Breaking: GOP passes Cut, Cap, & Balance Act

posted at 9:16 pm on July 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

John Boehner and the Republican caucus in the House passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act as promised on a near-party-line vote tonight, 234-190.  The move puts the onus back on the White House to propose an alternative or assume responsibility for killing the debt-ceiling hike it contains:

Defying a veto threat, the Republican-controlled House passed legislation Tuesday night to slice federal spending by $6 trillion and require a constitutional balanced budget amendment to be sent to the states in exchange for averting a threatened government default.

The 234-190 vote marked the power of deeply conservative first-term Republicans, and stood in contrast to stirrings at the White House and in the Senate on a renewed effort at bipartisanship to solve the looming debt crisis.

Members of Congress have begun to fill e-mail inboxes with their reaction.  From the upper chamber, Pat Toomey “applauds”:

“Today, my House colleagues have shown a willingness to raise the debt limit, but only if the president puts us on a path to a balanced budget. I applaud the House’s passage of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act and hope that the Senate will send this bill to the president’s desk,” Sen. Toomey said. “I find it hard to believe that the president would be so opposed to a path to a balanced federal budget that he would veto this legislation and reject the debt ceiling increase he claims is absolutely vital for the country.”

Paul Ryan declares victory:

“The House of Representatives continues to advance serious solutions to get our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity.  The Cut, Cap and Balance legislation passed today cuts $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade, locks in those savings with enforceable caps on spending, and forces Washington to finally live within its means with a Balanced Budget Amendment.

“The coming debt crisis is the single most predictable economic disaster in the history of this nation. Unfortunately, the White House refuses to put forth a credible plan to solve our spending problem, and Senate Democrats have not passed a budget in over 800 days. I remain hopeful that responsible leaders will work with us to advance specific solutions that uphold our solemn commitment to leave the next generation with a stronger, more prosperous nation than the one we inherited.”

However, Paul Broun sounds a dissent:

“I gave my word to my constituents in Georgia and to the rest of the American people that I would not vote for any bill that increases the debt limit. Although the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is a step in the right direction, it still raises the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, and we simply cannot afford it.

“Also missing from the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is the urgency to pay down the debt by immediately reducing the outrageous spending levels to which Washington has become so accustomed. Unfortunately, the cuts outlined in Cut, Cap, and Balance take effect over a period of ten years. We no longer have ten years to spare – it’s too little, too late.

“Undoubtedly, we have to cap spending and we must enact a balanced budget amendment, but Congress can get these tasks done without raising the debt ceiling. I have introduced bills to both lower the debt ceiling and to balance the budget.

“We’ve been down this road before. Administrations of the past have agreed to raise the debt ceiling on a contingency that cuts would be made in future budgets – but those cuts never materialized. It’s long past time to stop obligating our constitutional duties – along with our budgetary problems – to both future Congresses and future generations.”

Similarly, Michele Bachmann voted no on the final passage. She had been adamant about not raising the debt ceiling, offering a yes vote only in exchange for a full repeal of ObamaCare.

Either way, Republicans have now passed their second bill this session that attempts to address the exploding deficits and the debt crisis, the first being Paul Ryan’s budget plan in April.  Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate haven’t bothered to pass any budget resolution in over 800 days, and the White House still refuses to offer any specific ideas.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Kini on July 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Hope to catch you later on one of the late-night threads so I won’t be booted for OT, but good to “see” ya, my friend.

Aloha,

…………..

hillbillyjim on July 19, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Meh…no worries…we all have been there.

Limerick on July 19, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Yep, too bad Hot Air doesn’t have an edit/delete button.

carbon_footprint on July 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM

I can’t wait for Obama to veto it…and the GOP campaign commercials that will come out of that.

AUINSC on July 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM

The only reason Boehner went through with this was to placate the Tea Party.

“We tried”

Beohner…you’re fired!

katy on July 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM

HondaV65 on July 19, 2011 at 9:32 PM
Seven Percent Solution on July 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM

These are uplifting thoughts.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 19, 2011 at 9:52 PM

excellent news, now lets see what Reid will allow in the Senate.

rob verdi on July 19, 2011 at 9:52 PM

The Senate will kill the BBA and maybe the caps, and send it forward.

John the Libertarian on July 19, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Don’t give up so easily. We need 4 votes that shouldn’t be that hard. I remember the press following Olympia Snowe into elevators with a microphone asking her was she going to flip on Stimulus. There needs to be a drumbeat for the country’s sake.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Wait the Paulianas will be proclaiming the righteousness of their taskmaster.

Limerick on July 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Yea… she’s so stoopid that she gave a rebate check to every taxpayer in the state she governed. I’ve lived in 7 states in this country and I never got a tax rebate check… ever. But I didn’t live in Alaska when Palin was Governor.

