What? a Weepin' WIMPY!
http://twitter.com/#!/jacksonjk/status/95668417163563008
Overheard Boehner saying "I didn't sign up for going mano-a-mano with the President of the United States" leaving the Capitol.
How would you distinguish a serious drunk episode from Bonehead's normal behavior?
I can't believe that he'd actually let that out of his mouth! He's cracking. Once this is done, watch him crumble. I would expect, at the very least, a serious drunk episode.
DRAT....now officer America is going to condemn me for calling this weakling names.....oh well. It is what it is.
Well-played BB.
Yes Bee Bee!
See, it doesn't pay to beat sucker punch a clown. :D
I was ready for you again Bee Bee.... How Boehner's Debt Plan Produces 'The Greatest Increase In Poverty And Hardship' In American History
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/26/279008/john-boehner-debt-plan-poverty/
"John Boehner's debt ceiling proposal would add $1 trillion to the current $14.3 trillion debt limit (which would be expected to allow the government to continue borrowing into April of 2012), reduce spending immediately and cap future spending to save $1.2 trillion over 10 years, and establish a 12-member joint committee of Congress charged with reporting back to both chambers by Nov. 23 with recommendations to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.8 trillion over 10 years. The plan also calls for a vote on a constitutional balanced budget amendment before the end of 2011."
Bohner's gone limp!
I don't know if we can still consider the Republicans a viable political party. Their leadership seems to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Tea Partiers. Boehner seems to be incapable of party discipline or the ability to compromise.
Yet our whole system of government is based on compromise. The point-blank refusal of the Republican leadership to consider any form of compromise and thereby hold the economy hostage is unprecedented. And wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/boehner-presses-debt-plan-opposed-by-democrats-imf-urges-raise-in-debt-limit/2011/07/26/gIQA0s3taI_story.html
Whoooops....they are like the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz:
So the Congressional Budget Office said Boehner's deal failed to reduce spending and deficits as much as advertised... how embarrassing.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 27, 2011, 10:40:43 AM
So the Congressional Budget Office said Boehner's deal failed to reduce spending and deficits as much as advertised... how embarrassing.
No, "how typical" is more like it. Remember the last spending "cuts" which turned out not to be cuts?
Boehner needs to go.
Yes. Replace him with someone stupider. :D
This is the end!
"Winners DO NOT compromise" Rush Limbaugh (the drug crazed czar of the far right)
Who would be a better replacement? Certainly not Cantor. I just think currently the House is full of stupid, short memory, impatient, ambitious office climbers. They aren't interested in history only dogma and perks.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 27, 2011, 11:04:44 AM
Who would be a better replacement? Certainly not Cantor. I just think currently the House is full of stupid, short memory, impatient, ambitious office climbers. They aren't interested in history only dogma and perks.
You'd need to find someone who isn't concerned about re-election and that's a rare cat in the HOR.
One would think Boner could poke his way into a hero role here....but noooooooo.
CIVIL WAR: GOP Coalition Splinters Into Open Conflict Over Debt Ceiling
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/it-is-a-period-of.php?ref=fpa
Orangeman might be able to take the old conservatives in with a white flag and tell the teabaggers "tough."
But the country hates having a Negro as POTUS and that's that.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 27, 2011, 05:13:42 PM
One would think Boner could poke his way into a hero role here....but noooooooo.
CIVIL WAR: GOP Coalition Splinters Into Open Conflict Over Debt Ceiling
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/it-is-a-period-of.php?ref=fpa
Orangeman might be able to take the old conservatives in with a white flag and tell the teabaggers "tough."
But the country hates having a Negro as POTUS and that's that.
Why is everything about race for you?
Just truth telling with a little sarcasm. Why do you feel the need to lash out at clowning around? You find mirrors frightening? Let's face it Gassie, this deficit/debt ceiling battle has been fought to keep Obama from winning a second term. Answer me this, why are so many in DC hell bent on not working together? So current power appears inable to lead. It's not directly about race, but race is part of the "problem" for the GOP/Teabaggers. It's possible to distinguish them by their make up.
Maybe they should dress up like clowns so we can't take them seriously. :D
Wasn't it McConnell who stated that the entire purpose of this manufactured crisis is to put the screws to Obama and prevent him from being reelected? Usually, I'm fine with that. Risking a recession just to achieve your political aims is pretty much disgusting.
Quote from: nathanm on July 28, 2011, 02:49:19 PM
Wasn't it McConnell who stated that the entire purpose of this manufactured crisis is to put the screws to Obama and prevent him from being reelected? Usually, I'm fine with that. Risking a recession just to achieve your political aims is pretty much disgusting.
Agreed. Hoping for the failure of the President on the backs of the American public is politics at it's worst. I'm so close to changing my voter registration to Ind but still can't bear the thought of losing my right to vote in local primaries which are important to me.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 28, 2011, 02:51:52 PM
Agreed. Hoping for the failure of the President on the backs of the American public is politics at it's worst. I'm so close to changing my voter registration to Ind but still can't bear the thought of losing my right to vote in local primaries which are important to me.
You do it and then I'll go.....
Oh, the lessor of two evils is still evil. Just have a final beauty contest. You'll look younger with a new Ind.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 28, 2011, 02:23:27 PM
Just truth telling with a little sarcasm. Why do you feel the need to lash out at clowning around? You find mirrors frightening? Let's face it Gassie, this deficit/debt ceiling battle has been fought to keep Obama from winning a second term. Answer me this, why are so many in DC hell bent on not working together? So current power appears inable to lead. It's not directly about race, but race is part of the "problem" for the GOP/Teabaggers. It's possible to distinguish them by their make up.
Maybe they should dress up like clowns so we can't take them seriously. :D
You completely miss the point. The house was turned on it's ear last year by a small political movement, The Tea Party. Now Republicans are terrified of them, not because they pose a threat as a party, but because they pose a threat as a philosophy.
The Tea Party
is the philosophy that Republicans have always given lip-service to but never followed. Now they realize that they run the risk of losing their job if they act in a way that is not consistent with fundamental conservative philosophy of limited government.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 28, 2011, 03:27:00 PM
The Tea Party is the philosophy that Republicans have always given lip-service to but never followed. Now they realize that they run the risk of losing their job if they act in a way that is not consistent with fundamental conservative philosophy of limited government.
+1
Quote from: Gaspar on July 28, 2011, 03:27:00 PM
The Tea Party is the philosophy that Republicans have always given lip-service to but never followed. Now they realize that they run the risk of losing their job if they act in a way that is not consistent with fundamental conservative philosophy of limited government.
You are so full of smile it's not even funny. Under successive Republican-controlled Houses, federal employment ratio has fallen from a 1970ish peak of around 1.1% of total population to a little over 7 tenths of a percent (up from a post-1950 low of about .66%):
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/fedemployment-pop.png?m=1311890911)
Too bad Republicans won't take the blame for trying to get an unrealistic bill through Congress and blowing up the economy in the process. There's exactly one thing tempering my pessimism on the results of a default: The banks have built up well over a trillion dollars in excess reserves, so when the overnight markets collapse, they might have enough liquidity to avoid outright failure. Without an extension of the debt ceiling, FDIC only has maybe 60-80 billion to draw on in the insurance fund. Were it not for the excess reserves, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see enough bank failures to completely tap out FDIC.
I hate to agree with gaspar over nathanm, but I will here. He said the party needed to be "consistent with fundamental conservative philosophy of limited government".
Philosophy. Not practice.
I truly believe that one of the only differences between republicans and democrats is government employment. Many republicans dislike anything run by public dollars (except war) and democrats believe that if we don't operate public schools and public programs, then our lives will be worse dealing with related problems.
People in big urban areas generally see the benefits of government run programs like transit, libraries, and public schools. That is why people in really big cities are generally registered democrats.
Nice graph. I was curious why it spiked every decade or so then I realized it represented the census workers. Strange how each of those census spikes also correlates with a recession. Curious to me.
It really irritates me that all the media, including our local rag, act like this crisis is (a)anything but manufactured for political reasons, and (b) equally the result of Dems and Repubs or something called "Congress" without noting that "Congress" is mainly Republican.
My gawd, this morning's World described how the inaction of "Congress" to fund the FAA has put a hold on airport projects. Even pictured a local Republican Mayor. That failure to fund is because of a Republican in Florida who is trying to weaken the Unions' ability to negotiate and is holding public air travel hostage! Not "Congress" , some silly politician goin' after Unions with the support of his Republican majority in the house! He intends to do so "till we get this mess straightened out..." He created the mess and blames it on his opponents. Outrageous.
Why are people afraid of the truth?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 28, 2011, 05:20:52 PM
I hate to agree with gaspar over nathanm, but I will here. He said the party needed to be "consistent with fundamental conservative philosophy of limited government".
Philosophy. Not practice.
Is there more to the practice of the limited government philosophy these days than tax cuts, entitlement cuts, and shrinking government employment? What visible difference would there be if Gaspar's philosophy were implemented in the face of political resistance? I believe it would be almost exactly what we've seen.
I've always been a fan of the true Scotsman, though. Just wish I could find him. ;)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 28, 2011, 05:20:52 PM
I hate to agree with gaspar over nathanm, but I will here. He said the party needed to be "consistent with fundamental conservative philosophy of limited government".
Philosophy. Not practice.
I truly believe that one of the only differences between republicans and democrats is government employment. Many republicans dislike anything run by public dollars (except war) and democrats believe that if we don't operate public schools and public programs, then our lives will be worse dealing with related problems.
People in big urban areas generally see the benefits of government run programs like transit, libraries, and public schools. That is why people in really big cities are generally registered democrats.
I could argue about the subtleties of what you are saying, but not the logic.
I am not totally against the public funding of such operations, just the public funding AND operation. Remove that last layer and you have a more efficient system with competition and freedom of choice. I.E. school vouchers.
After watching last night's and today's house wrangling, I've come away convinced that there is literally no compromise possible between what the House will pass and what the Senate will pass. And this, of course, doesn't even include what Obama will or won't veto. No matter what he does, Boehner can't win. I don't think this is as much an indictment of Boehner as it is an indictment of his caucus, which can't find a compromise at all. As has been pointed out, the Democrats have bent over backwards to give ground on virtually every core demand of the House GOP Tea Partiers . . . up to and including Reid's offer of a day or two ago that had $1.2B in cuts, no revenue raisers, and put the ceiling in a place where it wouldn't have to be discussed till after 2012 elections. That even goes beyond one of Boehner's House bill. But it doesn't matter, because the House GOP does not want the ceiling raised, regardless of what they're offered. The point is to make a point, and they'll do it by crashing the economy into a brick wall.
Quote from: we vs us on July 29, 2011, 10:35:56 AM
After watching last night's and today's house wrangling, I've come away convinced that there is literally no compromise possible between what the House will pass and what the Senate will pass. And this, of course, doesn't even include what Obama will or won't veto. No matter what he does, Boehner can't win. I don't think this is as much an indictment of Boehner as it is an indictment of his caucus, which can't find a compromise at all. As has been pointed out, the Democrats have bent over backwards to give ground on virtually every core demand of the House GOP Tea Partiers . . . up to and including Reid's offer of a day or two ago that had $1.2B in cuts, no revenue raisers, and put the ceiling in a place where it wouldn't have to be discussed till after 2012 elections. That even goes beyond one of Boehner's House bill. But it doesn't matter, because the House GOP does not want the ceiling raised, regardless of what they're offered. The point is to make a point, and they'll do it by crashing the economy into a brick wall.
I think "crashing the economy" is Y2K talk. I'm not seeing that at all out of this. Our bond ratings might get lowered (which will happen at some point if we don't reign in spending and figure out how to start paying off our debt) which will mean we spend more in interest.
I'm not happy at all about the idea of the feds needing more of my tax dollars to pay off their mistakes and quid pro quos, but it's obvious we have got to bite the bullet and give up this "no new taxes at any cost" stance. Take the spending cuts and give a like amount of tax increases. It's not that friggin' difficult, House Repuglicans!
It's like the girls and boys are on opposite sides of the dance floor and they're playing crappy music.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/29/138820004/to-appease-tea-party-boehner-adds-balanced-budget-amendment-to-bill?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/29/138820004/to-appease-tea-party-boehner-adds-balanced-budget-amendment-to-bill?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 29, 2011, 11:31:26 AM
I think "crashing the economy" is Y2K talk. I'm not seeing that at all out of this. Our bond ratings might get lowered (which will happen at some point if we don't reign in spending and figure out how to start paying off our debt) which will mean we spend more in interest.
I wish it were that simple. It could very well set off a liquidity freeze, which could very well imperil some banks, which could very well take out the FDIC, which is running somewhat low on funds. I don't think that's the most likely scenario, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility. It'll also be interesting to see what bills Treasury decides to pay.
http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury%E2%80%99s-limited-choices/
The CRS put out an interesting backgrounder on the difficulties presented by being up against the debt ceiling:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41633.pdf
Edited to add: By the way, as I think I've been repeating regularly, I think your balanced approach is precisely what we need. I just think we ought to wait on actually putting the tax increases and spending cuts into effect. Tie them to economic performance or something, but make the revenue/spending targets binding once the economic performance targets have been met, that way Congress need not pass another bill to put the policy changes into place.
It doesn't matter whose economists you ask, they pretty much all agree that cutting spending and increasing taxes will slow the economy.
Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2011, 02:27:50 PM
I wish it were that simple. It could very well set off a liquidity freeze, which could very well imperil some banks, which could very well take out the FDIC, which is running somewhat low on funds. I don't think that's the most likely scenario, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility. It'll also be interesting to see what bills Treasury decides to pay.
http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury%E2%80%99s-limited-choices/
The CRS put out an interesting backgrounder on the difficulties presented by being up against the debt ceiling:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41633.pdf
And I could very well win the Mega Millions or Power Ball lotteries tonight and/or tomorrow.
"Could very well..."
Again, Y2K talk. Y2K could have very well paralyzed many things, yet it didn't. All it seemed to do was boost bottled water, fuel, and grocery sales. There's so much hysteria from both sides, I don't think anyone has a real clue what happens.
Here's why I'm not as concerned: taking the 2008 crisis into consideration, the banking system was one of the first things to get protected even though it's "sure" collapse was upon us. It will be protected vigilantly.
Aside from that, we will come to the brink once more in this tacky game of political theater and there will be an 11th hour resolution which will have everyone glad-handing each other and slapping each other on the back while arch conservatives and arch liberals continue to biznitch about how they got sold out in a compromise.
/edit: And point well taken on your edit. If only I were running the show ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 29, 2011, 02:34:33 PM
Again, Y2K talk. Y2K could have very well paralyzed many things, yet it didn't. All it seemed to do was boost bottled water, fuel, and grocery sales. There's so much hysteria from both sides, I don't think anyone has a real clue what happens.
Here's why I'm not as concerned: taking the 2008 crisis into consideration, the banking system was one of the first things to get protected even though it's "sure" collapse was upon us. It will be protected vigilantly.
Aside from that, we will come to the brink once more in this tacky game of political theater and there will be an 11th hour resolution which will have everyone glad-handing each other and slapping each other on the back while arch conservatives and arch liberals continue to biznitch about how they got sold out in a compromise.
Ironically, the reason Y2K turned out not to be any sort of a problem is that the hysteria induced companies to spend the money necessary to get everything fixed up before 1/1/00. That's not to say that I think the most dire predictions were at all likely. I expected inconvenience at worst, not all out stick your head in the sand disaster. I also think that's the most likely outcome of the debt ceiling being reached and Treasury running out of money. (well, if you count an extra $100 billion a year in interest as merely inconvenient, but that may happen regardless)
That said, the more dire scenarios are not at all outlandish. Retirement funds and money market funds can continue to hold Treasury securities no matter what the rating, so there shouldn't be a forced selloff. Nonetheless, if panic was to ensue, it could destabilize things in unpredictable ways. We're playing with fire here. We're not likely to set off a fast-moving brush fire, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Boehner unloading on dems lack of a plan to address debt crisis.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/an-angry-john-boehner-yells-on-house-floor-put-something-on-the-table/
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 05:32:28 PM
Boehner unloading on dems lack of a plan to address debt crisis.
Now that the House has passed something, I think Reid is going to force the issue with his own plan. Not a great plan, but at least not crazy.
Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2011, 05:55:17 PM
Now that the House has passed something, I think Reid is going to force the issue with his own plan. Not a great plan, but at least not crazy.
Passed something? The House has now passed two bills addressing the debt ceiling. What has the Senate passed? And yes, I know, the repub plan is obviously crazy since it came from the repubs.
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 06:02:49 PM
Passed something? The House has now passed two bills addressing the debt ceiling. What has the Senate passed? And yes, I know, the repub plan is obviously crazy since it came from the repubs.
It's crazy because there is literally zero chance of a bill with the BBA requirement tacked on passing the Senate.
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 05:32:28 PM
Boehner unloading on dems lack of a plan to address debt crisis.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/an-angry-john-boehner-yells-on-house-floor-put-something-on-the-table/
Guido, the House has the sole authority to devise a budget, as all of us are aware. The Republicans control the House, so they control the budget process. The Democrats are under no obligation to come up with a competing plan, just as the Republicans did not have to put forward a plan when the Democratic party had the majority.
They broke it. They own it.
I almost feel sorry for Boehner. His party controls the House, and while he's the Speaker, he's clearly unable to control his party. Despite my own deep antipathy toward the Republican party, I don't think this serves our country when one side is unable or unwilling to compromise.
Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2011, 06:03:41 PM
It's crazy because there is literally zero chance of a bill with the BBA requirement tacked on passing the Senate.
So what if it fails in the Senate? The House should toss aside their principles and beliefs because the Senate disagrees with them? And what if Reid does manage to get something through the Senate that has "literally zero chance" of passing in the House, will his bill be "crazy" then?
Quote from: Ed W on July 29, 2011, 06:09:55 PM
Guido, the House has the sole authority to devise a budget, as all of us are aware. The Republicans control the House, so they control the budget process. The Democrats are under no obligation to come up with a competing plan, just as the Republicans did not have to put forward a plan when the Democratic party had the majority.
They broke it. They own it.
I almost feel sorry for Boehner. His party controls the House, and while he's the Speaker, he's clearly unable to control his party. Despite my own deep antipathy toward the Republican party, I don't think this serves our country when one side is unable or unwilling to compromise.
What are you talking about? Presidents have repeatedly presented budgets for Congress to consider. Remember Obama's budget he submitted back in February that went down in flames in the Senate 97-0? Certainly you have heard of the "Bush tax cuts". Did Bush cut taxes? No. Congress did. Perhaps you are confusing the House's power of the purse with the day to day machinations of budgeting.
As an aside, what is going on right now is not a budget debate, but rather whether the debt ceiling should be raised. The idea that the democrats don't have to present a plan, and instead can just lob insults/attacks at the only party doing anything to address the debt problem, is just wrong.
On compromise, the House has now passed two debt ceiling bills that would raise the debt ceiling. How are the dems doing with their compromising?
...and Harry Reid offered to meet the dollar amount that the Republican want - $1.3 trillion, if I remember right - by ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Boehner turned it down, preferring to address the real goal of all these machinations - social security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and presumably, the New Deal.
Quote from: Ed W on July 29, 2011, 06:32:10 PM
...and Harry Reid offered to meet the dollar amount that the Republican want - $1.3 trillion, if I remember right - by ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Boehner turned it down, preferring to address the real goal of all these machinations - social security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and presumably, the New Deal.
Take a look at the Paul Ryan video I posted in the debt thread. He takes on the accounting tricks such as ending wars resulting in spending cuts. I also don't think its fair tagging Boehner as someone with disdain towards the needy simply because he wants to do something about runaway entitlement programs. As for Reid's alleged agreement to accept Boehner's spending cuts, I understand there was something to that, but also that Obama pulled the plug on it.
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 06:13:44 PM
So what if it fails in the Senate? The House should toss aside their principles and beliefs because the Senate disagrees with them? And what if Reid does manage to get something through the Senate that has "literally zero chance" of passing in the House, will his bill be "crazy" then?
Well, if your goal is to keep the federal government from defaulting, yeah, you have to pass something that will pass the other house. If you don't actually care about that goal and are just grandstanding, it doesn't matter what you pass as long as you pass something. There are
Republicans in the Senate who have said no to the balanced budget amendment part, so it would be almost impossible to get enough votes, even if you could peel off a few Democrats. (presuming it even makes it to the floor)
Reid's plan has a half-decent chance in the House, if it can get through the Senate in time. Boehner was only a few votes short of getting his bill through without the BBA attached. Reid's plan is (supposedly) dollar-for-dollar cuts to debt limit increase and no revenue increases. I suspect some Republicans would bite, if the alternative was default.
Last I checked, we're still in a war. Call it an accounting trick if you like, but we're spending money now that won't be spent in the future. That's a reduction in spending.
Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2011, 06:49:23 PM
Last I checked, we're still in a war. Call it an accounting trick if you like, but we're spending money now that won't be spent in the future. That's a reduction in spending.
Did you look at the Ryan video? It covers this issue. As for the rest of your post, I don't share the opinion that we have to pass something. If it sucks, don't vote for it.
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 06:59:39 PM
Did you look at the Ryan video? It covers this issue. As for the rest of your post, I don't share the opinion that we have to pass something. If it sucks, don't vote for it.
As long as you realize that you're effectively advocating default and a credit downgrade. Who shall we not pay when Treasury can't borrow any more money? You choose..let me know what you come up with:
http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury%E2%80%99s-limited-choices/
Here's a link to the Ryan video for anyone's convenience.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-paul-ryans-response-to-defense-cuts-lets-pass-a-bill-to-cover-the-moon-with-yogurt/
Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2011, 07:08:23 PM
As long as you realize that you're effectively advocating default and a credit downgrade. Who shall we not pay when Treasury can't borrow any more money? You choose..let me know what you come up with:
http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury%E2%80%99s-limited-choices/
How about some from every category, starting with "other spending". I have already posted that everything must be on the table, to the extent that our soldier's and the public's safety are not jeopardized.
Since we are at the "brink", let's just let Aug. 2 come and go and see what really happens. Perhaps, a la Obama, taking off the bandaid or eating our peas is stopping the insanity of living far beyond our means.
Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2011, 02:48:06 PM
(well, if you count an extra $100 billion a year in interest as merely inconvenient, but that may happen regardless)
$100 billion is only 10% of $1 Trillion and we are talking of multiple $ Trillions so it may be possible to make a case for "merely inconvenient".
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 06:13:44 PM
So what if it fails in the Senate? The House should toss aside their principles and beliefs because the Senate disagrees with them?
You are beginning to understand. The Democrats stand for principles, Republicans are obstructionists.
;D
Ohhhhh....You ment this man in Orange....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/22/article-0-0D4F6BAB000005DC-254_468x336.jpg)
John Boehner says his speakership is not in dangerhttp://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/john-boehner-says-his-speakership-is-not-in-danger-85407.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/john-boehner-says-his-speakership-is-not-in-danger-85407.html)
QuoteSpeaker John Boehner said "God only knows" how Washington will solve the fiscal cliff, but he remained confidant that he would remain the House's top Republican after his colleagues forced him to cancel a vote on his fallback tax bill Thursday night.
The Ohio Republican – standing next to his No. 2, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) – said the House Republican Conference rejected his proposal to extend tax rates for income under $1 million because there was "a perception created that that vote last night was going to increase taxes."
"Now I disagree with that characterization of the bill, but that impression was out there," Boehner said. "And we had a number of our members who just really didn't want to be perceived as having raised taxes. That was the real issue."
The Thursday night episode was one of the most dramatic nights of Boehner's speakership and changed the dynamics in the negotiations to solve expiring tax rates and spending cuts set to take hold at year's end. Now, much of the action will shift over to the White House and the Senate — two entities that will have heavy sway over a final agreement.
Asked if he would take up a Senate-passed bill to extend rates for everyone under $250,000, Boehner said the bill has not reached the House because of "blue slip problems" — a mostly procedural issue that relates to revenue bill needing to originate in the lower chamber.
But the dynamics have absolutely shifted.
First, the drama significantly weakened House Republicans' hand as they try to force President Barack Obama to agree to deeper spending reductions – Boehner says Obama's unwillingness to do so has stalled negotiations.
"The president and I had a series of conversations," Boehner said. "I told the president on Monday were my bottom lines. The president told me that his numbers – $1.2 trillion in new revenues, $850 billion in spending cuts – were his bottom line. That he couldn't go any further. And so we see a situation where, because of the political divide in the country, also the divide here in Washington, trying to bridge these differences have been difficult."
Second, it injects fresh questions about Boehner's power over House Republicans – queries that the speaker brushes off. The optics of Cantor standing next to Boehner reinforced that the No. 2 was squarely behind him. Asked if he was concerned about his grasp on power, Boehner said "No, I'm not."
"Listen, you've all heard me say this and I've told my colleagues," Boehner said Friday morning. "If you do the right things every day for the right reasons, the right things will happen. While we have not been able to get the votes last night to avert 99.81 percent of the tax increases, I don't think – they weren't taking that out on me. They were dealing with the perception that somebody might accuse them of raising taxes."
Boehner said he was "proud" of the House Republican Conference.