Official White House photo
In 2011, House Speaker John Boehner came up with an arbitrary rule, not for any policy reason, but because he thought it sounded nice: for every dollar in a debt-ceiling increase, President Obama would have to accept an equal amount of spending cuts. So, for example, raising the debt limit by $1.4 trillion necessarily meant Obama had to agree to $1.4 trillion in cuts.
This year, Boehner said the rule he'd come up with for himself still applied -- either Obama swallows $1.5 trillion in cuts or Republicans would crash the economy. As far as the GOP was concerned, the president doesn't have "any choice."
That was two weeks ago. According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) new plan, Boehner's "rule" is finished -- now, instead of massive cuts, Republicans want the Senate Democrats to pass a budget for the first time "in almost four years," and will only approve a three-month debt-ceiling extension to give the upper chamber time to do that.
Or what? That's unclear, but since GOP leaders are already taking default off the table, there's no real threat left. Whether Republicans like it or not, once they approve a debt-ceiling increase next week, they already know they're going to have to do it again in April, if not sooner.
This is what make the surrender so obvious -- not only has Boehner's ridiculous threshold been abandoned, but the new demand is toothless and halfhearted.
But before we move on, is there anything to Cantor's accusation that Senate Democrats have been delinquent in their budget duties for "almost four years"? No, not really.
The federal budget complex is painfully complicated, but as Jonathan Bernstein explained last year, Republican rhetoric on Senate inaction, often repeated in the media, is wrong.
The U.S. government, of course, is absolutely operating under a budget. The law that provided that budget even conveniently had the word "budget" in its title: it's the Budget Control Act, passed by Congress and signed by the president to end the debt limit confrontation last summer. [...]
[T]hrough a historical fluke, there's an intermediate stage in budgeting that has the name "budget." That's the thing that Congress hasn't done for the last couple of years. Is there a reasonable criticism of the Democratic Senate for not voting on a budget resolution last year? I suppose. Is there a reasonable criticism of the Democratic Congress for not producing a budget resolution in 2010? Again, maybe. But it's all about process, and has nothing at all to do with whether the United States government is operating under a budget. Of course it is.
Long story short, a "budget" and a "budget resolution" are not exactly the same thing. Senate Dems have avoided the latter, basically to avoid the kind of political headaches Paul Ryan invited on House Republicans last year.
The implication, though, is that the government hasn't operated with a budget in nearly four years, and that's wildly misleading.
As House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) explained a while back, "I have a bias. I served for 23 years on the Appropriations Committee. What does the budget do? The budget does one thing and really only one thing. It sets the parameters of spending and discretionary caps. Other than that, the Appropriations Committee is not bound by the Budget Committee's priorities…. The fact is that you don't need a budget. We can adopt appropriation bills and we can adopt authorization policies without a budget."
And yet, there was Speaker Boehner today, telling his members, "The Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget for four years. That is a shameful run that needs to end, this year."
Why would he and Cantor care? Because they're eager to force Senate Democrats to approve a budget resolution that would invariably include politically damaging provisions that Republicans want to use in campaign ads.
Leave a Comment:
Are these morons ever going to grow a pair and do what is right for America?
Not as long as they can spew a 'talking point'. I think they need NEW ONES.
The last time the Republicans did what was "right for America" was when they won the War Of Southern Treason. Of course, nowadays, they are the Confederate Treason Party.
Wow -- from the picture above - I didn't realize what a short dude that Cantor is next to the President...
This is called surrender without actually turning over your sword.
That's right, no plan needed. No roadmap, no compass, no goals and no restrictions. Why? Because Treasury can print as much money as it wants to. No limits, no paying back. It's the best of all possible worlds, no responsibility needed.
Yep, that's the attitude Bush had when he started two wars with no funding. As I recall, those weren't included in any budget. Strange how reckless spending somehow became the domain of the President (when Congress has the power of the purse) AND became hugely important to Republicans on January 20th, 2009... I wonder what magical event happened then to change their priorities?
For proof, see 2001-2008. See? We're still here!
So Grumpy, you weren't very clear there. Are you in favor of no limit spending or not?
Grumpy's meaning is very clear - you're a hypocrite to complain about it now if it was okay with you under the Shrub.
I think he was making the point, blanks, that it has been the Republicans, your Republicans, that have thrown away the concept of spending limits.
Afterall, they approved trillions in spending that never showed up on any 'budget' line at all (ie- the wars in Afghanistan, Iran, etc.)
President Obama has managed to reduce spending, the deficit and the national debt while reducing unemployment brought about by...you guessed it...Republican spending policies.
Sorry, this is a losing argument for you..but then most of your arguments have been losers.
Umm, grumpy didn't say that he was okay with no spending limit. Do you even know how our government works Shooter. Even if we have a budget that lays out all the inlays and outlays for the year we can still appropriate money in addition to that budget and still vote for new laws/programs that add to that. For example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Part D, Tarp, Auto Bailout, Stimulus program.
Please understand what you're talking about before you spout off on here. I know your a troll but you need to get better at it. Either be inflamatory or actually say something that can't be slapped down in 3 seconds.
@Shooter
Budget. Control. Act. There's your road map, compass, restrictions, etc. Now, get the GOP committee chairs working so that appropriations can be made. Appropriations originate in the House.
Am I the only one deeply disturbed by the fact that Cantor relies on voters not having a clue about "Appropriations"?
What makes this reliance on ignorance different than any other Republican reliance on ignorance. Look at shooter above. He has been dazzled by Republican bull@!$%#. Since he never looks beyond the Fox News talking points he doesn't have a clue.
He is not alone. Even I have been confused by the appropriations process and I should know better. This reliance on ignorance is what happens when the media views everything as a horse race.
If it wasn't for ill-informed ignoramuses, Republicans wouldn't have any voters (as Pooper demonstrates here every day).
Republicans are throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. Their ammo has run out and all they have left is trying to move public opinion (and whining if you want to count it). The voters have made their judgement and Republicans are in denial still. They are wasting their time trying to rally public opinion considering the public opinion polls on them and on the president.
they have used up their bunker busters, now only thing left is spit wads and bb`s.
While the threat doesn't really have much behind it, the fact that it's being delivered by a man of Eric Cantor's stature and gravitas makes it ... pretty damned amusing.
Can a budget resolution originate in the Senate?
I don't think so- if I remember my civics (and I may be wrong), it is the House's responsibility to hold the purse strings, not the Senate.
How disingenuous can these republicans get? If they leave it to the senate to produce the next iteration of a budget, it won't be a deal. Only the House initiates revenue. "All bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills."
If the Senate originates the budget, it will include only SPENDING not revenue! What kind of a deal will that be?
Have the Republicans in leadership forgotten their Constitutional relationships? Did Eric Cantor flunk High School Civics?
If the Republican brand wishes to spew lies to the American people, they should be up ticking their game because their lies seem to get no traction!
The USHOR Constitutionally has the power of the purse! For the past 4+ years, that House and its majority has held precious little "budgetary" hearings to determine the level of funding for the myriad government programs that exist for the benefit of the American economy, the American people, and in the interests of the American nation. I've only witnessed them complaining about spending!
Precious little, precious little I tells you!
If Boehner was actually serious about the "budget," he would have already used the power of his gavel to begin the necessary hearings to work out funding levels and propose a "budget" document that then, if they were functioning better than they are, the House would send its passed legislation to the Senate to pass, or to modify and then pass so a Conference Committee could then work on a final piece approved by both chambers to go then to the President's desk!
Hey Boehner - Where's the beef regarding your efforts to command the political dialog lately? Hiding behind the Tea Cart? -Kevo
The goal of reducing the gov deficit is a goal to directly reduce the private sector's net financial wealth. Fiscally, a spending cut is the same as a tax increase, typically on the poor, elderly, and working class. The government doesn't borrow its own currency (in which only they can create) from the private sector (much less from China) in order to spend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bXpOUYrr1c
Actually, having watched that idiot from NBC, Cohen, on the Martin Bashir show this afternoon, spouting the b.s. that the Republicans are right that it's time for the Senate to "pass a budget" and how "we have to get control of this debt before the Fed raises interests rates, and we're paying $500 billion a year in interest," the no-information Republicans have their traditional allies in the mainstream media, too damn stupid to know what they're talking about, to help misinform the public (too bad guest host Karen Finney - who does know that crap is crap - didn't call b.s. on Cohen, but I guess he gets a pass for being from NBC).
How disingenuous can the republicans get? If they plan to leave the next iteration of the budget to the Senate, it won't include revenue. The U S Constitution at Article I Section 7 says "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;...." So there will be no deal (not even A BIG DEAL) originating in the Senate; only spending cuts will be allowed until the Senate can Amend a House Bill.
The following is from commenter arkie over at Political Animal. I think it points the way as to how Democrats should respond to Cantors lastest move because as Ed Kilgore says:
"A hostage-taker who’s not sure what ransom to ask isn’t usually real successful."
The Republicans are beginning to remind me of the kidnappers in O. Henry's "Ransom of Red Chief":
Two Desperate Men.
Gentlemen: I received your letter to-day by post, in regard to the ransom you ask for the return of my son. I think you are a little high in your demands, and I hereby make you a counter-proposition, which I am inclined to believe you will accept. You bring Johnny home and pay me two hundred and fifty dollars in cash, and I agree to take him off your hands. You had better come at night, for the neighbours believe he is lost, and I couldn't be responsible for what they would do to anybody they saw bringing him back.
Very respectfully,
EBENEZER DORSET.
http://www.online-literature.com/donne/1041/