The American Spectator : Boehner Blew It

Text Size

Boehner Blew It

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 9.16.10 @ 6:09AM

What possessed him? Fortunately, Mitch McConnell is riding to the rescue.

WASHINGTON — Did my ears deceive me? Did I hear House Minority Leader John Boehner say on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday that “If the only option I have is to vote for those at 250 or below, of course I’m going to do that.” He was referring to voting for extending the Bush tax cuts to those making less than $250,000 a year. And he was referring to the issue when there is a building momentum to keep the tax cuts for everyone in an era of fragile economic growth and 9.6% unemployment. Even some Democrats are willing to keep the tax cuts, but Boehner just made it difficult for them.

There is a growing awareness that we are not getting out of this slowdown anytime soon. Independents and the Tea Party movement are siding with conservatives in favor of extending the tax cuts. There is a sense that economic growth is part of the answer to our economic problems. And there is a realization spreading across the country that official Washington is clueless.

President Barack Obama in his first 19 months in office increased the national debt by more than all presidential administrations from George Washington to Ronald Reagan combined. Obama’s extravagance follows the huge amount of red ink splashed around by the Republicans when they were in office. It led to the Republicans relinquishing the presidency in 2008. Now Boehner just indicated that if his party gets back in power the spending might very well continue. The very rich will have paid more in taxes and that not being enough to pay for Washington’s extravagance, there will be a value added tax for all of us. Yes, there will be a VAT. There just is not that much to be taken from the rich.

After all, those who make $250,000 are in the top ten percent of economic earners who pay 70% of all income taxes. Given our enormous budget deficits, the expropriation of the rich would not be enough. We could send them to reeducation camps and still there would be deficits. We are facing budget shortfalls in the area of a trillion plus dollars for the next few years. Long term the deficit will be in the neighborhood of over one hundred trillion dollars! On the other hand, if we whack the rich our troubles worsen, for they account for most of our investment and job growth. Better it is to have their money working for us on behalf of economic growth. Official Washington would penalize the rich so we can all suffer together rather than let us all prosper in a growing economy. Boehner blew it.

Of course, he rushed on to say to say that he would “fight to make sure that we extend the current tax rates for all Americans.” But the damage had been done. What possessed him? Is it that President Obama has decided to make him his contemporary embodiment of George W. Bush, or is it that Boehner really has lived in Washington too long? Whatever the case, if he cannot stand the heat, he knows where to go.

Elsewhere in the country, the citizenry is rising up out of grave concern about the huge government deficits, local, state, and federal. That is the one issue that is getting out the vote, and many of the voters are new voters. They have come to the realization that these are not normal times. We face the recently acquired budget deficits and the cost of entitlements that were already scheduled to kick in when the baby boomer retired. No one paid it much attention, but now the Tea Party movement has.

The Republicans can claim the Tea Partiers’ vote, but only if they work for it. Boehner just made that more difficult. Fortunately Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is sensitive to his party’s fragile connection with the Tea Party movement and with multitudes of other alarmed citizens. He promises to block the Democrats’ tax increase in the Senate with his 41 Republicans holding fast and four Democrats on his side plus the Independent Joe Lieberman. As Lieberman said this week, “The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be.” Lieberman is for extending the tax cuts a year. Then the citizenry will have spoken and we can get serious about long term growth and economies in government.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (265) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jb| 9.16.10 @ 6:29AM

I don't make $250,000/yr, but my employer does. Steal too much from him and I and a few others will be standing in the unemployment line.

What is it that Washington doesn't understand about how business works? Oh, wait,,, I just realized, none of them have ever run a business.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 11:40AM

Your continued employment has nothing to with your employer’s tax rate. Economics 101; employer don’t pay salaries the employer’s customers do. Think about it, 10% of the America work force has been “standing in the unemployment line” for nearly two years but their employer’s tax rates haven’t changed. No,
with a $13 trillion national debt, annual interest approaching $300 billion, it’s time for ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire.

South Texan| 9.16.10 @ 11:56AM

vtwin, We all agree the economy isn't good. So why do you want to make it worse? Common Sense 101; if my employer doesn't make enough after taxes he will simply quit doing business and my job is gone.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 1:16PM

I don’t want to make the economy worst, nor do I want to pass a growing national debt on to my children of grandchildren

Our generation needs to pay its bills.

Harry the Horrible| 9.16.10 @ 1:30PM

The problem is spending, not the tax rates. If the you want to fix the problem, stop the spending.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 1:40PM

What would you like to cut, please be specific?

Blackwatch| 9.16.10 @ 1:52PM

Start with an across the board 15% cut to every federal department. The recipients of the tax payers money need to do a much better job with what we send them.

Then notify the heads of every department in the government that their job is to find an additional 5% to cut out of the budget for next year. Shadow workers, duplicative departments, life time extravagant benefits, real estate holding, etc. etc. etc.

Make them spend our money like it is their personal cash and we will see a much more efficient government.

don't be such a cynic Vtwin--every government budget--including the DOD can be cut.

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 2:06PM

If you could have this include a 15% cut in the defense budget, then you might start actually having an impact fisacally. But typically when you hear politicians talk about cuts - its in non-defense discretionary. A pittance of the overall gov't spending pie.

1FreeMan| 9.16.10 @ 2:19PM

... and lets not forget to mention the BILLIONS sent to forign governments to prop up their economy. Millions to arts, cultural centers, pork pet-projects of corrupt politicians... stupid studies on what makes a bumble-bee fly... Billions can be saved if we just get the PORK out of our legislation. Murthra's airport should be sold to private industry and the money put back into the budget... start there V-Twin !!!!!

blackwatch| 9.16.10 @ 2:23PM

What part of every department did you not understand. "DOD" is an abbreviation for the Department of Defense.

That also means that we are cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security too. The freebie entitlements have to be cut too.

We are $14,000 billion in debt folks. Every Federal budget line item should be cut 15% now.

Blackwatch| 9.16.10 @ 2:25PM

the post above is addressed to Scott and vtwin. I agree with 1freeman's list of suggested cuts.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 2:31PM

Social Security and Medicare spending is mostly mandatory. And because both the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and running surplus they are not contributing factor to the deficit.

Here are interesting active chart for the proposed 2010 budget:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 2:33PM

http://www.nytimes.com/interac.....udget.html

darcy| 9.17.10 @ 2:57AM

http://escapetyranny.com/bens-daily-rant/

There you go, honey lamb. Seems to me you need a refresher on our nation's financial landscape.

Billg| 9.16.10 @ 2:52PM

Social Security is at a shortfall for this year. It was scheduled to be 2017.
Medicare Part A has been in arrears for about a decade now I believe. Part B keeps it afloat.

Mark Boabaca| 9.16.10 @ 3:00PM

Do you really believe that Social Security and Medicare "trust" funds are running a surplus?

Could you please provide links to your source for this information?

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 3:16PM

Sure, Google “social security trust fund balance”

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/assets.html

Now try “Medicare trust fund balance”

JCfromDC| 9.16.10 @ 3:40PM

There is NO Social Security Trust "Fund". It was ruled part of the "general fund" years ago. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the gov't when a communist spy demanded his "refund" for paying FICA taxes for 20 years when they were deporting him

velihall| 9.16.10 @ 3:11PM

We were moving on this thread for a moment and then stopped suddenly. "...is mostly mandatory" is a common conversation stopper. First that, then, "well, this department is mandatory too" or "this department is critical to our future" or "my wife/husband works in that department" or ... Meanwhile, at private companies across America and throughout the world, situations like ours where all raises have been on hold for 2 years with no sign of breaking free. We have reduced headcount by attrition. From where I sit, the existing government budgets can be cut. Why do government employees get a 5% raise anywhere in the country this year? What percentage of the private world where wealth is actually created does that happen ever? Why do many downtown areas which represent incredibly expensive real estate, fill with expensive, architecturally magnificent wonders that house government employees - where no wealth is created for our economy? Why are the departments not located in less expensive areas? In less expensive offices?

If a corporation, which many seem to believe is an evil thing today, wants to house its offices in such digs, the dollars have to work out. If they don't they go out of business. Other companies then either take the work from that failed business or a new one sprouts up to take over the work of creating value. If a government department moves into a high-rent building in a metropolitan area, and the numbers don't work out, what happens? "We need more tax dollars for our budget! If you say we don't you are an enemy of the poor and downtrodden and haven't a bone of charity in your body."

It is going to take us a very long time to undo this mentality, and while many in this country work to undo it, it will charge forward with as much energy as it can muster trying to dig deeper roots.

Oh, and another favorite, if you don't want new taxes, the cries are always around how you hate schools and want our kids to be uneducated, or you don't support our injured vets, or our single moms or whatever. It is such a false list that I cringe whenever I hear it. No reporter ever seems to rebut the comment - "well, school funding is just one item in the budget, isn't it senator? What about the 'why bumble bees fly' research? Can't we support science without funding every study proposed? Can't we administer the affairs of government without building such expensive buildings on such expensive real estate? What else can we look at? Let's assume we left educational funding and supporting poor single-parent families alone, is there really nothing else to address?"

I pray that one day we will see more creative, interesting, honest, and useful discussion and debate on these issues.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 3:28PM

“Mandatory spending” simply means a requirement under existing law.

pissed| 9.18.10 @ 11:47PM

CHANGE THE F***ING LAW!!! that's why we elected these clowns to make the serious decisions. And if they can't or won't get them out.

charie| 9.18.10 @ 6:40PM

@velihall, great post and the truest one I've seen in many a moon. As soon as someone's ox is gored then the bellyaching starts that it shouldn't affect my ox, it should affect that other ox over there.

It's exactly what's going on in Greece right now. Greece is going under and the government now wants to raise the retirement age to 60 and the Greeks are rioting in the streets. Their ox was gored and they don't like it. I see the same thing in our future because no one wants to be the one to tighten their belt!

Convet| 9.16.10 @ 6:03PM

Social Security isn't mandatory fool! There's no contract between you and Uncle Sugar per the Supreme Court. Sugar owes you NOTHING!!!

Shirley| 9.17.10 @ 5:59AM

Defense is already being cut.

Jon| 9.16.10 @ 7:52PM

You know, it would probably only take about 5% cut across the board

Kishego| 9.16.10 @ 3:34PM

How about 20% cut in ALL House of Congress bloated salaries. Or, maybe we can stop spending a million dollars in South Africa teaching the indigenous male population how to properly wash their penises. Oops, I supposed you wouldn't get a bath if they did that would ya Vtwerp.

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.16.10 @ 3:50PM

Might I suggest that members of Congress have their pay and benefits reduced by the following amounts for each year the deficit continues.. 5% for the first year, 10% the second, 20% the third, 40% the fourth ..... I think we'd see results, very quickly.

jrjr| 9.16.10 @ 4:57PM

UpChuck -- a brilliant plan for term limits. Otherwise such a thing will never be enacted. Although with all of the corruption in government, I suspect that it would not affect them a bit.

Sam| 9.16.10 @ 5:05PM

That's nice upchuck, but how do you convince the people who are making the laws to cut their own salaries? They know that we vote for them based on their political leanings- in other words, that we would not simply vote for a Democrat if we were a conservative and our Republican senator had approved a salary increase. Or maybe you do vote such a person out...6 years later. That's one seat...1 of 100.

Shirley| 9.17.10 @ 6:00AM

I can agree with big cuts for Congress. Why could they vote themselves BIG raises at the expense of not giving our seniors their very small COLA?

Harry the Horrible| 9.16.10 @ 3:56PM

EVERYTHING.
Ten percent across the board based on previous year's budgets.
Even things I like, like Defense.
Repeat each year until revenues match expenditures.
Zero out crap like the NEA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, BATFE, etc.
Sell all "government land" outside of Federal Reservations (i.e. DC and military bases) and National Parks (think about selling some of them, too...).
etc.

BILOXIPAT| 9.16.10 @ 6:01PM

I would like to see an immediate end to all S.S., Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps, etc., to anyone in this country illegally. Multiply all those "grants" by 12 - 16 million, and you come up with enough money to run the country for several years. And an across the board cut to all congress people and their staff(s).

KingLee| 9.17.10 @ 2:29PM

I agree 100% with this. In Texas some of these illegals are communicating with their counterparts, yet on the other side of the border, on how to get here illegally and what to say to receive benefits.

Achilles Toejam| 9.16.10 @ 7:18PM

vtwin "what would you like to cut?" how about half the size of government! Do you realize how much extraconstitutional things the federal government is up to their elbows in?

