But on Thursday, financial institutions reported that based upon all of the deficit reduction plans that are being considered, no matter which one is passed, the markets are likely to downgrade the United States’ credit rating because none of the plans reduce the national debt sufficiently enough to sustain its current AAA rating. This fact has only helped to reinforce the position of the 25 or so House Republicans who have taken the position that they can support any of the plans out there, because they do not go far enough in cutting spending.
Given the new data, these approximately two dozen Republicans are right. If President Obama and Democrats are to be believed, we were going to default on our debt by August 2nd, if we did not raise the debt ceiling. Aside from bogus Democrat attempts to scare senior citizens by claiming that they would then not receive their Social Security checks, the main argument for the need to raise the debt ceiling was that a failure to do so would force a downgrade of our credit rating. This would produce a significant increase on interest that all Americans would have to pay. But now that it is clear that neither Boehner’s or the Democrat’s plans would cut spending enough to avoid a downgrade of our credit rating, it only makes sense to do what is necessary to avoid that form happening. As such, the position held by the Republican who are holding out for more spending cuts and a more significant deficit reduction plan, are right to oppose the existing plans.
With the facts as they are, to do anything other than come up with a bill which that significantly and quickly cuts our deficit and debt, would be meaningless. If the G.O.P. led House does now pass the Boehner plan, the only possible reason for it would be an obvious desire to avoid the political fallout from leftwing rhetoric designed to make the Republican Party look like the Party of “no” and as obstructionists unwilling to compromise. But the question is what are the compromises choices? Pass a hike in the debt ceiling by August and see our credit rating downgraded because our current debt obligations and future debt is unmanageable? Or default on our debt by not raising the debt ceiling and still see our our credit rating downgraded because our current debt obligations and future debt is unmanageable?
That is not a compromise. It is insanity as described by Albert Einstein it is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. .
The only sincere political move here would be to hammer out a bill that cuts costs and reduces spending. Part of those spending reductions must include true entitlement reform. Entitlements are the largest portion of the existing and future debt. They are the elephant in the room and to ignore them or pretend that it is not there is not just stupid, it is lethal to our economy.
As for Speaker Boehner, I appreciate the direction he has been going in. His leadership has been pushing for less spending and more cuts. However, as we can see, he was not pushing for enough cuts in spending. Under pressure from President Obama and the Democrat led Senate, he has been encouraged to compromise. In his unique position, Boehner has tried to accommodate both his conservative caucus and the liberal President and Senate. But it is clear that in this case, compromise will not save our economy or our economic future. So speaker Boehner must ask himself this. Will he act on this issue as a politician or as a leader?
Currently the following 25 members are said to be voting Nay on Boehner’s bill.
Todd Akin (Mo.)
Justin Amash (Mich.)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
Paul Broun (Ga.)
Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Jeff Duncan (S.C.)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
*Scott Garrett (N.J.) -as 0f 10:30 am, Rep. Garrett’s office tells POLITICS 24/7 that he has not announced his position
Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Louie Gohmert (Texas)
Trey Gowdy (S.C.)
Tom Graves (Ga.)
Andy Harris (Md.)
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Steve King (Iowa)
Raúl Labrador (Idaho)
Connie Mack (Fla.)
Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Dennis Ross (Fla.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Steve Southerland (Fla.)
Joe Walsh (Ill.)
Joe Wilson (S.C.)
These men and women understand that passing the Boehner plan would be nothing more than a purely political vote and they would rather lead than play politics. Hopefully, these 25 members can influence Speaker Boehner in a way that will force him to do the same.
In 2010, voters clearly and loudly called for leadership, not compromise. Much of the electorate is tired of political compromises that benefit the political careers of the political players but do great harm to the long term health of our nation. The 25 members holding out for more cuts understand this. They are also making this moment in time a pivotal one for the career of John Boehner.
Boehner promised to be a different kind of Speaker of the House. He promised those who put the G.O.P. in control of the House that he would not cave in to politics-as-usual, would not forget the need for fiscal responsibility, and would uphold a commitment to accountability. Now is his chance to prove that he was not lying. Now is the time for a political leader who will stop playing games and get the job done. Right now, that job is to come up with a plan that significantly reduces our debt and does not just move numbers around. John Boehner must be brave and willing to turn the tables around on the Democrats who live in a world of perpetual taxing and spending. Instead of being on the defensive and afraid that Democrats will paint Republicans as the Party of “no”, Boehner must be brave and demonstrate how Democrats are being the Party of “no can do”, the Party that can’t propose a budget, the Party that can’t cut spending, can’t avoid a downgrading of our credit rating, can’t stimulate our economy or create jobs, and that can’t reform the entitlement programs that will go broke if they are not reformed.
What it comes down to is who is the Party of “no-can-do”, and who is the Party that is willing to say no to the right things? John Boehner can make the answer to that question clear to the American people, but only if he is willing to side with those who are more concerned with solutions than they are with political perceptions.