Tag: John Boehner

Happy Holidays! The House GOP Sucker Punches the President, Their Own Senate Republican Colleagues, and the American People

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

December 20, 2011

I’m listening to CNN as the deplorable House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA), talks about the House vote, just made, to force a conference on HR 3630, the payroll tax and unemployment extension proposal. Legislative proposals must pass both the House and the Senate in identical forms to meet constitutional requirements. A conference committee is an often-used method to reach a compromise between competing House and Senate proposals. Regarding HR 3630, Cantor and his Tea Party Congressloons did not accept the Senate version of HR 3630 that sought a two month semi-solution/compromise to the difficulties posed by widely divergent House and Senate HR 3630s. How divergent? The Senate version of HR 3630 was 34 pages. The House? 370 pages. Now that’s divergent. And yes, senators kicked the can down the road. But yes, a kick is better than a stomp that was, with few exceptions, the House version of HR 3630.

Of course, since the House leadership (apparently now putatively led by Cantor, not Boehner, the de facto Speaker) and Tea Partiers desire nothing more than loading up the payroll tax/unemployment benefit legislation with poison pills, they naturally want a conference, not to resolve issues, but to create more delay through intransigence. Also, counterintuitively, and counterproductively, they hope to embarrass the GOP Senate, with whom they now appear to be in open conflict. I worked on Capitol Hill with members of both Houses of Congress for a nearly a quarter century, and I understand this internecine warfare. It’s part of the expanding and contracting of relative strength within parties. It’s used by both sides, yet never so irresponsibly, capriciously, and aggressively as the present GOP House. Conservatives? Revolutionaries.

After reaching agreement on the two-month extension, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and the rest of the bunch left town last Saturday vowing to not discuss anything until the House approves the two-month extension. A few minutes ago, that possibility vanished. So, who knows what’s next? The conference committee, perhaps before January 1st? Well, whenever it convenes, in the end, the House conferees will characteristically shout “Havoc!” and unleash their yapping dogs. In the end, the conference will likely be as useful and unsuccessful as was the vaunted Supercommittee. . . Yadda Yadda Yadda . .

More Insult, More Injury. What really rankles though is Cantor and other GOP Congressloons using against him the President’s encouragement of a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. Remember, the Senate just passed the two-month solution with GOP support, including Mitch McConnell who agrees with nothing but unseating President Obama in November 2012. This bipartisan agreement was a major achievement. Today, the House GOP, however, refused to agree, not with Democrats, but with its own Senate minority. In any event, after packing the House proposal with poison pills, and then passing it over the administration’s objections, you are at least morally prohibited from trying to obscure your dishonesty by trying to implicate the president in your plans, as Cantor does now when he says, “even the President wanted a full year solution, so we’re simply doing what the president requested.” That is the very definition of flapdoodle.

The one-year extension Cantor refers to was simply the cherry on the top, not the underlying “cake” of what the President advocated for. He – and then the Senate with a huge plurality – reached a simple solution, for now, not a final solution, forever. The Senate produced what was rational, providing 34 pages of simple language to close the gap for the holidays and thereby keep the payroll tax reduction in place until Congress returns in late January. Then, there’s time to battle. The House, with neither embarrassment nor honesty, and with insincere Tea Party Christmas spirit, handed the President, their own senate colleagues, and the American people their own HR 3630, a 370 page insult, with a cherry of injury atop.

Obama 2.0 – Does a Challenger Lurk Within His Own Camp?

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

September 21, 2011

This year, in August, I wrote:

“In light of the generally lightweight resistance to the Tea Party mayhem caused during this long debt ceiling fight, I’m wondering about things I’ve never wondered before. Is the President who has often compromised with the GOP/TP, not the “down-in-the-dirt” fighter we need to run the Tea Party out-of-town? They are down and dirty, and, in this 21st century civil war skirmish, do we need a Grant rather than a McClellan, a Sherman rather than a Burnside?  It’s a war we’re in, without doubt. Clausewitz wrote, ‘War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.’ Since the close of the Civil War, whether we’ve formally noticed it or not, we’re largely a country where, to paraphrase freely, ‘Politics is a mere continuation of war by other means.’ Following his recent and worst compromise on the debt ceiling, is Obama up to this task?  And who is, or who might be?”

