Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boehner takes flak from Republican defense hawks on sequester stance
The Hill ^ | 10 Jan 13 | Russell Berman and Jeremy Herb

Posted on 01/12/2013 3:06:01 PM PST by SkyPilot

House Republican defense hawks are pushing back strongly against Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) claim that he has GOP support to allow steep automatic budget cuts to take effect if President Obama does not agree to replace them with other reductions.

Party leaders have for more than a year railed against the Pentagon portion of the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration, but in an interview published Monday, Boehner pointed to the reductions as leverage and said he had significant Republican support, including from defense hawks, in his “back pocket.”

Not so fast, two defense-minded House Republicans told The Hill.

“I don’t support that,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a member of the Armed Services Committee whose district includes one of the nation’s largest military installations. “You get into dangerous territory when you talk about using national security as a bargaining chip with the president.”

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: boehner; debtceiling; defense; sequestration
Dear Lord.

Boehner needs to put down the wine bottle, step away from the tissues, and start putting our nation's defense back on the front burner. It has been held hostage to this "process" long enough.

During the "Fiscal Cliff" that stole Christmas, you could read between the lines of every news leak and see that no one seemed to care about the "unthinkable" sequester cuts - especially our vaunted GOP. The military is approximately 18% of the budget and shoulders 50% of the cuts, due to this wonderful 2011 "deal" the Republicans agreed to.

“In order to get the Republican Conference to pass the debt-limit increase last time, he promised them sequestration would not go in place,” the Republican House member said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “To be using sequestration and these defense cuts in the next debt-limit talks certainly is pretty bad déjà vu for the Republican Conference.”

If that is true (and I believe it is), then Boehner is about as honorable as Bath House Barry.

In interviews, progressives said they opposed the sequester cuts on a number of grounds but would not trade them for the prize Republicans want: benefit cuts to entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. “If Speaker Boehner thinks Democrats will support slashing the retirement of middle-class Americans in order to avoid the sequester, he is wrong,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Why would the Democrats agree to Entitlement reform? It is Entitlements that are bankrupting the nation, sapping our national will, and empowering the Communists in our midst. Moreover, the Republicans agreed to take Entitlements "off the table" back in 2011. That was the biggest mistake they ever made. The biggest programs that are killing us were taken "off the table."

Great strategy there.

The military has already taken $450 Billion in real cuts. Sequestration is another $600 Billion on top of that.

The GOP used to be the party of national security. Where are they?

The crap has been going on for years now.

We expect Obama to be a Marxist-that is who he is. It is quite another to have a two-faced GOP Speaker.

God, I wish we had a real leader on our side......somewhere. Anywhere.

1 posted on 01/12/2013 3:06:06 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Boehner is a Democrat (chosen by Democrats and RINOs)
acting like a Democrat, supporting Democrats,
and practicing Taqiyya to conservatives.

He always has done whatever the Tyrant wants.


2 posted on 01/12/2013 3:13:35 PM PST by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

These corrupt losers agreed to the Defense Department cuts the last time, when they caved. So, now they will have to cave again. And again. And again.

We’ll end up with massive defense cuts and massive green pork designed to make food and fuel more expensive. And massive entitlements to all those on the Democrat Plantation. Not to mention the public unions.


3 posted on 01/12/2013 3:18:00 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
the only thing that Boehner could be doing is to make Obama out to be a liar by holding him to his comment in the third debate that sequestration will not happen.

-PJ

4 posted on 01/12/2013 3:21:38 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

I guess you all think Boehner should soil himself in front of Obama over the possibility of defense cuts, so Obama can deny any domestic cuts.

Boehner made the right threat, the others are undercutting him. Of course the defense cuts are not desirable.


5 posted on 01/12/2013 3:24:23 PM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

I don’t believe Obama wants the defense cuts either, at this point, with the North Korean ICBM a reality. That can mess up the caliphate or any other supra-national grouping Strobe Talbot and Hillary Clinton ever dreamed up, too. Obama coming back to Congress to ask for more funding for SDI? I can’t see it, but that is were he’ll be.


6 posted on 01/12/2013 3:24:46 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
I cannot believe the Republican re-elected him as Speaker.

Cantor would have been a much better choice.

When Obama issues an "Executive Order" that declares a new "National Data Base" for gun owners, what will Boehner do?

I'll tell you what he will do.

Nothing.

That is the kind of inspirational leadership we have in the GOP these days.

Boehner could have insisted that in order for the Democrats to get their precious $200 Billion last month to extent unemployment "benefits" (again), the Democrats would have had to back off on the cuts to the military.

Sources at the time said Democrats would have taken that deal. Boehner never pressed it because he thinks the cuts to the military should be held as a bargaining chip against Obama, which is madness on two accounts.

1. Obama doesn't care if the military gets gutted, in fact he wants it

2. Democrats will never accept Entitlement cuts unless Boehner shuts down the government completely

As soon as the shutdown deadline comes near, Obama will threaten and say the Treasury Dept will not cut Social Security checks. He did it in 2011 and he will do it again.

Boehner will fold like a cheap suit.

He should have marched into Obama's White House in 2010, told Barry he was going to get to the bottom of the gay-murder scandal of Obama's lovers from his former "church", Obama's traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, Obama's illegal acceptance of foreign campaign donations, and Obama's forged Selective Service registration card.

Boehner still could. He won't.

7 posted on 01/12/2013 3:27:41 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
I guess you all think Boehner should soil himself in front of Obama over the possibility of defense cuts, so Obama can deny any domestic cuts.

No. I think Boehner is the worst negotiator since the Native-Americans who sold Manhattan island for $14 in glass beads.

Entitlements have to be reformed. Yesterday.

Boehner had Obama agree to the chained CPI index that would have simply slowed the growth of Social Security. He and Obama were about $200 Billion apart 5 days before Christmas.

Then, Boehner shifts gears, and spends an entire week with his failed "Plan B" option that he could not even get the House Republicans to approve.

Then, he threw his hands in the air, (and given his past behavior in DC after hours) went home for Christmas and probably got good and toasted. When Dingy Harry Reid showed up at the 11th hour, he wanted to burn the whole house down rather than budge on Entitlements because that opportunity had now been lost (and Reid new it).

Where does this leave us now?

Defense is still being held hostage to this garbage, and Boehner wants to keep it that way.

He will not win Entitlement reform by threatening the Democrats with HUGE defense cuts and every other branch of government with lesser cuts.

That will only come if Boehner is willing to shut the government down, and I don't think he has the gonads to do it.

8 posted on 01/12/2013 3:37:40 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Cut Defense by the same percentage they will apply to entitlements. Cut all departments by a flat rate


9 posted on 01/12/2013 4:06:05 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
Cut Defense by the same percentage they will apply to entitlements.

Ha. I would take that deal - a real 10% cut in all Medicare, Social Security, Medicare, Disability, Food Stamps, Section 8, and every Federal department?

Will. Never. Happen.

Ever.

Can you imagine the Social Security recipients reacting to a 10% cut in their checks?

A 10% cut to Medicare? Ha ha ha ha.

Unicorns will march on Main street before that happens.

10 posted on 01/12/2013 4:11:38 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
"the Treasury Dept will not cut Social Security checks"

I forsee an instant response from Congress which calls an emergency hearing on who exactly ordered or decided that these checks would be the first to go - or maybe I don't.

11 posted on 01/12/2013 4:53:38 PM PST by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Bawlin’ Boehner has been an absolute disaster as Speaker (NOT a news flash to anyone!).

However, actions speak louder than words. If the ‘Pubbies in the House are ready to dump Bawlin’ Boehner, they have to do more than spew a few words; they have to take action.

So far, all I see is more hot air coming out of Congress.

It isn’t enough to get me excited.


12 posted on 01/12/2013 6:46:30 PM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Disagree. Shut down the government. Get a new one. It is time for regime change, not more of the same. Auto spending cuts will force the loss of so many union jobs, they will throw communist Reid and Whtie house out.


13 posted on 01/12/2013 7:06:31 PM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Let this go over the cliff with the Defense cuts. Defense has more than enough fat to withstand these cuts. Consider all those civilian contractors who vote Democrat. Future emergency Defense requests can be dealt with later. The sequester would at least be some real cuts, $3 trillion over ten years versus the $600 billion of tax increases enacted at New Year's, a 5:1 ratio of cuts to tax increases.

The bulk of longer-term necessary cuts will health care: Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare, which will bankrupt the country as is. The solution is to privatize all three, but this requires a Republican President and filibuster-proof Congress: 2016 at the earliest. The Democrats are never going to agree to entitlement cuts. Social Security is a smaller problem. Supposed solutions such as chained CPI assaults beneficiaries already being squeezed by under-reported CPI.

Meanwhile, going over the cliff on March 1st is a critically necessary beginning for the survival of the country.

It's time to take your medicine, defense hawks.

14 posted on 01/12/2013 8:07:42 PM PST by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

When Republicans start whining about military spending they sound just like liberals whining about school spending, where everybody acts like these spending levels aren’t extremely, unsustainably high with little to show for it. Iraq and Afghanistan are still hell holes because we were too PC to do it right. Anybody who is happy with our level of defense spending is not serious about limited government, deficits, spending, or taxes. They are just big-government nationalists who allied with small-government forces during the Cold War and mistook themselves for fans of liberty. The liberty to saddle your country with deficits (and hence taxes) for decades to finance an ever-growing military.
Don’t try to sway me, I used to be one. Thank goodness I saw the libertarian light! :)


15 posted on 01/12/2013 8:35:35 PM PST by LifeComesFirst (http://rw-rebirth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
The bulk of longer-term necessary cuts will health care: Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare, which will bankrupt the country as is.

That's just it Kennard - the 2011 Budget Control Act took the 3 largest contributors to our debt and deficit and exempted them, 100%, from ANY cuts.

That is why DoD, which had already sustained $450 Billion in real cuts, was slated to take another $600 Billion, despite being about 18-19% of the budget.

The solution is to privatize all three, but this requires a Republican President and filibuster-proof Congress: 2016 at the earliest. The Democrats are never going to agree to entitlement cuts. Social Security is a smaller problem. Supposed solutions such as chained CPI assaults beneficiaries already being squeezed by under-reported CPI.

Chained CPI is only a small reform to slow the growth of Social Security. The COLAs that SS recipients get now are almost a joke, but the chained CPI would have at least given some slowing of the growth of SS.

Instead of that mild reform, every hard working American got even more of his or her paycheck raided in the latest "deal."

Entitlements are breaking the back of this nation, not Defense. NO ONE seems to want to address them. Our national will is being sapped by them, morally and economically.

16 posted on 01/13/2013 5:48:59 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LifeComesFirst
Thank goodness I saw the libertarian light! :)

I have yet to meet a Libertarian who is on Social Security or Medicare admit to me that they are part of the problem.

It is always "their money" and they react in anger to any notion to the contrary.

This nation is spending historic lows on Defense as a percentage of GDP, and historic highs on Entitlements.

Defense is the only Federal agency that is justified via the Constitution.

Moreover, the men and women who have served the military in recent years have suffered and sacrificed more than any other group of Americans. Multiple deployments, families torn apart, horrible wounds, stress, and loneliness.

Yet, the answer from most Americans is "Don't cut mine."

The sheer volume of money being thrown at Food Stamps, Unemployment, and Entitlements staggers the imagination, and yet that is exactly what we are not cutting.

17 posted on 01/13/2013 5:54:32 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Entitlements are breaking the back of this nation, not Defense.

Yep.

18 posted on 01/13/2013 6:08:58 AM PST by EternalVigilance (I used to be a Republican until they became the Republican'ts when it comes to republicanism. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

New tagline ...


19 posted on 01/13/2013 6:11:46 AM PST by EternalVigilance (The New Deal was a Bad Deal. So Bad, in fact, that it is costing you your Liberty and your Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

It’s a well-kept secret, I know, but I did run for president last year.

Throughout, I was explicit in spelling out that in the first place, the New Deal and Great Society programs, including their centerpieces, Social Security and Medicare, are absolutely unconstitutional. Which means those who continue to fund them are in breach of their constitutional oath. And secondly, that they are a crude Ponzi scheme that cannot be sustained in any case.

I debated Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party extensively, and finally, after hours of pressing, got him to admit that these programs are not constitutional. And yet, he continued to defend them. Said they were a “contract.”

I proved that they are not a contract. The Social Security Act makes it clear that Congress can change the terms any time it wants. And there is a Supreme Court ruling from 1960 that backs me up on this.

“But we paid in all those years. It’s our money.” No, generations of politicians lied, and stole the money, and spent ALL OF IT. “Your money” is LONG GONE.

The only way you can keep the Ponzi scheme going now is to lie and steal from a different group of Americans, and enslave our posterity via crushing debts that cannot be repaid.

It is immoral to strip posterity of its God-given, unalienable right to government by consent.

And again, it is un-Constitutional, in that the crowning stated purpose of that Constitution is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.”


20 posted on 01/13/2013 6:30:19 AM PST by EternalVigilance (The New Deal was a Bad Deal. So Bad, in fact, that it is costing you your Liberty and your Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

So one giant pile of money is gianter than another which means the smaller pile is inconsequential?

If I’m broke and I borrow $200,000 to buy a Rolls Royce Ghost and $400,000 to buy a Rolls Royce Phantom, are you going to tell me that it was crazy to buy the Phantom but reasonable to buy the Ghost?

Does the constitutionality of one means of burdening us with taxes and debt make any difference if we are plunged into an economic depression?

And anyway, per capita military spending is up.


21 posted on 01/13/2013 9:32:11 AM PST by LifeComesFirst (http://rw-rebirth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LifeComesFirst
So one giant pile of money is gianter than another which means the smaller pile is inconsequential? If I’m broke and I borrow $200,000 to buy a Rolls Royce Ghost and $400,000 to buy a Rolls Royce Phantom, are you going to tell me that it was crazy to buy the Phantom but reasonable to buy the Ghost?

You are either deliberately attempting to confuse the fact, or you don't know the difference.

Giveaway entitlement checks are not national defense, and national defense is not a giveaway entitlement check.

Almost 70% of ALL Federal spending is now either welfare or entitlements.

Think about that.

The Socialists have almost won. This is almost a rout.

The US military has stood for freedom, courage, and American values through horrible wars and national disasters.

I can repeat myself again here, because the facts do not seem to penetrate: the military has already been cut deeply. Obama ordered Gates to do it, and Panetta finished the job. The military was the only federal agency that he cut in real dollars.

$450 Billion dollars, we have canceled scores of weapon systems, hollowed out our force, and yet burdened the military with almost impossible missions.

The US Air Force today operates a geriatric fleet. If war comes on a major scale, the American public is going to have a rude awakening. Our enemies know how weak we really have become, and we are becoming weaker by the day.

Sequestration will be an evisceration.

Even Panetta and Democrats acknowledge this.

What makes all of this even more obscene is that the people in American who have sacrificed the most will suffer even more. Military health care will be cut back even more than it has been. DoD overseas schools will be closed. Even the commissaries where military families try to stretch an already devalued, hard earned paycheck will be shut down.

Meanwhile, the unemployment checks, the food stamps, the Social Security checks, and the gravy train for millions of American who have not lifted one finger for this nation plods along with increasing speed.

I read this Psalm the other day, that summarized my feelings on the matter:

"Psalm 73:1-8 "Surely God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart. But as for me, my feet had almost slipped. I had nearly lost my foothold. For I envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. They have no struggles; their bodies are healthy and strong. They are free from the burdens common to man; they are not plagued by human ills. Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. From their callous hearts comes iniquity the evil conceits of their minds know no limits. They scoff and speak with malice; in their arrogance they threaten oppression. They mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth".

22 posted on 01/13/2013 11:06:49 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
“But we paid in all those years. It’s our money.” No, generations of politicians lied, and stole the money, and spent ALL OF IT. “Your money” is LONG GONE. The only way you can keep the Ponzi scheme going now is to lie and steal from a different group of Americans, and enslave our posterity via crushing debts that cannot be repaid. It is immoral to strip posterity of its God-given, unalienable right to government by consent.

I sure wish you were our President today.

23 posted on 01/13/2013 11:07:48 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson