Analysis: Budget deal only reduces real discretionary spending by around $15 billion

posted at 4:17 pm on April 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

See this AP piece for the grim details. Quote: “[T]he cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can’t be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation.” Another $4.9 billion comes from a Crime Victims Fund that wasn’t going to be spent this year anyway.

Based on the number of Republicans who voted no and Democrats who voted yes on the short-term funding resolution passed late last week, Boehner’s got something like a 40-vote cushion for Thursday’s House vote on the package. How much of it will be left after this starts making the rounds?

The specifics show that finding nearly $40 billion in cuts during the 2011 fiscal year required clever accounting and, for the White House, a willingness to concede on rhetoric to find gains on substance.

For example, the final cuts in the deal are advertised as $38.5 billion less than was appropriated in 2010, but after removing rescissions, cuts to reserve funds and reductions in mandatory spending programs, discretionary spending will be reduced only by $14.7 billion.

White House officials said throughout the process that the composition of the cuts was more important than the top-line number, and that including mandatory cuts allowed that top-line to grow while limiting the immediate impact of the cuts.

The move also keeps the 2011 discretionary baseline slightly higher, a terrain advantage for the Democrats heading into the 2012 spending process.

The overall spending baseline for the year will still end up being $773 billion higher than it was in 2008, before TARP was enacted and our Keynesian adventures began. (Even the deepest cuts demanded by Republicans didn’t imagine a return to that level this year.) The bill does eliminate four of Obama’s czars, as Ed noted this morning — but those positions were already being phased out.

John Podhoretz surveys the scene and wonders if freshmen Republicans won’t be so angry at the specifics of the deal that we’ll end up with a shutdown after all. The short-term resolution that they passed on Friday night expires this Thursday, so if the initial vote fails in the House on Thursday morning, that could spell the end. Podhoretz:

Already there are indications that a great many House members are going to vote against the deal. What we don’t know, or can’t know, is whether grass-roots velocity has sped up to such a degree over the past several years that we could be looking at a major meltdown of support when the votes are cast, as Republican members honestly balk at the clear deceit of the negotiators in making non-existent cuts in federal spending—and as they fear the wrath of the voters (particularly tea partiers). Meanwhile, Leftist Democrats who feel betrayed by Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might also decide to teach them a lesson by withholding support.

And then, all of a sudden, there will be a shutdown. And no plan to end it. And make no mistake—the public will blame the GOP.

All of this makes perfect sense from the Democrats’ perspective. It’s win/win. If Boehner can convince his caucus to suck it up and vote yes on the package anyway, great — Obama and Reid get to claim credit with independents for being newly minted deficit hawks or whatever while conceding a scant $15 billion in real cuts. If Boehner can’t convince his caucus to suck it up and the vote fails in an eleventh-hour revolt, great — Obama and Reid get to blame the GOP for shutting down the government by rejecting a deal that was, after all, approved by John Boehner himself. Voters are already more likely to credit Democrats for last week’s compromise than Republicans, so the GOP goes into this as the “stubborn” party; and according to Pew’s eye-popping poll this morning, Americans are also already plenty disgusted with the budget standoff. If the deal falls apart and the government shuts down, there’s a severe risk that that disgust will land squarely in the GOP’s lap.

So the specifics make this an obviously good deal for Democrats — but what were Boehner and his deputies thinking in signing off on it? Are they simply stuck at this point, having already agreed to a climactic compromise last week, and desperate to get the 2011 budget off the table as The One delivers his big response to Paul Ryan tomorrow and the debate shifts to entitlements? Maybe they’re counting on the fact that the caucus simply won’t be willing to desert Boehner with a gigantic vote coming soon on the debt ceiling. He needs all the leverage he can muster to extract concessions in those negotiations with Reid and The One; if this vote collapses in the House and we end up in a shutdown with the GOP bearing the brunt of the blame, he’ll be crippled. No doubt Boehner’s selling this deal to them in those terms too, especially since Hoyer’s being cagey about how many Democratic votes will be there in the end. As much as Pelosi’s caucus might want to protect Obama by approving a compromise that he’s blessed, if they think the party can do better by letting the government shut down, they may very well decide to abandon Boehner and let him choke on the result. Gonna be an interesting couple of days.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This is not about general election, it is about primary, thats the only battle.

anikol on April 12, 2011 at 5:31 PM

It really is amazing how all the drawbacks and pitfalls that the Founders spoke about and were afraid of, have all come true and are the wrecking balls of the Republic. Party system, foreign entanglements, central bank, professional politicians, an entitlement mentality. But what did all those dead white guys know?????

retiredeagle on April 12, 2011 at 5:32 PM

For Bayam and crr6:

Unemployment in the 1930s under FDR

1933 24.9%
1939 17.2%

Unemployment in the 1980s under Reagan/Bush.

1981: 7.1%
1988: 5.3%

Yep, you guys are right. Spending a gazzillion dollars by the govt is the key to economic prosperity. Reducing taxes on the other hands leads to pure misery for one and all.

angryed on April 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM

bayam on April 12, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Well if Obama hadn’t given most of Porkulous to the same people you mention, no telling what might have happened.

Cindy Munford on April 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Oops meant to say 1989: 5.3%

angryed on April 12, 2011 at 5:40 PM

But what did all those dead white guys know?????

retiredeagle on April 12, 2011 at 5:32 PM

I really have to pick up my kid now, but you ventured into something I’ve been thinking about. When the Industrial Rev0lut10n came about, many folks thought it was a new order for the ages, and invalidated everything that had come before.

From the dawn of recorded history up until that point, mankind lived an agricultural life. But with the dawn of industry, that was all supposedly going to change. The Founders got put in the bucket of “quaint agricultural notions that probably don’t apply now.” Individualism and individual freedom was to become a thing of the past, as factories were the model for a collective society, where great big groups of people got great big things done.

But 150 years later, a mere blink of History’s eye, even that changed. Improved computer and communications technology broke those collectives back up into individuals (only with a laptop, not an acre of land). And people have re-discovered that maybe those eighteenth-century farmers might have known a thing or two.

Sekhmet on April 12, 2011 at 5:44 PM

*sigh*

capejasmine on April 12, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Disgusting.

AS usual, the Stupid Party caved in and tried to spin it as a victory for the rubes.

The only way this ends is if the economy implodes because of the Left’s wild spending. Then they do something about it–not necessarily what we want.

The only ones who win are the politicians.

hachiban on April 12, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Could be that Boehner and company have been set up by the dems to take the fall anyway for a shutdown. He better have some talking points ready if that vote fails. I knew Friday night We the People would be screwed in any deal the crowd in DC put together. Looks like we need to get the broom ready for ’12.

Kissmygrits on April 12, 2011 at 5:49 PM

It is time to cut our losses and move on to the real war.

Declare victory and move on! The big cuts are still ahead. Piddling around with these small numbers is just a distraction. If Pelosi and Reid had done their job we wouldn’t have even gotten this.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Meanwhile, Leftist Democrats who feel betrayed by Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might also decide to teach them a lesson by withholding support.

This makes no sense. How are leftist feeling betrayed? It turns out the “historic” cuts are really no cuts whatsoever.
If anything leftists should be jumping up and down with glee over the deal.

angryed on April 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Well if the government shuts down the military will not get paid. Boehner didn’t even have the balls to get military funding in for the rest of the year. He failed the small test. I can’t see him passing on the next two big tests.

Brat4life on April 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM

angryed on April 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM

The lefties are upset because the rich are still rich and Zero didn’t tax them at 100%.

Brat4life on April 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM

THIS illustrates what quite a number of us were saying the day the deal was reached? I am so mad right now!!!

RINOs always think they are the smartest bunch in the room, the great compromisers, the realists,… yet they are ALWAYS played for fools by the Democrats!!! On the other hand, Conservatives/Tea Partiers who have been labeled as rubes and simpletons have been proved right over and over again! But do our elites learn?? No way!

It’s time to throw down a gauntlet! Our leaders must prepare to put their jobs on the line:

1. If a RINO is nominated on the GOP ticket (ala McCain) and goes on to lose, the party should ensure that it fires ALL the current strategists and never run the preferred candidates of the Beltway again!

2. Boehner/McConnell and the current crop of leaders should be prepared to RESIGN if they end up sustaining losses because of depressed GOP turnout in the next election cycle!!

And by the way, who thought it a wise idea to maintain the SAME crop of leaders who managed to lose the White House, the Senate and the House in two election cycles??

TheRightMan on April 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Well if the government shuts down the military will not get paid. Boehner didn’t even have the balls to get military funding in for the rest of the year. He failed the small test. I can’t see him passing on the next two big tests.

Brat4life on April 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM

It is not that simple and it is not a question of balls, it is a question of votes. If the government shuts down, these same issues will still be there. Shutting down the government will not do much in the short run, but in the long run it will just make people mad and it will not solve any problems.

And I also read somewhere along the way that this budget cuts more like $100 billion on an annualized basis and it cuts hundreds of billions over several years…so it is somewhere between $15 billion and hundreds.

I guess we will find out in time. I am not going to assume that this analysis is any more correct than the others.

Terrye on April 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM

I told you the speaker was a puss. He got rolled and we are F’d. Have another drink Johnny, just don’t CRY when you are replaced.

J.

JohnnyMojo on April 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM

If the vote fails, Boenher should resign immediately.

thirteen28 on April 12, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Knew it was too good to be true. My lack of faith is once again confirmed.

DFCtomm on April 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Terrye on April 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM

If this vote fails on Thurs we don’t get paid. Then we have to go through this $h!t all over again. It’s stressful being a military family right now, and on top of that add not getting paid. Boehner was the one sending the deals in to Zero at the end not the other way around.

Boehner lied and at least he could of done since he knew what he did was get a provision saying that the military would still get paid till the end of the year. He couldn’t even do that. Now we have to go through this whole process all over again.

Brat4life on April 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Commenting as one from a neighboring congressional district in SW Ohio, I am bitterly disappointed with Boehner.

The level of his deceit is unbelievable.

I really hope he gets screwed.

BuckeyeSam on April 12, 2011 at 6:11 PM

I have Fox on right, Special Report, and they did a breakdown of this bill and supposedly it really is more than $38 billion. So they say, and they talked about where the money comes from too. Strange.

Terrye on April 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Rush is right!..boehner does have some explaining to do!..:)

Dire Straits on April 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Terrye on April 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM

It is confusing!..:)

PS..Boehner needs to explain it!..:)

Dire Straits on April 12, 2011 at 6:17 PM

I’m seething. Boehner needs to step down.

jawkneemusic on April 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

cut the damn foodstamps to fat people who buy rib eye steaks. & high-priced ice cream. & expensive packaged food. (I won’t even get into the drug-use issue)

kelley in virginia on April 12, 2011 at 6:29 PM

I was banned from RedState over their fictitious numbers. /face-palm

FloatingRock on April 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

The real problem is that nobody knows what the number is. The govt accounting is nothing but smoke and mirrors. $1 is added here, then subtracted there then added as $2 somewhere else and somehow it’s counted as a $0.75 cut. Boehner might as well have said he cut $100B and nobody could really say he didn’t.

angryed on April 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Boy, are you guys suckers for the Dem’s disinformation machine! They have their lick spittle lap dogs in the drive-by media whip conservatives into a frenzy over the false numbers they have created for this exercise, pressure mounts on newly minted reps, vote fails, and government shut down takes place on schedule THANKS TO STUBBORN TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS!! Hello!?!?!?

FalseProfit on April 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

FalseProfit on April 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

So you’re saying it’s a Left-wing conspiracy?

And we’re the “extremists” and “nuts”?

FloatingRock on April 12, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Even if you’re right that it’s a Left-wing conspiracy, Boehner and you guys walked right into their trap.

FloatingRock on April 12, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Thats’ right, if you tax the elite class of lawyers, investment bankers, corp executives and stock brokers in major US cities, it will hurt the economy. Good call. It’s amazing how extremely low taxes on the wealthy haven’t triggered substantial job growth.

bayam on April 12, 2011 at 5:10 PM

The wealthy pay the highest tax rates, dipstick. That politicians have created ways of paying them through the tax system is a separate issue.

Count to 10 on April 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

The cynic in me says that I shouldn’t be surprised as Boehner and company are veteran spelunkers. But, to go from $100 Billion down to $60 or so Billion then down again to $38.5 Billion (with no details) only to end up with maybe $14.7 (after the smoke clears) is a fraking unbelievable display of disdain for America and her citizens. I expect such disdain from the dems but not from Boehner and his “leadership” team, especially after the Nov. ’10 elections…

There is so much low hanging fruit for Boehner to choose from and he’s busy abdicating his responsibilities…

Gohawgs on April 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Talk about a wasted opportunity. Republican leaders are chumps, pure and simple. We are so screwed.

holygoat on April 12, 2011 at 7:05 PM

All of this hand-wringing about how a shut-down will be perceived is sort of like worrying about the affection of the islamists over in AfPak. Know what? They hate us. Get over it. Same with the media and as much of the population as they can convince here. They hate us. Kowtowing and compromising on principles isn’t going to meaningfully change that. So let’s just try to live our principles instead of constantly being willingly victimized. We need to stop being the abused spouse.

bofh on April 12, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Amen!

KickandSwimMom on April 12, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Yeah, what a great win this was, Rs. Let’s hear from the RINO battalion again, about how losing is really winning.

Wimps.

rightwingyahooo on April 12, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Time for The People to lead.

ronsfi on April 12, 2011 at 7:30 PM

I wonder if Speaker Bachmann would have cut a deal.

I think she would not have.

fossten on April 12, 2011 at 7:37 PM

& if Boehner isn’t willing to do it, then find us someone who is

kelley in virginia on April 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM

-
I gave Michael Steel the benefit of the doubt.
I gave Eric Cantor the benefit of the doubt.
Then I gave John Boeher the benefit of the doubt…
-
They still don’t seem to get “it”.
-
Mike Pence for Speaker.

diogenes on April 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM

As I have been saying since last Saturday morning, and echoed by Rush…. Boehner just caved, pure and simple. He is another useless career politician out to protect his own rear end….. I will contribute to whoever primaries against him. Geez, these morons really Pi*ss me off! They ruined our country and they won’t do what is needed to correct themselves. I can think of no better argument for term limits than people like Reid, Schumer and Boehner, etc, etc, etc

ultracon on April 12, 2011 at 7:52 PM

$4.9 billion comes from a Crime Victims Fund

Since the taxpayers are a victim of this ongoing crime…can you say tax reeeeefuuuuund! Woohoo!

Yeah, right.

The lefties are upset because the rich are still rich and Zero didn’t tax them at 100%.

Brat4life on April 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM

A lot of the rich are lefties. But like the, er, non-lefties they have the tax lawyers, and loopholes to protect the bulk of their interests. The intent was partly the result of self-interest and crony Capitalist tax laws, but also to insure that capital was amassed and available to do big things. Once upon a time maybe, but I think the “trickle down” faucet has been tightened up and what used to come out is being hoarded, and certainly diverted (intentionally or not) into other societies…like Red China.

It seems that a lot of wealth is getting locked up somewhere out there…if this is so, then you can only attack and blame your favorite demons, but that changes nothing. There is no point in supporting Capitalism if you have little or no opportunity to take part, and it doesn’t benefit you. I argue that true wealth creation is based upon viable resources and manufacturing capabilities. Only a few can control those resources, and only a few have the capital to engage in large-scale manufacturing.

But 150 years later, a mere blink of History’s eye, even that changed. Improved computer and communications technology broke those collectives back up into individuals (only with a laptop, not an acre of land). And people have re-discovered that maybe those eighteenth-century farmers might have known a thing or two.

Sekhmet on April 12, 2011 at 5:44 PM

And I think we’re back to the arguments Marx proposed concerning advanced technology and the need for labor. To fast forward into the digital/automation age, why should I (CEO) hire ten people if I can do the same work with one because of technology? What happens to the other nine people? They’d have to start out from scratch and outcompete me. I have a head start, the capital and the connections.

What can happen is that government can apportion some of my earnings to support the nine, to educate them, to protect them, to insure that they live a civilized life. But they will be barred from doing little more than to partake of what bounty is made available to them.

The corporate/capitalist structure is, to me, a mere refinement of Feudalism in which the serfs have more latitude to go to another estate if they wish, or squat in a forgotten corner of the estate, but do with less, because they don’t contribute to the feudal collective.

Socialism makes perfect sense to corporate leaders. It promises efficiency (in their hands as they know how to manage resources and people), it reduces the redundancy/waste of resources of other companies manufacturing the same product or supplying the same service, it brings about economic equilibrium, it prevents social turmoil as key industries are stable and stagnant-no massive layoffs, debt writeoffs and so on due to companies going under because they were out competed.

Not the way I want to see things happen, but I’m becoming more and more convinced that the Golden Age of Capitalism is ending. Partly due to overpopulation. Much of it due to higher civilizations always requiring more resources-and there’s only so much.

The Socialists want this to happen, not merely predict what would happen…”nudge” as Glen Beck pointed out.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM

In pure and simple terms, we were lied to by Boehner. We should have known that the Dems were going to get the best of them just like they always do. The Republicans never win against them, NEVER! Are they just that stupid or just naive? I believe there isn’t much difference in any of them except maybe for a few. Boehner either needs to resign or he needs his a$$ kicked out of the Speaker’s chair.

And while the rest of us are having to lower our standard of living, how about we lower the standard of living of all the illegal aliens who are siphoning off the public dole. That right there would lower the budget enough to make a difference. Why should we all suffer and they get a free pass on our dime?

silvernana on April 12, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Allahpundit the staunch conservative. hahahahahahaha

jnelchef on April 12, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Which is what we (HA “crazier”) were saying Friday night and getting beaten up for being unreasonable.

angryed on April 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM

angryed and floatingrock:
Last Friday night I was not ready to dump on the Republican leadership, and I was urging some patience. Turns out that I was wrong and you were, and are, right. This “deal” really stinks.

GaltBlvnAtty on April 12, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Well of course. Can’t let a Republican Speaker of the House look good, can we!!

I can’t say I’m surprised to discover the cuts weren’t as deep as portrayed. As near as I can tell, Congress always uses gimmicks to pretend they’re cutting to the bone even if they’re just not increasing their spending as fast as usual.

But the budget cuts still were real budget cuts, as opposed to the usual “spend less than we were planning to spend this time, and pretend that we’re not still spending more than we did last time” gimmick.

And if it costs 2 Obamacare programs and 4 Obama czars, then the cuts have a lot more bite to them than the AP wants to admit.

Even if this is just the beginning of what needs to happen, it is at least a beginning.

tom on April 12, 2011 at 8:15 PM

angryed,

For Bayam and crr6:

Unemployment in the 1930s under FDR

1933 24.9%
1939 17.2%

Unemployment in the 1980s under Reagan/Bush.

1981: 7.1%
1988: 5.3%

Yep, you guys are right. Spending a gazzillion dollars by the govt is the key to economic prosperity. Reducing taxes on the other hands leads to pure misery for one and all.

One of my favorite quotes that illustrates the abject failure of Keynesianism:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot.”

Henry Morgenthau
Secretary of the Treasury
May 9th, 1939

Mike Honcho on April 12, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Half the problem is that you have to address this problem on both ends of the stick- with serious spending cuts and tax increases. Even Alan Simpson, a major proponent of lower taxes, says that the budget can’t be balanced unless you raise taxes to more historic levels:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/11_16/B4224no_taxes.htm

bayam on April 12, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Oh please. We know exactly what happens when Congress gets more money.

Hint: it’s never used to pay down the debt.

Of course, if you were a little smarter and better versed in your history, you’d know that John F. Kennedy cut taxes to stimulate the economy. And it worked.

Reagan cut taxes to stimulate the economy. And it worked.

Bush 41 raised taxes to avoid government shutdowns, and guess what happened? A recession, which the same Democrats who demanded the tax increases called “the worst economy in 50 years” and cited as the reason Bush should lose.

Bush 43 was faced with a soft economy, and cut taxes, which improved the economy until the Democrats were elected in 2006 and started their drunken spending binge.

tom on April 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Boehner should resign

clnurnberg on April 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

How many times do the Republicans have to screw conservatives for them to realize that they are every bit as miserable as the Democrats?

King of the Britons on April 12, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Count me among those who think Boehner should resign. He has foisted a sham upon the American people and upon the Republican Caucus. If I were a GOP congressman, I would be steaming right now.

WannabeAnglican on April 12, 2011 at 8:40 PM

but what were Boehner and his deputies thinking in signing off on it?

That we’re all suckers.

And to some degree, they a right. A great many people here were saying how smart, savvy, and just darned hard-working Beohner and co. are.

Fools.

Aquateen Hungerforce on April 12, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Analysis: Budget deal only reduces real discretionary spending by around $15 billion

How draconian. /

mizflame98 on April 12, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Yeah but Boehner is like a total freakin’ rock star from Mars!!111!! /

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 4:23 PM

OK, I’m really trying to imagine Boehner as Ziggy Stardust. It’s not working out too well.

mizflame98 on April 12, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Wait. Wait. Wait….everyone told me we won?

miConsevative on April 12, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Suckers…

equanimous on April 12, 2011 at 9:18 PM

What do we have, AM numbers and then PM numbers?

I think Ed and Allah ought to duke it out over what the real numbers are. Are we being suckered by dem operatives or by or own side. I can’t believe anyone!

Vince on April 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM

1. If a RINO is nominated on the GOP ticket (ala McCain) and goes on to lose, the party should ensure that it fires ALL the current strategists and never run the preferred candidates of the Beltway again!

TheRightMan on April 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM

GOP strategist is a code for moron. The Republican Party should ride itself of Mike (the Klingon) Murphy, Kevin Madden and the rest of the losers.

bw222 on April 12, 2011 at 9:28 PM

The GOP will betray you

True_King on April 12, 2011 at 9:29 PM

I have a couple of questions. First, are the Republicans really this stupid or do they believe we are? Secondly, if this is all the cuts they got, why were the DEmocrats demagoguing this like crazy?

It also looks like they might have overplayed their hand on Planned Parenthood, but time will tell on that.

They’re saying they have 3 bites at the apple, well the first one was more of a nibble so I hope they do a better job with the other 2.

If it were me, I would start working on the budget for 2012 right now and force Obama and the Democrats to cut spending dramatically, if they don’t vote no on the debt ceiling. There is no sense in increasing the debt ceiling if you don’t cut the credit cards up.

bflat879 on April 12, 2011 at 9:51 PM

The GOP will has betray[ed] you

True_King on April 12, 2011 at 9:29 PM

FIFY

FloatingRock on April 12, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Look at the Polls on who independents trust to run Congress. We should do well in 2012. If we get painted as petulent and irresponsible (and believe it; that is what we would get painted) by shutting down soldier’s pay over a “we was deceived” plaint, we would lose not gain support with independents.

Now, lets get some real reform in exchange for a debt ceiling raise, more reform in the 2012 budget bill and maybe, if our support holds up, more reform in 2012 on the 2013 budget as Obama tries to fool people into thinking he is now fiscally responsible. This is a long trench war and the big gains will be in 2013 if we win the White house and Senate because we keep the support of the public majority.

KW64 on April 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Can anybody post the link for where to donate to Boehner’s primary opponent?

Over50 on April 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM

The tea party must demonstrate that they are willing to ‘check’ government spending using every authority vested to them by the Constitution, otherwise they will suffer the same fate as Boehner; fecklessness.

We might not be able to stop Boehner from throwing away his only leverage but the tea party must not sign onto it, IMO.

The Obama\Boehner sham bill is a crucial test of the tea party’s resolve. Does it have any? If not, then the Democrats will disrespect them just as much as they do Boehner.

FloatingRock on April 12, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Our new tea partiers in Washington need to understand the full import of their votes.

FloatingRock on April 12, 2011 at 11:04 PM

This vote is so important to me that for the first time I’m going to print out the roll call and tack it on my wall.

FloatingRock on April 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Before I go to bed, where is Right2Bright.

You sir are a republican hack. I called them out when Boehner agreed to this BS. Tell me, what do you think now. He promised us $100B and we get this?

Also, military personnel and families, Sue. You’re service members contract GUARANTEES pay. As soon as this is not met, you have a breach of contract.

SUE OBAMA!!

MadDogF on April 12, 2011 at 11:29 PM

I think too many people are being hard on John “rick roll” Boehner. He did say to his caucus “This is the best deal we could get—–with me as leader.”

arnold ziffel on April 13, 2011 at 12:24 AM

He has already caved on the debt ceiling.

Time for GOP revolt against their crying shame.

AshleyTKing on April 13, 2011 at 12:37 AM

I thought the meme of the week was “We won”, and all us nay-sayers were unclear on political nuance. How nice to know that we were indeed clear on political nuance, and it was the “We won” people who weren’t.

Again, the Democrats won this one merely by having President Obama say nothing after Boehner tried to get in the last word.

unclesmrgol on April 13, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Look at the Polls on who independents trust to run Congress…

KW64 on April 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM

STOP!! You lost me right there…

If conservatives/Tea Partiers had been reading poll “leaves”, we would all have been singing Kumbaya to Obama and a Dem House/Senate up until now.

We refused to go by POLLS and followed our CONVICTIONS. The result? One of the largest political victories America has seen that resulted in the House changing hands.

If only our leaders will cease trying to poll-test every decision and will just do the right thing… Wisconsin has shown that conservatives are the majority and will NEVER let you down!!

TheRightMan on April 13, 2011 at 1:44 AM

Reagan cut taxes to stimulate the economy. And it worked.

Bush 41 raised taxes to avoid government shutdowns, and guess what happened? A recession, which the same Democrats who demanded the tax increases called “the worst economy in 50 years” and cited as the reason Bush should lose.

Bush 43 was faced with a soft economy, and cut taxes, which improved the economy until the Democrats were elected in 2006 and started their drunken spending binge.

tom on April 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM

>improved the economy until the Democrats were elected in >2006 and started their drunken spending binge.

FACT: During Bush’s first six years, federal spending increased by nearly 40%. When the Dems took control of one legislative branch in 2006, federal spending increases actually declined in size. Because you’re certainly not intentionally misleading HA readers, here’s where you can look up the budget numbers and realize the grave factual errors in your comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Keep in mind that your’e being very selective in presenting facts across the board You name administrations that lowered taxes and simultaneously created massive federal deficits that largely contributed to today’s problems.

You also fail to mention the numerous situations where higher taxes were accompanied by strong growth, such as the tax hikes enacted by President Clinton. I’m not saying that tax cuts stimulate economic growth because, obviously, the opposite is generally true. What I’m saying is that many variables affect the nation’s economy, and even Alan Greenspan supported Clinton’s tax increases to reduce the national debt as a long-term benefit to interest rates.

You can come up with endless reasons why today’s historically low taxes are perfectly acceptable in an era of record deficits. It’s not even that you need to make a personal sacrifice, since the tax rates that need to increase will affect only the wealthy.

bayam on April 13, 2011 at 1:50 AM

Man alive are the Dems diabolical m’f'ers.

radioboyatl on April 13, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Surprising to find so many fans of Associated Press analyses here. Must because AP would never do anything that wasn’t 100% balanced and accurate.

The answer remains, “SO WHAT – even if they were correct?” If we had gotten the whole original $100 billion, it wouldn’t have had much more effect in the longer term.

We’re not going to get Ryan’s road map through, either, or anything very close to it. Even if we shut down the government. We will get significant cuts, but it was always going to come down to the 2012 election to actually fix the problem. We have the House and enough votes to block in the Senate, but nowhere near the votes to override Obama’s veto even if we peel off at-risk Dem Senators.

The Democrats’ last hope is recovery, which seems nearly impossible at this point, but they aren’t the sort to give up easy.

Adjoran on April 13, 2011 at 4:29 AM

For this the little people took to the streets and the ballot box?

When elections don’t change the evil….

Even a 3rd party without courage will fail

Perhaps it is time to petition the marxists for favorable surrender conditions?

Don L on April 13, 2011 at 7:06 AM

If most Americans really are fed up with the budget standoff (and by fed up I mean wanting any sort of agreement hammered out so things can move along) and are willing to shift their vote back to Democrats over the GOP ‘shutting down the government’ then I’d say there isn’t anything we can do to stop the coming economic apocalypse and government bankruptcy. If the American people in general aren’t behind efforts to actually get our spending under control and let the Democrats demonize the Republicans over a paltry 15 Billion (or even 100 Billion) in cuts then we are well and truly boned.

gwelf on April 13, 2011 at 7:07 AM

At this point – with 14 Trillion dollars in debt with nearly 2 more Trillion being heaped on top this year and similar amounts for years to come (given the status quo) and we’ll be spending ever increasing amounts of our ‘budget’ to just service the debt payments (forget even paying them down) and this is even before the baby boomers all hit retirement – if Americans or ‘independents’ need to be held by the hand and pleasantly courted by the political parties then we are screwed. The reality of our situation should make most Americans push hard for real and quick change to the financing and structure of state and federal government and if reality can’t do it and it’s going to take clever and subtle maneuvering by the GOP and a little help from the media then the game’s over and insovlency is unavoidable.

gwelf on April 13, 2011 at 7:13 AM

AH, HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!
you bought it, suckers
AH, HAHAHAHAHAHHAA

–GOP Dep’t of Talking Points, Faux News Div.

james23 on April 13, 2011 at 8:29 AM

The GOP will betray you

True_King on April 12, 2011 at 9:29 PM

This blind squirrel found a nut that just keeps on giving.

james23 on April 13, 2011 at 8:31 AM

I haven’t had time to check all of the comments, but did our resident GOP defenders, like fossten, Vyce and rockmom, show up on this thread to offer their explanations?
Just kidding, I know the answer.

james23 on April 13, 2011 at 8:33 AM

With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

SagebrushPuppet on April 13, 2011 at 8:47 AM

You also fail to mention the numerous situations where higher taxes were accompanied by strong growth, such as the tax hikes enacted by President Clinton. I’m not saying that tax cuts stimulate economic growth because, obviously, the opposite is generally true. What I’m saying is that many variables affect the nation’s economy, and even Alan Greenspan supported Clinton’s tax increases to reduce the national debt as a long-term benefit to interest rates.

bayam on April 13, 2011 at 1:50 AM

And YOU failed to mention that the reason we had growth and revenue in spite of Clinton’s tax hikes was because of the massive shift of money into Roth IRAs.

Intellectual honesty – you hasn’t it.

fossten on April 13, 2011 at 9:06 AM

I haven’t had time to check all of the comments, but did our resident GOP defenders, like fossten, Vyce and rockmom, show up on this thread to offer their explanations?
Just kidding, I know the answer.

james23 on April 13, 2011 at 8:33 AM

I actually offered my mea culpa on another thread. But thanks for thinking of me.

fossten on April 13, 2011 at 9:07 AM

I haven’t had time to check all of the comments, but did our resident GOP defenders, like fossten, Vyce and rockmom, show up on this thread to offer their explanations?
Just kidding, I know the answer.

james23 on April 13, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Whoops, no – it was on this thread.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/12/analysis-budget-deal-only-reduces-real-discretionary-spending-by-around-15-billion/comment-page-1/#comment-4474341

Next time try reading the thread first.

fossten on April 13, 2011 at 9:09 AM

This blind squirrel found a nut that just keeps on giving.

james23 on April 13, 2011 at 8:31 AM

Your describing the GOPer/Limbaughians to a tee.

True_King on April 13, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Maybe I just expect less from government, but I’m actually impressed that anything was cut from spending. And I guarantee if this hadn’t been seen as a success for the Republican House, no one in the media would have been analyzing the results to find out how big the spending cuts really were.

I do believe the media is trying to manipulate us. Again.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 13, 2011 at 10:01 AM

james23 on April 13, 2011 at 8:33 AM

We do seem to have our share of RINOs Establishment Republicans.

bw222 on April 13, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3