She obviously has no clue how to manage a budget.

Hog Wild on July 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM

I wish I were a leftist sometimes…it must be nice to be nice to be of limited talent and be successful through sheer sycophancy…pleasing your guy in government so that you get your check. I’m sure it beats working and inventing.

If you are a leftist you get to take this seriously:

http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2011/07/19/a_bipartisan_plan_to_reduce_our_nations_deficits_v7_32e9c56db3e5581a6e1f7acebeb3f160.pdf

and you could wave this to Obama/press and they would go ah..the sheer brilliance of the plan:

Finance would permanently reform or replace the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate
formula ($298 billion) and fully offset the cost with health savings, would find an
additional $202 billion/$85 billion in health savings, and would maintain the essential
health care services that the poor and elderly rely upon.

Colburn knows what the game is…as does McConnell. Barry will veto anything that doesn’t have tax increases. period. If there’s a default he wins. If he gets the tax increase he is lauded by the press as a Solomonic figure, our Messiah

Must be nice

Colburn is a Dr. and knows when the case is hopeless. His plan would shake up the Leftist/Corporatist dream profoundly

r keller on July 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM

I’m tellin’ ya, Barry’s going for the nuclear option and is going to use the the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling by executive order.

Knucklehead on July 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Which the Supreme Court will declare unconstitutional and void.

steebo77 on July 19, 2011 at 9:54 PM

I’m tellin’ ya, Barry’s going for the nuclear option and is going to use the the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling by executive order.

Knucklehead on July 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM

If he used the 14th Amendment, he loses the Independent Vote, and he needs it to get reelected.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Gotta love the McConnell/Gang of Six plan – I know my buddies and myself who work in the oilfield are just waiting for our pinkslips when it comes to pass.

JFS61 on July 19, 2011 at 9:55 PM

She obviously has no clue how to manage a budget.

Hog Wild on July 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM

LOL…um…

Limerick on July 19, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Hog Wild on July 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM

P A U L I A N A…..k?

Limerick on July 19, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Even if we could get the votes for this bill in the Senate, King Barry will veto it.Knucklehead on July 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM

But I think the Balanced Budget Amendment goes to the States to ratify at least 2/3 have to ratify it to added it to the Constitution. I don’t think he can veto the Amendment if it passed in the Senate.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 9:58 PM

That pledge had nothing to do with signing on for a Boehner supported bill. He wants cut and cap this year aka no debt ceiling hike.

He wants an absolute cap.

Spathi on July 19, 2011 at 9:42 PM

oh please, get his wrinkled c*ck out of your mouth long enough to read his on websites posting on June 21 and his link to the Cup/Cap/Balance website and quit spinning. Your messiah failed you, he is a fraud proved yet again.

and btw numbskull, there isn’t going to be a GOP bill passed that isn’t supported by the Speaker of the House.

jp on July 19, 2011 at 9:58 PM

P A U L I A N A…..k?

Limerick on July 19, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Think you should have typed “Ron Paul fans” – less confusion LOL!

gophergirl on July 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM

We tried”

Beohner…you’re fired!

katy on July 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Don’t be so mean, you’ll make him cry.

darwin-t on July 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM

It was an empty vote.

To give it credence is eh, whatevs.

Our Children deserve better than this whatever they call it.

I’m not only protetcting my children, I’m protecting my Grand Children.

We’ll all be okay. No matter what.

Key West Reader on July 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM

If he used the 14th Amendment, he loses the Independent Vote, and he needs it to get reelected.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 9:54 PM

He wants to crash the country more than he wants to win re-election

darwin-t on July 19, 2011 at 10:00 PM

gophergirl on July 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM

I’ve made notes and included your observation, thanks, sweet lady.

Limerick on July 19, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Hog Wild on July 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Read it again.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 19, 2011 at 10:01 PM

He does that and I think they might actually impeach him.

gophergirl on July 19, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Do not think an impeachment would end with Obama impeached. The Democrats always circle the wagons for their own.

But, the 14th Amendment does not give him that authority. It actually obligates him to pay the debt first, then other aspects of government.

astonerii on July 19, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Which the Supreme Court will declare unconstitutional and void.

steebo77 on July 19, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Not if he’s re-elected and gets to stack the Supreme Court.

If he used the 14th Amendment, he loses the Independent Vote, and he needs it to get reelected.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 9:54 PM

He doesn’t care. He’s out to destroy this country as fast as he can.

Knucklehead on July 19, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Mark Levin today had a fulminating, scathing, brilliant takedown of the BS “gang of six” plan and all those in Washington, Left and Right. In short, the entire city and governing culture needs to be metaphorically razed and rebuilt. Nothing less will change things.

rrpjr on July 19, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Ron Paul Issues Statement on Boehner’s Cut, Cap, and Balance

“This is far from the Pledge’s call for ‘substantial’ cuts”

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement outlining his opposition to the House version of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. See statement below.

“While I applaud the spirit of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act (CCB) and appreciate how it has shaped the debate to include a permanent solution to our deficit crisis, I could not support the legislation as it was presented today.

“Though I broke with many of my friends in Congress by voting against the House CCB plan, I was the first Presidential Candidate to sign the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge, as I believed in its call for ‘substantial’ spending cuts, hard caps, and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

“These difficult times require that presidential candidates be willing to lead on this issue by standing against runaway spending and promoting real changes to ensure future prosperity.

“If elected President, I will veto any spending bill that contributes to an unbalanced budget, and I will balance the budget in the first year of my term. I will also fight for and sign an iron clad Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“I have never voted to raise the federal debt limit, and I have no doubt that we face financial collapse and ruin if we continue to grow our debt. We need to make major spending cuts now, in this budget, and we can no longer afford to allow more deficit spending based on promises of future cuts.

“The CCB act would add $2.4 trillion of new debt to our gargantuan $14.4 trillion debt. CCB would also only cut $111 billion from this year’s budget, allowing a deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion. This is far from the Pledge’s call for ‘substantial’ cuts. And, CCB locks us into current levels of overseas welfare, which will continue to endanger America’s security by forcing us to subsidize other wealthy nations.

“For decades, politicians have promised future restraint in exchange for hikes in the debt limit. Each time, it’s said that if we act immediately to avoid a crisis, we will give the matter proper debate at the next vote. But, time and again, politicians reveal themselves to be untrustworthy. Promises of cuts remain unfulfilled, and we soon find ourselves once more in a crisis that we are told can only be addressed by upholding the status quo yet again.

“Many of my friends have made the case that, despite this bill’s shortcomings, CCB should be supported in order to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. CCB, unfortunately, does not guarantee a Balanced Budget Amendment will ever pass. It would still have to be ratified by the States, a process that could take years and perhaps even fail.

“If we want a Balanced Budget Amendment to be the silver bullet against Big Government that many hope it will be, it must be iron clad. The CCB Balanced Budget Amendment removed the two-thirds threshold requirement to exceed spending caps, which would be too easy for politicians to violate.


“Though I voted against today’s House version of Cut, Cap, and Balance, I continue to support the Pledge’s goals, and I remain committed to working on behalf of the American people to drastically reduce spending and implement fundamental changes that will reform government and restore our nation’s prosperity.”

Link

Spathi on July 19, 2011 at 10:03 PM

He doesn’t care. He’s out to destroy this country as fast as he can.

Knucklehead on July 19, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Great minds….

darwin-t on July 19, 2011 at 10:04 PM

If he uses the 14th to mask his chicanery, it should make for one he@@ of a show.

kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 10:04 PM

OT

WE CAN’T KEEP SPENDING MONEY THAT DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT DIRE CONSEQUENCES.

We have to pay the piper; not hand the bill to our progeny.

hillbillyjim on July 19, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Aloha Jim, good to see you also my friend! I’ll be around throughout the threads tonight! Catch up with you then!
/OT

Ryan said:
The Cut, Cap and Balance legislation passed today cuts $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade, locks in those savings with enforceable caps on spending, and forces Washington to finally live within its means with a Balanced Budget Amendment.

I would very much like to know if any of the Obamacare funding provisions were removed as apart of this bill. A large portion of the debt is Obamacare, along with the other entitlements that have been already spent.

But that’s the point people need to realize. Obama claimed that SS check may not go out if the debt ceiling was not raised. Basically, admitting that the money wasn’t there in the first place. So, our future, and our kids futures, are basically spent. I don’t know if entitlement reform will change that.

Kini on July 19, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Jed Babbin thinks this is a bad idea on the part of Republicans

Don’t Fumble the Debt Ceiling

The “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan is almost precisely what I warned against in this column a week ago. I say “almost” because it’s not a Democratic trap Republicans are falling into. It’s worse: a self-inflicted wound.

“Cut, Cap and Balance” cuts only $111 billion in this year’s spending — so small inside $14.3 trillion in debt as to be ridiculous — and then promises caps on future spending and a balanced budget constitutional amendment. But caps on future spending are susceptible to future congressional spending hikes. The BBA — as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said yesterday — may not be ratified by the states for a decade. A balanced budget amendment is a great idea, but it’s not going to do anything to help fix this month’s debt ceiling crisis.

Lon Chaney on July 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Link

Spathi on July 19, 2011 at 10:03 PM

ugh….no more Paul…he sucks.

jawkneemusic on July 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Nobody want’s ta sign up

Bummah. Well, Eh.

Key West Reader on July 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Spathi on July 19, 2011 at 10:03 PM

you and RuPaul are a total transparent Joke

jp on July 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM

The midterm elections changed the dynamics. I am not sure this kabuki is for our benefit. It’s possible that the Dems are going to outmaneuver their own base….they are a nasty bunch so it’s has to look like a fait accompli. It a consideration, the Democrats are being pressured by the money class, they want the default talk nonsense to stop, because it effects their finances/investments.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM

The BBA is separate, it needs to have 2/3rds in both Houses. I think they are voting on that next week. The QUESTION is can they get 4 vulnerable Dems to vote for this in the Senate. That is where the pressure needs to be applied.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 9:28 PM

There are lots of Dems up for re-election. Wouldn’t they look foolish if they fought against a balanced budget?

I also foresee a lot of states signing on to this amendment. Don’t most states have the requirement to produce balanced budgets in their own constitutions?

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Paul is just highlighting the obvious.

Boehner is out to screw you, but a lot of people support him because McConnell and Reid are out to screw you worse.

Spathi on July 19, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Lon Chaney on July 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is still time to try and get this through the Senate, and failing that a small 500 billion cut/ceiling hike.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:11 PM

If he uses the 14th to mask his chicanery, it should make for one he@@ of a show.

kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 10:04 PM

The proverbial feces will hit the fan. Not exactly the way to win over the Independents by undermining the People’s Will.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:11 PM

“Jed Babbin is a former United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense who served during the first Bush administration in the United States, and is the author of the political book Inside the Asylum as well as Showdown and In the Words of Our Enemies.

He guest-hosted The Rush Limbaugh Program on July 17, 2008. He guest-hosted the Mark Levin Show on August 10, 2009. He guest-hosted the Roger Hedgecock Show on April 21, 2010.

Back in Sept 2009 Babbin accused the US President Obama of being so angry in a speech to Congress that it was “palpable and almost shocking.” He further accusesed President Obama of being “unpresidential.”"

Lon Chaney on July 19, 2011 at 10:12 PM

… If August 2nd comes and the Dems are still playing games, then the Dept Ceiling forces the cutting of spending by default.

7%: Sen. Rand Paul said on Hannity’s radio program today that there is a bill in the hopper to “guide” ObaMao in his prioritizing so as not to stiff the SS recipients, the military, and something else. (I cannot remember what it is.)

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2011 at 10:13 PM

“Though I voted against today’s House version of Cut, Cap, and Balance, I continue to support the Pledge’s goals, and I remain committed to working on behalf of the American people to drastically reduce spending and implement fundamental changes that will reform government and restore our nation’s prosperity.”

How very Orwellian, and completely useless.

Thank goodness he has been re-districted into Retirement by the responsible adults running Texas

jp on July 19, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is still time to try and get this through the Senate, and failing that a small 500 billion cut/ceiling hike.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Read the article by Babbin. He is a very straight shooter and he makes a very convincing case.

Lon Chaney on July 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM

“Many of my friends have made the case that, despite this bill’s shortcomings, CCB should be supported in order to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. CCB, unfortunately, does not guarantee a Balanced Budget Amendment will ever pass. It would still have to be ratified by the States, a process that could take years and perhaps even fail.

- Ron Paul

Yes, darn that Constitution!!!!! Ron Paul 201!1!!!2!!!!

jp on July 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM

It a consideration, the Democrats are being pressured by the money class, they want the default talk nonsense to stop, because it effects their finances/investments.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Pressure applied directly to the vulnerable Dems hasn’t even been tried. I also think Obama’s veto threat may apply more pressure, because they could vote in favor of the bill knowing that Obama will veto it and they get to have their cake and eat it too.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Because the liberal entitlement fanatics in the Senate will never let it pass.

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Why? Do Senate Democrats WANT this country to default? Don’t they know how bad default will be to our economy? Don’t they know how hard that will be on the poor? Why do Senate Democrats hate the poor????

blink on July 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM

I don’t think that anyone is acting in bad faith; honorable people can agree to disagree and then hopefully find room for compromise.

Have you seen polling on entitlement cuts? As crazy as it sounds, a majority of Americans don’t want to see any cuts. Some Democrats want to run on this issue in 2012 and in older districts are under pressure to not touch social security. And of course some Democrats would rather see major tax hikes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/us-social-security-shouldnt-be-cut-poll/article2102349/

If you read any in-depth analysis of our deficit crisis from respected business sources such as Barron’s or WSJ- both owned by Fox- it’s hard to find ways to fully address our deficits without some new revenue (unless you really want to stick it hard to the middle class).

I’m simply saying that I don’t think either side has the bad intentions, just different opinions on the best way to solve our problems.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM

7%: Sen. Rand Paul said on Hannity’s radio program today that there is a bill in the hopper to “guide” ObaMao in his prioritizing so as not to stiff the SS recipients, the military, and something else. (I cannot remember what it is.)

They need a bill prioritizing interest on the debt as above all other priorities.

Spathi on July 19, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Lon Chaney on July 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Okay I will. Do you think if the Senate voted in favor of this that Obama would still veto it?

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:18 PM

and the White House still refuses to offer any specific ideas.
“Sure, I do. I’m going on a fancy vacation on Aug. 3″ –Obama, aka, the chief pretender

Schadenfreude on July 19, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Obama reminds me of Debra on Everybody Loves Raymond - she always has an excuse for not having sex.

Obama’s a budget tease.

disa on July 19, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Wow. Signs of a spine developing.

Good job. Stand firm. We are with you.

DeathB4Tyranny on July 19, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Visualize a spine with a pair of cojones dangling.

Believe.

disa on July 19, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate haven’t bothered to pass any budget resolution in over 800 days, and the White House still refuses to offer any specific ideas.

Anyone else beginning to see a pattern here?

GarandFan on July 19, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Okay I will. Do you think if the Senate voted in favor of this that Obama would still veto it?

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:18 PM

I do and then he goes on national TV and will use the 14th Amendment by Executive Order.

“For the good the country”

Knucklehead on July 19, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Okay I will. Do you think if the Senate voted in favor of this that Obama would still veto it?

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Probably. Babbin is very smart. I myself have not followed the ins-and-outs of this matter that much, but I know from areas where I am well informed that Babbin is usually spot on, so he likely is this time to.

Lon Chaney on July 19, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Pressure applied directly to the vulnerable Dems hasn’t even been tried. I also think Obama’s veto threat may apply more pressure, because they could vote in favor of the bill knowing that Obama will veto it and they get to have their cake and eat it too.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM

There may be more Democrat support for this behind the scenes than is being let on. The Left is going to be displeased mightily displeased…..but if it’s taken out of Obama’s hands what can he do, he can’t let the country default. I just wonder who is zooming who, up on Capitol Hill?

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Anyone else beginning to see a pattern here?

GarandFan on July 19, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Continuing to wash, rinse and repeat, until 2012

Kini on July 19, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:25 PM
I agree, except I am not so sure he wouldn’t let the country default, but we need to know the answer and the only way to get an answer is to ask the question. But first we need to put the Senate’s feet to the fire.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I just read a sputtering post at a non-political website filled with the same old talking points: Republicans won’t compromise, they’re wasting America’s time because the President promised a veto, cuts are actually unnecessary anyway… and my favorite: Bush! Bush! BUSH!

I had no idea the CCB Act had just passed. I just assumed some liberal went off their meds or something! Heh.

Rude on July 19, 2011 at 10:29 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Do the math. If hiking the top 2 tiers 5 points each only raises 60-70 billion a year according to Obama, then raising it to 100% so no one can ever make more than $200,000 a year won’t even crack an extra trillion a year, assuming no changes in behavior, which is ludicrous. Salaries above that level will cease to exist and jobs will exit the country faster than they are now.

So taxing the rich into poverty won’t even cover Obama’s massive spending hikes keeping us at $1-$1.6 trillion deficits, let alone keeping entitlements from imploding.

That’s your party’s brilliance in nutshell, jackwad. It gets the vulnerable hooked on free sh*t then strangles them when it’s taken away. And it sure will be one way or another.

Chuck Schick on July 19, 2011 at 10:32 PM

What’s this 14th amendment stuff people are talking about. There isn’t anything in there that says the president can take over the purse strings. Only section 4 of the 14th addresses anything about paying bills and it doesn’t say the president takes over in any case.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Mirimichi on July 19, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I would very much like to know if any of the Obamacare funding provisions were removed as apart of this bill. A large portion of the debt is Obamacare, along with the other entitlements that have been already spent.

But that’s the point people need to realize. Obama claimed that SS check may not go out if the debt ceiling was not raised. Basically, admitting that the money wasn’t there in the first place. So, our future, and our kids futures, are basically spent. I don’t know if entitlement reform will change that.

Kini on July 19, 2011 at 10:06 PM

First, Rep. Paul Ryan said that ObaMao would not allow any cuts to O-care, high-speed rail, or “green jobs.” Some compromiser that ObaMao is, eh? O-care is one of the biggest drivers of anticipated exploding costs and diminished employment forecasts.

Second, via LBJ the SS fund was thrown into the general fund, and the SS “lockbox” is filled with IOUs. You can bet that the Dems/ObaMao have been spending that money for these redistributive schemes. Essentially, if he threatens to withhold SS checks, he will have revealed the chicanery that has been going on for decades in DC.

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2011 at 10:35 PM

There may be more Democrat support for this behind the scenes than is being let on. The Left is going to be displeased mightily displeased…..but if it’s taken out of Obama’s hands what can he do, he can’t let the country default

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Now that we have both a partisan approach and an *apparently* bipartisan one, it’s going to be very hard to find Dems to support the House bill. Although I agree, Obama is listening to the markets and will never allow a default to occur.

Now that Cantor has started to say positive things about the Senate approach, will its momentum eclipse all other options? Another interesting question similar to yours- would Boehner fail to support the Senate approach and let the nation fall into default? Boehner has a strong business background, understands the stakes, and definitely listens to corporate leaders (who en masse are scared out of their minds by the prospect of default).

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:35 PM

little shocked to read Michelle Bachmann voted against this. I understand the “don’t raise the debt limit” but there’s only gonna be one party that suffers from that stance when the government shuts down. (Remember folks, when the government shuts down, Barack Obama doesn’t go home.)

Do I want more? You bet I do, but since BO has said he will veto this if it reaches him – CALL HIS BLUFF. He’d have NO choice if the Senate really didn’t get off their hobby horses and pass it.

katablog.com on July 19, 2011 at 10:37 PM

the Senate really did get off their hobby horses and pass it.

katablog.com on July 19, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Again people…

… If the Dems filibuster this in the Senate, or Obowma vetoes it, nothing, NOTHING, N O T H I N G is going to pass in the House.

The result is the Debt Ceiling is in place…

… and knowing Obowma as we all do, how do you think he is going to react when he can’t vote “Present” anymore.

His stink and his finger prints will be all over the spending decisions from that point on…

… No matter how hard the media will try to cover for him, there will be no where to hide.

He had a chance to work with the Republicans, he played games..

… He had a chance to put together his own plan, and he played games.

Obowma wants to play games…

… GAME ON!!!

“Cue the campaign commercial showing union goons living high on the hog, Obowma taking another vacation…

… and Americans with empty wallets standing in front of gas stations and food stores.”

Seven Percent Solution on July 19, 2011 at 10:38 PM

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I think a default is a genuine anxiety for Obama. Everyone will be blamed, and he’s President, he will get his share. His poll numbers are not that high, he doesn’t need the added anger of a default 17 months out from the election. He does need some political cover – some way to save face. That’s what the Democrats in the Senate may be doing behind the scenes, not to mention to hold onto their own Senate seats up for reelection. For progressives it’s always the politics first, the governing second.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:38 PM

An amendment to the constitution is completely unnecessary… It makes no sense. Congress has always had the power to balance the budget…they still do. They are the ones who spend the money.

They could pass legislation requiring that they must present and pass a balanced budget each year. There is no reason to hold a Constitutional convention. Everything they claim to want from an amendment could be had through normal legislation.

However, an amendment could be used as a mandate to force new taxes on the People in order to keep a balanced budget “We need new taxes; it is in the Constitution!”. Especially when the next financial “crisis” hits twenty years from now, which is certain to happen unless we stop insane spending now…

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the debt ceiling itself a CAP, not raising it would force the Federal government to CUT spending and BALANCE the budget. If the GOP really want what they claim to want they wouldn’t even consider raising the debt ceiling…

equanimous on July 19, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Mr. President: Cut, Cap, and Balance is the only bill that has passed the house, It is the only bill that will ever pass the house. If you direct the Senate democratic leadership to kill it, the you sir have directed the defaulkt of this nations debt or the massive shutdown of many government organizations. The house has delivered you a budget, you ignored it. Ignore this at your politcal peril sir.

paulsur on July 19, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Now that Cantor has started to say positive things about the Senate approach, will its momentum eclipse all other options? Another interesting question similar to yours- would Boehner Reid fail to support the Senate House approach and let the nation fall into default? Boehner has a strong business background, understands the stakes, and definitely listens to corporate leaders (who en masse are scared out of their minds by the prospect of default).

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:35 PM

FIFY.
That sword cuts both ways and the House passed their legislation first. Care to answer the question the other way? I doubt it. The People’s House vs. the Club. Who will win in the court of public opinion.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Boehner has a strong business background, understands the stakes, and definitely listens to corporate leaders (who en masse are scared out of their minds by the prospect of default).

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Boehner would have to get Democrats to replace the TEA party majority in the house, who won’t vote to raise the debt ceiling. I don’t think the Democrats would vote for anything but the most Liberal Bill, and that would include tax hikes. That means Beohner loses other Republican votes, if he courts the Democrats in the House.

Boehner is going to have a time threading this needle. There is also the political component we are 17 months out from an election. According to Ron Paul default is inevitable.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:45 PM

DEMOCRATS: The party of aggressive stupidity and malfeasance!!!

landlines on July 19, 2011 at 10:47 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Do the math. If hiking the top 2 tiers 5 points each only raises 60-70 billion a year according to Obama, then raising it to 100% so no one can ever make more than $200,000 a year won’t even crack an extra trillion a year.

First, no one is recommending such a policy of 100% taxation to raising it is pointless.

You’re also turning this into a partisan issue when it’s actually not so simple. Greenspan and Bernanke, both GOP appointees, have expressed their concerns about or opposition to continuing Bush’s tax hikes. During Bush’s term, his own Treasury Dept did a study concluding that those tax cuts were not sustainable.

You say do the math- that’s exactly what the WSJ has done.
If you disagree with specific budget or revenue numbers in the article, why don’t you address those specifically rather than resort to name calling.

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:47 PM

However, an amendment could be used as a mandate to force new taxes on the People in order to keep a balanced budget “We need new taxes; it is in the Constitution!”. Especially when the next financial “crisis” hits twenty years from now, which is certain to happen unless we stop insane spending now…

This is true, however you are forgetting that the Congressmen who vote for such a tax increase because they could not control their spending will have to go to the voters with that specific tax hike on their record. That will likely be more pressure than you realize. Instead of saying, “Look at all this bacon I brought home” They will have to say “well I raised your taxes, but I didn’t have a choice.” the likely response would be, then we will get someone who won’t.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:49 PM

That sword cuts both ways and the House passed their legislation first. Care to answer the question the other way? I doubt it. Who will win in the court of public opinion.

Public opinion is on the side of both parties reaching an agreement, not one party trying to push its agenda on the other. So I don’t know how you’ll win that case politically.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304567604576456251136740010.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:50 PM

The last I checked, to amend the Constitution either two-thirds of both houses of congress must propose the amendment or two-thirds of the states’ legislatures must request congress to call a national convention to propose constitutional amendments (the latter’s never been done). Either way the proposal occurs, it bypasses the president and he has no veto in the matter.

Assuming an amendment is so proposed, ratifying it requires at least three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures to approve the amendment or ratifying conventions in the same number of states must do so (the latter done once, repealing prohibition).

Since the CCB failed to get the necessary two-thirds (290) vote in the House, the BB amendment portion of the legislation is moot at this point. But, at least we got cut and cap through, and a whole lot of Ds on record opposing a balanced budget amendment.

TXUS on July 19, 2011 at 10:53 PM

This is true, however you are forgetting that the Congressmen who vote for such a tax increase because they could not control their spending will have to go to the voters with that specific tax hike on their record.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:49 PM

You are forgetting that they already have to do that…

equanimous on July 19, 2011 at 10:53 PM

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:47 PM
If tax hikes in the middle of a weak economy was such a great idea, then why couldn’t Obama let the Bush tax cuts expire in December when he had a Democratic Senate and House, only 7 months ago? The economy is even weaker now. This is just to appease his base. I have heard them say 3 strikes and you are out and in their eyes this would be his third strike.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:54 PM

The house should have passed bills requiring SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Military, debt be paid out first in case of no debt increase and then vote down raising the debt limit. The bill would then go to the Senate where the Dems would have to face voting yes or nay on paying those things first. Magically this years budget deficit would not get even worse than the 1.1 T it is now. Instead the Republicans put forth a straw man cut, cap, balance bill that allows for increased debt and new taxes immediately if the Senate goes along and Obama doesn’t veto it. The important part to remember here is taxes get raised, debt gets immediately increased, the bba goes to the States to get rejected and the cuts never get made and the budget never gets balanced. Rotten deal for the American people for the zillionth time, anybody surprised? One caveat though, the Reps think they are covering their behinds; maybe they are right and maybe they aren’t, but the nation is not well served.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on July 19, 2011 at 10:55 PM

equanimous on July 19, 2011 at 10:53 PM
And how often do tax hikers get reelected in the next election?

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Public opinion is on the side of both parties reaching an agreement, not one party trying to push its agenda on the other. So I don’t know how you’ll win that case politically. bayam on July 19, 2011 at 10:50 PM

That’s strictly your subjective opinion. You have completely ignored the mid term election. If everyone was happy with the current approach to deficit spending, and debt reduction there would not have been such a large seat change in November 2010. There is an expectation that the TEA Party members in the house will perform exactly as they stated they would when they ran for their offices. So no everyone is not equally looking for a bipartisan solution. The progressive wing of the Democrat party lost in 2010 BIG, if they want to pretend it didn’t happen, they can suffer the consequences.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 10:57 PM

And how often do tax hikers get reelected in the next election?

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 10:55 PM

so why would we need an amendment…understand?

equanimous on July 19, 2011 at 10:57 PM

kudos for Bachmann and Paul for standing strong.

unseen on July 19, 2011 at 10:59 PM

so why would we need an amendment…understand?

equanimous on July 19, 2011 at 10:57 PM

I am not convinced that we do, I just don’t think that the strongest argument against it is that it would force automatic tax hikes if we couldn’t balance the budget. That is the California model. I prefer the Texas model, where the reps know if they raise taxes because they couldn’t manage to balance the budget they will get booted out.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 11:02 PM

According to Ron Paul default is inevitable he may be right he’s inside the house he probably knows where all the votes are….so people should wrap their heads around the possibility that this is going to occur. Perhaps if the money class has to feel the pain too they will back off and stop pressuring the middle class?

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Interesting.
The pressure is now completely on the Senate and Obama.
Now we will see if the Republican senators have cajones. If they do, it will force the vulnerable Dem Senators to either capitulate or fall on their swords for Oblowme.

justltl on July 19, 2011 at 11:07 PM

I am not convinced that we do, I just don’t think that the strongest argument against it is that it would force automatic tax hikes if we couldn’t balance the budget. That is the California model. I prefer the Texas model, where the reps know if they raise taxes because they couldn’t manage to balance the budget they will get booted out.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 11:02 PM

That is the way it is right now…no need for an amendment to get that result.

The strongest argument against it is that it is completely unnecessary and a balanced budget could be had with normal legislation…

equanimous on July 19, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Mirimichi on July 19, 2011 at 10:35 PM

How about El Rushbo?

Fallon on July 19, 2011 at 11:08 PM

The strongest argument against it is that it is completely unnecessary and a balanced budget could be had with normal legislation…

equanimous on July 19, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Perhaps. The strongest argument for it is that it would force the country to have a debate for longer than 5 minutes about the size and scope of our fiscal problems.

txmomof6 on July 19, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Cut, Cap and Balance now, full repeal of ObamaCare later.

Ryan Anthony on July 19, 2011 at 11:12 PM

So, is the President now the leader of the party of “No”?

Fallon on July 19, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Dr Evil on July 19, 2011 at 9:58 PM

I don’t think Balanced Budget Amendment has a chance in the Senate. However the President can’t do a jack about Constitutional Amendment. He doesn’t have the authority.

antisocial on July 19, 2011 at 11:24 PM

For those curious:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-606

diogenes on July 19, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Cut, Cap and Balance now, full repeal of ObamaCare later.

Ryan Anthony on July 19, 2011 at 11:12 PM

That sounds like a plan..avery good plan I might add..:)

Dire Straits on July 19, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Spathi on July 19, 2011 at 10:03 PM
you and RuPaul are a total transparent Joke

jp on July 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM

lolz. you are the joke; Spathi cleaned your clock. you drastically overstated your case *ahem, lied* and when Spathi called you on it, its back to your old ad hominem.

Firefly_76 on July 19, 2011 at 11:36 PM

I like what Mark Steyn posted over at “The Corner” about “The Gang of Six Bag of Tricks.”

Americans who care about the solvency of this nation ought to be seriously annoyed at the contempt for them shown by the Gang of Six “plan,” which even by the standards of “bipartisan” deal-making is a total joke.

Even if you take seriously their figure of $3.7 trillion in savings over ten years, that represents a clawback across a decade of about two years of current deficits.

If you take Jeff Sessions’s figure of $1.2 trillion in savings over ten years as being closer to the mark, that takes a decade to reverse about three-quarters of the 2011 deficit.

Neither of these numbers is sufficient. Both lead to national suicide.

If you take the Gang’s figure of half-a-trillion dollars in immediate “aggressive deficit reduction” seriously, that represents about what the U.S. government borrows every four months. What’s “aggressive” about that? And what’s immediate about it? It’s all unspecified “discretionary spending caps” and “process reforms” that will collapse like soufflés ten minutes after the signing ceremony. Obviously it’s appealing to Democrats: It accepts their view that 25 percent of GDP should be the new baseline for national (“federal” no longer seems quite the word) government spending. But what’s in it for Republicans?

We are sending a consistent message to the world that the political structures of the United States do not allow for meaningful course correction. That does far more damage to the “full faith and credit” of America than failing to hike the debt ceiling.

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3