not "serious sh!t." I do not like the way it is being cut and believe a solution is forthcoming in the form of more flexibility on how the cuts can be made or something. But 2% of a multi trillion dollar federal government budget should not cause serious consequences in the LONG run.
Sometimes you take short term "pains" for long term "gains." We just need to make sure the most needy do not take the blunt of that (that is why social security, medicare, etc are NOT part of the automatic cuts)...in that we probably are in agreement.
RobDon,
Not all of what is being considered is a 'loophole' and available for origination in the Senate. For example, raising the tax rate on capital gains to make them closer to that on earned income would be a revenue bill.
The Speaker is not insisting on the Senate going first on a whim. He has a reason -- to preclude broad-based tax increases.
I think the areas being cut are not morally responsible, and it is serious sh!t for my sister in law who works at Meals on Wheels and those that rely on such things.
I hate this constant "we have to cut right now and forget about economy". They sell b.s. about tax cuts will fix economy, when we had low, low taxes and economy did not help. Economic improvement/jobs did not show up as a result. Others seem to hate "the concern for the economy and want to cut right now". We have an agreed goal to promote, IF people would stop trying to say we cannot allow the President to get any credit for it.
There will be cuts, but the tax loopholes was an agreed upon thing "in theory". Now they have to stomp, pout be indignant and blame someone because they waited and procrastinated and blamed. If Speaker Boehner can say Senate should get off asses and V.P. Cheney can tell Leahy to F himself, what kind of example are they? A lousy example! A lousy way to conduct "serious sh!t". This is so embarrassing, children getting shielded for acting like bullies and infantile.
It looks to me like deflecting and giving cover to me. Defending this type of b.s. and trying to say well he was technically accurate, when the whole thing is simply childish abdication of responsibility by saying we already did this last session (said with a nasally childish tone). It's time to deflect and say the President didn't do something, or the President dissed us and the President is campaigning.
This is unacceptable. It sure looks like people are looking for excuses to me. The cuts and revenue needs to be debated. The people have spoken, despite the attempts to get people to give up and allow legislators to take democracy from the people.
Congress has been "off duty" more than on this year! They just say we have to keep abortions out of Homeland Security. WOW! They are pitiful wankers putting on a show of blaming while there will be people suffering, Even profit for business folks will go down, because we can't buy much with our furloughs and jobs lost. Then that is minimized to add insult to injury.
Yes, I am pi55ed, RobDon. And you are OK with SOH saying such ridiculous stuff.
Loop holes is only the "agreed upon" cuts. They refuse to address revenue in their disgusting sense of having to get everything their way, or they walk away and call blame.
Sandy,
I know what you mean. About 60 kids in my community are slated to be kicked out of Head Start, which will be devastating to them and their families.
Anyone thinking these cuts will be trivial has never had to look a kid in the eye and cancel his preschool.
John, how do you know "60 kids in (your) community are slated to be kicked out of Head Start"? Insider information? News source? Will it happen March 1st?
Second, the capital gains tax was just raised on January 1, 2013.
Sandy, the removal of loopholes was not agreed upon in theory. The Republicans wanted to use it as part of increase in revenue. Instead, the administration pushed to increase the tax rate. Now, to change the loopholes, they want it revenue neutral. As I described elsewhere, President Obama wanted "two bites at the apple" raised rates and closed loopholes. The Republicans were okay with one.
The President is using numbers and figures for that represent the cuts OVER 10 years, not the cuts that will happen on March 1st. He is using scare tactics. If you have evidence that he is using figures for this year, please let me know.
I know because I donate time as a grant writer for local charities. Our local Head Start is trying to find a way to get the kids being cut into private preschools that offer tuition waivers and other assistance (which I have a hand in raising). My understanding is that they are shuffling funds to get the kids through to spring break.
Sad part is that there are already hundreds of local kids not attending preschools due to underfunding at Head Start and limited private tuition assistance. Unless new funds become available, there will be 60 more kids without preschool.
Are the spending cuts also two bites of the apple, then?
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/110606/obama-deficit-reduction-offer-spending-cut-tax-increase-boehner#
Both candidates campaigned on closing loopholes. But of course no specifics. One of them won decidedly. The House is playing politics (audaciously) by saying we are done, the Senate has to get off their asses.
Do we not hear the President saying that neither party will be happy? The TPubs are unhappy with him for campaigning, but he is being the reasonable person.
This is just a crazy way to run a country. The TPubs are trying to "make it so" that government doesn't work.
There needs to be an end to playing politics, admit the truth. Stop trying to get everything or if not, make it the fault of the other guy.
Trivializing the automatic cuts is a horrible thing to be procrastinating and blaming on the President or the Senate. Being entrenched on spending only and no more revenue is terrible.
Boehner complains about Obama using soldiers as props, but whoever is over his rights shoulder is clearly wearing camo. Such hypocrisy!
(To any GOP folks reading this - I am joking.)
Ladies with sour looks hardly helps with diversity...
@Lebowsky, all Republican women have sour looks. They have to deal with horribly sour Republican men. That would be enough to make Mary Poppins dour.
Republican women have sour looks because they have to deal with Republican men, none of whom can do the dirty boogie for longer than 5 minutes and only in the missionary position.
Well, don't forget about the "wide stance" in airport men's room stalls.
Well, or they have to put on a show of being happily married while the hubby is engaged in the horizontal tango with aids, daughters of friends, staffers, spouses of staffers, prostitutes, and/or Argentine reporters.
Just keeping track of the hubby's various partners and the attendant STD exposure would be enough to make one grumpy.
That was awesome to watch Elizabeth Warren smash into Bernake with his favoritism of big banks over the small banks. You go Elizabeth Warren, we are with you gal. Bernake with his beady little eyes did some squirming in his deceptions. That is enough of those rich bastard thieves. These big banks need to pay back that 80 some billions dollars back to the government too. We the People need that money for better things than bailing out some corrupt bank CEO’s.
We need more women like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren and that Lady who heads up Facebook in government. I think they can be much more civil and cooperative and can clean up the dysfunction we have in government today. Elizabeth Warren is the best thing to happen in national government in a long time. We need more like Ms Warren.
Apparently Mr. Boehner isn't looking at the public polls on the issue.
Except for his lunatic base, the Republicans are getting the majority of the blame on this.
It's too bad that the country is going to suffer before they can throw these morons out of office.
Indifference in the American electorate is the fundamental problem. Speaking of getting off your ass, this is the group that needs to do that most of all. We tolerate the intolerable. We should impose term limits on The Supreme Court and Congress and give all of them pay and benefits equal to middle America. The GOP is in the way of progress.
Well the only thing the gop house could ever manage to pass at this point would be legislation that would end up offending immigrants , workers , and the ladies , like they did last year , so they must just figure they are better off to pass nothing at all , they going to be the DO EVEN LESS congress
At some point I would imagine the DC corporate media are going to get bored , watching them say they are doing nothing all day , and just go cover Canadian politics , so they can identify what actual governing looks like
Poor Orange Julius (That's "Vodka Naranja" in Spanish!), even inept at self-seeking, at this point Cantor would be better..
No, there is no situation imaginable where little Kapo Eric would be better than anything else.
TC in LA,
God knows you are right! We must not go there, ever. That would be going from Boehner, a weak leader, to a psychopath who is owned by the T-Party and who would be very effective as their spokesman. Cantor is colder than Antarctica. He makes Paul Ryan look compassionate.
Cantor is Frank Nitti to Boehner's Capone.
The T-Party is a train wreck.
re #14.
Cantor would be better -- for those wishing to see the GOP fracture into two or more parties.
The country-club Republicans will have great difficulty following a Tea Party Speaker.
The founder of "Red State" said yesterday that the Tea Party Conservatives don't care about cuts to the military and that they absolutely would not back any tax increases, so Boehner and Cantor can't get the support that they need to get a bill that would pass the Senate they both appeared rattled at their presser yesterday, Cantor seemed shell shocked, he must have just done some math and saw how many jobs Virginia was going to lose due to cuts in military spending, Boener stated that he had no information on projected job losses due to sequestration.Polls show clearly that despite their efforts to hang this on President Obama that the Republicans are going to get the blame.
Maybe they should not have treated the President like dirt for the last four years, I feel sorry for all the people who are going to suffer, but The Republicans have had every chance to behave like responsible adults, now it's time for a good old fashioned ass kicking.
That's our Congress, dedicated to saving those who don't need saving...the rich.
All he needs is a red wig and a red nose to go with his orange face...Boner the clown.
We are entering the "John Boehner starts getting hysterical" phase of Republican brinksmanship.
I am still here wondering how could our Congress we elected "For the People" could even consider sequester. We send elected officials to Washington do do whats best for all Americans and the United States Of America. We asked GOP Congress to do their jobs even begged and they are refusing to do whats right for the American people. I have a question can the American people take Congress to court? Enough is enough Mr. Speaker of the House sent Congress on leave in the middle of a crisis instead of coming to the table with house Democrats to hammer out a some type of compromise or resolution. The GOP has no heart their all about their own selfish hatred. The deficit is already depreciating and they are sounding the same old broken record we have to have spending cuts. It has to be a balanced approach with spending cuts and revenue.Will someone in the GOP please stand up and give your other members quick lesson in beginners math for example 1+1 = 2 is that so hard to comprehend. Wake up America it's time for us to act now and in 2014. We need to have people represent us who care about all Americans. There is power in numbers. If anyone should be sequestered it should be the GOP what about their salaries or furloughs without pay. It's time to take a stand now America!!!!!!!!!!
I wish. It would be one remedy for this, if it were possible. They did take an oath to perform their duties:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
So they are saying they will not discharge the duties of the office they worked so hard with donor money to get?
Linda, in my view the American electorate is at the bottom of the problem. Yes, there are things we can and should do - we can stop being indifferent and complacent and call for a Constitutional Convention to change some rules, we can literally revolt but we should not continue to tolerate our dysfunctional government and perhaps as you say, we should take them to court for not doing what they solemnly swore to do - the job for which they were elected. They do not represent the people who put them in the job and we do nothing when they do nothing in OUR behalf.
At one time I thought watching Boehner fall apart might be fun, but it hasn't been. The country is hurt by his inability to lead. The man has absolutely no control over much of his caucus. He actually looks like he's been crying, drinking, or both in picture posted for the "What contempt for public looks like" thread.
Boehner is a shining example of the Peter Principle at work. He should resign from the speaker's job so Cantor can have it. Since those two can't stand one another, Boehner could then enjoy watching Cantor try to herd the wing-nuts.
In my view, Cantor, like Boehner cannot find his butt with both hands.
Make them stand up individually and explain why they prefer to allow the sequester to happen rather than close a few tax loopholes for the super rich.
We have every right to know this. We pay these bas#$@ds.
Unfortunately, all they would say is that the President already got his revenue and that the White House has a spending problem. Even though everything must go through Congress to become law and therefore create an expense. I don't feel the President is being dishonest in speaking to "We the People", of what the sequester could do to the economy. I don't think anyone is really sure, because nothing like this has ever happened. George W. Bush spiralled the country into as close to a depression as we could get. The President has been trying to dig us out without any help from the Republicans. And now they just want to send us back to where we were when President Obama took over. I've already had to go 2 years with mandatory days without pay. No raise for 4 years, not even cost of living and I work for the government. So, I can assume I won't have much of a pleasant future for travel, retirement, or anything but the same grind of paycheck to paycheck. Yeah Us!
Many people have had pay cuts, via furloughs and hours cut while Cost of Living rises. Even flat out laid off. It is hurting economy and deficit.
Lost homes, cars broken down. I know, my family members and friends are living in that situation.
This is not conducive to growth in economy, nor is lowering or maintaining low taxes for rich.
Why can't we hear their individual (not talking points) explanations as to why they favour not closing loopholes for the super rich over the sequester?
Why can't they stand up and explain themselves to us. We PAY the bastards!
I mentioned this in another thread, but the reality is that Boehner is just stuck. The Citizens United decision means that party leaders can no longer force recalcitrant party members to tow the party line because most of the Tea Party are no longer reliant on party funding for their re-elections. In other words, Citizens United allowed rich people to place unqualified twits into office and makes them unaccountable to the party leadership. The rich do this because the twits don't have a full grasp on just how destructive the policies that they are now encouraged by their rich backers to push can be. This way the Koch's and those like them can try to push through measures that favor them at the cost of the rest of the nation. Serious legislators would not, nor have they ever, used the debt ceiling as a negotiation tool. Serious legislators would not let the sequester happen. Tea Party candidates, however, will.
I have mixed feelings about Boehner. He may not be my favorite Congressman ever, but I do believe that he takes his job seriously and understands exactly what the policies his base pushes for will do. You can tell that he is in a panic and has no idea how to make people he has next to no tools with which to control them do what they need to do. He was happy about the sequestration deal to begin with because he was certain that the idiots that won't listen would be forced to listen this time and all of the things he added would give him bargaining chips when he negotiated with Pelosi and Obama to end the sequestration. Unfortunately for him, he underestimated how obstinantly stupid his base is determined to be. Just like the fiscal cliff deal at the beginning of the year, I believe that he is hoping to let the sequestration hit and negotiating a retroactive fix ASAP and is simply in damage control mode until he has that opportunity.
When the conservative party finally realizes that the Koch's and Simmons and Perry's of the world are using them the way they use religion?
This talking point is moronic. One, there is no bill currently for the Senate to work on. Two, the Constitution (which the Republicans read out loud for the Congressional Record as a PR stunt) clearly states that all bill dealing with appropriations (of which any bill dealing with the sequester necessarily is, because it has to do with government spending) MUST originate in the House of Representatives.
I appreciate Boehner's frustration with his caucus. He knows he's voted on a sequester alternative twice in the last session before voting to finally kick it to this session (the THIRD vote on sequester), and he knows that neither of those bills would pass now if they were brought up given that they have lost seats. So, while he's frustrated with his caucus, maybe he should show some leadership, man-up, and state clearly for the entire world to hear: "I'm really bad at my job, and my caucus is crazy and won't do anything to prevent the sequester; but we will continually whine and cry about it, because that is the only thing we are actually good at anymore." He should also put the world on notice that his party is completely unable to govern and that everyone should stop expecting the Republican Party to attempt to govern the country at all, or for at least the next two years.
That is, though of course not in so many words, what Boehner has been telling us. "We're broken." He cannot control the nihilists in his caucus, and until he gets enough support from Republicans from districts that could go Democratic in 2014, complaining to him about the morons in the Tea Party faction killing them, he will not be in position to help govern. I think he's reaching out to send a message to those persuadable people in his own caucus that won't be primaried by nutjobs if they support a compromise bill, by publicly hinting that he's completely stymied right now. He knows, of course, that the Senate can't initiate the necessary legislation, and he knows, of course, that the bill the House passed last year would never make it out of committee in the Senate, much less pass, much less be signed by the President. He's not getting thrown a lifesaver from Democrats, and he's not actually thinking he will. His only hope is to get enough Northern Republicans on board to support a Democratically-sponsored bill.
Boehner's feeling so much heat and pressure these days, I'm surprised he hasn't turned into a diamond.
More like an over-inflated helium balloon
It's like watching Wile E. Coyote, caught in yet another hair-raising tailspin, awaiting the inevitable "poof" at the bottom of the canyon.
Scolding again Speaker?
You can't really say "we have moved something twice", when talking of last (112th) House votes.
http://www.opencongress.org/issues/show/4787_appropriations
They want desperately to put the blame on others. That was LAST YEAR you did that, it is how this works. You already complained about ramming things through and leaving you out…
The worries about children/grandchildren needs to be moved up to those that are working now, those that need jobs now.
Their arguments are all over the place when it's convenient to push Senate the escape blame, they do. When it's convenient to say the Senate went around the House, they do. When it's time to act themselves, they say the Senate or President is not acting. This is clearly the way they work. I hate it, others hate it.
They have to stop this. Even Gerrymandering can be overcome if voters would stop giving excuses and cover for TeaPub do-nothings, blaming the President.
It is the 113th Congress, you cannot use the 112th votes. Dumb@sses. But they can put up a bill to keep Dept. of Homeland Security to keep money from paying for abortions. F'ing wonderful.
If the House was a production facility it would look like this, parts all over the place units half completed Democrats dutifully at their stations, tools in hand, and the Republicans are out in the parking lot washing their cars, while their leaders are down at the bar or out on the golf course.
True. They want others to do their jobs for them. The prototype needed the engine, they pretend the car is ready to be sold because the threw a few parts in the trunk while the line is stopped. They say the person further up the line needs to come down and work at their station, while they go drink beers and shots..
That's actually anything or entity that is goverment run, including Obama(deathpanel)care.
Shooter, your comments about 2% cuts clearly demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about.
Under the assumptions required by the STA, the sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration would also impose cuts of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.