Tag Archives: Boehner

Political Rants

Lemmington D.C.

My dad never said it to me, but growing up I heard it said by adults to impressionable young people many times. The conversation would go something like, “But, dad… all my friends are going. Why can’t I?” And dad (or whoever) would say, “Well, if they all jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?” It’s such a staple of parentage as to be cliche, but I’m not certain the G.O.P. class of 2010 was ever confronted with that type of challenge when they were in short pants. (Perhaps they are still in short pants – I’ve only ever seen most of them from the waist up.)

There’s nothing particularly unique about this attitude. It is, however, being applied in a very, very destructive way right about now. I will be charitable and suggest that perhaps many of these freshman House members (and some of their more senior colleagues) simply do not understand the gravity of the situation. Having said that, I’m going to do what people who say “having said that” inevitably do and say the complete opposite. I think it’s very possible that they know their failure to raise the debt ceiling is going to result in disaster, and that they hope that will gain them political points and cost the president more than a few. The Norquist-endorsed promise never to contemplate higher taxes under any circumstances is a very attractive position for conservatives and watery republicans like Boehner. It’s very, very shiny. Also, the consequences of breaking that promise are painful for them to contemplate. So …. over the cliff we go!

I’ve gotten agitated about this impasse over the last couple of weeks, as some of you readers know, and last night I took it upon myself to write my representative, Richard Hanna (R-NY) and ask him to be the adult in the room, show some leadership, and get his caucus to stop using the debt ceiling as a cheap bargaining chip. It was a respectful, serious letter – very unlike me. This is the response, in essence:

I voted no on H.R. 1954 which would implement the President’s request to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. The bill did not include any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do not support raising the debt limit without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do, however, understand that raising the debt limit will eventually be necessary and I hope that when the time comes it is accompanied by reforms that put our nation on a path to long-term fiscal responsibility. This will ensure that the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and that the United States maintains a solid credit rating, boosting our fragile economic recovery and job creation.

Okay, so he’s another lemming, basically. He supported the efforts of his caucus to politicize the debt ceiling vote, and though he admits that raising it “will eventually be necessary,” he hopes it will be accompanied by “spending cuts or budgetary reforms”. He then expresses the hope that the austerity measures he advocates will bring about the credit security that his conference’s game of chicken – which he apparently supports – is threatening to blow to smithereens.

This isn’t the first time otherwise sensible legislators have followed wingnuts off a cliff. But it just may prove to be among the most disastrous.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Money down.

Not sure whether or not the government will have been shut down by cartoon pirates by the time you read this, but there’s a fair chance of it. It never ceases to amaze me how deeply insane our national legislature can become when there are no effective checks placed upon it. And trust me, there are no effective checks. We have a bicameral legislature in a federal system that divides power into three branches. With respect to initially passing legislation, really only two of those branches are relevant; the Democrats control the executive branch and the upper house of the legislative branch, the Republicans the lower house of the legislature. So who calls the shots? The Republicans, of course, by default.

Boehner started negotiations on the current fiscal year budget with a demand for $30 billion or so in cuts. The Democrats have acceded to that and then some. So now, naturally, Boehner’s caucus wants $60 billion in cuts, plus the passage of a bunch of extreme right riders that defund the EPA, banish Planned Parenthood from any federal support whatsoever, and so on. This is what you get when you give them what they want. Like any good blackmailer, they always want more. Democrats should have bitten the bullet during the lame duck and passed a reasonable spending resolution before the log went into the spokes. But there was a lack of spine then, and it’s still lacking now.

Does anyone in America remember the 2010 election? Is it just my imagination, or did these tea-party and mainstream Republicans ride around the country promising that they were going to focus like a laser beam on fiscal issues and on the mutually-exclusive values of job creation and deficit elimination? Bad as that was, I believe people expected to get that. What they didn’t expect, for example, was an all-out vendetta against Planned Parenthood, which provides vital health services – most notably cervical cancer screenings, breast exams, etc. – to women in poor communities all across the country. None of the federal funds sent to Planned Parenthood cover abortion. (That’s the product of a far earlier Democratic cave, frankly.) To reprise Keith Olbermann – Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?  

As with Scott Walker, John Kasich, and other new G.O.P. governors, Boehner and company’s legislative agenda – contrary to what they claim – has little to do with balancing budgets and everything to do with scoring political points with their deluded, misogynistic, crypto-racist electoral base – essentially, the five psychos you see planted outside the local PP clinic every freaking day. There’s no point in trying to please them.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Money speaks.

What is the best thing that can be said about the House majority in the 112th Congress after its first full day of business? My vote would be for the fact that they seem to have the seeds of self-destruction sown deep in their DNA. It’s a teeth-clenching joy to behold, frankly. I’m particularly enamored of the fact that, in the days leading up to the session’s opening, they were swarming the swank venues of Washington D.C., being celebrated by lobbyists, plied with drink, etc. – the whole Abramoff/Delay machine back in action once again. Two of their number – Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) – were so immersed in the never-ending delight of fundraising that they hilariously neglected to make it to the Capitol for the swearing in ceremony, opting instead to raise their right hands to a nearby T.V. screen at the bar/restaurant of choice. Good start, guys.

One wishes that were the full extent of the madness – just the Keystone Cop-like clumsiness – but it goes much deeper than that. The corporations that poured money into this last campaign will be getting just what they paid for: a legislature devoted to ensuring full federal compliance with their legislative and regulatory priorities. They got some love from the 111th Congress, to be sure, particularly in light of what has happened to the economy and the environment over the past two years, but this is a prize of an entirely different order of magnitude. This is a paid-for House, pure and simple.

It is now clear the degree to which corporate money was a factor in the closing days of the 2010 election cycle. Though it ran consistently high, post Citizens United, there was a significant spike at the end. Without question, it is now payback time. They’ve gotten a downpayment in the form of the recent tax compromise legislation. Now the focus will be on disabling the few progressive successes we’ve seen in the last session – aspects of financial reform, such as the Consumer Protection Bureau, parts of the health care legislation, and so on. It is incumbent upon us to press the President, the House minority party, and Democrats in the Senate to hold onto these modest gains.

It is also incumbent upon us to take this lesson to heart – elections have consequences. If we sit them out, someone will still win. And that someone is usually a tremendous tool.

luv u,

jp