That was August, nonetheless, with this post, I’m disowning my conclusion then that we need a Democratic primary challenger to President Obama for the 2012 election. Three recent events caused my turnaround:  (1)  During his September 8th jobs program speech to Congress, President Obama debuted a new public persona, one with strength, resolve, and purpose. No pandering to Republicans, quite the opposite. No soft-spoken phrases to reassure the GOP of his bipartisanship; “Pass this bill” is short, sweet, and its intent obvious, a textbook declarative sentence, a leader’s statement. Incredibly for this President, he did not utter the word “bipartisan” a single time . . . A strong and hopeful start. Bipartisanship with this GOP Congress has been a losing proposition.

(2)  President Obama’s remarks on Monday about deficit reduction during which he added more heat to the fire that previously he lit on September 8th. Finally, he got rhetorically personal and physical, landing a series of roundhouse hooks to various GOP chins. Moreover, after calling out Speaker of the House Boehner by name, Obama – in the blue boxing trunks – hammered the Speaker’s orange nose. Yesterday, Boehner seemed a bit shaken, not stirred. His counter-punch was a weak non sequitur, a comment conflating “class warfare” with “leadership.”

(3) Ralph Nader’s Monday announcement that he is actively seeking six progressive/liberal contenders willing to challenge the President in primary contests was another reason I changed my mind.

Channeling Rocky Balboa?  The President’s deficit reduction remarks, added to his jobs plan speech two weeks ago, provided evidence of an unexpected moxie, a bit of a temper, and a tad of FDR’s sarcastic humor (“This is not class warfare. It’s math.”).  Rather than shadow boxing, he threw some swift, well-aimed uppercuts. He now evinces a full understanding that allowing the GOP to throttle him against the ropes will not wear them out, they can do that all day, all night.  You won’t exhaust them to the mat in the 15th round. You must flatten them, and publicly.

My earlier posting, set out above, pushed an entirely different agenda. Now, though, I believe that if Obama continues to battle without cravenly compromising with the GOP Congressloons on essentials, he’s got a reasonable chance to win some victories. It’s quite good too that he called out Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge that many Congressloons signed.  These moves are like spirited and stinging jabs to the nose, and if he does it long enough, publicly enough, the highly sought after Democratic base will rally.  Perhaps too will the independent voters, the Holy Grail of U.S. presidential elections, move into the Obama camp. . .

So, if Obama and his entire administration forcefully attack, attack, and attack the GOP (and some weak Democrats too) on all points, and demand they enact, at a minimum, the more substantial portions of his suggested tax provisions and his jobs plan, an impending primary battle would do more damage than good. My reason for promoting a primary challenge in early August was precisely, and only, to underscore the importance of President Obama to move to the left from a position many of us viewed as pandering to the far right-wing. I’d hoped he would decide to stand on Democratic principles and start punching. Yesterday, and in his jobs plan speech two weeks ago, he did it, and he’s got some fancy footwork, and John Boehner, a tough fighter, was bloodied. If yesterday’s speech is followed up, this is the President we’ve been looking for, waiting for, and a primary challenge would be ill-advised. Let’s allow the President to “float like a butterfly, and sting like a bee,” undisturbed by a 5th column of primary contenders that, in the end, will only aid the GOP/TP.

Ladies and Gentlemen, In This Other Corner, at 180 I.Q, Ralph Naaaaaaderrrrr.  On Monday, five-time presidential contender Ralph Nader called for a primary challenge to the President. Mr. Nader – whose nearly 100,000 Florida votes as a 3rd party candidate in the 2000 election caused George W. Bush to (eventually) be quasi-elected president – is seeking, six “recognizable, articulate “candidates. Nader does not want them to mount serious challenges to Obama, but to instead “rigorously debate his policy stands” on issues. Six candidates, mind you. According to an LA Times article: “Nader insists the purpose of his latest electoral effort is not to deny Obama the Democratic nomination, or undermine his chances in the general election against whomever the Republicans put up against the president. ‘Just the opposite,’ Nader said, speaking via telephone from Washington shortly after the recruitment effort was made public. ‘If [Obama’s] smart, he’ll welcome it, because nothing’s worse than an incumbent president slipping in the polls, being constantly on the defensive, being accused by supporters of having no backbone and running an unenthusiastically received campaign. That’s a prescription for defeat. He’s got a lack of enthusiasm with his base,’ Nader continued, ‘If he goes through a one-year presidential campaign with mind-numbing repetition, responding to crazed Republican positions, he is not going to activate his base. He will be put on the defensive, just the way he is now.’” When Mr. Nader begins a project, as all of us over 50s know, he’s like a feral dog with a tasty bone. Nothing will stop him, although I’m sure at least some Democratic party HQ types are quietly trying to do so.

A primary challenge to the “new” Obama would be both constructive . . . and destructive. Constructive by forcing Obama to move more passionately toward his Democratic base and its members’ interests, to refine his sense of what the Democratic party stands for; destructive in causing a sense of Presidential weakness and vulnerability just at the time he’s building and demonstrating strength while taking the offensive against the GOP with force. In addition – and something I didn’t recognize in my early August posting  – a primary battle, despite some positives, would be a major distraction from the work the President has at hand – defeating the GOP and the Tea Party, or at least neutralizing them. Either result would likely secure Obama’s re-election, and just might deflate the most dangerous political group of fanatics since the civil war.

GOP Congressional Leadership Letter to Ben Bernanke, as Subtle as a Baby Ruth in a Federal Reserve Punch Bowl

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

September 21, 2011

Why did the GOP congressional leadership send a snail-mail missive to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke? Haven’t they gotten the news about “e-mail”? Do they need pen pals that badly? Do they need a loan? Or what?

Imagine, these legendary GOP lunkheads suddenly looking for “ample data,” “quantifiable benefits,” “measurable outcomes,” and . . . evidence!  Characteristically, in their letter below, they offer none of those to back up their assertions about the effects of Fed policies. They offer nothing but naked – and uncharacteristically weaselly – claims that “the Federal Reserve’s actions have likely led to more fluctuations and uncertainty in our already weak economy,” and “further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy.” 

It’s not surprising this Gang of No would “instruct” the Fed this way. They speak for the bigger gang of GOP/TP Fed haters. In good times and in bad times they detest the Federal Reserve. Now, however, having consciously slowed the economy by blocking any meaningful – and temporary – fiscal stimulus, they must kneecap the Fed. And now. Why? To cut off monetary stimulus as well. They cannot win the White House in 2012 without a substantially weakening economy between now and November 2012. Moreover, the blatant, if hamfistedly muted, threat against Bernanke and the Fed inherent in their letter is as subtle as a Hustler billboard in Vatican Square.

One wonders, are they playing chicken with a depression? Are they actively courting one for political purposes alone? It seems unlikely to seek economic catastrophe, but, recall, they are batsh*t crazy. We ought never underestimate batsh*t, or crazy. Here’s their cris de coeur, dated September 19, 2011:

“Dear Chairman Bernanke,

It is our understanding that the Board Members of the Federal Reserve will meet later this week to consider additional monetary stimulus proposals. We write to express our reservations about any such measures. Respectfully, we submit that the board should resist further extraordinary intervention in the U.S. economy, particularly without a clear articulation of the goals of such a policy, direction for success, ample data proving a case for economic action and quantifiable benefits to the American people.

It is not clear that the recent round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve has facilitated economic growth or reduced the unemployment rate. To the contrary, there has been significant concern expressed by Federal Reserve Board Members, academics, business leaders, Members of Congress and the public. Although the goal of quantitative easing was, in part, to stabilize the price level against deflationary fears, the Federal Reserve’s actions have likely led to more fluctuations and uncertainty in our already weak economy.

We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy. Such steps may erode the already weakened U.S. dollar or promote more borrowing by overleveraged consumers. To date, we have seen no evidence that further monetary stimulus will create jobs or provide a sustainable path towards economic recovery.

Ultimately, the American economy is driven by the confidence of consumers and investors and the innovations of its workers. The American people have reason to be skeptical of the Federal Reserve vastly increasing its role in the economy if measurable outcomes cannot be demonstrated. We respectfully request that a copy of this letter be shared with each Member of the Board.

Sincerely, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. John Boehner, Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Eric Cantor”

After the Jobs Speech Scheduling Snafu the President Sharpens His Negotiation Skills

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

September 1, 2011

The President took it in the chin yesterday as he had to re-schedule his jobs speech from Wednesday night to Thursday night. Thanks to a competing GOP presidential primary debate on MSNBC Wednesday night, and John Boehner’s intervention, President Obama went from interfering with the GOP debate to interfering with opening night of the NFL season. So, this warm-up for the upcoming Fall legislative season the President was a setback. This morning, to rebound, and to practice his negotiation skills some more, Mr. Obama made a phone call to schedule an important event immediately following his Thursday night speech.

Since then, our sources deep in the White House kitchen learned that the President, to salve his wounds, thought a nice meal after his speech would do a great deal of good. So, he called the Capitol Rotunda restaurant of note, The Disgruntled Toad, for a reservation. The transcript of last night’s presidential negotiation with the Toad’s reservation manager (RESMAN) is set out below.

POTUS: Hello. Hello? Yes, Hi. This is President Obama. . .
RESMAN: Oh my gosh. Yes, sir. I want you to know I voted for you . . .
POTUS: Oh, well, thank you very . . .
RESMAN: Yes. Yes. I did. I very much support your efforts for the unemployed people . . .
POTUS: Yes. We do try . . . Well, I’m in a bit of a hurry . . . I’m having no success with getting the NFL to start its season on Friday night . . . And . . .
RESMAN: Oh yeah! You a football fan too? Me, I like the Redskins, have for decades. I remember when they won . . .
POTUS: Yeah, they’re pretty weak right now, but that’s just between you and me . . . If that ever got out . . .
RESMAN: Sure, sure . . . Are you over or under on their first game?
POTUS: Over.
RESMAN: Me too. If you don’t mind me asking, who’s your bookie, Mr. President?
POTUS: Biden.
RESMAN: Yeah. Of course.
POTUS: Once more, as I said, I’m in a big hurry. Rick Perry’s chasing Bernanke down 16th Street . . .
RESMAN: Yes, yes, I understand. So, Mr. President . . . may I call you Barack?
POTUS: No.
RESMAN: Yeah, I knew better. So, how may I help you, sir?

POTUS: I need a reservation for around 9:30 this coming Thursday night, after my big jobs speech to the House and Senate.
RESMAN: Yes, sir. We’re all looking forward to that speech.
POTUS: Oh, yes, thanks so much.
RESMAN: I was really P.O.’d when Boehner froze you out for Wednesday night. Since when does a congressman trump a president?
POTUS: Well, yes, but I didn’t want to cause trouble, so I moved it to Thursday.

RESMAN: Thursday. Yeah. But, sir, if I may be candid. Thursday is football night. The first real games of the regular season. Who do you think will be watching you? No offense intended, but … NFL football trumps a president every time.
POTUS: I’m taping my games.
RESMAN: Not me. I’ll be watching them real time! At least you didn’t preempt the games. If you had, you may as well resign. . .
POTUS: I agree. That’s all I’m hearing around the White House today. I always forget to check the t.v. schedule before committing to things. I thought that’s why I had Biden . . .
RESMAN: Biden, schmiden . . .
POTUS: Exactly.

RESMAN: Anyway, Mr. President, I’m a bit busy, and can’t tie up the line much longer. You said you wanted a table for 9:30 p.m. this Thursday night for after your big speech?
POTUS: Yes. Michelle and the kids will be there. That’s all who’ve committed thus far. Everyone else . . .
RESMAN: . . . wants to watch football, right? Yeah, if you’d called me first, I coulda told you . .
POTUS: Next time.
RESMAN: O.K., good. Well, sir, Thursday night is a big night here – first NFL game, and the bar’s gonna be overflow . . . tables are pretty much crammed up right now, sir . . .
POTUS: Are you telling me . . . ?
RESMAN: No. No. We’ll find some way to fit you in. But we’ll have to make cuts in reservations elsewhere before we can.
POTUS: But can’t you just make a little more room for us with another table? I could bring my own table . . .
RESMAN: No. I’m afraid we’re already out of space, and we can’t make more. I’m looking at the reservations list, and I just don’t see anywhere to cut. Most of our guests are regulars. They’d like to accommodate you, sir, as would I, but . . .
POTUS: Did I mention this was an emergency? I can’t find a table anywhere for Thursday. I even tried Baltimore. . .
RESMAN: Yeah, football night. I know.

POTUS: Did I mention that I’m the President of the United States?
RESMAN: Yes, sir, you did. I cannot tell you how honored I am to talk with you.
POTUS: And?
RESMAN: Well, let’s leave it like this. We’d love to accommodate your party Thursday night. And I like you. So I suppose I could cut here and there and make a little room for you. . . but right now I’m not in favor of that. You never know, though.
POTUS: Please.
RESMAN: O.K., O.K. Let’s say I find some room. I can cut and snip here and there. I’d have to seat your party in the kitchen, though . . . there’s already a few parties in there . . . But if I cut a couple of guests and promise them a free meal at a later time . . .
POTUS: Yes. Yes . . .

RESMAN: I’d have to bill you, sir, for those meals . . . You could put it on your credit card.
POTUS: That’s just fine! Good. Thank you so much.
RESMAN: And it’ll be painful to cut those guests from Thursday night. They’d been looking forward to it . . .
POTUS: Would a personal tour of the White House help smooth things over?
RESMAN: Yes, sir. I think that’d seal the deal. Oh . . . My wife, sir, she’s a great admirer and . .
POTUS: Yes, yes, of course, she may come too.
RESMAN: And you will – personally – give the tour? Just want to be sure about your commitment . . .

POTUS: I’ll sign anything. But can I count on those tables in the kitchen this Thursday night?
RESMAN: “Those” tables? I was thinking one table . . . How’d we get to “those tables,” plural?
POTUS: Well, Secret Service contingent. Four more tables. I just assumed . . .
RESMAN: That’ll entail a lot more very painful cuts, sir, people who already have reservations, sir.
POTUS: Well, the same deal goes. You feed them later, on me. I’ll put it on my credit card. Tour of the White House with me as the tour guide . . .
RESMAN: That’s a lot of mouths to feed. You sure your credit limit will cover it?
POTUS: Yes, yes, I’ll call Mastercard and get them to increase my debt limit . . .
RESMAN: Didn’t you do that last month?
POTUS: That was different.
RESMAN: I’m just reservation manager, Mr. President. Not sure I understand where you’ll get the money, but you are the President, and I’m willing to take a chance on you. O.K., we’ve got a deal. We’ll see you and your Secret Service folks this Thursday at 9:30 p.m.!
POTUS: Oh yes! God bless you.

RESMAN: One other thing, nothing special, but you say you’re the President. You sound like him, but voices can be faked.
POTUS: No, no, it’s me, really.
RESMAN: Well, yeah, like I just said, you say so. But just to be certain, on Thursday night, can you bring an I.D.?
POTUS: Sure, sure. What would you accept?
RESMAN: Your driver’s license . . . Oh, and your birth certificate.
POTUS: [click]

White House Debt Summit Tomorrow – Will Obama Cave or Pave?

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

July 6, 2011

Tomorrow morning President Obama hosts some friends and enemies at his big white house. They’ll powwow about bills for this and bills for that. Who will pay for them?  Will we pay for them at all? Can we even afford a weekend summer vacation in Arlington, Virginia, just across the Potomac River? The big question, though, suggested by an unsettling report by WaPo tonight, is whether President Obama is ready to sell the ranch, lock, stock, and barrel.

Cave Or Pave?  The Washington Post reported tonight that “President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue. . . As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.”

My fondest hope is that he doesn’t really want to put much of Medicare or Social Security on the table, if at all.  I can’t believe – I must not believe – he’d cave again as he did last December.  Or will he pave the way to GOP humiliation?

My gentler angels suggest that the Medicare/Social Security talk is a political gambit designed to highlight the GOP anti-tax jihad, and to further isolate them as the stumbling block to a budget (and debt ceiling) agreement. The President may be betting all-in that he can win on his home field when he meets congressional leaders at the White House tomorrow. 

There, afterwards, he can roll out the bully pulpit and go directly to the American people. Tomorrow, if the GOP resists even the slightest amount of tax revenue increases, he can herald it to a nation where many cannot understand why the wealthiest among them should not pay a fair share. GOP stickiness on taxes is well-known, of course. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), for example, agreed to discuss the elimination of tax breaks like the one for corporate jets, yet – remarkably – he refused to do so if an eliminated tax break resulted in any increase whatever to federal revenues. Here’s how much he’s willing to budge on increasing tax revenue: “If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes . . . we’re not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”

How generous of him.  In any event, even that “concession” – worthless as it is – was kiboshed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch “We look a lot like Greece already” McConnell (R-KY). 

The hypocrisy stuns, as always. Remember – as a commenter at Political Animal did:

“John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, John Kyle, etc.all voted for multiple debt limit increases and multiple budgets that included deficit spending (before we had a Democrat in the White House). If Mitch thinks we are like Greece, then he can look in a mirror and see the reason.”

Mirror, mirror, on the wall . . .

House GOP to Senate Dems: “Let Us Put You in A Brand New Budget Today!!”

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

February 25, 2011

“Since I Like You, I’ll Rent Ya Dis Gorgeous Auto-mo-bile Without Wheels for Four Billion Bucks a Month!”  That’s the kind of deal offered this week to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats by the House GOP to keep the government up and running for another month.  To call this a “budget impasse” is like finding an elephant in your living room and calling it a “pet.” This budget elephant did not arrive overnight, so some background follows.

The continuing appropriations bill (HR 1) to fund the government for the remainder of FY 2011 (through September 30, 2011) passed the House with a big yawn at 4:40 a.m. last Saturday.  When presented with HR 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released a statement that began like this: “Now that House Republicans have gotten this vote out of their system, I hope they will drop the threats of shutting down the government and work with the Senate on responsible cuts that allow our nation’s economic recovery to continue . . . “

That’s shorthand for “HR 1 is DOA.”  Reid reacted by tasking 38-year Senate appropriations committee veteran, Daniel Inouye (HI), now Chairman, to prepare “a clean Continuing Resolution that I [Reid] can bring to the floor next week. . . This bill will include the $41 billion in budget cuts that Democrats and Republicans agreed to in December, and will keep the government running for 30 days while both sides can negotiate a common-sense, long-term solution.”

Up Your Cuts!  Although Reid indicated the short-term resolution would include the $41 billion in budget cuts that Democrats and Republicans agreed to in December, savvy observers say that’s not likely. For example, during a press conference with Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “We know the one month levels won’t be permanent. They just allow for a neutral level while we negotiate.” “Neutral level” would seem to rule out those $41 Billion in cuts. Reid did not distance himself from that.

Additionally, Reid has said that he will not accept any of the riders or changes in legislation included in the House bill, such as policy measures that defund Planned Parenthood or rescind the EPA’s authority to regulate pollution. This stance itself is key, since the GOP-dominated House added these riders to enact, through the back door of a Continuing Resolution, critical portions of its social and deregulation agenda. The Senate Democrats will have nothing of this, nor will President Obama (at least that’s what both have thus far stated, yet recall the cave-in for the Bush tax cuts extension last December).

Right Turn Only!   In any event, House RepubliCutters have their own plans and they don’t include Harry Reid. Last Tuesday, replying to Reid, John Boehner communicated, “If Senator Reid refuses to bring [HR 1] to a vote, then the House will pass a short-term bill to keep the government running – one that also cuts spending.”

The spending cuts Boehner refers to are a prorated share of the $61 Billion in cuts already included in the House-passed HR 1. Yes, the same cuts that Reid has already rejected. So, now, Reid will accept them?  Basically, Boehner’s saying, “I’m off to the golf course. Call me when you come to my senses.” Reid will not and should not. The House GOP price for “compromise” is the pro-rated share of $61 Billion for those thirty days of the short-term CR. . . Such a deal! 

So, within nine days of a government shutdown, both sides seem to be going places, but not in the usual sense of the phrase. Firstly, they fled the crucial work here in D.C. for a weeklong holiday, officially known as a “Constituent Work Week,” i.e. seven days of grab-handing, rubber-chicken-eating, Boy-Scout-saluting, and money-grubbing.  Secondly, when they return, it’s certain Dems and GOPs be going in opposite directions until the last possible moment when the last poll is released rating the public’s feelings about a government shutdown.  Both sides have a lot to lose.  Let’s not forget Newt Gingrich’s shutdown gambit . . . Who’ll blink first this time?

A Call for Budget Bipartisanship! Let’s Stop Express Mailing Empty Containers!

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

February 24, 2011

Why not schedule a vote on this today, Speaker Boehner?! Senator Reid, here’s something you can stand up for! That is, if you were in town . . . Ah well, when you get back, make the item below – from the President’s 2012 budget proposal – a separate bill and pass it immediately. Rally the country!

Below – it’s not a joke – is an item from the TERMINATIONS, REDUCTIONS, AND SAVINGS portion of the proposed 2012 federal budget. And it’s a test of the so-called new age of civility. Can we all agree on this provision?

OTHER SAVINGS: STOP THE EXPRESS DELIVERY OF EMPTY CONTAINERS Department of Agriculture

     “A Department of Agriculture (USDA) employee within the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) stated that ‘each day many laboratory samples are sent out through Fed Ex express, next day service. While it is important to get our samples to the lab as quickly as possible, it is not as important to get the container back. The laboratory sends the sample box back to the originator by the same express method.’ The employee suggests that FSIS could save money by having those boxes shipped back through regular ground service. USDA agrees and is asking FSIS to ship empty sample containers by standard service.

     FSIS currently collects approximately 125,000 samples per year by sending laboratory sample packages from the inspection facility to one of three Agency field labs. The Agency estimates that it costs $15.00 per round trip or a total cost of $1,875,000 for shipping alone. If the Agency started shipping back the laboratory sample packages by ground, it believes it could save approximately $350,000 in 2012.

Justification. The assumptions are that the one-way return of the five-pound package costs an average of $6.14 to ship overnight and if shipped by ground, the cost falls to an average of $3.48 or a savings of $2.66 per shipment. This program will be launched in January 2011 providing an estimated 2011 savings of $150,000.”

“Justification . . . DUH!”  We all applaud the USDA employee who thought of this – really, they ought to provide his/her name. I’m going to ask USDA whether a monetary award followed . . . and if their budget permitted any awards at all . . .

Come what may, how about passing along the savings to the 99ers, i.e., those out of work for more than 99 weeks and ineligible for further unemployment insurance benefits?  Now there’s a non-starter, eh, Speaker Boehner?

Incoming Speaker Boehner’s House Threatened by Termites

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

 January 6, 2011

Does he have the punching power?

John Boehner Is In The House!  Ohio Republican John Boehner, sworn in yesterday as the Speaker of the House for the 112th Congress, has come a long way from his simple beginnings in Cincinnati as the second of 11 siblings. Raised in near poverty in a two bedroom house, and forced to share a single tanning bed with his sibs, John Boehner – now Speaker Boehner – is third in the line of presidential succession. Boehner’s well-known work ethic has paid off, but more work lies ahead as he seeks to repair the damage wrought by those Socialist Democrats. He and his fellow Republicans look upon their rivals like the Omega Theta Pi’s viewed the Deltas in Animal House.

As Speaker, he must manage a House, reclaimed through November’s GOP triumph, that needs some fix-up. Democrats, as usual, left a few dozen beer bottles in the sofas, cigarette burns in the carpet, condoms in the trophy case, and a few togas on the floor – but nothing truly threatening to the clubhouse’s foundation.

Never Underestimate the Power of Termites.  It’s the possible damage lurking in the months ahead, however, that is perhaps Speaker Boehner’s most challenging problem. The moribund-on-a-good-day Democrats are little more than an almost supernaturally timid gaggle of pols one may insult with careless abandon without fear of retort.

Just arriving this week and still searching for apartments and low priced diners, are the real dangerous folks challenging Speaker Boehner’s House, and his splintering GOP. This fifth column marching into the House represents a growing number of GOP malcontents. Among them are the rightest of the right wing. Some, they claim, are incorruptible, i.e., the “Constitutionalists.” Almost all of them want to strip the federal government to its underpants. SAnd, boy, do they hate taxes, with or without representation. Yes indeed, they are the Tea Partiers. Numbering nearly 100 House members (approximately 43 of them in the freshman class), these folks wanna rock the House! Bigtime. And imagine, they are too far right for John Boehner’s taste!

Aggressive Tea Partiers, like termites in attack mode, promise to munch on the joists unless treated with respect bordering on worship, which for most of them should be well beyond their “newbie” status. Given their propensity for stubbornness, though, if the Speaker is not careful, they may bring the roof down, with Republicans and Democrats, on the front lawn, mouths agape as their cozy living arrangement collapses.

Party Hearty! As we’ve all observed for almost two years, Tea Partiers view themselves as true believers, in their understanding of the Constitution, the role (if any) of the federal government, succumbs to their allegiance to the sovereignty of the states. They carry a hefty amount of self-purity into a House not known for squared corners or dust-free tabletops. As self-proclaimed purists they most likely will view legislative rules only insofar as they advance their own rather rigid beliefs, and squirm when confronted with the House legislative pecking order and seniority system. As second term Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz stated it when he refused to join the Michele Bachmann-inspired Tea Party Caucus,

“Structure and formality are the exact opposite of what the tea party is, and if there is an attempt to put structure and formality around it, or to co-opt it by Washington, D.C., it’s going to take away from free-flowing nature of the true tea party movement.”

Tea Party Caucus initiation ceremony

We can expect the Tea Party’s “free flowing nature” to resemble an Animal House toga party.

The array of formal and informal House rules are long-standing principles of engagement to protect precedents that, theoretically at least, benefit all club members and often cool off hotter heads. After a brief honeymoon period, these House rules very likely will rankle Tea Partiers who want to quickly get on with it. These rules stand like iron doors to protect an inner sanctum where Republicans and Democrats with ample seniority canoodle and, too often, conspire with the likes of lobbyists and high income bracketeers. Can termites chew through iron? 

“All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.” Mark Twain.  Tea Partiers, among many other of the 87 new GOP House members, are confident and in a hurry. New Tea Party Congressman Allen West of Florida, whose wealth-ridden district 22 stretches from Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale, expressed some of this the other day on NPR when asked about health care reform. The newly minted Congressman spoke of free enterprise solutions and had this to say about about the Obama-inspired health care law:

“But I can tell you, you know, with my limited education, I can probably package that in five to 10 pages. The other 2,490 pages, that’s what we need to focus on.”

Now that’s confidence! “With my limited education,” indeed. 

Another Tea Party freshman, Rep. Frank Guinta, (R-NH), promised Diane Sawyer, “We will not spend more than we take in. Our families live by that rule.” Ignoring the odd conflation of morals with macroeconomics, and his ready illogic that a family budget is equal to a federal budget, Congressman Guinta displayed that earnestness, forthrightness, and moral certainty so common among Tea Partiers. Be cautious here: it’s true, these virtues have too often been built upon a foundation of ignorance, misinformation, grievance, and “Limbaughnian” propaganda, but that doesn’t blunt their importance and power among the Tea Party constituency.  We’re in “belief-based fact” territory here. 

How this will all play out for Tea Partiers during the daily grind of lawmaking will be both interesting and disturbing to watch. Interesting because despite disagreeing with their proposals, one can’t help rooting for a group of people who really believe they can get things done in D.C. and remain unreservedly aloof from the Monopoly game called legislating. Fascinating too will be Speaker Boehner’s approach to a concerted group so far to his right that this stalwart and very arch conservative seems in comparison a Mahatma Gandhi. How will Speaker Boehner fare? Who will he turn to? How strongly will the Tea Party push him? Against all this on his right wing, will he be able to cobble together anything remotely resembling a unified GOP for the 2012 election cycle?

Tea Party performance in the 112th Congress may well have its disturbing scenes as well.  Can they succeed in some of their wilder and, frankly, disgraceful plans like refusing to lift a fiscal finger to assist the unemployed, or cutting benefits and tax breaks for the poorest among us?  Will they succeed in capturing enough media attention – thus far, it’s Tea Party all the time at Fox and other major networks – to, God spare us, successfully launch the likes of a Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul, or Sarah Palin on a third party cruise in 2012?

Or, quite to the contrary, will the trappings that ensnared other “true believers” of the right wing like Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich ensnare and defeat naive or acquisitive Tea Partiers in their first exposure to the lobbying boodle machines on K Street?  After all, free enterprise touting legislators have been ensnared before in the act of offering their power as a marketable commodity that may be freely contracted out. 

This Tea Party, though, is different, more out of control than other iterations, more slack jawed. They are primal. Watch them carefully; take them seriously.