Green Room

Have John Boehner and Eric Cantor Lost Their Minds?—Friday House Vote on New BBA Permits Unlimited Federal Spending

posted at 10:28 am on November 17, 2011 by

Via CNSNews, Matt Cover reports that the GOP House Republicans plan on voting for a “new” Balanced Budget Amendment—that is basically toothless:

(CNSNews.com) – House Republicans are set to vote later this week on a balanced budget amendment (BBA) that would not cap federal spending as a percentage of GDP or require a supermajority to raise taxes.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the vote would probably take place this Friday.

Cantor said that this version of a BBA, H.J. Res 2 — rather than one that would cap federal spending, H.J. Res 1 – was the version “overwhelmingly” favored by House Republicans.

Metaphors anyone?  This “legislation” is akin to (fill in the blanks).  And while your at it, can some one explain what Cantor means “if he had his druthers”?:

Cantor said he would have personally liked to see the BBA with a spending cap and supermajority on taxes brought to the floor for a vote, but said he will support the weaker version because he thinks it is better than having no balanced budget requirement at all.

“Personally, if I had my druthers, I would like to see us vote on a stronger BBA,” he said. “So I hope that this passes. And I will be voting for it because I do think ultimately the biggest check we can put on government’s unbridled spending is a forced balanced budget amendment like most states have.”

Both the House and the Senate are required to have a vote on a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year due to a concession that Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) won during the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling in August.

Negotiations during the debt ceiling debate garnered an agreement that both the House and Senate would be required to bring a BBA to their respective floors for a vote.  Getting Harry Reid to bring any House legislation to a vote on the Senate floor has been virtually impossible.

So, what have Boehner and Cantor done with this gem of an obligation?

Do they really think that passing a Balanced Budget Amendment that has no teeth will some how satisfy a voting public’s hunger for restraining the Federal Government’s reckless spending policies?  Four years of Reid, Pelosi and Obama’s spending has put this nation on a direct path to insolvency.  The Super Committee is working on a watered down piece of legislation that can pass muster in both chambers, so “our legislators” can go home for the Holidays and say “this is the best we can do”.  It’s no wonder that Congress’s approval rating is at an all time low.  Because if this is the best they can do, then our Congress had better revisit what really happened in 2010.

And Boehner and Cantor should re-think even bringing this vote to the House floor.  They’re fooling no one but themselves.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

You might want to correct the headline. “Has” should be “have.”

Connie on November 17, 2011 at 10:56 AM

They didn’t lose their minds. They were never constitutional conservatives to begin with.

gryphon202 on November 17, 2011 at 11:32 AM

For crying out loud! We can’t fight both the r’s and d’s and ever win anything good it seems. Gads, I am so tired of almost all the dc bunch!
L

letget on November 17, 2011 at 11:32 AM

In other words… “What’s one more law to ignore?”

dominigan on November 17, 2011 at 11:36 AM

I’m starting to think its time for the conservative base to consider splitting from the R’s…

dominigan on November 17, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Boehner and Cantor are just trying to pass something for the sake of passing something to try to take the heat off the “GOP obstructionism” nonsense the Dems are pushing.

You know what might help? Tying everything every Dem in politics says to the Occupy movement just like the Dems did regarding the Tea Party.

Stop trying to be nice, it hasn’t worked in 80 years, it’s not going to start now.

GOP leadership: assisting the Dems at every chance they get.

uknowmorethanme on November 17, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I’m starting to think its time for the conservative base to consider splitting from the R’s…

dominigan on November 17, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Or just sent the GOP by the way of the Whigs.

uknowmorethanme on November 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM

You know, maybe it is an incremental change. You pass the BBA, and once it proves to be too big of a burden on the nation, people will eventually clamor for the spending cap amendment.

astonerii on November 17, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Let me expand upon my argument above. if the government has to balance its budget, it will either have to collect the money to do so, or cut the spending to do so. The truth of the matter is that even the rich are not rich enough to balance the budget at today’s spending levels. Thus, it will force the tax burden lower and lower. Particularly when the rich stop producing so much after their taxes go too high. Once enough people have felt the pain of the spending, maybe they will clamor for a cut in spending and likely a permanent cap on it.

astonerii on November 17, 2011 at 11:51 AM

CSBBA is what we really need. A cap on non war spending as a percentage of GDP. A forced savings account to pay for emergencies and war expenses. As well as a balanced budget each and every year.

astonerii on November 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM

astonerii on November 17, 2011 at 11:47 AM
astonerii on November 17, 2011 at 11:51 AM

More wishful thinking imo astonerii, but historically, it’s never been the nature of the beast. California, (over three decades with a Democrat-controlled legislature), has always kept spending beyond their means, and then raised taxes to “balance their madness”. Even when the people of the state inserted into law, (by proposition), that it would take a super-majority, (2/3’s vote) to raise taxes, the Democrats continued to spend at an enormous pace, hence they will again be 13 billion in the hole next year.

Our Federal Government (under both parties), has continued this trend with the same disastrous outcome. With out outright physical restraints written into law, there will be no change. The perfect example will be what the Super committee comes up with—promising that if we allow them to raise taxes, they will “cut spending later”—pure BS.

You know, maybe it is an incremental change……..

Maybe this is what Boehner and Cantor will try to explain when they bring this to the floor on Friday, but like I said, without the teeth in the language, historically, “the change” turns out to be another round of kicking the can down the road OR MORE TAX INCREASES. How many times do Americans have to become fools to this charade?

Rovin on November 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Tell me again the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Snake307 on November 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Tell me again the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Snake307 on November 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Republicans say that they want to get back to the nation’s roots on the constitution. That’s a difference.

gryphon202 on November 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Rovin on November 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

I understand where you are coming from, but here is the problem we have. Americans are not going to make changes, until the heat is too much for them to take. Right now they are scared of the debt expanding, so we can make a change on that with BBA. Once that is passed, of course there will be tax increases, and that my friend will make the heat go too high yet again, and the people will force the government to make a new change. Since it is impossible to collect the money from the rich, as they can just stop producing and life off what they already have, and even if they did not do that, they do not have enough money anyways and the more you extract from them, the less growth the nation will have, causing more increased taxes those taxes will go against the lower and lower income people, until they get fed up and demand cuts in spending and maybe a constitutional amendment to make sure it stays that way.

astonerii on November 17, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Young Guns Duds

maverick muse on November 18, 2011 at 8:17 AM

And while your at it, can some one explain what Cantor means “if he had his druthers”?

It is a colloquialism meaning having one’s choice. It is a rough contraction of “I’d rather.”

hillbillyjim on November 19, 2011 at 1:15 PM