I’d love to believe the Boehner plan is not a joke, really I would. But I see that, right away, Obama gets a $1 trillion credit extension (our current $14.3 trillion credit line apparently not being enough) while the “real” cuts in spending — which are trumpeted because they purportedly exceed the increase in the debt ceiling — will supposedly take place over the course of a decade. You have to say “purportedly” and “supposedly” because whatever this Congress does cannot bind any future Congress. (Has this Congress seemed to you like they feel bound by anything Congress did on spending in 2001?) The only cuts that really matter are the ones made today. So, leaving aside several other misgivings about the Boehner proposal — i.e., before we ever get to the other $1.5 trillion credit expansion President Obama would get next year, and the blue-ribbon committee half-staffed by Harry Reid that is going to solve all our spending problems — I have just one question: Mr. Speaker, what are the cuts that will be made now in exchange for permitting the president to sink us another $1 trillion into the hole?
We have to consider the actually available alternatives. An all-cuts deal which expires just as the campaign is heating up is better than either tax increases or a default.
Stiffer cuts with no tax increases beats all three, but it's not clear that such a deal is an actually available alternative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndrew McCarthy is right if you think about the Medicare reimbursement haircuts physicians were supposed to have taken for the last 8 years to reduce the cost of the program. But of course they were never implemented.
What makes the Republicans almost as odious as the Democrats is that they denounce tax increases but don't have the cojones to propose and implement the radical budget cuts required to balance the budget without them.
And Neocon "heros" like Marco Rubio bloviate about balanced budgets while promising to continue the unsustainable Military-Security Complex spending out the wazoo.
This political drama is just more kick the can down the road writ large by both stupid, feckless Parties.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, no, no. Come to grips with reality.
It's delusional to think Congressmen should ever be allowed to put off hard decisions because a "campaign is heating up." The reason is simple. For Congressmen, a campaign is always heating up - there's one every two years. And no one's reelection is ever as important to a member of Congress as his own.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's that joke from grade school...how do you stop a charging RINO?
You take away his credit card.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You have to say “purportedly” and “supposedly” because whatever this Congress does cannot bind any future Congress."
I think this is a very important point that is lost on lot of good people. As you point out, it’s the reason why must have real and substantial cuts this year and I would add it’s also the rationale why we must have the balanced budget amendment ratified.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope I’m wrong but at this point I’ll stick my neck out and make a few predictions. The current “fiscal crisis” will fester until the very last minute. While this brinksmanship is underway, a bill will be produced in back rooms by a few select members of the House and Senate. This bill will be over a thousand pages long and festooned with endless plums to various special interest groups. It will be presented for a vote with no time for anyone to read it. The bill will not eliminate a single federal employee, program or department. The bill will institute immediate tax hikes offset with “cuts” only to the future growth in spending. The press will herald this bi-partisan agreement as a tremendous success for Obama the conciliator. Once again, taxpayers will be treated as a herd of complacent imbeciles. I realize I may very well be proven wrong, but I tend to doubt it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat part of "Republicans control only one-half of one branch of government" does Mr. McCarthy, et. al, not understand? No one is suggesting that this debt-limit fiasco is the last word on debt reduction. But we have to do what is achievable now and hope the 2012 elections make the Dems weaker.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIndeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe dems wil never get weaker because they know people like you will never get stronger. Trillions of dollars of debt has been piled up while we do what is "achievable now". We would have great difficulty paying off this debt even if we make massive cuts TODAY. The bondholders will be knocking at the door probably in a matter of months....do you want a country or do you want what is "achievable now". Sometimes in order to win the important battles you have to say not just no, but hell no.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseth:
Of course I want what is "achievable now." It sure beats wanting, and blustering for, that which is unachievable now. The kind of cuts and reforms you want (the kind we all want) can be accomplished only with a) a non-Obama White House and b) a mostly Republican Congress. We have neither at the moment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's just it - NOTHING has been achieved.
Republicans get the promise of cuts 10 years from now, while the President gets more actual money to spend right now. Which one of those things has real value?
A more intelligent tactic would have been to round up $100 billion or so worth of useless little federal agencies (NEA, NEH, etc.) and say, "We'll give you a trillion-dollar debt increase if you eliminate these agencies - NOW." $100 billion isn't much, but it's better than the nothingburger we're about to be served.
When that $1 trillion runs out, make the same offer: another trillion in debt for another $100 billion in eliminated agencies and programs. Would Obama really default the country for the sake of the Agricultural Research Service?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpot on!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhooaaa...
I thought Mr. McCarthy was more reasoned then this. I just am amazed at the lack of rationale. I enjoy the push for massive cuts, but find the lack of real world vision a genuine obstacle. So, what does he propose? And how does he do this tremendous offering without controlling the Senate and the White House?
Cuts are cuts, and without tax increases - this is healthy. And a temporary Debt Ceiling raise for cuts, opens the door for more cuts. There is little one can do until one creates greater opportunity to control the Senate and the Presidency. One cannot address this seriously, even free up the economy to grow, with Obama blocking all sanity in the White House, ie: preventing the removal of the horrid Obamacare.
I have read the offering of the likes of fine Ms. Malkin and Mr. Erikson, they are stuck. I do not believe they are objective or reasoned, just seeing the worst in the Republican offering. It isn't healthy, constructive, fair, nor is it conservative. Bound to make more mistakes. Nothing Republicans do will make them pleased, nothing. It may play nice to a fashionable concept these days amongst us, but it is actually part of the problem, bound to lower credibility and enable the opposite. It isn't just equating, it is actually targeting the GOP Representation in Washington with more disdain then the alternative Democratic Partisan disaster. It is clearly an obsession, driven by emotion, not reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: "Cuts are cuts, and without tax increases - this is healthy."
No. Cuts that aren't painful are illusions. So are not healthy. Balancing the budget without tax increases will require a meat axe.
Honest Republicans should come out and say that explicitly:
"Balancing the budget without tax increases will require radical reductions in governmental programs."
Just say it. And then propose the specific cuts.
And OBTW, have war-mongers Rubio and Allen West add:
"Moreover, the radical reductions in domestic spending will be accompanied by substantial increases in baseline Defense-Security spending, as well as the long term sustainment of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan..."
Just say that too...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd so Andrew has uncovered another reason that explains why gold is trading at $1600/ounce. The Republican plan is not to cut spending, but to manage perceptions that it is hawkish on spending. We are living through a period that requires great leadership, and that leadership is sorely missing from both parties.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcCarthy hits it out the park, once again.
The Boehner plan is a joke, just like the Reid plan. I cannot believe other NRO contributors are actually endorsing these non-sensical proposals.
I'll will be calling my GOP Congressman all day asking him to oppose both the Boehner & Reid proposals. Neither of these "plans" deserve the light of day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd now The Hill reports that Boehner's plan only cuts $6B in 2012.
That is, it only actually cuts $6B, though he's trying to convince us the cuts equal the ceiling hike.
This is as bad and deceitful as what he did to us with the CR.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it's true that spending in 2012 will be cut only $6 billion, that is very disappointing. That's what the feds spend every ten hours. But both parties will brag that they have made tough decisions to put the country on the right course. In the meantime, because of the purportedly tough decisions, the deficit won't be $1.5 trillion in '12. It will be only $1.494 trillion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe situation the United States finds itself in was, and is a pay me now, pay me later situation. “Default” now or default later.
Once we give Obama his trillion to uphold the "full faith and credit of the United States", what tangible item do we get to ensure that the political class will tame the financial hydra that is the U.S. debt/deficit issue. What, a decade more of hot air, pomp and circumstance?
A win for Republicans if the Speaker's plan is accepted . . . what does that mean? I want a win for conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. McCarthy,
We cannot cut this year's $4 trillion budget by $1.4 trillion, representing this year's budget deficit.
Boehner's position throughout has been one-for-one; debt limit extention for cuts over a ten-year timeline. This shouldn't suddenly surprise you now. It's about the most that could be done politically.
Whether the cuts remain in place depends on who we send to Congress over the next ten years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse