StanCollender'sCapitalGainsandGames Washington, Wall Street and Everything in Between

Boehner Is Wrong: A Deficit Reduction Bill With Revenues Can Pass The House

11 Jul 2011
Posted by Stan Collender

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric cantor (R-VA) are both being more than just a bit misleading when they keep repeating the mantra that a deficit reduction bill with revenue increases won't pass the House.

What Boehner and Cantor really mean is that a bill with revenue increases won't get a majority of Republicans to vote for it and their leadership positions will be in serious and immediate jeopardy if they allow a bill to come to the House floor and be adopted with a majority of Democrats and just a handful of GOP'ers. That would mean that a bill with revenue increases would be adopted over the Republican majority's wishes and that they would be held responsible for letting it happen.

Bill Won't Get to the Floor with Revenue Increases

I seriously doubt that the House Leadership led by Cantor (I suspect Boehner has now alienated the tea party caucus and won't be around much longer as Speaker) will never let a bill with revenue enhancements to the floor. The minority really has no power to bring a bill up for a vote even if they got some Republicans to support it.

State by State

If the House Republicans won't look at a bill with any tax increases, I don't understand why the White House doesn't work towards a spending-only plan that disproportionately targets Red states for cuts. Scale back programs that are relative big-spenders in those states. Every Federal program has different levels of per-capita or outright spending in different states. Just go for the ones that currently are "big" in red states. As is well known, the Red states as a whole, including some with tea-party representation, are net beneficiaries of Federal tax dollars. Then we could see whether these Republican "principles" are for real. (Pretty clear that we already know the answer.) Let these folks eat their own cooking and answer to their electorates when the pain starts being felt.

Well said state by State,

Well said state by State, it's time to put reality into these folks ideology. If it doesn't change the way they vote, then they deserve the pain they bring on themselves by electing Rethuglicans.

I definitely like Rob's strategy

.... It's a sad commentary that the so-called Tea Party so dislikes Boehner that he could lose the speaker position. It does speak to a Tea Party meeting where Stan somehow was allowed to stay on for, and the Tea Party's visceral dislike of Boehner. I guess it's not easy being orange.

... I still suggest that Warren Buffet and as I recall it's Bill Gates senior show up on whatever is the hardest core Fox show these folks watch and say why they think there should be tax increases on the rich. I bet the show could get a collection of people these folks like, such as country music singers, or whoever.

.... It's sad commentary when David Brooks says the controlling component of the Republican party essentially are so delusional they don't care at all re the country

Tell Obama


You had better tell Obama this because it sure seems like he thinks he needs Boehner and the House Republicans on board in order to get something passed.

And if you are correct, Obama could get a leading Democrat in the House to present his plan of combined spending cuts and tax increases and submit it for a vote.

The fact that he is not doing this tells me he thinks there aren't enough Republicans who will support it.

The problem with targeting

The problem with targeting Red states is that Red states tend to be poorer than Blue states. Unless cuts can be found that hit rich people in Red states, a plan to target Red states would hit the poor hard. The poor are generally not very effective at imposing a political price in our form of democracy. Perverse as it is, the anti-tax crowd is mostly helping Blue state folks.

I agree. But if the poor in

I agree. But if the poor in Red states continue to vote for representatives who turn around and hurt their pocketbooks, my sympathy for them ebbs somewhat.

The great success of the Republican party has been to get many people to vote or express their cultural / religious proclivities to the exclusion of virtually all else. I am OK with this becoming at least temporarily a more painful decision for these voters (or non-voters as is often the case).

The anti-tax crowd is indeed on balance probably helping the bank accounts of Blue state people or at least the wealthier among them. In the short term, that is. In the longer term, cuts to basic public health, education, infrastructure, and the environment benefit no-one. Sooner or later the wealthy - among whom perhaps unwisely I count myself - will realize that a Mexican or Colombian socio-economic structure is hazardous to your grandkids' wealth and well-being. Blue staters will end up hurting just as badly from this anti-tax monomania.

Endgame for the Republicans

It's become pretty clear to me over the past few days that there isn't going to be an increase without some sort of crisis first. As others have been saying, the current structure of the Republican party won't allow for it.

The base simply doesn't want one, and within their media and policy echo chamber, there are plenty of Congressmen and Senators who don't see this as a real risk. Boehner's humiliation has taught a lesson to any inclined to make a deal..

Every single one of the candidates for Presidents either has already, or will in the short term, come out against an increase. The sole possible exception is Mitt Romney, who to his credit, surely understands how catastrophic this could be, but cannot politically afford to say so and take another position so completely at odds with core Republicans.

What is the endgame for the party leadership?

Perhaps they thought they could pin the blame on Obama, who deftly put an end to that idea by calling their bluff and raising. While he could have screwed this up, this wasn't all that difficult a strategy to execute.

I don't think the market is going to react all that terribly (in the short term) if interest is paid but social security payments are reduced. However, there's no way the Republicans can survive that, right?

Do they not see an alternative? Are they playing with no strategy and just short term reactions?

Party of Nutes --

The Republican't party has always been, as long as I can remember -- and that's significantly long -- the party of the wealthy, the selfish, the anti-social, and the racist. That it has devolved into a radical Know-Nothing anti-Americanism -- politicans are to govern, not refuse to govern in order to subvert -- party of out-and-out illiterate nuts alarms but does not particularly surprise. Ever listen to a racist for her/his "reasoning? Exer listen to a Democrat-hater for her/his "reasons" for voting both for Republicans and against their own enlightened self-interest?

Where this is going I don't know. But I have a more important question: Why did the vast majority that opposes the Republicans efforts to destroy the economy in order to force President Obama out of office vote these candidates for the asylum into office in the first place?

Recent comments


Order from Amazon


Creative Commons LicenseThe content of is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Need permissions beyond the scope of this license? Please submit a request here.