Well, John Boehner, master political manipulator, is at it again. He has pulled out his ultimate weapon, the same one he used to push TARP through the House back in 2008. He has told his recalcitrant House members that they should not allow their "ideological purity" to stand in the way of doing what is necessary for the country. This is equal to the infamous Bush line, that he suspended free market principles in order to save the free market. Maybe we can save Christianity by suspending the teachings of the Bible!
We have about 100 new House members who were sent there last November by the honest hard-working people of our nation to stand up for certain specific Constitutional principles. To ask them to set those principles aside is like telling them to compromise what they, and many of us, believe is in the best interests of the nation. This is not only stupid and unreasonable, it's an attack against the character of these House members. Boehner is essentially asking these men and women to stand down, to surrender their beliefs, all in the interest of political expediency. If they give in to his sinister manipulations, it's all over. Now is not the time to compromise; it's the time for all of those so-called Tea Party House members to stand firm.
Compromising on principles is not, and never will be, an option. The opposite of ideological purity is ideological corruption.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I too admire their steadfast resistance to what Boehner wants. I don't agree with what the tea party stands for in all areas, but I will give them credit for not playing the games.
What I strange is if they do not raise the debt ceiling, and since we borrow 40 cents on every dollar, then it seems that 40% of the government won't have any money. Are they really going to allow Obama to decide who gets paid and who doesn't? Congress appropriates and the executive spends it. Seems if he is only getting 60 cents on the dollar he alone gets to decide what is worthwhile and what is not. Not sure I like having one person in charge of that decision making.
Seems that the Tea Party House members have simply adopted the Obama view on raising the debt ceiling: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better" (from Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006).
Translation: you republicans lowered taxes, then went to two wars and spent like drunken sailors (medicare drug prescription) taking an inherited surplus and turning it into deficits. Debt ceiling votes have always been a way for a politician to spew/make a point and vote no, once that politician knows there are enough votes to pass it.
Obama offered. Sincere or not? Beats me, but he offered.
What I don't get out of any of this is if all appropriations start in the house, why don't they just appropriate less and debate from there. Repubs have the majority, so they can do whatever they want in the house and the dems are powerless to stop them.
Remember one thing, Obama only spends what is appropriated and what is required by law. So, the $500 billion stimulus, what else has he "spent" other than him putting the wars into the budget process. At least some of the food stamp and unemployment stuff monies were paid for by cutting other junk. Seems to me 6 years of total repub control is what spiraled this debt out of control. The old Laissez_faire vs.keynesian economics.
Just to get the facts straight, the prescription drug bill was passed by Democrats. Even if every Republican in the Senate had voted for it, it could not have passed. As it was, 8 Repbulicans voted against it. The only way it passed was by 11 Democrats voting for it. Notwithstanding this correction of fact, the prescription drug bill is one of several Bush legislative initiatives for which Tea Party types like me have contempt for the former president.
Yes, the Congress taxes too much and spends too much. They put themselves in the position of having to deal with this debt ceiling issue on a regular basis. They have to do something, sometime to break the cycle. There's no time like the present. A Congress that wastes real money on nonsense surely spends too much even on arguably legitimate programs. The House of Representatives was designed to be the body closest to the people. I don't believe that there's no place these people can't cut. They just don't have the will.
Nice spin. I guess it is democrats we can thank for the Reagan tax cuts in 1981.
Wasn't this medicare bill the beginning of the end of Tom DeLay. I think that was the bill where he was handing out campaign checks to members and even threatened to torpedo a members son's election if he did not vote for it.
anyway, the huge federal cost driver is medicare and medicaid and until the republicans accept the fact they are here to stay and the dems accept the fact they both need some changes, they can cut all they want, but the debt and deficits won't go away. We need to somehow slow the growth of healthcare costs or those programs will eventually hose the country.
and not fight wars for ten years would help to.
So now common sense is "spin," eh? And I love that reasoning: We spend because we spend. There's certainly no answer to that.
Tom, what you don't see to get is that I have virtually no good feels toward the modern Republican Party. Don't forget, I switched my registration to independent back in 1990 after Bush I cooperated with the Democrats and raised taxes. I am no defender of George W. Bush either. I agree with his decision to take the war against the Islamic terrorists onto their turf; but aside from that, I hardly agree with anything else the man did. He is classic RINO. And I was willing to give Obama a chance to show what he could do. But alas, he has been the antithesis of leadership, constantly hiding behind the bushes (NPI) while others step into the fight. He seems to be willing to do whatever he has to do to avoid getting bloodied. That is the absence of the kind of leadership we need at this crucial time. I'm not happy about that; I'm disappointed. At this point, the only group I stand with are the handful of Tea Party guys and gals who refused to go along with Boehner's sham.
Post a Comment