The doubting Thomases heard loud and clear tonight from House Speaker John Boehner that there are two lines in the sand.
First, there will be no more 1982 or 1990 “Andrews Air Force Base” or “Gang of Six” deals that raise taxes and promise spending restraint. Tax increases are off the table. Boehner and 235 other members of the House of Representatives have signed the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” — a written pledge to their voters that they will oppose and vote against any net tax hike. (Forty-one Senators have signed the same pledge.) The Washington spending establishment has been hoping that Boehner and the Republican House majority would weaken and fold before Obama’s threats to close down the government if he didn’t get his tax and spending increases. They did not win, and tonight was Boehner’s “Read My Lips” speech . . . No tax increases, period.
Second, and this is sheer genius, Boehner has put a sliding-scale price on debt-ceiling increases. Hey, Obama, you want to buy a debt ceiling increase of, say, $2 trillion that would take you past the next election? Fine, the going price is two trillion dollars in real spending cuts. Cannot afford that and hold your spending coaliton in place? Fine, you can buy a month of debt-ceiling relief, worth about $125 billion, for the reduced price of $125 billion in spending cuts. The price of the debt-ceiling hike is the the same amount — or more — of real spending cuts.
I like the idea of a debt-ceiling-increase vote every month or two. Keeps Obama on a short leash.
Maybe somebody can ask Grover if he thinks that racist Americans stole this country from the Indians. And if he does not, ask him why he employs Brian Johnson.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "Taxpayer Protection Pledge” - don't raise taxes but spend all you want!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, I hope this isn't a "read my lips, (no new taxes)" moment. We know how that one turned out.
I anticipate the GOP folding, as usual. Please surprise me, guys!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Forty-one Senators have signed the same pledge"
41? Really? I hear that's a pretty important number on that side of the Hill. (Best news I read all day)
d(^_^)b
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Mr. Norquist,
While I appreciate all the great work you have done, and I agree with your stance here, please explain to all of us why you are against Senator Coburn ending the obscene tax breaks for ethanol, even if it raises taxes on somebody?
Your stance is awful and hurts any conservative unity on shrinking the massive budget mess we have here. And in spite of some analysis that says differently, it raises the price of food in an inflationary spiral. The tax break is just another way for pigs in big business to take away money from the government, and people like you and me who get taxed for it.
Find a way to stand down and work for the things all conservatives want instead of chasing windmills and wasting what little time we have left to change things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that the gang of six linked below would do a better job of balancing things than the bunch we've got now (and I guess it would actually be seven if you count Petey).
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is great news. I too love the idea of a debt ceiling vote every month, and I love the idea of forcing cuts equal to the deficit at every vote.
This may be the only chance we get to right this ship. The debt ceiling is there so that congress has a way to force spending restraint. It's there for a reason. So use that power. It's all we have right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "sliding-scale" is a great first step. I am genuinely impressed with the measure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGrover, you forget. This will keep the spenders in BOTH parties in check.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd I'm weary of hearing as an excuse "this program or budget item is just a drop in the bucket compared to x,y,z". To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, a drop here and a drop there and pretty soon you've got the Pacific Ocean. Sure, the big budget items are going to be tough, but that's no excuse for not cutting the stupid little ones that the government has no business funding in the first place. For crying out loud the taxpayers' pockets are turned inside out and politicians are defending every pet project as though it will end life as we know it. As a good faith measure, go after ALL the low hanging fruit and people might be more willing to tag along on the tougher stuff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoehner's swap off of cuts for debt ceiling relief, while a good move, does not go far enough. There ought to be a 10 or 15% penalty. Want $100 b/million in additional debt? OK, give up $115 b/million in spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't it interesting that everyone assumes that the Dems must be restrained from spending us into destruction and that it is the Republican job to hold the leash? I am almost morbidly curious how little time it would take for the Dems to push us over the edge if they were unrestrained.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeez, not this again.
Even Norquist has paid for and drunk a cup of the Kool-aid.
This will be a historic sell out by Boehner and Cantor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseColor me skeptical. Remember how the GOP promised 100 billion in spending cuts and end up voting for 2 billion in spending increases? The same thing will happen here.
"Vote Republican: Because Someone Heard A Rumor That There Is A Tiny Chance That Maybe We Are Slightly - Only Slightly, Mind You - Less Insane Than The Other Party."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI remain skeptical, as well. However, the sliding-scale is a great first step because (IF the cuts are real) it would be the first measure of fiscal responsibility since...what? Graham/Rudman? The simplicity of the idea, though, is what can really help. Pitching that idea (increase only by what is really cut) can be done effectively by even the worst of speakers.
Now, the cuts must be real and in the near term. I don't want, "We'll start the cuts five years from now when we can distract you or change the law since you forgot about the proposed cut." If they pull one of those moves, this Congress is toast in 2012 and the Republicans will either have to admit they didn't learn anything from 2010 or they'll have to remove Boener from leadership.
It's a good first step, though. It better be real and it better not be the only step in that direction, because the Dems and squishy Republicans will work to reverse EVERY measure. Put as many on the books as possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoehner got suckered the first time, why will this be any different? He could not negotiate his way out of a paper bag.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Boehner benchmark of one dollar in cuts for each dollar of debt increase is a good one. I would put one limitation on it though. Any cut must be within the fiscal years that occur within the period when the debt increase applies. No more Whimpy style cuts in spending that is planned 10 yrs from now, in exchange for a debt hike today. I would also require that if the dems want to repeal any special interest tax breaks (what they are now calling tax expenditures), then they must be offset by revenue neutral decreases in the tax brackets that got most of the special interest breaks.
I would not be opposed to some tax hikes, someday, but only on one condition. No tax hikes until spending is under 20% of GDP, the historical max %. If we reach that point in spending restraint, and still have a deficit, then a combination of taxes and spending cuts (with a 4-1 ratio as was done in the deficit commission plan) might be a reasonable compromise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse