The Tea Party Is Right: Speaker Boehner’s Plan Cuts Nothing

Speaker John Boehner wasn’t able to push through his debt ceiling plan in the House last night. This of course means he has no control over his caucus. As a Tea Party supporter, I tend to think that’s probably a good thing. The Weeping Speaker isn’t all that conservative and his debt ceiling plan, like all of them, is ridiculous. None of the plans out there force the Federal government to live within its means. Even those that include a Balanced Budget Amendment won’t force the government to live within its means. I can easily name 14 states that won’t pass an amendment, thus killing it.

Let’s talk about the Boehner plan for a moment. His plan is to increase the debt ceiling by $1 trillion in exchange for a little more than $1 trillion in budget cuts. Here’s where things get absurd. The debt ceiling would increase immediately by $1 trillion. But the budget cuts are spread out over 10 years. In other words, on average the budget would be cut only $100 billion per year. But of course it won’t cut $100 billion this year. It will only cut the budget by a few billion this year while the rest of the cuts are years down the road and can be reversed by a future Congress. In other words, the Boehner deal is a scam.

The real kicker though is that the $1 trillion in cuts isn’t even a real cut. It’s only a cut in future growth. If Congress passed a budget today that was equal to last years budget, the CBO would declare it to be a $9.5 trillion cut over 10 years. Why? Because holding the line means that government doesn’t grow at the rate of inflation and thanks to the wizards at the CBO, this is considered a cut. As you can see, Boehner’s $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years is nowhere near holding the line. His proposal increases the size of government as it allows for government to spend more than the rate of inflation. There are no government cuts, there are government increases under the Boehner plan.

The fact that the Boehner plan increases the size of government hasn’t stopped Democrats from hysterically opposing it. Nancy Pelosi has declared that the Democrats opposing the Boehner plan are trying to “save life on this planet as we know it today.” It’s almost funny until you realize she wants even more spending. Pelosi and Obama not only want more spending, they want massive tax increases. In fact, tax increases will result in more spending as more Americans lose their jobs and end up on welfare. One wonders if this isn’t their goal. After all, government dependence has been the Democrat base since FDR.

The facts here are clear. The Boehner plan doesn’t cut the size or scope of the Federal government. It barely cuts government at all, with most of the cuts coming down the road when a future Congress can reverse them. The Harry Reid deal is no better, his calls for $2.7 trillion in cuts and an increase in the debt limit of the same amount. Again, all of the cuts are down the road and the debt ceiling increase is immediate.

If the Boehner plan passes, we’ll have a debt ceiling fight again next year when the national debt is $15.2 trillion. If Reid’s plan passes, we’ll fight over the debt ceiling in late 2012 when the national debt is nearly $17 trillion. Default and massive cuts are on the way whether they begin next week or a few years from now. Our national debt is unsustainable, especially so as both parties seem uninterested in balancing the budget and cutting spending.

Nancy Pelosi Wants Elections To Mean Nothing

Nancy Pelosi spoke at Tuffs University last week. Normally the Soros backed Congressman speaking at a university wouldn’t be cause for pause. However Pelosi’s statements at the school did prove worthy of discussion. Pelosi doesn’t believe elections should mean anything. She clearly longs for the day when progressives dominated both the Democrat and Republican parties. In other words, she wants a return to a time when the parties were largely indistinguishable and progressive socialists were capable of passing whatever they wanted with ease.

Nancy Pelosi is obviously a far left progressive and desires that her far left policies become law. On elections Pelosi said:

Because there are so many things at risk right now — perhaps in another question I’ll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do…But when it comes to a place where there doesn’t seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now. 

Elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do according to Pelosi. Clearly she longs for the time when progressives dominated both parties. Make no mistake, progressive policies are not historically a purely Democrat Party philosophy. Prior to Ronald Reagan there were conservatives in both the Republican and Democrat Parties. There were also progressives. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Herbert Hoover was a progressive, Richard Nixon was a progressive, Sen. Joe McCarthy was a product of the LaFollete machine of progressive Republicans in Wisconsin. In fact, one reason why the University of Wisconsin is so liberal is because Robert LaFollete used it to push his progressive ideas when he was Governor in the early 20th century.

Until Reagan conservatives were in both parties and were largely muzzled by progressives. Until Gingrich and the GOP revolution of 1994 in Congress conservatives were the vast minority in both parties. We still have the remains of progressive Republicans in the form of Sens. Snowe, Collins and McCain. These days progressive liberals largely reside in the Democrat Party, which has purged most of its conservative elements. So-called blue dog conservative Democrats don’t exist in great numbers, especially after the 2010 election. In the GOP, progressives or so-called RINO’s are becoming harder to come by.

Pelosi longs for the days when members of both parties had shared progressive values and thus could pass progressive bills in a bipartisan fashion. In the 70′s the EPA was created when progressives in both parties pushed for it and a progressive Republican President signed it. Tax increases for much of the 20th century until Reagan were passed in a bipartisan manner. In fact, most progressive policies in the 20th century were passed with bipartisan support. This is because there were progressives in both parties.

Pelsoi wants a return to liberal domination and thus she wants elections to mean less. If there are massive amounts of progressives in both parties, it doesn’t really matter which party controls the Congress or controls the White House. The same progressive bills will become law no matter which party leads the way. In other words, Pelosi wants conservatives muzzled in Congress again. If that were the case it wouldn’t matter if Republicans won the House because the election itself wouldn’t have really meant a whole lot. Progressive laws would still come out of Congress. Instead we have conservatives in control of the GOP and progressive liberals in control of the Democrat Party thus the elections actually matter.

Make no mistake, Pelosi doesn’t want the American people to have a voice in their government. She wants your choice to be between a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat. Such is really no choice at all and thus the election and your voice is rendered meaningless.

Quite A Pair: Weepy John and Shrill Nancy

Weepy John Boehner became Speaker of the House yesterday. I don’t think a day goes by when he isn’t overcome with tears. He wins an election he weeps. He’s interviewed by a media jackal he weeps. He becomes Speaker of the House he weeps. Man up already John.

The real news yesterday is that Nancy Pelosi was opposed by 19 Democrats in her failed bid to remain as Speaker. While the whole process is little more than a formality, each party nominates their leader to become Speaker. Most Congressmen vote for the person who their party nominated. Congressmen have the right to vote for anyone however and yesterday 19 Democrats voted for someone other than Nancy Pelosi. Heath Schuler received the most votes with 11.

This is the highest number of protest votes for Speaker since 1923. Since 1945 there have been a total of 7 protest votes. This year there were 19, so that suggests to me that there is some serious friction in the Democrat Caucus. As well there should be after they lost over 60 seats. The Democrats lost most of their moderate Congressmen, mostly because of Pelosi’s extreme liberalism.

The problem the Democrats face is that Pelosi won’t go away. She’s the first losing Speaker to stick around in a couple of generations. Her disapproval ratings are sky high and yet she remains as the face of the House Democrats. We can still look forward to her shrill press conferences and her plastered on fake smile for the next two years. For a party that would presumably like to win the House in 2012, Pelosi as the face of the House isn’t exactly a winning strategy for Democrats.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers