GOP lawmakers officially announce “imperfect” plan, in which “no side gets what it wants”

posted at 5:20 pm on July 25, 2011 by Tina Korbe

House GOP leaders were perfectly candid in their assessment of the deficit-reduction-and-debt-limit-increase plan they put before the House today.

“It’s not ‘Cut, Cap and Balance,’” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said. “But it is built on the principles of ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ that can pass the United States Senate, as well as the United States House.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) echoed Boehner.

“The plan we just introduced is a well-thought-out and reasoned plan in which no side gets what it wants,” Cantor said.

As rumored, the short-term plan provides for a last-minute debt limit increase offset by even greater spending cuts with no tax increases. It also requires a vote on a balanced budget amendment — but doesn’t require that the amendment pass. The debt limit increase doesn’t carry the country through 2012, either. That means another politically-motivated round of debt limit negotiations — precisely what the president has said he doesn’t want.

“This plan is not perfect,” House GOP Whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said. “But it shows a great contrast to what the president has put forward. The president continues to pick politics over people. His only concern when you listen to him is, he brings up the election. We’re more concerned about policies, with the direction this country is going.”

The president is scheduled to respond to Boehner’s plan at 9 p.m. tonight and the Speaker will likely respond to the president’s response.

The plan is not dreadful for a short-term deal. As many have pointed out, the no-tax part, in particular, represents a significant victory for Republicans. But the nature of the cuts aren’t clear and the debt limit increase will be upfront. The deal has already engendered fierce opposition from the “Cut, Cap and Balance” coalition. Realists might suggest time is running out for a reworked “Cut, Cap and Balance” to make its way through the House and Senate — but conservatives counter that “more of the same” in terms of a short-term deal that does nothing to ensure a balanced budget in the future betrays the American people, who sent Tea Partier after Tea Partier to Congress to combat “business as usual.”

In case anyone else has as severe a case of whiplash as I do from the this-is-the-plan, no-that-is-the-plan back-and-forth, it’s helpful to remember no plan is “the” plan until it’s written down, passed and signed. This short-term deal very well could be that, but, until it is, I’m still in the “Cut, Cap and Balance” camp. Of course, Republicans are just looking for a deal that will pass (and that’s understandable) — but, like Erick Erickson, I refuse to offer absolution to tired GOP-ers who’ve abandoned the plan. Too many Democrats have opposed a debt limit increase in the past and too many have expressed openness to a balanced budget amendment to dismiss “Cut, Cap and Balance” as extreme or to pronounce it “over, done and dead,” as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has tried to do. Perhaps a short-term deal will relieve the pressure of the negotiations momentarily, but it won’t solve the fundamental problems like “Cut, Cap and Balance” would. CCB is still the best plan on the table — one worth reviving and one worth fighting for.


Related Posts:

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

If you mean Palin, she signed the largest Alaskan budget ever proposed…she has no track record of seriously reducing government.

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Governor Murkowski’s last budget FY2007: $11,697,400,000
http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_
Governor Palin’s latest budget FY2010: $10,570,000,000
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb

Total reduction in spending between 2007 and 2010: a whopping 9.5% or $1,127,400,000

FFY07- Murkowski’s federal requests total: 63 projects @ $349,497,000
FFY10- Governor Palin’s federal requests total: 8 projects @ $69,100,000
That was a gigantic 80% drop in federal requests by the Alaska governor’s office.

FFY2007- Gov. Murkowski 63 projects at $349,497,000
FFY08- Gov. Palin 52 projects at $256,037,000
FFY09- Gov. Palin 31 projects at $195,094,900
FFY10- Gov. Palin: 8 projects @ $69,100,000

Most importantly, Alaska enjoys a $12 billion surplus thanks to ACES and the sound fiscal policies of my administration. I put billions of dollars aside in savings accounts (though I could have easily spent those billions and made a lot of friends with big-spending legislators on both sides of the aisle), and I continued to veto excess spending and Obama stimulus funds, and chopped earmarks by 86% – much to the chagrin of liberal legislators who were used as “sources” in the article. It’s kind of amusing to see state legislators claim credit for the surplus when they didn’t vote for ACES, and they cried to high heaven when I vetoed their wasteful spending on their special interest projects.

Of course, I could have made a lot more friends in Juneau if I had spent the surplus. But I chose to put billions in savings for a rainy day and return a portion to the people of Alaska. (It was their money after all.) I paid down hundreds of millions of dollars into our under-funded state pension plans, then set aside another billion for forward-funding education. I fought the union’s demands for more benefits, engaged in hiring freezes, and cut frivolous state expenditures – again, much to the chagrin of those who spend other people’s money recklessly. That’s sound fiscal policy. I’m proud of it, and Alaska is stronger today because of it.

Now, if others would like to claim credit for it, that is fine. As Ronald Reagan used to remind us: “There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit.” Amen!

And with all due respect to Governor Christie, you know he has no choice but to cut budgets because he’s broke, his state is broke. What courage really is, is in the face of having a surplus when you have opportunity to spend spend spend other people’s money, you still choose to reign in government to let the private sector soar. That’s real courage, and by the way that’s what I did as Governor here when I engaged in hiring freezes and reduced earmarks by 86% and vetoed the largest amounts in our state’s history. Despite having a surplus that’s real leadership and that’s courage.

But I do appreciate that Governor Christie is willing to face the reality in his state and that is that they are going bankrupt. So he has to cut, he has no choice.

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:08 PM

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM

I know that I am very unhappy with Mica in Florida. I hope the Tea Party finds a good primary candidate against him.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 7:09 PM

there’s only one small piece of good news, and that is that barry is sinking in the Rasmussen tracking polls. His “base” doesn’t seem to be rallying. the strongly approve is 23 percent.

maybe this is all an act on barry’s part, but he’s pulled the trigger before on the healthcare stuff. Forced it thru.

So he is capable. we know that the Dims are mostly nuts…and he is in charge. The new line is well, even if we go past the cut off it will just be a couple of days.

barry is pretty sure that the Rs will be blamed for everything. He think he holds all the cards, and is just playing them out to give the Rs enough rope to hang themselves. He wants money, the Rs will have to give him money. And he won’t sign anything without money before or after the 2nd.

r keller on July 25, 2011 at 7:09 PM

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM
I agree. That is why I did not say that I agree with Boehner.

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 6:55 PM
In my opinion this exercise has sustantially hurt Obama. Doing that again in March 2012 would be good for the ultimate goal of preventing his reelection.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 25, 2011 at 7:12 PM

unseen: With all due respect to Palin, she shouldn’t let her conservatism be coopted by the GOP. Ironically, the only way Palin could lose my vote would be if she accepted the GOP nomination, as I would view it as selling out her principles to those in the Beltway.

Scott H on July 25, 2011 at 7:02 PM

so you are a third party type of guy? nothing worng with that. a good case can be made that that is the only way things will change. but I believe in Reagan’s mthod and if he didn’t get sick in his later years I think it could have worked. take over the party from the inside. reform the party. It might be too late but t his debt debate shows one or the other a third party or a takeover is desperately needed .

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:12 PM

If you mean Palin, she signed the largest Alaskan budget ever proposed…she has no track record of seriously reducing government.

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Actually…

Sarah Palin served as Governor of the State of Alaska from December 4, 2006 to July 26, 2009. As such, Palin exercised authority over the State’s annual budget for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. At the end of fiscal year 2007, Gov. Frank Murkowski, Palin’s immediate predecessor (whom she defeated in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary), left the State’s General Fund with a balance of roughly $7.6 billion. During the three fiscal years for which Gov. Palin oversaw the budget, the General Fund averaged an annual surplus of more than $2.6 billion, resulting in a total increase of $7.9 billion ‒ more than 100% ‒ over the fiscal year 2007 balance.

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:15 PM

GOP CAPITULATION

ENJOY IT YOU SUKKAHS!

HondaV65 on July 25, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Scott H on July 25, 2011 at 7:02 PM

I don’t follow your logic on this. Getting a strong conservative nominee is the only way to derail Obama in 2012. If Obama is reelected there won’t be much left to discuss in 2016.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 25, 2011 at 7:16 PM

In my opinion this exercise has sustantially hurt Obama. Doing that again in March 2012 would be good for the ultimate goal of preventing his reelection.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 25, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Maybe depends on how the media spins it. If the media can whitewash the results of the midterms and make Obama look like the great leader during the lame duck congress they can make him appear good in Mar. And Obama and company will be ready in mar for the gop’s assult. After all the gop can’t really change it’s positions. I ve problems with fighting the enemy ont he same ground with the same weapons and the same troops. Enemies tend to learn quickly in such a case.

i think if we are going to have this battle. hav eit now and defeat him now. Don’t kick the can down the road.

but I agree with you a case can be made for the Mar deadline. I just don’t think it is the best plan.

We have the troops, the weaons and are only lacking the courage/will to bring the battle to obama and the dems. if not now when?

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Overall, per-capita federal spending among states was highest in Alaska, which took in more than $12,200 per person

Please, she is a great gal, but hardly a strong fiscal conservative…and yes you can cut a paste large amount of information off of her website…unfortunately it is only part of the story.

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Also…

Requests for federal earmarks declined dramatically in each of the fiscal years for which Sarah Palin exercised budgetary authority for the State of Alaska. In FY2007, Gov. Frank Murkowski requested $350 million in federal appropriations, which Gov. Palin reduced to $256 million in FY2008, $198 million in FY2009, and $69 million in FY2010. Overall, Palin cut earmark requests by more than 80% during her tenure as Governor.

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

“The plan we just introduced is a well-thought-out and reasoned plan in which no side gets what it wants,” Cantor said.

I don’t recall seeing a more open call for a third party in my life.

Benaiah on July 25, 2011 at 7:18 PM

If you mean Palin, she signed the largest Alaskan budget ever proposed…she has no track record of seriously reducing government.
right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:05 PM

she had the revenues to match and a surplus

Sonosam on July 25, 2011 at 7:18 PM

On all of this debt stuff I thought of my favorite all-time movie, Bridge on the River Kwai.

Let us recast this movie as follows:

Obama is Colonel Saito (Sadistic Camp Commander) – All bluff, no backbone and completely in over his head demanding that the newly captured officers work manual labor next to the enlisted men.*

Now substitute “New Tax Revenue” for Saito’s demand that officers do manual labor.

Now we’ll have John Boehner play Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guiness’ Oscar winning role) – Enduring repeated meetings, negotiations and abuses from a progressively more befuddled and agitated Col. Saito (Obama), but never budging on his main principle that officers don’t perform manual labor –– so says the Geneva Convention — which he waves in Saito’s face** (like his own personal pocket sized US Constitution).

And finally, the big finale with William Holden and his team of commandos (AKA The Tea Party) who eventually blow up the “bridge”. (The bridge being symbolic for whatever deal is eventually struck.)

Now fast forward to the last scene of the movie:

Picture Obama and Boehner (as Saito and Nicholson respectively) wading through the shallows of the river under their newly built “bridge” discovering that its wired to explode! Then they follow the exposed detonation wiring to the young, inexperienced Tea Party commando hiding along the bank holding the detonation plunger that will bring down the entire bridge.

To make a long story short, bridge blows, most everyone is killed. (Literally in the original movie or in our alternate retelling JUST politically, please read nothing more into that!) And then the last line in the movie is Nicholson’s second in command, named Shears, stumbling through the wreckage muttering to himself “Madness. Madness!”

The part of Commander Shears is of course a composite of the American taxpayer.

While not a perfect comparison, I do find that the major players fit their roles rather easily. Also no real harm is intended here to any of the players, as they say, its just a movie!

* Footnote: In the movie, Saito’s character needed the officers to work alongside the enlisted men because he had made numerous and unrealistic promises regarding building of the bridge. Sound familiar?

** Second Footnote: Saito knocks the copy from Nicholson’s hand and says Do not speak to me of rules. This is war! This is not a game of cricket!

leapsandbounds on July 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM

I know that I am very unhappy with Mica in Florida. I hope the Tea Party finds a good primary candidate against him.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I think we did enough with the footsoldiers in 2010 they will follow the leaders. 2012 all our efforts should be directed at leadership. Primary the speaker, mcConnell and elect a conservative as POTUS. If all the Tea party’s funds and efforts are directed at those three goals the result will be a game changer IMO.

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM

If the media can whitewash the results of the midterms and make Obama look like the great leader during the lame duck congress they can make him appear good in Mar.

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

It’s not the media – it’s the GOP Leadership that makes Obama look so awesome!

HondaV65 on July 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Please, she is a great gal, but hardly a strong fiscal conservative…and yes you can cut a paste large amount of information off of her website…unfortunately it is only part of the story.

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

link?

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:21 PM

It’s not the media – it’s the GOP Leadership that makes Obama look so awesome!

HondaV65 on July 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM

agree the GOp leadership allows the media to set the narrative it seems to me that the gop leadership is less afraid of Obama then they are the tea party…

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:23 PM

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM

I think we can do both.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 7:23 PM

the short-term plan provides for a last-minute debt limit increase offset by even greater spending cuts with no tax increases.

Help me understand this: The “spending cuts” are just an agreement to form a committee that is going to try to recommend future proposed spending cuts over 10 years as a bill that congress and the president may or may not pass that future congresses and presidents may or may not choose to implement.

Is that it? Is that what “greater offsets” printing another Trillion freak’n dollars? If so, it’s 3rd party time for me baby!

elfman on July 25, 2011 at 7:24 PM

It’s not the media – it’s the GOP Leadership that makes Obama look so awesome!

HondaV65 on July 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM

I swear….I’m so sick of boner and his gutless DC games.

Think back on the Pelosi-controlled-house vs. Bush.

Again….our leadership blows. It’s just pathetic.

Tim_CA on July 25, 2011 at 7:26 PM

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM

When a 500 lb overweight person goes on a diet and loses a few pounds, they are still fat…but you would say they have “thinned down”.

One hundred earmarks worth $144 million are headed for Alaska, Taxpayers for Common Sense says. That works out to $209.71 per state resident — more money, per capita, than any other state.

She backed Stevens requests for earmarks almost totally, and when found that “no earmarks” are a way to gain votes, than she suddenly “saw the light”.

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:26 PM

“The plan we just introduced is a well-thought-out and reasoned plan in which no side gets what it wants,” Cantor said.

Thats great news. Months of angst and foreplay, then nothing. Now who’s been left at the altar?

BobMbx on July 25, 2011 at 7:27 PM

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Tell me what other governor reduced earmarks requests more than Palin? That 80% number has got to be extremely difficult to beat.

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:28 PM

link?

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:21 PM

That’s right, you cut and pasted a large amount of information without links…now you are getting it.

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I think we can do both.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 7:23 PM

We can’t do either. Taking over the GOP is a pipe dream. It was a pipe dream from the beginning – even though I subscribed to it at first.

But the deal is – anyone you primary will get NRSC and NRCC support – just like last time – and also RNC support – which is firmly controlled by the establishment now.

We saw this paradigm when the NRSC endorsed Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist. We saw this paradigm when they sent lawyers to Alaska to help Murkowski win her race against the Tea Party. We saw it when McConnell dis’d Rand Paul. We saw them slam Sharon Angle. We saw the NRSC pull support from COD while she was making her primary victory speech – then they denied doing so the next morning – outright LYING to Republican voters.

You might be able to take over the GOP – but it will take you 20 years – do you really think this nation has that long?

The GOP needs to be superseded by a THIRD PARTY with balls. Let the GOP shell that remains contend for Liberal votes and “Indies” …

Pathetic.

HondaV65 on July 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I think we can do both.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 7:23 PM

maybe but there are powerful forces with deep pockets out there. I think we need to unite on a coouple goals that carry the most punch with our limited resurses and the longer Obama’s economy goes on the less resources we will have come nov 2012.

We need the most bang for our buck.

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Tell me what other governor reduced earmarks requests more than Palin? That 80% number has got to be extremely difficult to beat.

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Not hard to reduce when you are leading the nation by a huge amount…once she lost Stevens, then the resources for getting those earmarks also disappeared.
Trimming a lb. of fat off of a 400 lb hog, ain’t much.
I don’t have a problem supporting Palin, but she is a political animal, she isn’t perfect, her record isn’t perfect, and it’s fun to watch you guys scramble to defend her, when she should be able to do that herself…if she was in office.
I support her, but I don’t trust any politician, notice that she can’t even make the decision to run? Not to strong at leadership or decision making…

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM

HondaV65 on July 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I’m not a fan of third parties, sorry, I know you are annoyed. My pessimism hasn’t reach those heights yet.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Tell me what other governor reduced earmarks requests more than Palin? That 80% number has got to be extremely difficult to beat.

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Also, for FY 2011, Parnell, Palin’s former Lt. Gov. and successor, continued the trend she established in reducing requests for federal appropriations. They only totaled $22.4 million. That’s a 93.6% reduction from Murkowski’s last fiscal year.

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:35 PM

The GOP needs to be superseded by a THIRD PARTY with balls. Let the GOP shell that remains contend for Liberal votes and “Indies” …

Pathetic.

HondaV65 on July 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Forget it, a third party doesn’t have the horsepower to do anything but disrupt an election, and in this case, divide the Republican ticket.
Anyone proposing a “third party” to replace the Republican is either very very naive, not too bright, or wants the Republican party to never succeed.
Perot was the last, and he basically did nothing but split the vote, and the dems won…

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:36 PM

That’s right, you cut and pasted a large amount of information without links…now you are getting it.

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Getting it? how about you get this. federal per capita spending is controlled by the Senators and congress people in DC that directs federal money to the states. that would have been Stevens young and Murkowski for the most part. The gov can request funds for these people to lobby for. Palin reduces the requests from her office by 86% she requested 86% less federal money.

you want links?

http://www.therightscoop.com/palin-to-christie-real-courage-is-cutting-when-you-have-a-surplus-like-i-did/

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/nyt-there-you-go-again/10150114865173435

Now where is your link. your “fact you posted gave no year, nor any reference to how much it was before or after. or if Palin even had anything to do with it. If you post enough information when you attack I would need to ask for a link. My post had all the information you need and in context.

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Not hard to reduce when you are leading the nation by a huge amount…once she lost Stevens, then the resources for getting those earmarks also disappeared.

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Wrong. Stevens was only out of office for her last fiscal year. In the first two, while Stevens was still a U.S. Senator, Palin reduced earmark requests from $349.5 million (FY 2007 – Murkowski) to $197.8 million (FY 2009 – Palin). That was already a cumulative reduction of 43%. In her final year following Stevens’ departure from office (FY 2010), she brought the cumulative reduction to a little over 80%.

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:38 PM

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM
I am OK with a fight about this now. I would also be OK with a fight about this next March. I would be most unhappy with a large enough debt increase to get into 2013. At that point, if Obama has been reelected, he would have complete power to destroy our country by not raising the debt ceiling unless the congress went along with massive tax increases, which also would destroy the country.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 25, 2011 at 7:39 PM

In her final year following Stevens’ departure from office (FY 2010), she brought the cumulative reduction to a little over 80%.

steebo77 on July 25, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Plus she had many public disagreements with young and stevens over those earmarks. And of coourse everyone knows of the bad blood with Murkowski. She fought for that reduction of earmarks over the objections of the AK congress delegation.

she also vetod federal funds which the AK house and senate overrode.

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:43 PM

You can always count on the weak Republican Leaders, like John “Cry baby” Boehner, to introduce a bill at the 11th hour which saves vulnerable Democrats up for re-election (including their President) and which greatly angers their own constituents. Thank you, John Boehner! Your willingness to throw away a golden opportunity so that the Democrats might hate you LESS means you and your party have finally lost me! I’m done.

Mahdi on July 25, 2011 at 6:04 PM

I’m with you. I’m fed up with this nonsense. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

SagebrushPuppet on July 25, 2011 at 7:46 PM

which also would destroy the country.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 25, 2011 at 7:39 PM

agreed we can’t let him get off this topic and hand him a 2013 date. they did that with Obamacare too.

unseen on July 25, 2011 at 7:48 PM

What if one of the reasons that they are so desperate to make a deal is that there IS no money to pay SS, or anything else? That the $200 billion they say comes in every month is ephemeral, vapor, gone, gone, gone, in advance. We know that the Social Security ‘lockbox’ is empty, but what if it is ALL empty now? And without the ‘deal’ everyone will find out about it, and hang them all from lampposts.

Schadenfreude on July 25, 2011 at 7:50 PM

I hope this fails a house vote. It sucks. Reid’s make believe cuts are crap.

dogsoldier on July 25, 2011 at 7:50 PM

wish you’d change the picture…(herman-munster-looking, nad-less, establishment repub, dim-bulb with a bad fake tan).

Tim_CA on July 25, 2011 at 8:23 PM

“When a 500 lb overweight person goes on a diet and loses a few pounds, they are still fat…but you would say they have “thinned down”.”

Our overweight person hasn’t even lost a few pounds. He has promised to do it and created a commission to discuss it. Pathetic.

ncjetsfan on July 25, 2011 at 9:29 PM

We need to get make some shirts…

“Give me CCB or give me Default!!!”

Y314K on July 26, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3