Skip to comments.Republicans Are Winning the Budget Fight
Posted on 03/27/2011 7:37:05 PM PDT by Nachum
The incremental approach is working and embarrassing Democrats. Why should the GOP risk a government shutdown?
Some of the most disgruntled folks in Washington these days are conservative Republicans in Congress. They believe their party has abandoned the cause of deep spending cuts that spurred the Republican landslide in the 2010 midterm election. They say their leaders are needlessly settling for small, incremental cuts.
Moreover, this demand for bigger cuts and defunding of liberal programsimmediatelycomes from prominent members of the House, not just excitable freshmen. "This is our mice or men moment," according to Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Allowing Democrats more time to negotiate "will only delay a confrontation that must come," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the House Study Committee, added: "We've made some solid first downs. Now it's time to look to the end zone."
The end zone is far away, however, and impatience won't get Republicans there. Impatience is not a strategy. It may lead to a government shutdown with unknown results. To enact the sweeping cuts they desire, Republicans must hold the House and capture the Senate and White House in the 2012 election. Then they'll control Washington. Now they don't.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I love Fred Barnes but I think the GOP should just refuse to vote to raise the debt limit and then the Dems would be forced to make huge cuts to keep up with the interest payments on the TBills. It would be a lot easier.
Americans everywhere realize that the US cannot sustain the level of current spending and that government spending must be cut and then kept under strict control.
So far only fiscal consertvatives (the clear majority of whom are republicans) are willing to do that.
They also realize that the size scope and intrusion of government must also be greatly reduced.
Fred Barnes is a typical establishment Republican. He’d be willing to accept growing deficits as long as conservatives will buy his magazine and vote for RINOs.
Yeah, GWB's domestic policy was so great it helped the GOP keep the House and Senate all through his Presidency, and the White House in 2008... uh...
The GOP should force dems to make a choice: large cuts to government spending or shutting down the government.
Let the dems be the ones to decide to shut the government down by their unwillingness to make large budgetary cuts especially those programs that the federal government should not be funding in the first place of which there are many.
Republicans must hold the House and capture the Senate and White House in the 2012 election. Then they’ll control Washington.
Just like last time. What would make the GOP into government size cutters?
At six billion of cuts every three months, the Republicans will have the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit eliminated in 67 years.
Huzzah! We are winning! Not in a Patton-esque kind of way, more of in a Montgomery-esque kind of way.
If the Republicans go for it all at once, the political PR will be that they want to starve the poor and the elderly, and this will hurt the cause in the long run. By dealing with it piece by piece, while very frustrating and very slow, progress is being made, because the dems cannot make a case to keep specific proposed cuts in the budget. At some time, the big ticket items will have to be hit, but now is not the time.
This is the loser's mantra. They will never control the senate and the whitehouse unless they are aggressive now. Waiting for re-informcements while the situation gets worse is not a winning philosophy. They have the forces to press the fight...Fight Now!
I think we are "winning" more like in a Charlie Sheen kind of way.
Fred Barnes’ premise is once the GOP controls all levers of government, THEN it will slash spending, cut stupid productivity-killing regulations, and restore fiscal sanity to America. Does anyone here believe that? Because I’m not seeing it.
“The GOP should force dems to make a choice: large cuts to government spending or shutting down the government.”
Either way works for me.
Boehner is winning this fight. Remember, he's currently winning cuts on the DEMOCRATIC budget (this is the one the Dems were supposed to pass in 2010).
The first real Repub budget (for 2012) hasn't even been discussed yet...that is where the Repubs will get much more of what they want.
Without the words: "defunding obamacare", the guppie jack-offs are doing just that!
They haven't started on the 2012 budget yet.
It’s Fred Barnes—what do you expect him to say? Losing is winning. Cutting a tiny bit is cutting a lot. For heaven sake, don’t rock the boat.
Problem is, without massive cuts now, we run up another $3 trillion in debt before we take over Washington in 2012. If we don’t win out in 2012 and we don’t cut now, the rats just start with a much higher deficit to add to after 2012.
I’d be happy to sink the boat and start over. That’s how sick I am of Washington, all rats, and most Republicans.
Michele nailed it! and Bonehead has to go,there is NO cure for his Beltway infection!!
They only have one half of the legislature. Their power is limited until they get the Presidency back.
You cant impose if you dont have the leverage. That's politics 101, like it or not. This is probably the best route for now.
“Republicans Are Winning the Budget Fight”
Really, Fred? One nickle at a time?
I think you need a bit of constitution 101. No law can come into effect unless the House votes FOR it. No law can come into effect unless the Senate votes FOR it. No law can come into effect unless the president signs it.
Our system of checks means everyone has veto power. To stop something one needs EITHER the House, Senate OR Presidency and it was designed in this way because in the absence of law there is liberty.
Oh Really? How did it work out last time? Were you around for that one?
A budget has to move from the House to the Senate and then to the President. It aint going nowhere without compromie. The Republicans will lose a shut down standoff, theres no doubt about it . Then we can have an all Democrap govt in 2013 ! yay!
It is the path to sure defeat. The conservatives already believe the Republican leadership is going to betray them. The house leadership has to force the Dem Senate to vote things down or the president to veto. Otherwise they lose the active support of the Tea Party and won't have a majority in any of the branches next election. Which by the way, also means they will lose the Supreme Court on the next appointment.
Whether the elite rulers in the Republican party want to admit it or not, the Tea Party will turn the next election; either through their support of the Republicans, bloody in-fighting within the Republican Party or as a third party. Only one of those alternatives results in a conservative victory and a conservative Supreme Court.
So you're proposing a shut down. Please outline the steps subsequent to that that will lead to victory on the budget.
Here's what I see: Partial shutdown of gov't services, then three weeks in, public opinion turns sharply against the Republicans in Congress, aided and abetted by the Pravda media. Then , another temporary budget with less cuts in it then they would have gotten otherwise, and continuing hatred towards the Republicans, who begin to buckle individually. Finally, a 5 month budget comes out with no more significant cuts, and some BS talk about a balnced budget. In 2013, a fully Democrat gov't gets voted in..
What fun it is is to stand on principle when you have little leverage!
You think like a loser.
The house should pass the budget that represents what they were elected to do. Let the fight happen in the Senate where the Dems have control. The country is overwhelmingly in favor of deficit reduction. Let the Dems go on record as stopping it. There is not reason for the House Republican leadership to be the ones getting the blame for stopping it. It is a gauranteed path to Republican defeat.
How can the Republicans not have leaverage when they just won the biggest national landslide in US history? The voters have spoken. The leadership should listen.
No, I was paying attention back in '95 when the Republicans had both houses of Congress and Clinton was stuck at 42 % in the polls, and they BLEW it, and came up with nothing on their wish list. In fact, Clinton got reelected , easily.
How can you say you were paying attention when you ignore the details. Clinton never got 50% of the vote. He was elected because of a third party candidate who split the conservative base. Nothing will insure a splintered Republican party or a third party candidate more than ignoring the Tea Party.
Right now the Tea Party is a mobilized faction, not an actual party. If they feel ignored by the Republican leadership, they will organize into an actual third party and then the Dems win in a walk. Splitting the conservative base is not a formula for success. That is what '92 and ' show.
Well, whatever. I just hope they dont take your advice and fall for the sucker punch of shutting the gov't down. That will crush the Tea Party for at least one cycle.
Yeah, I was around for that one. If I remember correctly, the Republicans balanced the budget, saved our future and retained the majority through the next twelve years. They lost the majority after people lost respect for them over budget issues and frustration over the war in Iraq.
Were you around or did you learn your history lessons from the Main Stream Media?
Who are you? One of the writers for Inception?
Fred mistakes gains in PR as relevant when the only thing that really matters is making significant cuts in actual spending.
They don’t have both houses of Congress. They can’t act as stop on the President , while he acts like its his own idea and gets all the credit. Thats because nothing like what theyre proposing will ever get to his desk.
Youre saying they lost the battle (Clinton reelected) but won the war (they got credit for a balanced budget that relied on increased tax revenues). Except this time they lose both. Too bad youre too obtuse to see that.
“They dont have both houses of Congress. “
They don’t need both houses. Our founders designed a system where either the Senate, House, President or even the USSC can stop anything from becoming law. That’s a fundamental problem that you are having. It’s the foundation of our system of government that unless there is general agreement that a bill become law, there is no law and in the absence of law, we are free in this republic.
“They cant act as stop on the President , while he acts like its his own idea and gets all the credit. Thats because nothing like what theyre proposing will ever get to his desk.”
Again, our government was not designed to act. It was designed to prevent.
“Youre saying they lost the battle (Clinton reelected) but won the war (they got credit for a balanced budget that relied on increased tax revenues). Except this time they lose both. Too bad youre too obtuse to see that.”
They did not get credit for balancing the budget, Clinton did and getting credit was not the measure of whether they won or lost. Only small, small people demand sole credit for good outcomes. They ensure nothing good ever comes from them.
I understand how it works, pal. I'm talking from a political point of view. If they had both houses they could dump a bill on Obama's desk and make him veto it. Appearances matter. Their leverage with the public is reduced here, comprehend it or not.
You were the one trunmpeting the fact they stayed in office for 12 years straight. I see it as opportunity lost; especially the 2 years the Republicans had both branches of government.