PDA

View Full Version : Economics Boehner, Republicans shift back to Balanced Budget Amendment


Taco John
07-29-2011, 01:50 PM
Support shifts as Boehner adds balanced-budget amendment
By The Hill Staff - 07/29/11 02:08 PM ET

House Republicans will link passage of a balanced-budget amendment to Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) last-ditch debt-ceiling plan, which GOP lawmakers said would move the measure to passage in a high-stakes vote later on Friday.

Republican lawmakers seemed confident after a vital Friday morning conference meeting that the tweaked Boehner proposal would pass muster with a restive conference.

“I’m smiling,” Boehner said after perhaps the most crucial conference meeting of his speakership.

GOP members said Boehner’s revised framework would still pave the way for the $14.3 trillion debt limit to be raised through the 2012 election in two chunks.

It would also mandate that the second hike of the ceiling could occur only occur after a balanced-budget amendment passed both chambers of Congress and was sent to the states for ratification. Previously, a vote on such an amendment was all that was required for that second increase, which under the Boehner plan would likely be necessary early next year.

But in adding the balanced-budget amendment and postponing the vote on Boehner’s initial measure, several GOP lawmakers warned their party had given up valuable leverage to Senate Democrats in the final days of talks to raise the debt ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline.

“The fact of the matter is, because of the dust-up yesterday, we’ve lost some leverage,” Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), a close Boehner ally, said after Friday’s conference meeting.

“You could say it’s remote, but there was a chance that the package yesterday, if it had been successfully voted out, would have been adopted by the Senate and signed by the president. I think everybody acknowledges that’s not going to happen with this piece of legislation.”

A spokeswoman for House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in a post on Twitter said the House could vote between 5:45 and 6:15 p.m. on the measure.

The bill is likely to meet a quick death in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had already announced this week that all 53 members of his caucus opposed Boehner’s plan. That was before it required the Senate to pass a balanced-budget amendment in the coming months.

Even before news of the Boehner tweak started leaking out, Reid and President Obama were urging Republicans to join with them to find a bipartisan deal before the Aug. 2 deadline. The Senate majority leader also said Friday that he would bring his competing debt-ceiling plan, which would raise the debt ceiling through next year’s election, to the floor for a likely weekend vote no matter what the House did.

“There are plenty of ways out of this mess, but we are almost out of time,” the president said in a White House appearance. “We need to reach a compromise by Tuesday so that our country will have the ability to pay its bills on time, as we always have.”

Republicans’ Friday turnaround came about just hours after GOP leaders scrapped a scheduled Thursday vote, choosing to regroup this morning after pizza-fueled arm-twisting sessions left them shy of the necessary support.

Several lawmakers who were undecided or leaning against backing the Boehner plan quickly jumped onboard Friday morning – including Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), Jeff Landry (R-La.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). In the end, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) predicted the balanced-budget amendment change would bring 10 to 20 more GOP members on board.

“The American people have strongly renewed their November calls of bringing fiscal sanity to Washington,” Landry, a Tea Party-backed freshman, said in a statement. “I am blessed to be a vehicle driving their wishes to fruition.”

Even some of South Carolina’s GOP members, such as Reps. Tim Scott and Trey Gowdy, appeared much more open to getting behind the Speaker’s plan. Some Republicans had become frustrated with the Palmetto State’s Republicans, who are strongly influenced by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

“It's moving in the right direction,” said Scott, who had been a definite "no" on Thursday, but all but said he would support the Boehner plan on Friday. “The BBA addition is very important.”

“A lot of people are very impressed with the Speaker's commitment to working with his conference, and that will be reflected in the vote," Scott said.

Some Republican members, while vowing to remain behind the Boehner plan, acknowledged the inability to move Thursday on the initial proposal would cost the party.

“We burned a timeout yesterday,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark), adopting a football metaphor. “We didn’t have enough players on the field. Period.”

“I think it’s an understandable conclusion that a lot of people can make, that we’ve weakened our position a little bit. Can we be back on the offense? I think we will do everything we can to do that today,” Womack, who remains a supporter of the Boehner plan, added.

In fact, some GOP senators appeared to agree with that take, with minority whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) saying Friday on Fox News that passing a balanced-budget amendment is "probably a bridge too far in the Democrat-controlled Senate.”

As it stands, the Boehner framework would still pair a $900 billion increase in the debt limit with $917 billion in cuts and condition a subsequent increase in borrowing authority on congressional enactment of a $1.8 trillion deficit-reduction package.

Republican leadership had already scheduled two balanced-budget amendments for votes this week, including a version that attracted significant Democratic support in the mid-1990s and a stricter measure that would require two-thirds approval from both chambers to raise taxes and cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product.

The change also won plaudits from the Club for Growth, a key conservative group that had been strongly opposed to the Boehner framework.

House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (D-Calif.) has also introduced Reid’s proposal – which the Congressional Budget Office said would cut $2.2 trillion over a decade – as a possible backup plan, with just days left until the debt-ceiling deadline.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/174339-gop-adds-balanced-budget-amendment-to-win-passage-of-debt-plan-

Cave Johnson
07-29-2011, 01:53 PM
Flailing....

HonestChieffan
07-29-2011, 01:55 PM
If Reid wants to veto anything they do, pass it, send it over, shut off the lights and go home.

Let Obama and Reid wallow in the shit they have created.

Donger
07-29-2011, 01:55 PM
Can someone explain why Democrats are so opposed to a BBA?

HonestChieffan
07-29-2011, 01:57 PM
Can someone explain why Democrats are so opposed to a BBA?


More importantly...why are they afraid to vote on it? I suspect it would die a rapid death with Rep and Dem votes against it...But Reid wont allow even a vote....

Taco John
07-29-2011, 01:59 PM
Can someone explain why Democrats are so opposed to a BBA?

Because it forces them to exercise fiscal restraint. It is really as simple as that.

mlyonsd
07-29-2011, 02:17 PM
Can someone explain why Democrats are so opposed to a BBA?It means they have to pass a budget. And one thing history has taught us is democrats don't like budgets.

petegz28
07-29-2011, 02:19 PM
It means they have to pass a budget. And one thing history has taught us is democrats don't like budgets.

What do you mean they don't like budgets? They have passed 2 in the last 4 years!!! ROFL

mlyonsd
07-29-2011, 02:23 PM
The best reps can do now is sing to the choir asking why the dems are afraid of a balanced budget. Liken it to a family not running on a budget, etc.

Cave Johnson
07-29-2011, 02:24 PM
The best reps can do now is sing to the choir asking why the dems are afraid of a balanced budget. Liken it to a family not running on a budget, etc.

THIS ANALOGY HAS NEVER BEEN MADE BEFORE

mlyonsd
07-29-2011, 02:26 PM
THIS ANALOGY HAS NEVER BEEN MADE BEFOREDuh.

Cave Johnson
07-29-2011, 02:30 PM
Duh.

My point is, people understand the U.S. debt is a different beast than household debt.

Does it need to be constrained before it reached catastrophic levels, absolutely. But it's not the time bomb it's being made out to be.

My preference would be for Congress to work on jobs (tax incentives, rate flattening, etc.). But that might actually do some good and improve Obama's reelection chances, and we know who that would hurt politically.

FishingRod
07-29-2011, 02:33 PM
A serious question. What would the difference be between a balanced budget amendment and the debt ceiling, Since the debt ceiling is in reality a joke? Is there really anything to stop congress from presenting a balanced budget and then for this emergency only blowing past that budget 247 times a year? You know for emergencies like wars, natural disasters more booze needed for parties at the white house. Things like that.

vailpass
07-29-2011, 02:34 PM
Worst. Administration. Ever.

Amnorix
07-29-2011, 02:35 PM
Can someone explain why Democrats are so opposed to a BBA?

Do we really think it's wise to say that the federal government can never borrow money? EVER?

So if WWII comes around again, no borrowing.

If there is a massive recession, no borrowing, so as people lose jobs and tax receipts are decreasing, so is government spending, which turns into a vicious cycle.

People can borrow, so why can't governments?

I do admit, however, that the utter inability of the current Congress/President to deal with this situation in the face of an actual default is so disheartening that maybe a balanced budget amendment is necessary as the only way to ensure that we don't dig ourselves an impossible hole. The lesser of two evils as it were.

I would have hoped that we're electing adults who understand that indefinite and indiscriminate borrowing at all phases of the economic cycle is EXTREMELY unwise. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

patteeu
07-29-2011, 02:36 PM
THIS ANALOGY HAS NEVER BEEN MADE BEFORE

Flailing....

Thanks for the fresh take.

Donger
07-29-2011, 02:37 PM
Do we really think it's wise to say that the federal government can never borrow money? EVER?

So if WWII comes around again, no borrowing.

If there is a massive recession, no borrowing, so as people lose jobs and tax receipts are decreasing, so is government spending, which turns into a vicious cycle.

People can borrow, so why can't governments?

I do admit, however, that the utter inability of the current Congress/President to deal with this situation in the face of an actual default is so disheartening that maybe a balanced budget amendment is necessary as the only way to ensure that we don't dig ourselves an impossible hole. The lesser of two evils as it were.

I would have hoped that we're electing adults who understand that indefinite and indiscriminate borrowing at all phases of the economic cycle is EXTREMELY unwise. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

From what I've been reading, the BBA that is being proposed allows for exceptions in the case of national emergencies or war.

mlyonsd
07-29-2011, 02:38 PM
My point is, people understand the U.S. debt is a different beast than household debt.

Does it need to be constrained before it reached catastrophic levels, absolutely. But it's not the time bomb it's being made out to be.

My preference would be for Congress to work on jobs (tax incentives, rate flattening, etc.). But that might actually do some good and improve Obama's reelection chances, and we know who that would hurt politically.My point was republicans have painted themselves into a corner and I don't see many other arguments they can make to the public if this thing goes into default.

If they had passed yesterday's Boehner bill I think they could have made the dems blink first. Well, lets just say it was their last chance at making them blink.

Cave Johnson
07-29-2011, 02:40 PM
Thanks for the fresh take.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W2YK7pADmWU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Discuss Thrower
07-29-2011, 02:41 PM
Do we really think it's wise to say that the federal government can never borrow money? EVER?

So if WWII comes around again, no borrowing.

If there is a massive recession, no borrowing, so as people lose jobs and tax receipts are decreasing, so is government spending, which turns into a vicious cycle.

People can borrow, so why can't governments?

I do admit, however, that the utter inability of the current Congress/President to deal with this situation in the face of an actual default is so disheartening that maybe a balanced budget amendment is necessary as the only way to ensure that we don't dig ourselves an impossible hole. The lesser of two evils as it were.

I would have hoped that we're electing adults who understand that indefinite and indiscriminate borrowing at all phases of the economic cycle is EXTREMELY unwise. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Or they can come up with something like you cannot borrow more debt from one fiscal year to the next. Say in 2013 the government has to borrow $6 trillion. In 2014 they cannot borrow more than that, and in 2015 and beyond they can only borrow in decreasing amounts.

But then again what do I know. I've only known to live within my means in my life.

HonestChieffan
07-29-2011, 02:42 PM
My point was republicans have painted themselves into a corner and I don't see many other arguments they can make to the public if this thing goes into default.

If they had passed yesterday's Boehner bill I think they could have made the dems blink first. Well, lets just say it was their last chance at making them blink.



I think you are right....they were great at getting elected but the new folks have no clue how to effectively govern.

Taco John
07-29-2011, 02:48 PM
The best reps can do now is sing to the choir asking why the dems are afraid of a balanced budget. Liken it to a family not running on a budget, etc.

I agree. I don't think the Republicans should budge. I think they should force Obama's hand to try that so-called "14th Amendment" solution, and then use that as a platform to demonstrate that the Democrats are out of control with their spending and belligerently refuse to be reigned in.

mlyonsd
07-29-2011, 02:52 PM
I agree. I don't think the Republicans should budge. I think they should force Obama's hand to try that so-called "14th Amendment" solution, and then use that as a platform to demonstrate that the Democrats are out of control with their spending and belligerently refuse to be reigned in.Well the stage is certainly set for Armagedon. If the tea partiers can't vote for yesterday's Boehner bill they certainly can't vote for anything the dems present.

Cave Johnson
07-29-2011, 03:02 PM
Well the stage is certainly set for Armagedon. If the tea partiers can't vote for yesterday's Boehner bill they certainly can't vote for anything the dems present.

They're 1/5 of Congress. Reid's bill could pass without a single Tea Party vote.

mlyonsd
07-29-2011, 03:08 PM
They're 1/5 of Congress. Reid's bill could pass without a single Tea Party vote.Yeah I didn't think about that.

petegz28
07-29-2011, 03:09 PM
They're 1/5 of Congress. Reid's bill could pass without a single Tea Party vote.

Reid's bill can't even pass the Dem controlled Senate. WTF have you been?

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:11 PM
Do we really think it's wise to say that the federal government can never borrow money? EVER?

It doesn't say that.

But it does install super-majority benchmarks that make it highly unlikely without broad consensus (that something like WWII would likely garner).

TJ said it best -- the resistance to the BBA is because it cuts off the baseline budgeting scheme that is driving the country over a cliff. You either have to curtail spending or hope that the world economy can continue to support the US as a loss-leader.

Calcountry
07-29-2011, 03:12 PM
Flailing....Hey Harry, "The war.... is lost."

Taco John
07-29-2011, 03:13 PM
Well the stage is certainly set for Armagedon. If the tea partiers can't vote for yesterday's Boehner bill they certainly can't vote for anything the dems present.

Boehner's bill was a loss for the tea party. People said "take the winnings," but there were no winnings there for the tea party. It's essentially the same bill as the Reid bill, just with domestic instead of military cuts over 10 years, and nothing in there to solidify those cuts.

No one should expect the tea party to vote for anything but a balanced budget measure. There should be no expectation from any republicans that a tea party candidate would fall on a sword with a compromise that is going to get them crushed by their constituents.

If it wasn't for the tea party, this debate would be over, the cuts would be superficial, and the Democrats would be moving forward with Barack Obama's agenda - and our nation would still be facing a credit downgrade because the problem hasn't been addressed.

patteeu
07-29-2011, 03:14 PM
THIS ANALOGY HAS NEVER BEEN MADE BEFORE

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W2YK7pADmWU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've never seen you use that video in response to one of my posts before.

Calcountry
07-29-2011, 03:15 PM
Do we really think it's wise to say that the federal government can never borrow money? EVER?

So if WWII comes around again, no borrowing.

If there is a massive recession, no borrowing, so as people lose jobs and tax receipts are decreasing, so is government spending, which turns into a vicious cycle.

People can borrow, so why can't governments?

I do admit, however, that the utter inability of the current Congress/President to deal with this situation in the face of an actual default is so disheartening that maybe a balanced budget amendment is necessary as the only way to ensure that we don't dig ourselves an impossible hole. The lesser of two evils as it were.

I would have hoped that we're electing adults who understand that indefinite and indiscriminate borrowing at all phases of the economic cycle is EXTREMELY unwise. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.Don't sweat it dude, they can always buy some time with a clean debt increase of say, 300 billion. The American people need time to figure this out, I mean, most Americans "outside of Washington never heard of the debt ceiling".

Calcountry
07-29-2011, 03:21 PM
My point is, people understand the U.S. debt is a different beast than household debt.

Does it need to be constrained before it reached catastrophic levels, absolutely. But it's not the time bomb it's being made out to be.

My preference would be for Congress to work on jobs (tax incentives, rate flattening, etc.). But that might actually do some good and improve Obama's reelection chances, and we know who that would hurt politically.But it is a beast. Math is still math dude. You cannot escape the gravity of 2 diverging functions: One is spending, the other is income.

Chiefshrink
07-29-2011, 03:28 PM
Can someone explain why Democrats are so opposed to a BBA?

Because then they can't spend freely pure and simple.

Just an FYI there are no details describing this BBA in Boehner version 3.0.

Not Good:shake:

Freshman are probably demanding 'details' to this BBA to make sure this bill holds all parties accountable.

orange
07-29-2011, 03:49 PM
Freshman are probably demanding 'details' to this BBA to make sure this bill holds all parties accountable.

No, they've caved. This is a shoo-in to get out of the House and tabled tonight by the Senate. Of course, some here will say that the Senate didn't really vote on it...

Taco John
07-29-2011, 03:56 PM
No, they've caved. This is a shoe-in to get out of the House and tabled tonight by the Senate. Of course, some here will say that the Senate didn't really vote on it...

I enjoy the spin that they've caved after staring down Boehner and getting the BBA included in the final house version of the bill. :thumb:

orange
07-29-2011, 03:59 PM
I enjoy the spin that they've caved after staring down Boehner and getting the BBA included in the final house version of the bill. :thumb:

Considering that the TP is calling for NO raise in the debt ceiling, period - I believe I might have posted Ron Paul's words on this matter; is he a TPer? - then, yes, they've caved.


Name the Tea Party Defecter tm who said: "I'm going to stand with this Boehner plan and, once again, if the folks who one minute they're saying that I'm their 'Tea Party hero' and what, three or four days later 'I'm a Tea Party defector' -- that kind of schizophrenia I'm not going to get involved in."

Taco John
07-29-2011, 04:02 PM
Considering that the TP is calling for NO raise in the debt ceiling, period - I believe I might have posted Ron Paul's words on this matter; is he a TPer? - then, yes, they've caved.

And here they've been telling me that the Tea Party is obstinate and not willing to compromise!

Fine by me. The tea party republicans have compromised and sold out their principles. Time for the democrats to take this generous offer, and let the republicans face the voters with this compromise written all over their faces.

orange
07-29-2011, 04:04 PM
And here they've been telling me that the Tea Party is obstinate and not willing to compromise!


You want to take a stab at my question I edited in there? Don't worry, though - he'll get his.

Tea Party leaders announced Thursday that they will mount primary challenges against four freshmen Republicans who have declared their support for John Boehner's debt ceiling plan.

Taco John
07-29-2011, 04:06 PM
Considering that the TP is calling for NO raise in the debt ceiling, period - I believe I might have posted Ron Paul's words on this matter; is he a TPer? - then, yes, they've caved.


Name the Tea Party Defecter tm who said: "I'm going to stand with this Boehner plan and, once again, if the folks who one minute they're saying that I'm their 'Tea Party hero' and what, three or four days later 'I'm a Tea Party defector' -- that kind of schizophrenia I'm not going to get involved in."

Sure there were some early defectors who abandoned ship too early. That's to be expected. They'll have to explain themselves to their constituents.

Taco John
07-29-2011, 04:12 PM
You want to take a stab at my question I edited in there? Don't worry, though - he'll get his.

Tea Party leaders announced Thursday that they will mount primary challenges against four freshmen Republicans who have declared their support for John Boehner's debt ceiling plan.

You understand that Boehner 2.0 didn't have a balanced budget amendment in it, and Boehner 3.0 does, right? The tea partiers who caved at Boehner 2.0 are going to have some explaining to do to their constituents. The tea partiers who held out for Boehner 3.0 will be rewarded.

You're right, Ron Paul is against raising the debt ceiling at all, his argument being that going deeper into debt is not a practical debt solution, but he'd be the first to tell you that he's an incrementalist, and that a balanced budget amendment is a step in the right direction towards peace, prosperity and liberty.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 04:17 PM
Do we really think it's wise to say that the federal government can never borrow money? EVER?

Goddamn, I can't believe I agree with you on this. I can think of one scenario where the right would dump the BBA—a legitimate war like WWII when there has to be a major effort to ramp up to fight it. No borrowing means massive taxes or outright govt ownership.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 04:18 PM
Tea Party leaders announced Thursday that they will mount primary challenges against four freshmen Republicans who have declared their support for John Boehner's debt ceiling plan.

I am THRILLED! :thumb::drool: