If Hatch, Lee, Chaffetz, Bishop reject late debt deal, time to dump them

It may have been very late and after a lot of dysfunction, but Congress and the president have reached a deal on the debt limit. Republicans have won 90-plus percent of the battle. No need to trust me on that; look at the faces of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, members of the Progressive Caucus or listen or read Paul Krugman. There’s $900 billion in an immediate debt limit increase and $917 billion in cuts. There’s no tax increases, although President Obama holds out hope that a debt commission will one day implement them. Future debt limit increases will need strict Gramm-Rudmann-ish deal. (Read)

Even though members of the Black Congressional Caucus call it a “Satan sandwich,” there will be enough Democrats to push this bill through and avert a debt default if Republicans don’t engage in a circular firing squad and kill the deal because it doesn’t have that extra 10 percent that makes it a total victory. If Hatch, Lee, Chaffetz, and Bishop reject this late debt deal, it’s time to dump them.

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to If Hatch, Lee, Chaffetz, Bishop reject late debt deal, time to dump them

  1. Lang says:

    I would like to know two things.
    1st What was your scientific basis for the 90% figure?
    2nd What kind of face evaluation contraption are you using for your clairvoyant understanding of Nancy Pelosi?
    Does the system that you use to analyze Paul Krugman somehow just sync up with the Pelosi contraption?

    It seems that Barack Obama, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Krugman and every American wins. Americans aught heal this selfish desire of rushing to grab victories for personal grandeur.

    America won. Is that not enough for you? Many human beings with totally different perspectives sat down, and found cause to trust each other in enabling the guided the hand of providence. Shame on anyone for labeling this as a victory for anyone but the American citizens. Would it not be more productive if we found more places to compromise, and this was a platform we could continue to grow from?

    As long as people keep the division in the Untied States there will be a division. Sympathy, empathy, and trust are a start. Please do not take those concepts selfishly twist them to serve a personal narrative.
    God Bless America

  2. TV says:

    I think Dog might agree with your general tenor. In fact, I’d say HIS point was pretty clearly that, yes, this is a vistory for Americans and the Tea Party-scared, radically right-of-late leaning Utah Republican congressmembers better see it for what it is: a victory for Americans in which they also can claim most of the spoils.

    I agree with him. And I’m pissed. I think the GOP did get — fine, approximately — 90 percent of its wishes. OK, fine, let’s say “most,” not 90 percent.

  3. TV says:

    Hmmmmm, Doug — with a “u.” A typo, not a commentary!!!!!

  4. Owain says:

    I think the following quote from “Full Metal Jacket” is closer to the mark.

    “In other words, it’s a huge shit sandwich, and we’re all gonna have to take a bite.”

  5. Bob Becker says:

    What this situation required, some time ago, was presidential leadership. When the Bush tax cuts were scheduled to zero out [that was part of the bill creating them, included because pretending they'd disappear ten years down the road was the only way to lower the projected cost sufficiently to get Republican deficit hawks to sit still for the bill] all the president had to do was refuse to re-enact them. Had he simply done nothing, and as leader [ostensibly anyway] of his party in congress insisted they go along with him, the projected deficit would now be about $1.5 trillion less than it is.

    But we didn’t get presidential leadership. Instead, we got wet-finger-in-the-air truckling to the spineless Democratic congressional leadership terrified about their being accused of raising taxes. We got a president caving on fiscal responsibility for momentary [and it turns out entirely elusive] polling gains.

    And now he… and his Congressional spineless followers, and the nation… are paying the price. President Obama was a very effective campaigner. But what the nation needed in the middle of the economic crisis President Bush and his Congressional aiders and abeters brought down upon the Republic was bold Presidential leadership. We didn’t get it.

    Unless the wing nut right picks a true loon to head the ticket [true loons would include at this point Cain, Perry, Bachman or Palin], I think the Presidential election is safely in GOP hands, barring some dramatic unforeseen event.

    • zarnicki says:

      Mike Lee is a Tea Party Terrorist who’s minority party is holding the American People hostage. Time to run a raid on this idiot and bury him at polls. Time to end the existence of the Tea Party for once again our country has to suffer at the whims of a minority organization.

      • Owain says:

        Minority party in Utah? More like he is merely enthusiastically representing his constituents. Good for him.

        Good luck at the polls with that.

        • Bob Becker says:

          I don’t pretend to be an expert on Utah Republican thinking [politely so-called], but as I recall it, at the time Lee won the nomination at the GOP convention here, the polls indicated GOP voters preferred Sen. Bennet, and that there was a substantial disconnect between the considerably harder-right contingent that showed at the caucus and the generality of the GOP electorate in the state.

          • Owain says:

            I think you remember incorrectly, Bob. This poll, for example, showed that Bennett was in big trouble heading into the Republican caucus vote. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/poll_sen_bob_bennett_r-utah_in.html

            Polls are a risky way to try to predict elections, anyway. Polls can be slanted. Polls can be innaccurate (Remember the polls that predicted that Dewey would defeat Truman, resulting in the embarrassing newspaper headline Truman displayed following his win).

            Bennett, a sitting incumbant, came in third in the caucus vote. I think that was unprecedented, but I know it certainly reflected my displeasure with the man during the elections, and the displeasure of all the conservatives I knew as well.

            Bennett was voted out of office because he forgot he was sent to Washington to represent the majority of voters in the state of Utah, pure and simple.

  6. KC says:

    Whichever way the vote goes today, we still have lots of work to do to reign in our out of control federal government. None of us would spend the way they spend. Our Utah legislators have not spent the way they spend. They need to cut the size and scope of the programs we have let them quietly accumulate.
    We have been “divided and conquered (almost)” but there is still time to rescue our freedom which is slipping away. The states must check the federal government. We must have a balanced budget.
    We also need Fair Trade to bring back manufacturing jobs.

    • Bob Becker says:

      Hope you’ve noticed, KC, that nearly all of the GOP candidates for the presidency — all of whom are screeching about runaway federal spending — are all also demanding significant increases in defense spending. E.g. from an article just posted in the SE:

      And they all believe defense spending is, if anything, too low. “Right now America is, based on its defense spending, well on the road to weakness,” writes Romney.

      “Defense spending is now being squeezed out of the budget because of the explosion in entitlement spending,” Perry complains.

      Link here: http://www.standard.net/stories/2011/08/01/it-truth-universally-acknowledged-politician-seeking-presidency-must-be-want-memo

      • Owain says:

        As long as we have troops in Iraq, and wars in Afghanistan, and now Libya, given the deployment schedule we are demanding of our armed forces, defense spending should be increased, not decreased.

        • Bob Becker says:

          Even as we decrease out military presence in those places?

          And the increase in military spending just voted by the same GOP controlled house now caterwauling about excessive government spending did not merely raise expenditures to deal with troops in and returning from Iraq and Afghanistan [expenditures on which we would both agree I think], it significantly increase funding for other expenditures as well, including new weapons system development, etc.

          Since defense spending is such a large part of our continuing annual spending, and since we’ve all seen year after year after year, stories about huge cost over-runs [and performance under-runs so-to-speak] on Pentagon projects, seems to me GOP budget hawks ought to be looking with a stony and gimlet eye at defense spending too as a fruitful area for significant trimming in the name of efficiency.

          But it seems not.

          I notice that Perry and Romney, the two quoted above, both come from states with huge defense contract and military spending in their states.

          Imagine that.

          • Owain says:

            “Even as we decrease out military presence in those places? ”

            Get back to me when we are out, and we’ll see where we stand then. (Remember Guantanamo?) Until then, military cuts are unwise.

            “… it [the spending authorization] significantly increase funding for other expenditures as well, including new weapons system development, etc.

            We are wearing out our existing systems at a break neck pace, given the committments of the past decade. If we want to have a military equipped with more than rocks to throw when they are needed next (and given the state of the world, they will probably be needed again sooner rather than later), yes, we need new systems to replace existing systems.

            If the spending is necessary, as I believe it is, then it is irrelevant who recommends that spending, is it not?

            Not sure what flavor of logical fallacy you are guilty of there, (red herring maybe), but it’s still a logical fallacy.

  7. Doug Gibson says:

    Chaffetz is a no vote, says Daily Herald, and Hatch is no, accd to DesNews.

  8. rick stewart says:

    … there are two ways to fight a deficit: cut spending and increase revenue … we need to do both: cut spending and raise taxes … either one by itself will not do it.

    • Owain says:

      If you include raising taxes on everyone, to be fair, sure.

    • hawg says:

      boy, I sure wish I could just raise my hourly wage to fix my budget woes at home. nope, I’m stuck with simply cutting back my spending.

      and the government cannot do exactly that, why?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>