Tax cuts expire? Repeal the Byrd amendment why should there be an automatic sunset on tax cuts and not on tax hikes? I'll tell you why so they don't have to be seen voting for increasing taxes. It's our money it doesn't belong to the federal government you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. About 47% of Americans don't even pay taxes anymore and the whole reason we even have a communist style progressive income tax (plank of the communist manifesto) if you read the history you'll see that it was basically a bluff or dare that even the person who authored the amendment was shocked that politicians picked up and ran with it and he voted against it.

Soak the rich was the battle cry! Now look what we have, through withholding they take your money before you ever see it so most Americans never realize just how much they're paying in taxes, the 16th amendment should be repealed and replaced with a flat or fair tax system. The graduated income tax appeals to the lowest common denominator of people, envy and covetousness.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:16AM

All unconstitutional spending. In other words all entitlement spending and much of the discretionary spending.

Tex Expatriate| 9.17.10 @ 12:34PM

What to cut? You moron. Start with all the unconstitutional agencies and kill them. Department of Education, Health and Welfare, EPA, and on and on ad infinitum.

charie| 9.18.10 @ 6:44PM

Don't forget the Department of Energy. They've done such a swell job, though, that maybe not.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

shajean| 9.17.10 @ 3:45PM

Do away with the Depts. of Education, Interior,Homeland Security; dump all the czars,cut congressional pay.....

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:28AM

"What would you like to cut, please be specific?"

How about returning the unspent failed 'stimulus' spending - and then cut federal departments across the board (as was suggested by other posters.)

Quartermaster| 9.16.10 @ 6:45PM

Let's get rid of the subterfuge up front. There are only two types of spending, constitutional, and unconstitutional. If you start with the FedGov budget in one hand and the constitution in the other, then go through the budget and look at every line and then compare the activity with what the constitution allows and if it doesn't allow it it gets zeroed. Period. What the constitution does not empower FedGov to do requires "discretionary spending" and that is unlawful. Do this, and you will find 90%+ FedGov's spending is unlawful.

There are very few things FedGov is empowered by the constitution to do. Foreign Relations, Defense, regulation of interstate commerce is about it. The "General Welfare" clause has been used as a blank check, and the courts have allowed because they are lawless.

Defense has also been larded by many non-defense projects to the point that the Military can't even properly maintain its equipment or facilities because of the lard. Yet they get treated as if they are overwhelmingly fat. They aren't and they are declining in their capacity to wage war, and it is happening very quickly.

before Vtwin asks what I would cut, I'll answer the question. Everything that spends money do something that is not allowed FedGov in the constitution. And that includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other forms of social welfare. Nothing should be spared scrutiny. nothing.

And, incidentally, while we are at it, we could do away with about two thirds of the General and Flag officers in the military. Do away with the service academies too. They do no better than ROTC, and ROTC is about one fourth the cost.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:20AM

On the mark! The welfare we are talking about is Specific Welfare and it's entirely unconstitutional. Activist judges and leftist politicos have bastardized the GENERAL welfare clause just as they have bastardized the 14th Amendment, the Commerce Clause and many others.

MARTHA| 9.16.10 @ 2:35PM

REALLY? THEN HOW ABOUT YOU GENERATION PAY IT'S BILLS SO MINE AND MY CHILDREN AREN'T STUCK WITH IT. SO FAR, MY GENERATION OF YOUR VOTERS IS STUCK WITH THE BILLS AS OTHERS LOOK FORWARD TO RETIREMENT.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 2:46PM

It’s “its bills” not “it’s bills.” Apparently, we should have spent a little more or your generation’s education.

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.16.10 @ 3:44PM

Not to mention the use of Cap Locks.

JimE| 9.16.10 @ 6:19PM

VMORON, perhaps you should have studied civics and economics beyond KOS blogs. You are a retard.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:39AM

Can't afford to spend more on real education, it takes too much of the funding for sex ed, diversity, multi-culturalism, self-esteem, bilingual ed, etc. Studies have found that we spend less classroom time on core subjects such as: english/writing/reading, arithmetic, science and history than we did 100 years ago in one-room school-houses. Also, teachers were more interested in teaching then than unionism and thuggery.

Jim| 9.17.10 @ 11:30AM

It's "on your generation's education" not "or your generation's education."

You see everyone has a slip up on occasion.

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:31AM

"Apparently, we should have spent a little more or your generation’s education."

Seriously vtwin - wow, you're just brilliant. What are you going to mark up the posts with a red pen next Mr. Socialist. You folks really are full of yourselves, aren't you?

charie| 9.18.10 @ 6:47PM

vtwin, do you practice being a boor or does it come naturally?

Occam's Tool| 9.16.10 @ 2:55PM

So why don't we make you our slave, vtwin? One way to pay the bills is to not spend money on crap.

Quartermaster| 9.16.10 @ 6:49PM

Now there's an idea. Anyone that votes for a liberal goes on the slave block since they like slavery so much. Then they wouldn't vote and they still count as two-thirds of a person for the purpose of representation. You do away with liberal voters, and, thereby, liberals in Congress, on the bench, the White House, and we get some cheap labor.

I realize they wouldn't be that intelligent. After all they do vote for liberals. So we would have to have overseers. But Cuba also needs cane cutters as well. We could rent them out.

Jim| 9.17.10 @ 11:33AM

Let's start calling them what they are folks. They aren't just liberals anymore, they are progressives. A truly scary bunch.

Convet| 9.16.10 @ 6:01PM

Hot air from a buffoon. How much are YOU feeding off from the government trough?

ohiobiz| 9.17.10 @ 12:14PM

so you want someone else to pay for your children and grandchildren rather than yourself ...that doesn't sound fair or sensible

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:25AM

"Our generation needs to pay its bills."

I and most Americans didn't ask for this assanine spending! Throw the bums out - cut spending, and then yes, pay down the debt. But in that order.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:12AM

No, he will reduce the workforce first.

JP| 9.16.10 @ 12:13PM

Econ 102: Rising capital expenses (taxes and labor are just that) reduce profits.

If a small business owner realizes $700,000 a year in total revenues, his tax liability beginning in January will increase over $100,000. If the cost of employing 2 part time workers is $100,00, one of them will be let go.

Where I live, I know of electricians, plumbers, too and die shop owners, printers, PC repair shops, bar owners, etc... who will see huge increases in thier tax liability come Jan 1st. They all "earn" over $250,000. But out those earnings they employ anywhere from 2-4 people. The tax cuts expirations for people making more than $250,000 will add another full 1 to 1.5% to the unemployment figures.

This isn't a revenue issue, but a spending one.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 1:04PM

I respectively disagree; OUR national debt is only partly the result of over spending.

The primary factor in the growing national debt is the decline in the REAL incomes of the American middle class, the results of supply-side economics; deregulation, de-unionization, exporting of jobs,… , to the point where 50% of Americans contribute a less that 3% of the total income tax revenues collected.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Neanderthal1| 9.16.10 @ 1:34PM

When you have 2+ million federal employees making twice what those of us in the private sector who pay for them make, how can you possibly claim that we don't have a spending problem? Government will never have "enough money", no matter how punatively they tax us, as long as there are no limits to what government sticks it's nose into.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:46AM

Let me expand on your reasoned response. I would go further and say that people who are on the public dole, either working for the government, on welfare, or not paying federal income tax, they should not be allowed to vote, since it is clearly a conflict of interest.

tippy| 9.16.10 @ 3:24PM

vtwin,

You were right up until "...the results of..."

It's the results of government policies like interference in mortgage lending, passing a health care bill that no business can decipher or plan for and the will they/won't they extension of Bush tax cuts.

When businesses can't plan, but assume that if the government spending continues as it has... under Democrat control of purse strings, they pull back and don't spend. So what maybe you meant to say is "...the results of the government screwing around with supply-side economics."

Look at the last 250+ years of American standing and prosperity. Where's the chapter in the history books about great regulations that propelled us into a superpower?

And as an aside, pointing out people's typos or grammatical errors when they're typing quickly because they've got other things to do does not make your points any more valid.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 4:06PM

The economy collapsed long before “the passing of the health care bill” and “businesses can't plan,“ because “will they/won't they” extend the Bush tax cuts which the expiration was written into law 10 YEARS ago.

tippy| 9.16.10 @ 6:51PM

Well, you picked two out of three, but just couldn't negotiate that mortgage lending event - or the Democrat controlled Congress, could ja...?

I'll take that as concession.

And the expiration date is relevant now because people were wondering during the campaign whether or not Obama would extend them. (I think your caps lock got stuck there when you wrote "years.")

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:56AM

That's right you can trace it right back to Karter's CRA. And Klinton and Reno and Cuomo's threat to enforce the CRA by force of law. Throw in the democrap's blocking needed reforms, which were recommended by federal regulators. It wasn't a lack of regulation per se, it was the democraps blocking the reforms which federal regulators said were needed to avoid a recession.

Howard| 9.16.10 @ 4:02PM

It has been government policy for over 20 years to increase the threshold at which taxes are paid. EIC, higher standard deductions, etc. Hence those with money are paying more tax as a % of income. The new paradigm of permanent Obama deficits will require higher and broader taxes. Spending will not be cut, as people want stuff, and no one wants to give anything up. Eventually a "Greece" situation will occur in this country, and even the fools in Washington will capitulate to reality.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 4:09PM

The deficit was over $10 trillion dollar before Obama was elected President of the United States.

Quartermaster| 9.16.10 @ 6:54PM

Come now, vtwin, I, as well as everyone else here knows you are abysmally ignorant, but even you should know the difference between debt and a spending deficit. Yes the debt was over 10 trillion before the Obamanation, but the spending deficit has nearly tripled under the Obamabot.

If you want to appear intelligent or well informed, it would behoove you to do just a little study on the things you want to try to lecture betters about.

tippy| 9.16.10 @ 6:56PM

The deficit of what? The deficit for this country wasn't even $10 trillion in 2009.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....8lChe4zUQU

Apparently, we should have spent a little more on your generation's education, dope.

(I love it when what comes around, goes around. Don't you?)

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:40AM

vtwin: "the results of supply-side economics; deregulation, de-unionization, exporting of jobs,… ,"

Please do tell us vtwin how you and your vaunted $40/hour union jobs plan to have us compete with the Chinese masses...

What we need are innovation and intellectual capital leading to high paying jobs in all industries. How do your unions figure into this new global economy? You'd best figure it out, 'cause your old, tired, hackneyed brow beatings just aren't going to cut it in the rest of the world.

What vtwin, not so sure how we're going to compete and bring back America? Well conservatives are.

Either get on board, or get out of the way! Time to MOVE ON buddy.

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 2:10PM

What kind of crooked math is this based upon?

$700k-$250k = $450k. Marginal increase of 4.6% on $450k = $20,700. A sizeable chunk, but not $100k.

And by the way genius, employers earnings are what is left over AFTER they pay for their employees salaries - not before. You comment insinuates that the gov't taxes based upon a business owner's revenues, not their earnings.

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:43AM

"And by the way genius"

And by the way genius - if you add up enough $20,000 chunks, those are REAL jobs...so the massive tax hikes on the 'rich' is going to result in more job losses in this country.

The Democrats are clueless about all of this. Amazing.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 3:04PM

“PC repair shops…employ 2-4 people…with earnings of $250,000.” Profits no way, not even revenues, someone is pulling your leg.

Ralph Averill| 9.16.10 @ 3:42PM

Taxes are applied to "net" revenue; after all business expenses, i.e. wages of employees, insurance, equipment depreciation, etc. are deducted. If your boss is taking home more than $250,000 a year, that's over 20 grand a month, in personal income, his taxes are going to go up. There are very few small business owners taking home that kind of change.

LM| 9.16.10 @ 4:06PM

I run a small business and my gross is a bit over 800,000. My tax liability is no where near 100,000, much less an increase of 100,000 starting in January. I don't know where you pulled that number from.
Second, I have 8 employees and they are all busy serving customers. If I lay one of them off, my gross business will decrease. Why would I want to do that?

When times are tough, I borrow money so that I can increase my customer base-primarily through advertising. We work too hard to get customers and the last thing we want to do is loose customers because of poor service.
At the same time, I look for places to increase efficiency.
If my taxes increase, I take the hit. But every time my income goes up, so do my taxes. That doesn't keep me from wanting to earn more money.
The paperwork the government, local, federal and state cause me is another issue. That's a total waste of my time and money and could be far more efficient.
It's time to pay the bill. That mans increasing revenue and decreasing expenses. Telling us that we can do one without the other is political b.s.
You can play with your charts and statistics all you want.
I still consider myself middle class and I am tired of subsidizing the rich. Find me a chart that shows the middle class expanding .
They are people that support my business and there are fewer of them every year. Give me all the tax breaks you can and I will not hire another person because there aren't enough customers out there.
If you insist on raising the deficit, give the money to the middle class. They'll spend it, not invest it on companies that don't give a rip if their customers are Americans or Chinese.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 4:23PM

Thank you, for your comment.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 1:29AM

Your first sentence proves that the so-called rich are actually subsidizing you. They're subsidizing the nation as a matter of fact and in many cases more than with just taxes.

Of course, if your 8 employees are all busy, as you say, you wouldn't have a need to lay any of them off. However if 3 of them were sitting around twiddling their thumbs...you could add debt by borrowing to advertise, a gamble at best in a downturned economy, or you could reduce your work force to fit your present business climate. You might end up adding the tax hit you are willing to take, the new debt you just incurred, and the wages of 3 employees who aren't presently contributing to your business. In any event, don't be so arrogant as to think that all business people should do what you do. Don't think that other business' have the options you think you have.

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:49AM

LM: "Second, I have 8 employees and they are all busy serving customers. "

What's preventing you from hiring more people though - and millions of other small businesses from doing the same. Again, whether your liabilities go up $10K or $20K - you won't have the money to consider hiring on an additional 1 or 2 - and you'd only do that if the macro economy makes sense - so put it all together and you have an impending disaster for jobs brought to you by the Democrats.

Cut spending FIRST ('cause that never seems to happen the way it should), then let's talk about 'additional revenue.'

Do you realize that when Clinton the Rs voted to reduce the cap gains tax that they had so mcuh more money come into the Fed Gubmint coffers that they had expected, they had to revise their numbers monthly to adjust.

How could a tax CUT produce additional revenues? The answer lies in basic economics - private sector investment multiplies in a way that government spending does NOT do.

OK, spending cuts, tax cuts, additional revenues.

That is the answer.

Albert| 9.16.10 @ 12:17PM

Again, non-sequiturs and nonsense. Consumers pay taxes, yes, through the purchase price. But if taxes are too high, and taxes are part of the cost of production, then the price of the end product becomes too high and the consumer does not buy. If the consumer does not buy, the employer goes out of business and the employee loses his job. Too bad you flunked Economics 101. Perhaps you should have shown up for class, or even better, studied at a college in the USA instead of Cuba.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 1:06PM

I don’t address “Consumer or corporate taxes” in my comment. What I wrote was; “employer don’t pay salaries the employer’s customers do.” Meaning; despite the firm’s tax rate, when an enterprise is unable to sell its products or services the enterprise well stop paying the wages (layoff) of its employees. I’m sorry you “flunked” reading comprehension.

Albert| 9.16.10 @ 1:35PM

"Employer" can mean "corporate" and "consumer" can mean "customer." I understood perfectly. The problem, stupid, is that taxes are TOO HIGH for everyone. High taxes leads to high production costs and therefore high prices and therefore lower sales and therefore laid off employees. You want to raise taxes, which is economic suicide. If you truly want recovery, lower taxes. Instead of your favorite clown President Bozo's "stimulus" package, which only "stimulated" the recession, if the government had simply eliminated taxes for one year, the economy would be jumping right now. And the cost to the government would be the same as Bozo's "stimulus." You know absolutely nothing about basic economics. You live in a Marxian Utopia fantasy world where the good people in government take care of us, and simply give orders that the economy be good to us all and produce jobs so we can all buy TV's and watch Barney reruns while we suck on government supplied lollipops. You really have no clue.

DeesBull| 9.16.10 @ 6:09PM

YEAH!!! What YOU said! I get so tired of hearing from mamby-pamby marxist whiners that you just burned! Right on!

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 1:35AM

Good comment.

Fergie| 9.16.10 @ 7:42PM

vtwin,

You wrote, "employers don't pay salaries the employers' customers do." Meaning, despite the firm's tax rate, when an enterprise is unable to sell its products or services the enterprise well (sic) stop paying the wages (layoff) of its employees. I'm sorry you "flunked" reading comprehension."

Yeah, well I'm sorry you flunked Writing 101. What you said and what you said it meant is totally unrelated. When you said that customers pay salaries not the employer. That is self-explanatory. However, when you say this statement means that employers will stop paying wages and layoff employees when it is unable to sell its products or services -- NO WAY can what you wrote even remotely imply that this is what you meant! Stop being rude to people because you can't put two sentences together without messing up!

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 1:40AM

I caught the ambiguity of that too, but his writing is so discombobulated I wasn't positive what he was saying.

RAMIII| 9.16.10 @ 12:54PM

Oh look, it's one of vtwin's Red Herrings!

RAMIII| 9.16.10 @ 12:57PM

"Now Boehner just indicated that if his party gets back in power the spending might very well continue."

One more thing -- vtwin you missed the main point of the article. The National Debt comes from too much spending NOT the lack of taxes or the expiration of tax cuts.

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 1:31PM

Sure, and like the conservative politicians he wants you to support he doesn’t offer a single specific item in the federal budget he thinks should be cut.

neanderthal1| 9.16.10 @ 1:40PM

Oh please... Boehner may not get it, but there are a lot of us who do. There are whole departments within the federal government (education, energy, transportation), which could be zeroed out without anyone but their employees noticing. The "stimulus" alone increased the size of the federal govt. by close to 20%. C'mon, this is low-hanging fruit.

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.16.10 @ 3:47PM

I can read the headlines now. Unemployment jumps as Government offices eliminated. Has a nice ring to it. I'll feel for the people but they can blame the ones that will no doubt escape with nice bonuses.

PhyCon| 9.16.10 @ 4:16PM

UpChuck:

That's already happenned. Remember when the rate jumped after the census was done? All those temps got pink slips and then went straight to filing for benefits...from one teat to another.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 1:48AM

You've veered into the only area where Obumba has actually increased jobs.

I personally would only be in favor of eliminating unconstitutional jobs (and spending). Constitutionally the government doesn't have to power to spend and hire in most areas. Most federal government jobs have been usurped from the private sector.

Sam| 9.16.10 @ 5:19PM

Vtwin won this round, neaderthal. What good does it do us if you people get it, but Boehner doesn't. You don't hold any power. Oh you can vote? Wonderful! In Ohio? Maybe. And in Boehner's district? I doubt it. And we're supposed to put Boehner in charge of the house when he doesn't get how to cut spending, according to you? If neither party is actually going to cut spending, maybe we're better off with Pelosi and the Dems since they are generally more cowardly and easily manipulated than Republicans.

John Lloyd Scharf| 9.16.10 @ 8:47PM

Boehner gets it. We all pay for this government either by taxes, incurred debt, or inflation. He made a statement about a choice of evils, not a direction he wanted to take. What he and you and I know is we have more government than we can afford.

Tyrrell is like one of those "Christians" who takes two versus from separate parts of the Bible to make up a new theology. In one place it says Judas hung himself. In another verse it says, "Go thou and do the same."

Tyrrell may as well be a shill for the Democrats like the rest of the third party advocates.

Convet| 9.16.10 @ 6:09PM

Prove it MORON!

Daniel Myers| 9.16.10 @ 3:06PM

Ummmmm,
Maybe with a $13 Trillion dollar national debt what we should be doing is limiting spending. (Maybe you should have taken economics 201)Also, your argument about the customers paying my salary is specious. Customers pay for a product, which may include my salary as a cost. The margin of the product price over the product cost covers my salary, among other things. If my employer must reduce the price, or is not selling sufficient product to cover my salary, I am probably going to lose my job. Likewise, unless the capital my employer has invested is giving him a sufficient return, he is likely to sell of the assets he has and invest the money into something more profitable. (That would be econ 301.) Taxes decrease the return he receives for his investment.

Bubba| 9.16.10 @ 3:10PM

vtwin, sorry, but having experience in corporate finance, you are dead wrong.

EVERY rational investment decision a company makes, whether in people or equipment, uses a cost of capital that is reduced by the tax rate.
I own a growing small business and we are facing this very decision right now as to whether we hire contractors (less expensive/less commitment) or full time employees (more expensive/more commitment).

Who in their right mind would count revenue that they don't get to keep in deciding whether to hire someone or buy equipment? Only a Keynesian, which I know is a form of question begging given their utopianism.

Your "theory" doesn't make economic or finanical sense and is a distortion of econ 101 - taxes ALWAYS cause a net loss to producer and consumer welfare; this is a basic econ tenet that you have either misunderstood or purposely misrepresent in trying to make a political point.

It's kinda obvious that you are not considering the other side of the ledger, as in, reducing the government cost side of the equation. Keynes would be proud. Still dead wrong, but proud that he still has willing acolytes after 80 years of Progressive failures.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Daniel Myers| 9.16.10 @ 3:14PM

By the way, the percentage of the taxes paid by the top quintile, and the top 10%, and the top 5% and the top 1% all increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts. It seems to be you want to destroy the economy AND increase the burden of government on the middle class. OK, I admit that you probably don't WANT to do that, but it is the only possible result of what you propose.

old white guy| 9.16.10 @ 3:21PM

not all that bright are you?

JC| 9.16.10 @ 3:22PM

Sure, give them more money to sprnd. You obviously have not been in business and flunked taxes 101

old white guy| 9.16.10 @ 3:24PM

vitwin, you idiot, if you took every single penny from the top 20 percent of earners and taxpayers in the u.s. you could not run the federal government for 6 momths. jez socialists are stupid.

joesixpack31| 9.16.10 @ 3:50PM

@vtwin...A--HOLE!!

VDon | 9.16.10 @ 3:57PM

To the vtwin comments: If your employer did not originally put his / her own capital at risk to start the business, others would be serving the market. If your employer has fewer resources to put at risk, you and / or others will have the opportunity to put YOUR capital at risk, to serve the market. If there is a basic misunderstanding in this country as to the veracity of the risk / reward equation, let the learning begin.
When you have literally bet what you own - mortgaged your own house, spent your savings, committed your 401K in order to make it work, and government responds by more regulation, beating up on anyone and everyone who makes over $250K annually - calling them "the wealthy", then we have reached the bottom of the class warfare engagement. This, of all countries, is where we ALL want and expect the opportunity to accomplish within our talent, experience and means. When that opportunity is diminished at the whim of a group of people who have never signed the front side of a check, then we are at the precipice.
If the desire is to push everyone over the side of the ship, wait and see what real unemployment pain is.

Respectfully,
VDon

Joey| 9.16.10 @ 4:24PM

Economics 101 is for schools not the real world. Yes, the cost of business get passed to the consumer and that includes taxes. But when the cost of that good or service exceeds what the consumer is willing to pay or can afford to pay; then an employer has to cut costs to keep their prices down. The biggest cost to an employer???? Labor. Jobs get lost. Yes tax rates for all of us have gone up, its a hidden tax. The government runs up debt, destabilizing the economy, business sputters, stock prices fall, 401k's lose money. Government just prints out money to pay for its debts, the dollar is devalued, our money buys less. Taking money away from us in taxes and now we can buy less. These are the same things; except the government gets audited, the treasury does not.

ReConUSMC| 9.16.10 @ 4:36PM

Wrong it is time to cut the largest moronic Spending plan ever !
If you took all of the top 10 % Income (72.2 % of all taxes taken in ) you would not but a dent in the National Debt .
We are nearing the cost of Govt is 90 % of GDP .

wodiej| 9.16.10 @ 4:58PM

You obviously are illiterate about economics. See, the customers buy products that the employer sells. But the employer has to pay taxes on everything pertaining to his business including employees. So if taxes go up, his profits go down and no employee. If there is no one working, there is no one to buy products. Are you really that STUPID? STOP THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

Harold| 9.16.10 @ 5:26PM

What is it you don't understand about economics?
if taxes are raised only for the rich, there goes both jobs and capital purchases to make the company more effective. The Bush tax cuts must be extended for multiple years. As the economy improves tax revinues will increase greatly

kerry| 9.16.10 @ 5:32PM

Employers dont pay taxes? I own 4 retaraunts and am going to open 2 more and employ 75 people. You raise my income tax (profits from the restaruants) and I will forget opening anything. Take my money and sit it home. NO
NEW JOBS OR TAXES! What planet are you from

RH| 9.16.10 @ 6:22PM

What's the point of expanding your restaurant chain if it is not to raise profits from your restaurant business? So you say that raising your personal income tax will cause you to decide to not raise your income? That would be like me saying "if the tax rate on my wages increases then I will refuse to do anything that might increase my wages."

Basically, all you are saying is that if you don't get what you want, then you won't do something you have not done yet. How stupid do you take us for?

BILOXIPAT| 9.16.10 @ 5:59PM

You are ignorant of economics too, vtwin. If the employer has to pay higher taxes, someone will be let go to make up for his higher costs. The top 10% of wealth pays over 70% of all taxes. And the reason we have a $13 trillion national debt and a 10% unemployment is that Obama doubled and tripled what they were when Bush handed over the reins. He has had two years, and in those two years he has spent more than ALL previous presidents combined. If he gets more taxes, he will spend more. Period.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 2:07AM

Roger on the top 10% paying...actually I think it's 80% of all fed income taxes. But right now the $13 trillion national debt isn't double Mr Bush's. Not yet anyway, but his programs have set in motion the doubling or tripling of the national debt over the next several years if they aren't repealed. Where Obumba has outspent Mr Bush in the more immediate time is in the yearly deficit. Mr Bush's last budget was a little over $100 billion. Obumba's is over $800 billion.

Fergie| 9.16.10 @ 7:34PM

vtwin,

Really? Employers don't pay salaries, the employer's customers do. Now, hows that supply and demand thing work? Lets see, I have to raise my prices on my products to cover my tax burden, pay my employees, and buy materials to continue production as well as meet any other incurred costs like energy usage, which will spike due to EPA's backdoor CAP and Tax scheme, and other overhead, such as cost of repair of machinery, NEW and IMPROVED MANDATED HEALTH CARE COSTS, and the additional cost of preparing all of the Miscellaneous Income statements for purchasing over $600.00 from ANY vendor, all thinks the Regulatory Reform Act.

The recession has caused my little company to lose business, and raising prices on my product is not good. What happens? My customers decide they don't need to buy my American made widget at $105.00. They can order one from an off-shore distributor for half that and no shipping costs to boot. So, my customer base begins to dry up. If my inventory does not move, I stop producing widgets, you know basic Economics 101. When I stop producing widgets, I have no work for my employees. Even though I don't pay my employees' salaries, those pesky little people who do, are NOT BUYING MY PRODUCT. If I lower the price of my product in order to move inventory -- my employee base must be reduced because I will not have enough capital to pay all of my employees, their medical insurance and other federally mandated portions I must cover, and buy materials to build my widgets or fix that blasted widget machine. WHY? Because of my tax liability, which must be paid quarterly, that's every four months will take the lion's share of the capital, regardless who is paying my employees' salaries -- eventually, the government stealing ALL my wealth, with destroy my business and I will be forced to close the doors to Fergie's Widget Works and lay off the remaining 50 of my 100 original workers -- YOU already know this, right -- Basic Economics 101 -- Right?

I can tell YOU have never run or even remotely owned a business -- hope to hear how you're doing after the Bush tax cuts expire, that is unless, of course, you are one of the 40% who PAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN TAXES EACH YEAR BECAUSE YOU DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO RUB TWO CENTS TOGETHER.

J. Grindle| 9.17.10 @ 4:46AM

vtwin: You might want to go back and get a refund from the college you attended cause apparently you learned nothing useful. If your employer's tax rate is increased, that is more money taken from him that he cannot use to expand his business, employ more people, give you benefits, a raise, etc. As a result of the increased taxes, he has to raise the cost on the goods and services he provides, reduce your working hours, make you a part-time worker instead of full time, or lay your dumb-ass off or anyone else in order to keep his doors open and the business running. Tough tatas but that's the way it is. And raising taxes on corporations means higher prices on goods and services that everyone partakes in. So, when the price is increased on something you want to buy, shut it and dig deep. That's the result of the expired "Bush tax cuts for the rich" cause you'll be paying the increased costs with the rest of us!

Mike Giles| 9.17.10 @ 2:03PM

His continued employment has nothing to do with his employer's business' continued profitability? are you assuming that any and all costs can simply be passed on to the customer? And what happens when the customer finds another, cheaper, seller?

Blue| 9.17.10 @ 7:08PM

vtwin do you understand economics 101? If the taxes are raised on the people who create jobs and business owners they have less money to expand their business. Also they will pass on their tax increases to the consumer. Tax cuts creates a boost to the economy in the way of more new jobs which produces more tax revenue and the beat will go on. How hard is that to understand?

William Benton| 9.17.10 @ 8:42PM

It is obvious your brain has been washed in Liberal juice. Revisit Economics 101 and it tells you "lower taxes helps create jobs which then gives customers' money, funneled through employers, a chance to work through the multiplier formula." Letting Bushes' tax cut expire will compound our economic mess; ergo, keeping same will reverse some of the pain Obamaville has brought to us. Wise up.

Khoona| 9.18.10 @ 7:48PM

Vtwin... And when the customer dont want to pay more they dont buy. Job lost. Or they go to somebody else. Job lost. Or they buy from China. Jobs lost. Increased taxes hurt everyone. Period.

Dennis Rudz| 9.16.10 @ 2:48PM

JB You get it. Now we see what happens when a bunch of academics run the country.

John Lloyd Scharf| 9.16.10 @ 8:37PM

Tyrrell seems to be looking for a way to put Leader Bohner down. The reality of politics is that if you have a choice between taxing just the wealth creators or taxing both the workers and business, then that is what Lincoln would do. He said nothing is wholely good or wholely bad, so you must make choices.

Leader Boehner runs/ran a business. You only do what you afford. Since January of 2007/H.Res.6, we have had more government than we can afford. Speaker Hastert brought us to the edge. Pelosi, Franks, and Reid grabbed an anchor and jumped over the side with HUD, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. Where we really went into the toilet, Gaithner caused that with the New York Federal Reserve, not Wall Street.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 2:16AM

Yeah, I understood Boehner to be talking about while the democraps were still running things, not what the republicans would do if/after they took over. The way his words are being portrayed is completely out of character for republicans.

tcgots| 9.16.10 @ 11:41PM

Most of them have never HAD any job.

1LTLos| 9.17.10 @ 4:22PM

No - Not one of them have ever held a job! Much less than run a business - were a business or budget plan to smack them on the face these greedy, corrupt do-nothings would recognize that from scripted speech - This group form the 109th to this present 111th Congress are treasonous! Run a business? They are working in their special interests and must be abruptly stopped.

Siegfried X| 9.16.10 @ 6:32AM

Boehner is ignorant, weak, slow on his feet, and doesn't have a conservative bone in his body. He speaks passionately about bipartisanship and working with the Democrats, but he can't speak with passion about tax cuts because he doesn't really believe in them. Boehner has taken so many hits from the Democrats that he's surrendered, like someone afraid of a bully. Whenever the Democrats put pressure on him, he gives in, like with the tax cuts.

Dai Alanye | 9.16.10 @ 3:19PM

Boehner's "mistake" was in giving an honest answer instead of dodging the question as most politicians would have done. Given "the only option" any rational person would vote to retain at least part of the tax cuts.

Should he have been so candid? Perhaps not, given the general propensity to jump on a minor sound bite while ignoring the context and balance of his statements. But this slip is far less serious than anyone on this forum--including our good buddy Tyrrell--is making it out to be. The Repubs have previously had worse leaders than Boehner, and if they aren't careful might have worse ones in the future.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 2:18AM

Very true, my post above.

Eric R.| 9.16.10 @ 6:39AM

You all blew it, by arguing on the Democrats' terms.

They got to say “the Republicans are holding the middle-class tax cut hostage to get tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans”.

That is, of course, a lie; Obama is promising no middle-class tax cut, merely the extension of the existing tax code.

The truth is Democrats are holding the middle-class hostage with threat of a tax INCREASE unless they get a tax INCREASE on the wealthy. They are holding the tax-hike gun to the head of Middle America and snarling “raise taxes on the rich guy or the average guy gets it.”

This is not mere semantics, or two ways of saying the same thing. It is a lie for Obama to claim a middle-class tax cut when speaking of merely continuing current law. It is the truth to say Democrats are threatening to raise taxes on the middle-class unless they get to raise taxes on the rich. They have promised no tax cut to anybody, and it is a lie to let them claim credit for a tax cut that was enacted against their will and over their opposition by a Republican President and Congress.

The Republican leadership shows a disheartening amateurishness and inability with the most basic messaging, a base competency of politics. If you can’t handle live rhetoric, hire someone who can coach you and take his advice.

R Martin| 9.16.10 @ 8:13AM

Good points. If Republicans get themselves into a position to do it, they should immediately repeal the silly tax rate expiration dates. Then, if Democrats want to restore the Clinton tax increases, they have to do it with a new bill and make their case to the voters. Automatic triggers in the tax laws simply allows legislators to shirk responsibility.

Secondly, whatever public sentiment is driving the current voter revolt against government business as usual should be focused (and intensified) on opposing a value added tax. Once such a tax is enacted it will never go away and it will be filled with so many loopholes and exemptions (especially for the people who already don't pay any tax) that it will become another big government building block. Any legislator who even mentions such a tax should receive withering criticism.

darcy| 9.16.10 @ 4:01PM

Withering criticism? How about a pitchfork brigade gathered daily at every single one of his local congressional offices?

The mere whisper of a VAT signals to ME that those in office intend to bleed America dry, to steal OUR money to buy votes from a whole host of leeches. It signals to me that the government INTENDS to destroy this country and refuses to address its spending addiction, its addiction to power and control. We are in a world of hurt with financial obligations stretching out to children of our children many times over.

Boehner failed the truth-telling test: Americans deserve to know how dire is our situation so they can begin to PRESS congress to CLOSE various gov't agencies and programs.

FDR's new deal has proved a raw deal. Get the damn government out of our lives and let us take responsibility -- the rewards and the failures -- for our own decisions. Stop treating us like adolescents, enabling us in our weaknesses and perpetuating in us a soul-destroying dependency. Tell me, just tell me, what's moral about a government that employs politically acceptable speech to enslave its people?

Take your socialism and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Harold| 9.16.10 @ 5:41PM

Right On Darcy, The more they can damage the economy, the more they can try to take over and forget the constitution. We cannot let this happen even if it takes another American Revolution. You can be G Washington. I like the way you think.

darcy| 9.16.10 @ 9:00PM

Unhappily, they've already shelved much of the Constitution. The most notorious recent example being Pelosi's brazen, "Are you kidding?" (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/14/the-prosecution-of-nancy-pelos/).

Harold, it doesn't take that very many of us with firm, rock-solid convictions and the will to do whatever it takes -- NOT including lies, treachery, or any of the other malignant tactics employed by the opposition -- to win this war of ideas. The essential thing is that we hold steady and not be deceived -- for surely the other side will manipulate our minds to the hilt, marginalize, disparage, ridicule, and humiliate us.

I will be your G. Washington if you will be my John Adams, my John Jay, or my Patrick Henry.

But today, I think, we are all George Washington -- those of us who fight this stealth tyranny, aka, big government.

Margie| 9.16.10 @ 9:59PM

Yep. We proved it with O'Donnell winning in the primary, Chris Christie NJ, Scott Brown MA, McDonnell VA.

Voting in the primaries is of the UTMOST importance! Because it leads to a very clear choice in November: Conservative OR Socialist!

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 2:24AM

Patriot or Marxist.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 2:30AM

Exactly right Eric. There is not an actual tax cut on the table. The dem media is helping the democraps by going along with this erroneous terminology. The democraps of course would argue that the fact that they didn't raise taxes is in fact a tax cut. Such as when the idiot Pelosy argued that letting the Bush tax cuts expire wouldn't be a tax increase because it would just be the elimination of a tax decrease. Ugh.

JAWtree| 9.16.10 @ 7:00AM

I, personally, like the one two punch that resulted from Boehner and McConnel taking their shots. It knocked Obama's team off stride and move the whole conversation over to the Republican side. I thought that Boehner did ok with the comment, but that the combination of comments was a good destabilization to Obama. And Obama is not that smart. We should do more of this.

Kelly Staples| 9.16.10 @ 7:03AM

Pubbies will be Pubbies. That's why there's a Tea Party.

michigander_sandusky| 9.16.10 @ 7:22AM

Boehner is automatically suspect when he calls for bipartisanship. How can you be bipartisan with a party (Democrats) who is headed by a marxist (Obama) and they are all hell bent on reducing the U.S. to a third world socialist country?

canuckistani| 9.16.10 @ 2:48PM

So what happened to representing the American people? If Boehner lets the dems free reign and zero compromise, how is that helping? I'd prefer a watered down bill instead of a pure leftist concoction.
Politics are one thing, but real street-level impacts are what people care about.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.16.10 @ 7:49AM

The ruling class is under attack because their tax and spend system in under attack.

Don't fool yourself with illusions of size.

Obama is the biggest spender. Bush was a big spender. We've had 50 years of compromises on spending which have always lead to higher spending and it's about to occur again. Maybe.

If the November message is strong enough the ruling class will make some minimal cuts before the next election.

Until the ruling class is kicked to the curb watch your wallet. It's getting thinner every day and all you have to look forward to with the ruling class is more regulations, bigger government and a smaller you. You midget.

canuckistani| 9.16.10 @ 3:18PM

Here's the problem: we all want to be a part of the ruling class. That's the secret American dream, so we walk hand in hand down the garden path with the 1%-ers rigging the play book all the way along.
Buying votes is as old as the union, the citizens love it like a crack whore with an empty pipe looking for her next fix. What she does to subsidize her addiction is not very much different than what we do every election cycle. We're all at the trough with our knickers on the ground.
With the citizens united ruling, nobody is immune.

Albert| 9.16.10 @ 3:35PM

Error! Error! Not all of us want to be part of the ruling class. Many of us just want to be left alone. (I for one find the prospect of living in Washington DC, home of the ruling class, and its heat and humidity, simply inconceivable!) And, buying votes is as old as the Roman Empire. The proles like it because it provides them with a subsistence living, if little else, but the middle class don't because we pay for it through taxes. And don't blame me for what happens every election cycle. I didn't vote for these bozos. In fact, in the 36 years I have been a registered voter, I have NEVER voted for a successful House candidate. My guys always lose to the socialist goons.

canuckistani| 9.16.10 @ 4:01PM

So for the other 99% of Americans on the teat, it applies?

Albert| 9.16.10 @ 4:33PM

I think you exaggerate my importance when you imply that I am 1% of Americans. Even President Bozo's ego is not that big. :-)

Kishego| 9.16.10 @ 5:10PM

Speak for yourself nucki! quit projecting whatyou would do, assuming I am like you. I couldn't give a rats ass about being in the ruling class, nor do I think many in this audience would want to either.

gran torino| 9.16.10 @ 8:09AM

What Boehner did accomplish was keeping Obama from yet again accusing Republicans from being the party of no--just before a very important election. Look beyond your navels, guys.

darcy| 9.16.10 @ 4:11PM

Look, gran torino, there was a moment not so long ago when Boehner had the guts to say 'you bet we're the party of NO, hell no' and was proud of it (maybe it was in an interview with Greta, I can't remember).

We can depend on the propaganda press and the WH attack machine to speak all manner of ill against us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, but especially if we get any where close to speaking the truth. We must NEVER, ever tailor our message to minimize the sting. If we haven't the spine to speak the truth, we may as well pack our bags and go home: we're finished.

Damn the torpedoes; full steam ahead!

Curly Smith| 9.16.10 @ 8:10AM

It seems to me that Boehner had a few more options:

- He could have said that the Bush tax cuts were needed to get us out of a much milder recession and that they're far too tepid for the current recession; that the GOP was advocating not just their extension but their tripling.
- He could have said that the GOP was advocating the permanent abolition of the Estate Tax.
- He could have said that the GOP was going to repeal Corporate Income Taxes
- He could have said that the GOP was going to reduce Federal Spending to 1999 levels, or pre-GOP insanity levels.
- He could have said that he GOP was committed to repealing ObamaCare; privatizing Amtrak, GM, Chrysler, and the Post Office.
- He could have said that all solar, wind and ethanol boondoggles would be abandoned and more oil, coal and nuclear power would be pursued.
- He could have given an indication that the GOP has a plan beyond "we might not kick you in the crotch as hard as the Democrats will - vote for us!".

Redstateboy| 9.16.10 @ 8:54AM

Right on!! What a lot of people either refuse to accept or purposely chose to ignore is the fate of this Nation is now hanging in the balance. I am convinced that to save this Country. We must begin the Systematic dismantling of this obscene sized National Government. EPA? HEW? HUD? to name a few.. their Mission should be handled - CAN be - handled on the individual State level.
And a Flat tax (like the have in Iraq!!) is long overdue.

Maxwell| 9.16.10 @ 9:56AM

Curly, what you said plus reduce the size and scope of government, HHS, IRS, DEP, Dept. of Education.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 2:38AM

The democraps have politicized the Dept of Education so bad it has to be completely eliminated.

Big J| 9.16.10 @ 8:15AM

Boehner didn't blow it. He simply accepted the lesser of two evils:

A) Hold the middle class tax rate extension hostage in favor of freezing ALL rates ("See, I told you the Republicans love the eeeeevil rich people!).

B) Reluctantly state that you would support raising taxes on the eeeeeevil rich in return for extension of some of the tax rates ("Hah! We got him! Now lets call it "Obama's tax cuts for the middle class").

Double speak if I've ever heard it.

I'm tired of the class warfare, and I think a growing number of Americans are too. Boehner makes sense: freeze the tax rates for EVERYONE where they are right now, and return spending to '08 levels. It's only a tourniquet, but it would slow the bleeding enough to get the patient to the emergency room and operate.

I agree with the above poster to an extent regarding the messaging power by the Republicans, although McConnell made the point yesterday: We aren't cutting taxes for anyone, we are raising taxes on the "upper income earners".

The rest of our Congress Critters need to pick that torch up and run with it.

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 9:02AM

Return what spending to '08 levels? Non-defense discrectionary spending? That's a meaningless drop in the bucket.

Someone on the right needs to stand up and advocate for signficiant defense budget cuts if they are to be taken seriously. This other crap, is just that crap....

The other major portion of gov't spending is entitlements. How do you propose bringing those back to 2008 levels?

Kishego| 9.16.10 @ 11:14AM

This is not the time to cut defense spending. China's military build up is on steroids, Turkey is trying to flex its muscles, Iran is on the verge of a nuke and the Russians are supplying weapons and technology to any one in the middle east. Obama has made us look weak and foolish to our enemies. They smell the weakness and are moving in to the power vauum. We need to keep a strong military. It doesn't mean we need to have troops all over the wolrd but, we definately need to keep the advantage in technology.

Big J| 9.16.10 @ 2:08PM

I'm not sure if you are aware of this Scott, but in 2009 Obama increased discretionary spending by $1,000,000,000,000 (yeah, that's a trillion with a t). The increase in discretionary spending projected for 2010 (I say projected because the Democrats have shamefully refused to present a budget) is over 1.3 trillion. It seems to me that a simple 2 to 2 1/2 trillion reduction would be a decent start.

I agree with you that entitlements have to be addressed. You may not recall GWB's joint session address in 2006, but he got booed from the left side for even mentioning the impending doom regarding Social Security. Some very tough choices lie ahead, and I am in the age bracket that will probably have to sacrifice the most. Very unlikely this close to an election. Entitlements have been used as a club by both sides for far too long.

Finally, Kishego has it right - now is the worst time to cut defense spending. Iran, N. Korea, China, Russia, Syria, Turkey and many other nations are flexing.

Why is it that the left is always so focused on cutting defense spending, versus redundant government bureaucracies, social programs and their beloved education (the bottomless pit - the more money invested, the worse it gets)?

Margie| 9.16.10 @ 9:53PM

The Left despises the Military, that's why. That's why it deteriorates under Democrat Presidents.
The Navy and Intelligence under Carter.
The Army and Intelligence under Clinton.
And now under the Muslim sympathizer-in-Chief.

old white guy| 9.16.10 @ 3:28PM

at no point do you ever accept the lesser of two evils.

darcy| 9.16.10 @ 4:15PM

We're not doing this lesser of two evils c#ap anymore; didn't you get the memo?

Homework: find every video of Chris Christie standing his ground and study, study, study.

Your pal, darcy

Margie| 9.16.10 @ 9:50PM

Right on, darcy! This former NJian fully agrees and suggests same. And a lot of those clips are here on AmSpec.

Bob K.| 9.16.10 @ 8:18AM

This is one of those elections that "Tip" O'Neill defined when he said: "All politics is local!"

The electorate is voting it's wallets! It is
happening in a year when all the local votes in the states will affect the redistricting of their congressional districts. If the "Tea Party" is going to save the country it will save it in those elections.

Why no one in the "chattering classes," including those who write here, have been concentrating on this mystifies me? Until these changes occur we will all still be fighting a rear guard action like Boehner is. He is still in retreat!

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 2:47AM

Only if all other things are equal (which they aren't) should anyone vote their wallets.

Average Infidel| 9.16.10 @ 8:39AM

Man these idiots, elitist types still don't get it, STOP THE DAMNED SPENDING ALREADY, how many ways do We the People need to shout it at you before you GET IT. We are the ones they say are clueeless? Where in the hell did I place that big stick. Head knocking time folks.

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 9:04AM

Stop WHAT spending. Forget the stimulust crap, that's already come and gone. The structural deficits in our future are based upon a bloated defense budget and Medicare growing out of control. Tell me your proposal to fix those two things, becase they are the only 2 that matter.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 2:50AM

Defense spending is constitutional and necessary, especially in these dangerous times. Further, the defense budget is minimal compared to unconstitutional entitlement and much discretionary spending.

hardcard| 9.16.10 @ 8:47AM

obamasoros and his crew are a disease, a plague on freedom. minority leader bonehead is a problem.

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 8:59AM

I love how you complain about crippling deficits on one hand, and then advocate a high-income tax cut extension that adds another $700B onto the deficit.

Cort| 9.16.10 @ 10:36AM

Scott, you can’t force people to work harder for less income… all you will do is incentivize many of the “rich” to earn $249,999.99 each year and then STOP earning until the next fiscal year. This is a shunting of productivity; reducing productivity does not increase tax revenue… Income taxes are a tax upon productivity! To increase income tax revenue, you must incentivize people to obtain MAXIMUM productivity.

The government needs to reduce spending to live within its means

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 1:58PM

Because of the extra 4 cents on the dollar people are going to just shut down and stop working...right.

Big J| 9.16.10 @ 2:21PM

Obviously, sentiments expressed by a man who has either never cut a payroll check, or didn't do it for very long.

Am I far off the mark, Scott?

Kishego| 9.16.10 @ 11:23AM

Tax cuts don't ADD anything to a budget deficit. SPENDING is what adds to a deficit!!! The government doesn't generate revenue, they can only confiscate it. It's amazing how many economicaly illiterate people we have these days. You've got to hand it to the progressives, their goal was to dumb down the education system in this country, it seems they have succeeded at that goal.

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 2:04PM

I agree, its spending that adds to the deficit. So talk about what spending you are going to cut, rather than just complaing about generic "runaway spending". We are talking about the structural long-term deficits caused by the promising entitlements (SS/MEdicare) and having by far the largest defesne budget in the world, and fighting 2 wars for the last decade.

Lets see where you are going to cut spending in either Medicare or Defense, because those are the two areas all you deficit hawks are going to have to target.

Kishego| 9.16.10 @ 3:51PM

We don't have to start with medicaid or defense spending. Let us start with the DOE. Carter started the DOE to "end our dependance on foriegn oil", well that worked didn't it. In fact, it has been moving in the wrong direction. Conclusion; the DOE is useless and costs more than it save... GONE. The examples are to numerous to mention here, so general terms keep it a little more concise.

bt| 9.16.10 @ 5:38PM

The DOE's budget for 2010 is $26 billion, right? A drop in the bucket.

Gary| 9.17.10 @ 5:48PM

Every little bit helps. Even the American Revolution occurred in drips and drabs.

In 1945, America won a two-front world war with 50 agencies in the federal government. You want reductions in spending? In 1945, my grandfather was 55 years old, and I was 1. He managed to live that long with "only" 50 agencies in the federal government. In fact, he had a 6th grade education, and he drove a Cadillac. How did he do that without the 950+ agencies that have been added since then? How come I need 950+ agencies to live my life that he didn't need?
Eliminate every one of those damn agencies. Eliminate all federal pensions that do not emanate from at least 30 years of service, and eliminate all congressional pensions: they can manage their retirements out of their pay, just like the rest of us.

Then cut property taxes 50% and freeze them for 20 years. Fire everyone in the school systems who don't teach or sweep up: that'll be about half, and it should get rid of the featherbedder communists dedicated to dumb children. And reduce all government salaries by at least 30%, and make them pay for their own health and manage their own retirements out of what they earn.

Finally, anyone who receives more than 10% of his income from taxation of others is ineligible to vote. Anyone whose works for government, any bureaucrat or social worker or other useless freeloader is ineligible to vote.

While we're at it, we can trash the Supreme Court for allowing pornography to pass as art, perversion to pass as normal, and infanticide to pass as compassion. That won't save much money, but it might save our country.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:10AM

Here's the deal, the Constitution gives very little power to the Federal Government to involve itself in these things. The fed govt has wildly overreached it's constitutional authority. One of the powers the constitution does give to the fed govt is in the area of national defense/military/war. If the fed govt wasn't involving itself in unconstitutional ventures we wouldn't have a deficit or a national debt, or very little at least. And our federal taxes would be minimal. State taxes would necessarily be higher which is the way it was supposed to be. Consider that only 29 cents of every fed tax dollar collected ever gets to a federal program it is intended for. The rest is eaten up in implementation and bureaucracy, and inefficiency. Further, on the state level it's easier to hold their elected politicians to the fire and their local politicians have a much better understanding of what the state needs and what the people want. When all this power is held on the federal level, there's too much of 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours'. And individual states have control over their own representative, but are helpless to exert control over all the others. That situation is eliminated if the people's power is at the various state levels.

JP| 9.16.10 @ 12:20PM

Scott,
It isn't the defecits, it's the spending. My gosh you people are blind. The Federal Government spends roughly $4 tillion (out of a GDP of $12 triliion). If another recession hits, the GDP will sink below $12 billion, and the government will consume even a higher precentage. There isn't enough wealth in this nation to meet current and future obligations (there is an estimate $105 trillion shortfall through 2080).

And since when is an owner of a tool and die shop that sees $500,000 revenues a year rich? He will be lucky to see 20% of that in gross profits. If Obama has his way, it will be much less.

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 2:00PM

Then lets hear WHERE you are going to cut spending?

There are 3 big chunks of money in the budget. Interest, Medicare/SS, and Defense. The rest is peanuts. You can't cut interest, its already baked in the cake. So tell me how you propose making either Defense or Medicare/SS cuts. Until then, STOP blabbing about spending. The stimulus garbage is already gone. We are talking about the structural future deficits.

JP| 9.16.10 @ 2:32PM

Scott,
You left out Medicaid, which will be more than defense in 2012. You also seem to want it both ways. You never answered my point about taxes, and the $105 trillion unfunded liability through 2080 (of which all of that liability comes from Medicare and Social Security). So, do you propose 100% taxation of all US assets (ie the government confiscates all assets)? Because, if you do, there will still be a $55 trillion defecit when all is said and done.

One other thing, of the $3.6 trillion spent and borrowed this year, $600 billion was for DOD, $300 billion was for Medicare, $400 billion for Social Security, $250 billion for Medicaid, $180 billion for the debt. That leaves over $2 trillion of discretionary spending. Are you saying there is no room for cuts?

Billg| 9.16.10 @ 3:43PM

Scott,
And where pray tell are you going to get the $3trillion to "pay" for the middle class tax extensions? I thought all you libs believed in equality. I guess equality applies only for the 90% making under 200k. Raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of a recession or fragile recovery is asinine.

Redstateboy| 9.16.10 @ 9:02AM

I know someone who's worked for 20 years now building a business of some 70 employees.. he has a wife, 3 college age kids, aging parents, his wife the same, he has taxes, his retirement, bills and Grosses the magic 250+.. Now.. subtract out his taxes, his bills, his responsibilities to his family and now what's his Net? And Obama Wonders Why he's not adding employees?!!?

Redstateboy| 9.16.10 @ 9:05AM

George W Bush reasonated with the voters in 04' with his message that the American People are the better stewards of Their Money and Not Government. Why isn't That message being Trumpeted by Republicans everywhere and all the time? Tea Party people inherently know this.

Tim*| 9.16.10 @ 9:13AM

We're hearing that Boehner outflanked The Democrats with less than two months before the midterms by pushing the focus of The Tax Cut Debate into The Senate where McConnell is holding the line and has filibuster numbers and some Democrat Senators are fallin' off The Democrat Sled .

Anthony| 9.16.10 @ 9:15AM

The Rs lost the debate years ago when they played into the hands of the Ds by using their terminology "tax cuts for the RICH". The Ds are masters of class envy and class division and the Rs play right into their hands, either out of stupidity, cowardice, fear, or they too believe some of this crap.
$250,000 is not rich. I am a small business owner with several partners and several staff members. At the end of the day, after taxes and expenses, not much is left. If the Bush tax cuts expire, don't expect me and my partners to hire another person or expand our purchases. We will tread water until this country wakes the hell up.
Boehner played into this myth as well when on CBS, he should have been swift enough to rebut the terminology, but our guys are not good on their feet, they don't prepare and don't plan ahead. He should have known this question was coming and had his responses ready. That said, Schieffer was reading D talking points and looking to set Boehner up like Couric tried to do with Gov. Palin.
While I agree that Boehner is no conservative and an inarticulate spokesman for conservative values, I'm not sure I agree with Bob that Boehner blew it with his comments about taking 1/2 a loaf. If Boehner had said no way,that all tax cuts must be extended, the Ds and their henchmen in the MSM would have used it for their class warefare against the Rs. "See the Rs only care for the rich, not the middle class"!!!!
I'm no fan of Boehner, but I think he was wise not to step into Schieffer's trap.
That said, we need sharp, articulate, no nonsense candidates who can talk the talk and walk the walk. Sarah and her cohorts of female leaders are beginning to now lead the way and show the R establishment what it means to have balls.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:21AM

Good post Anthony. After studying this stuff for the last 40 years I have come to the conclusion that the media's dishonestly and complicity with the democraps is the biggest reason why republicans have trouble with their message. Ambush "journalism" is something they have to contend with everytime they go on one of those programs. I've been yelling for years...why do you even go there. There are no end of them, but Schieffer is one of the biggest a-holes in the dem media. He's an underhanded no good SOB. On the order of Bill Moyers.

owyheewine| 9.16.10 @ 9:21AM

According to El Rushbo, the Dems had hit ads in the can decrying the connection between the Republicans and the rich if Boehner had fallen into the trap they had the mainstream media lay for him. This makes sense when you hear the Lord Obama all of a sudden hitting Boehner as the root of all evil.
Could the Republicans have devised a clever strategy to foil the Dem campaign? I think I'll keep an open mind and see how this all plays out.

Siegfried X| 9.16.10 @ 9:39AM

Running away from a bully (the Democrats) never works. We pay the Republican politicians to fight, not to run away. This proves that Boehner is a cowardly piece of crap.

The easy solution is to say "If we cut anything out of the tax cut it will be too small and unemployment will go up even more." That's what the Democrats are afraid of, that stimulus failed and now the tax cut will too.

Also it is mathematically impossible for the House Republicans to block the cut anyway. So Obama's accusation was nonsense.

Imagine Boehner as a running back. As soon as a defender got half way close to him, Boehner would down himself. When asked why he would say "Well, I knew they were going to tackle me, so I beat them by just laying down. This way I can't fumble."

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:24AM

"That's what the Democrats are afraid of, that stimulus failed and now the tax cut will too."

You mean tax increase I believe.

Tim*| 9.16.10 @ 9:26AM

We've heard the same thing .
Apparently , Boehner short-circuited that ad campaign at the last moment and pushed the debate toward The Seante Where McConnell has Democrat rebels siding with him and also filibuster numbers .

Louis Jenkins| 9.16.10 @ 9:30AM

Boehner doesn't know how to lead. Instead the liberals have put him in a damned if you do damned if you don't position. So Boehner went for something, and it leaves out those making $250 k plus. Problem is the middle class is shrinking in size, and the money will continue to flow. Problem is the $250 k are shrinking is size too. 10% of the population controls about 90% of the money, and that 10% has their funds tied up in overseas accounts or in trust funds. What to do? Cut, cut, cut taxes. Cut, cut, cut federal spending. Then maybe we'll see some growth for a change instead of downsizing or a shrinking economy. But Boehner is not going to swallow that kind of debate. Thank goodness the Tea Party candidates are making headway. We'll need them.

roger | 9.16.10 @ 9:35AM

Will the Republicans blow it? Find out in this podcast: www.cashbeechcroft.podomatic.com

From a rising star in conservative talk radio.

GreginOkinawa| 9.16.10 @ 9:40AM

"There is a sense that economic growth is part of the answer to our economic problems."---duh. Economic growth is THE answer to our economic problems.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:27AM

LOL..I think the writer was being facetious.

John| 9.16.10 @ 10:24AM

Ease up folks, Mr. Boehner did just what republicans have been trained to do. The democrats set the trap and demanded a response whereas he quickly obliged and typical of non-principled republicans he just as quickly backtracked. Not unexpected of Rinos. One by one, year by year we will weed them out.

St. Thor| 9.16.10 @ 10:26AM

Boeher is an incumbent. What came over him was his sniveling desire to be loved by the morons in the administration, the state adoring media, and his fellow incumbents all around. They should all be thrown out of office con their fat butts.

james wilson| 9.16.10 @ 10:54AM

You're calling this a slowdown? History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Oldefarte| 9.16.10 @ 10:55AM

R. Emmett, I/we all greatly appreciate your [and all of TAS writers'] editorials/articles, BUT I really do think that you/others have MISSED THE BOAT on Bohner's intended meaning. IMO, what he was saying by the words IF THE ONLY OPTION I HAVE is that THERE WILL ALWAYS BE OTHER OPTIONS. In other words, there will be the option of governmental expense reductions/eliminations. Every politician talks about TAXES [revenue] and not about EXPENSES of government, becuase of the inflammatory nature of the latter upon constituents. The politicians of this country have historically been increasing the latter and periodically lowering [Reagan, Bush] the latter, causing the governmental defecits/debt to gradually increase. It is now way past time to begin seriously talking about GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSE REDUCTIONS such as social services/welfare, farm aid to wealthy farm cooperatives, foreign aid/welfare, manned space travel, excessively wasteful military hardware,etc. Just as Chris Christie is now taking a broad axe to the state governmental union pensions, hopefully after the November elections the newly elected conservative Republicans can make political/legislative headway into the needed governmental expense reductions needed to reduce our budgetary defecits/debt. Tax increases or reductions are not the needed solutions/answer.........governmental expense reductions ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BackToBasics| 9.16.10 @ 11:46PM

Agreed! We need to cut out many entire Federal Departments. Government should get 100% out of healthcare. Perhaps it could be done in steps with some sort of privitazation spinoffs. I am not an expert in that area.

Yes, it would create unemployment in the short term. But a much smaller Federal Gov. would release so much potential in the American economy that we could make up the lost ground in everything including employment gains sooner than if everything crashes under the current system. We might not even be able to pick up the pieces after that.

Siegfried X| 9.16.10 @ 10:59AM

Obama is an extremist, and Boehner should have played that. He should have said we need a big tax cut because Obama's stimulus package failed, but Obama wants higher taxes even if it increases unemployment. Boehner should have said that Obama still thinks he a professor teaching Marxism, instead of acting like the president of the United States. Obama would rather have 20% unemployment than cut taxes.

BackToBasics| 9.16.10 @ 11:57PM

Yes, he would even though the tax revenue would drop at 20% unemployment. He wants anything that sticks it to America. High tax rates, high unemployment, no energy production......

The one thing I have not read about yet is that he is so intent on hurting America because of his exaggerated perceived inequities in how whites treated people of color around the world that he is willing to HURT BLACKS INSIDE of the USA.

And I'm not just jumping on this badwagon about this because of a few writings that have come out in recent days. I saw this envy and resentment and the wish for revenge against mostly white nations in him before he was elected and I've posted it a couple times months ago.

NC Defector| 9.16.10 @ 11:11AM

Another Republican empty suited Speaker? Nothing will change until all of the morons are sent back to their districts.

Houston Rao| 9.16.10 @ 11:14AM

Boehner is just another self-interested Beltway career politician who was handing out tobacco company checks on the house floor to his colleagues, taking Florida golf vacation on Sallie Mae's jet (in addition to over $120,000 in contributions), renting a Capital Hill apartment from a lobbyist hired to influence him.... we don't need such folks in any party.

buckeyeman| 9.16.10 @ 11:25AM

John Boehner is my representative and I've met him on a number of occasions. I don't think he's quite a RINO but there's something about him that makes me uncomfortable (aside from his chain smoking). I think his heart is somewhere close to being in the right place but he's really just not all that bright. Too much of what he says sounds like the usual political drivel that doesn't actually contain a point.

jb| 9.16.10 @ 11:26AM

All this reminds me of an e-mail I received some months ago...

All of Congress, House and Senate, Dems and Reps alike, all cry about the deficit, national debt, etc.,,, Congress controls spending. Not the President, and certainly not the Judicial. The Prez can only submit a proposed budget, Congress has to approve and pass it. If we have debt and deficit it's because THEY want debt and deficit.

Somebody is getting filthy rich on my dime.

loulou| 9.16.10 @ 11:37AM

Boehner is just being what he is--a career politician who is not very bright. I hope he realizes he will NOT be Speaker. We can't have another Hastert in that position. WE WILL NOT ALLOW IT!

RCV| 9.16.10 @ 1:42PM

And as a result, ALL the Bush Tax cuts will expire. That makes sense.

Margie| 9.16.10 @ 2:04PM

So you are against the tax cuts ending?

RCV| 9.16.10 @ 2:09PM

I think that the compromise that both Obama and Boehner spoke about makes sense, i.e letting the tax cut expire for those above $250,000 but keeping it in place for taxpayers below that.

Margie| 9.16.10 @ 9:47PM

Distribution of wealth. Typical Socialist. Despicable.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:33AM

It's actually tenets set down by Karl Marx.

RCV| 9.17.10 @ 7:26PM

Yes, it was Karl Marx who said, "Let's return the top income tax rate to where it was when Ronald Reagan, that Marxist, was President."

JP| 9.16.10 @ 12:15PM

When Clinton left office, the federal budget was below $2 trillion.

When Bush left office it was over $3 trillion.

Since Obama was inaugerated it approaches $4 trillion.

This is a spending issue, not a revenue issue.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:41AM

Not sure what you're talking about, maybe the natl debt. Mr Bush's last budget was around $124 billion. Obumba's is over $800 billion. Regarding the national debt...it took Mr Bush 8 years to achieve his contribution to the debt, Obumba has only been there for a year and a half. But yes, spending is the problem.

Mark Shepler- Jupiter, FL| 9.16.10 @ 12:19PM

At first, Boehner's comments caused my blood to boil and decry what seemed like his knee-jerk surrender to the liberal framing of the issue. I said, "NO, NO, NO, don't you get it, yet?! Don't you see we want you to stand like a rock against ANYTHING these lunatics propose?! After the mandate in Nov we can talk to them about taxes." Until then I wouldn't care if they proposed to cut tax rates below Bush's rates, I'd still say, "Great, we'll take it up on Nov. 3rd after the people have spoken" because anything they're willing to give now as a sop to save their bacon we can extract half-again as much after Nov. In fact, I'm of the mind we should wait until we've won the unprecedented mandate that's coming and between Nov and Jan propose OUR ideas of tax policies and dare Obama to veto them.

Right now, Obama has the intitiative because tax rates ARE going to go up and so conventional strategy dictates we must be prepared to give in order to preserve them. But if we win the house and maybe the Senate and many more Dems and Rinos get the life scared out of them, well, now the dynamic is changed dramatically. Now we can go for the brass ring and lower other rates as well in the teeth of a threatened veto but with maybe, just maybe, enough support on OUR side to override. But no matter what, Obama won't really want to veto and be the sole identifiable cause of a massive tax increase and so it'll be him who must give. That is how we'll win on this issue AND demonstrate we have the courage of our political convictions, the will and initiative and the public on our side.

BTW, why are we still talking on liberal terms that "tax cuts" are going to "expire". These changes in the tax code were implemented nine and seven years ago and by now are simply the law, the baseline. What's happening now is that a face-saving, automatic increase was written into the law so future pols wouldn't have to vote on it. It is this automatic increase that is kicking in. To discuss it in terms of "expiring cuts" is to accept the liberal logic that the former rates were the proper baseline and for the last near decade they've generously bestowed on us a break from the rightful levies. That difference in outlook and language and the failure to see it is what is the problem with our guys. Reagan would see it.

I also calmed down after a bit because it really doesn't matter to the actual issue what Boehner said. He is the minority leader of a very distinct minority in the house. Regardless of what he says it is no assurance that anyone will follow his lead, Dems even, yet alone Reps who see themselves rising because of their very opposition. And sure enough, McConnell shot it down, post haste.

On hearing the post-play commentary I too believe he was merely side-stepping Obama's new game of "pin the tail on the obstructionist". The Dems are deliberately trying to paint Boehner as the face of the party and, by extension, conservatism and the Tea Party insurgency. In short, they need a bogeyman of Opposition to Obamanism. Liberalism must have an enemy to gain purchase. Whether it's capitalists, the man, management, the Rich, racists/misogynists/homophobes/islamaphobes or any other usual suspect from their long, long enemies list they always distill their hatred for their countrymen into an identifiable name and face. Boehner's equivocation and McConnell's counter-thrust thwarted the tax manuever and scattered that effort to concentrate against Boehner.

What I wonder now is can Boehner and others jockeying for power and position after Nov. have the vision and discipline to simply shut-up for awhile? Can they not see it is precisely opposition to anything and everything the messiah proposes that is the only thing they can truly deliver right now and what America wants them to do and is exactly why they're gaining support? The majority WANTS them to Just Say No right now. It's as though they are a platoon of Continenntals holding a position against the King's army whilst a much greater force of militia and regulars muster to their rescue.

To Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell and all of the Rep. establishment: Do NOTHING, give NOTHING and do not retreat one step. If you must respond on ANY ISSUE WHATEVER simply say, "well, we'll have to see how things stand with the American people on Nov. 3 and take it up then. In the meantime, let the Dems take whatever action they feel is imperative". Oppose, oppose and oppose. And when called on, oppose some more.

Reinforcements are on the way in numbers and determination to turn back the imperial horde. Hold on until Nov., just hold on.

Siegfried X| 9.16.10 @ 1:03PM

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) rejected the idea that Republicans will shut down the government if they come to a legislative impasse with President Barack Obama, even as some conservative activists have predicted and even pushed a shutdown next year.

JimH| 9.16.10 @ 1:19PM

While I agree that any tax increase is bad, and in this economy particularly stupid, this is being treated like Sophie’s Choice. The mistake actually was made in allowing these cuts to be passed with an expiration date. That should never have happened. That being said Boehner is doing what he can in the current situation, though maybe he should not have tipped his hand in advance. Maybe Emmett can find a way to defer some of his income until the Republicans return to power.

Mark Shepler- Jupiter FL| 9.16.10 @ 1:36PM

Precisely right. The sunset provisions were added at the insistence of Dems to get the "cuts" through. And our wonderful Reps, at the behest of Bush and Karl Rove, agreed to it rather than getting all partisan on their a**.

Put another way, from a different political perspective, a provision was added to a tax reduction law so that Dems could be assured of a massive future tax increase they wouldn't have to vote on. In fact, they would be able to, as they are now doing, state that it was all the Reps doing to begin with.

I think Boehner did what he could to hit the pitch that was made to him. It did serve to deflect Obama's effort to fix him as the "leader" of the opposition by showing he really speaks for no one. He'd barely left the set before the howls of harsh repudiation rang out. And it probably served to disabuse him of any delusions he is, in fact, "the" leader of the opposition.

As it stands, some establishment Reps are like the rooster who thinks his crowing raised the sun. After Nov. 2, they will know better.

Siegfried X| 9.16.10 @ 1:49PM

As soon as he became Republican leader, Boehner had his backbone surgically removed.

Mojo Risin| 9.16.10 @ 2:31PM

It seems that whenever a seemingly steadfast conservative politician, (Boehner) goes on a Sunday morning show they freeze-up, more interested in appealing to the celebrity host, rather than sticking to the party line. How many times has this happened, the leftists are drowning and someone throws them a life preserver. Compromising with brain-dead, economic illiterates is not going to enhance prosperity...

sans| 9.16.10 @ 2:32PM

Mitch McConnell is a slack-jawed, pitiful man. And thinks with his lower brain functions like most Republicans do.

Oma| 9.16.10 @ 2:35PM

BAN BOEHNER!! DEMAND THAT HE IS NOT MADE MAJORITY LEADER AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS. IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC POSITION. HE HAS PROVEN HE IS NOT OUR LEADER.

St. Dennis| 9.16.10 @ 2:54PM

Not surgically removed. but underwent spontaneous necrosis.

Tracy | 9.16.10 @ 2:38PM

Sign the petition to get MD Senators to fight for LtC. Lakin. We need the truth out about Obama's ineligibility:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C51057S--_U

jdcarmine| 9.16.10 @ 2:45PM

I think you guys are wrong here. I am a gun toting bible holder and I do cling to my religion, but I am also am pretty darned peeved about billionaire bailouts. Boehner gets this. The Tea party is not real opposition to Biden. In my family we have begun calling squirrels Obama hogs. And I will vote for a guy who will help me get a little money back, even if the stock brokers gouging my retirement fund have to pay a little higher tax rate. Have you taken a look at your 401K recently? Well the Wall Street scum who lost you all that money are the ones making over $250,000.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:48AM

Wake up, Wall Street didn't lose you money. You a moonbat?

RICH| 9.16.10 @ 3:05PM

Corporations don't pay taxes. At the end of the day it's the consumer or the employees that pay. Business is about making a profit !! We need the tax cuts to be permanent.

Half Sigma | 9.16.10 @ 3:15PM

I'm with Boehner. People with $250K+ incomes voted 50% to 48% for Obama. Let them get the tax increase they voted for themselves. Republicans sticking up for a class that voted for Obama are being chumps.

RICH| 9.16.10 @ 3:20PM

When is the last time a poor man offered you a job ?

Half Sigma | 9.16.10 @ 3:37PM

I am usually offered jobs by corporate employees who make not much more than myself.

Futhermore you don't seem to get that payroll expense is a deduction against income, so increasing the income tax (either corporate or personal) will have a de minimus effect on employment. In fact, a higher income tax might encourage MORE employment, because a rich person might prefer to spend the money on a housekeeper instead of giving it to the government.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:50AM

LOL..and I know you're a moonbat.

Michael| 9.18.10 @ 11:50PM

Your moonbattiness comes from your PTSD.

jmulcahy| 9.17.10 @ 6:44AM

By your logic then we should increase the tax rate to 100% to get full employment. You could not be more wrong.

The only way workers are going to be better off is if their employers invest more capital in their business. If taxes go up, employers have less capital to invest in their businesses, therefore workers are impoverished by higher taxes, not helped. An employer is only going to add another employee if he thinks it is going to marginally increase his business. The employer, unlike the government, is subject to the vicissitudes of the market. Higher taxes only add to the uncertainty the employer faces in making investment decisions.

Half Sigma | 9.16.10 @ 3:40PM

Well the housekeeper example is bad because that's not considered a deductible business expense, but he might prefer to hire an extra employee for his business rather than give the money to the government, in the same manner that the deduction for charitable giving supposedly causes more charitable giving.

Kishego | 9.16.10 @ 5:15PM

I don't hire people just so I don't have to give it to the government. C'mon, grow some common sense.

Reneeca| 9.16.10 @ 4:26PM

Give me Delay over Boehner any day. The Hammer is what we need. unfortunately, the charged brought against him were for naught and meanwhile he has lost millions and almost his home and his wife has become very ill due to the stress that the evil Democrats who went after him and ruined his life! Much like they did with Sarah Palen and her family, suit after lawsuit until they bankrupt you even though they never found charges that stuck Sickening!.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:55AM

The democraps knew Delay wasn't guilty of anything, but they were willing to ruin his life to get him out of congress. The stupid republicans had a rule that if any representative was charged with something he had to give up his committee chair. So they got an obscure ag in Texas to go after him. They did the same thing to Stevens in Alaska, knowing that by the time things were sorted out the democraps would have already reaped the benefits of having him investigated and charged, etc. Hey...they are communists and these are Stalinist tactics.

Michael| 9.18.10 @ 11:52PM

Yeah, it's Democrats fault that Repukes like Delay and Stevens got themselves in trouble. Wow, your hate of LBJ and Democrats from serving in Vietnam, never ends does it? It's ok, Sonny, you're no longer in communist Vietnam.

ReConUSMC| 9.16.10 @ 4:28PM

I for one have never wanted a Third party even though for years other than Reagan . I voted for countless no back bone Republicans.
I didn't like but compared to the far leftist many of us had no choice but to Vote Republican . We Conservatives have had One President president we believed in ... in most of our life times .
But watching Traditional Moderate Republican leaders trash Ms ODonnell the last few days .
I feel the Tea Party needs to be a Third party since we have learned Republicans hate Tea Party believers as I officially now hate Traditional Moderate republicans .
The last two Bushes proved that Moderate end up in grave and produce Obama' Pelosi's and Reids .
Karl Rove , Charles Krauthammer remind me of spoiled Children bitching about McDonnell .
The Truth is Curtis was part of George Soros group and voted for health care and The Stimulus bill as was a sure vote for the Carbon credit huge tax . He even was on record for Obama raising our personal Taxes .
Just for the record Chris Coon , ODonnell opponent said in 1986 he was a beardless Marxist and deeply questioned Capitalism .
Chris Coon can be whipped !

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 3:57AM

That would give the democraps power in perpetuity.

Michael| 9.18.10 @ 11:52PM

GWB was a moderate? Wow you are nuts!

Ninefin| 9.16.10 @ 4:40PM

Washington politicians are mostly made up of LAWYERS!!! Enough said!

RLH| 9.16.10 @ 5:01PM

Can we all undersand Obama and his administration are using the same disinformation, half truths and lies about the "tax cuts" they use for just about any program the espouse. There are NO Tax Cuts involved. If they leave the Bush program intact, tax levels remain the same they are not cut! If they allow the program to remain the same for those making $ 250,000 and change it for those making more that that, that is a tax increase! When the lame stream media touts Obama wants to have tax cuts for the middle class they are liars. If Obama cancels the Bush tax program there will be a tax increase for everyone.
Nowhere in this conversation will there be ANY TAX CUTS!

Kishego| 9.16.10 @ 5:17PM

AMEN RLH !!!!

Wow you are dumb| 9.16.10 @ 6:54PM

Hey dumby, If Congress does nothing, Bush's lower rates automically sunset. Congress has to act to keep the rates at the lowest level taxes have been in generations.

AMENBRO| 9.16.10 @ 5:21PM

BOB MICHEL REDUXXXXXXXX.

Go along to get along. This guy just can't help himself. Never ever pass on a deal you can't make, ESPECIALLY when you have the initiative, hold the cards, and stand upon the precipice of stomping your opponent's fannie mae in less than 2 months. SO PREDICTABLE REPUBLICAN..

Clean House!! Slowly but surely, one entrenched incumbent elected official at a time, PLEASE AMERICA.

WhiteBikerTrash| 9.16.10 @ 6:10PM

Macro-Economics at a micro level

I have used this as an explanation, for others who cannot understand what happens in our economy.

We at first have a closed economic system,

There are two people involved, ten marbles and ten dollars. Now in this equilibrium these two people trade, in a true free market system, the marbles are all the same, so one marble equals one dollar.

Let’s add a third person and call them Government. Government can create (Print) money and Tax transactions.

Now, Government wants a marble, so they print a dollar and buy a marble, for one dollar, now there are nine marbles and eleven dollars in our free market, so how much is a marble worth today?

$1.22222222222222222 ! Okay let’s round down $1.22

So, instead of printing that money they decide to tax transactions, let’s say a dime per transaction. But this causes some problems, if the seller of marbles sells at a dollar each, then he loses 10% of value in his trade and receives only .90 cents, or he can add the tax to the true value but the buyer loses 9% of dollar value in this transaction. So, after thirteen transactions ether way there are 10 marbles and eight dollars .70 cents in our free market, marble value is up to $1.15, oh and plus 10 cents tax so government can buy a marble for $1.25 and keep a nickel.

All right, now there are nine marbles and $9 dollars and .95 cents in our free market system, because of the addition of a 10% per transaction tax, what is the dollar value of a marble now?

$1.20 !! Then you must add our “Fair Tax” so a marble that has a value of $1.20 will cost you $1.30

You may notice that I am splitting “Cost” and “Value”. Government can only add or subtract cost, never value.
The value has not changed yet, the price has!

Okay then lets say Government uses both routes to get their marbles!

They print a Dollar and tax all transactions, they want two marbles, 20% of our economy!

So after 13 transactions and one printed dollar they buy two marbles. Now there are eight marbles in our free market system and $10 dollars .95 cents. What do you think the cost of a marble in our free market system is now?

$1.37 !!!!!

Oh, but don’t forget the .10 cent tax!

Dollar Cost for a marble is now $1.47 !!!!!

Now in our limited system we have had no production of marbles. So let’s start creating wealth!!

If the marble guy starts creating more marbles, lets say five, real value and price will drop against monetary value, but marble guy can take and hold more total value at this lower per marble value and create wealth!

But how to measure this wealth?

To keep all things equal, Government should print one dollar for every marble produced.

So now we have 13 marbles in our free market economy (Remember Government has two!) and $15 dollars .95 cents.

What is the value of marbles now?

$1.32 per marble plus .10 cent transaction tax

If Government wants to print money and just throw it at our free market without extracting value, price goes up!

If Government extracts money from our free market system with out returning value, price must go down!

Any questions?

Now, what I have presented is a closed economic model with nothing more than an explanation of simple monetary policy and the effect of taxation on our model.

At this point the marble maker is making marbles and the Government is printing money
Money supply is kept equal to marble production and the tax is consistent.

Now let’s tie our money supply to another commodity, lets call this commodity Gold!!
Lets say that there are two ounces of gold and we decide that it is worth ten dollars an ounce. Okay?
So we start with ten marbles and twenty dollars tied to our gold standard, marbles are worth two dollars each!
As the marble maker makes more marbles because the dollar is tied to gold and not production each marble produced makes every marble in our market worth less.
This is called deflation!

So how can we stop deflation in this market model?

There are three ways, first increase the amount of gold in our treasury then print dollars backed by our new gold, second, print more dollars and increase the value of that gold by the amount of dollars printed or last destroy marbles to take them out of our market.

Wally| 9.16.10 @ 6:56PM

Yeah, let's make sure those multi millionaires and billionares tax rates are lower than they were under ... REAGAN. Why? Well, because those low rates helped the economy and employment so much during the last 7 years they have been in effect. Oh, wait....

Michael| 9.18.10 @ 11:53PM

Facts always trip up these loons, Wally.

1trapper| 9.16.10 @ 7:57PM

What nobody is talking about due to the election but, needs to be done is downsize government. Reform of generations old bureaucrats is impossible. It would be cheaper for us to eliminate government agencies that infringe on states rights like Education, OSHA et al. Freeze retirements and give them their due. Layoff bonus' for the workers could be $150K each and tell them have a good life. This would be cheaper than operating those agencies and reduce government expenses and debt dramatically. Desperate times demand common sense hard decisions.

1trapper| 9.16.10 @ 7:57PM

Allen Johnson| 9.16.10 @ 9:47PM

Several points that are politically untenable because selfish people will wield their power to block.
1. We should pay our bills as we go. Deficit spending is theft from future generations. The USA is not in such dire straits that we need to have stimulus spending, especially since it is so wastefully and extravagantly done.
2. Our military budget is obscene!!! Almost half of all world military expenditures are by the USA. Where are you conservatives on this?
3. End the Bush tax cuts, but much lower than the $250,000. My wife and I have college degrees (mine a Masters) and are in professional positions (she half time), indeed in a national award-winning institution, and total about $45,000 a year. And that seems adequate, we can put some money back. I realize some people need a good bit more to buy a house, etc., but I feel that a six figure income is on the rich side. Rather they pay more...after all, many of those who are wealthier have reaped the largesse of public education, strong communities and families including support for education and business starts. Good grief, selfish well-off people cannot pay taxes??
4. Taxes such as value-added and income are counterproductive to society. Instead, pollution and non-renewable resources should be taxed very very very high. Gradually incremented in. Carbon should be taxed and redistributed to every citizen. Fee and dividend. Should make sense to real conservatives, right?
--Allen Johnson, Dunmore, WV

RLH| 9.16.10 @ 9:49PM

Wow are you dumb. Let explain this in words even you can understand. If the congress does nothing the Bush tax program will expire. At that time Obama will raise taxes across the board.
When he says I am going have a tax cut for the middle class ,those earning $ 250,000 or less, THAT WILL NOT BE A TAX CUT. Those folks will be paying taxes at the same rate they are now paying under the Bush program. Get it, no tax cut. He is BSing again.
If he does not extend that to people earning over $ 250,000 of course they will have a tax increase.
So there are no TAX CUTS involved either way, only the same tax structure or a tax increase.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.| 9.16.10 @ 10:47PM

A mistake by Boehner, but curable. At times like this we miss the negotiating genius of Ronald Reagan, who held tough to the 11th hour (fifty-ninth minute) THEN cut a deal.

Son of Bob| 9.16.10 @ 11:40PM

Another example of the conservative Republican women having way more guts than the good ol' boy so-called Republican leadership.

The fight hasn't even started and Boehner's already compromising. What a wuss. Time for him to go.

Montux| 9.17.10 @ 1:13AM

Did everyone miss the article that revealed a California Study which costs $800,00 was spent to teach Africans how to wwas their genitals after sex to cut down on AIDS? I think I'd rather decide ow to spend my money more than those clowns in DC.

montrux| 9.17.10 @ 1:14AM

Sorry, that should read "wash" their genitals.

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 4:00AM

And how many dollars did it cost us?

Michael| 9.18.10 @ 11:54PM

Let me guess you got that from Faux News? Maybe you should start washing your genitals as it seems the STD has traveled to your brain.

shipley130| 9.17.10 @ 4:15PM

John Boehner can't control what legislation is offered, so why does it matter?

Spyder308| 9.18.10 @ 7:43AM

To quote John Stewart, Bohner is so orange he farts Cheeto dust.
When he offers legislation there is no meat in it. His alternative budget last year was 10 pages with no numbers in it.

7d7| 9.18.10 @ 9:15AM

This should be a warning that Boehner, should the Republicans gain a majority in the House, should not be Speaker. What we heard from Boehner could have just as easily come from Bob Michel, another GOP "leader" that (a) couldn't get out of his own way and (b) lacked the guts and ability to lead an effective opposition to the Democrats.

Better it be Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor.

7d7| 9.18.10 @ 9:17AM

or Michele Bachmann

Michael| 9.18.10 @ 11:55PM

Michele Bachmann? Yeah, bc the GOP isn't kooky enough.

Slowtrot| 9.18.10 @ 2:29PM

I don’t understand why you people say that programs like obama’s healthcare or any other of his passed or proposed crap cannot or will be extremely hard to remove or repeal in the future.

If they can be passed by a vote they can be repealed the same way.

If they can’t be repealed they can be neutered by not funding them.

Or they can be ignored by not staffing them.

There are probably more ways that someone smarter than me can devise. What is needed is the desire and will.

All we need are dedicated and willing people not conniving or deal making charlatans.

Reneeca| 9.19.10 @ 9:16PM

Slowtrot. Whenever you hear Republicans say that this or that can't be repealed, it means that they don't want it to be repealed. They want to keep the power of all these broad programs to do what they want to do with the maintain and weld their power. It seems that Obama made such huge programs that created such power, bureaucracy and intrusion over our lives that it is infinitesimal. This is exactly why we need to get ALL elitists, beltway mentality politicians out of office. They either do not get it or want to weld the power themselves. This goes for the likes Karl Rove, Krautheimer, the pundits who were steaming mad when O'Donnell won in DE.too. They truly do not get it at all. We had farmers and clerks in the first Congress and when they were done, they went home to build their lives and be with their families. We need untarnished , fresh blood who are not owing to anyone and have the countries priorities at heart and not themselves!

Donna| 9.20.10 @ 7:27AM

The Bush Tax Cuts have been in place for how long? Did they work even under the Bush Admin? Not as expected if you recall. Did they help? Most likely they did. Keeping them will have no impact on the economy until other policies are in place to help. Revising them to confiscate more money from the “rich” will add to unemployment. Doing away with them completely-tank the economy into depression. These are the choices. To think Obama doesn’t know these consequences is naive. To understand he understands is very scary and one wonders if Limbaugh is right….This guy does know what he’s doing and it’s not what his voters expected according to what the press and his handlers made him out to be.

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|44 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|89 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

The American Spectator

The Current Crisis

Boehner Blew It

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (265) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jb| 9.16.10 @ 6:29AM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 11:40AM

South Texan| 9.16.10 @ 11:56AM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 1:16PM

Harry the Horrible| 9.16.10 @ 1:30PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 1:40PM

Blackwatch| 9.16.10 @ 1:52PM

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 2:06PM

1FreeMan| 9.16.10 @ 2:19PM

blackwatch| 9.16.10 @ 2:23PM

Blackwatch| 9.16.10 @ 2:25PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 2:31PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 2:33PM

darcy| 9.17.10 @ 2:57AM

Billg| 9.16.10 @ 2:52PM

Mark Boabaca| 9.16.10 @ 3:00PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 3:16PM

JCfromDC| 9.16.10 @ 3:40PM

velihall| 9.16.10 @ 3:11PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 3:28PM

pissed| 9.18.10 @ 11:47PM

charie| 9.18.10 @ 6:40PM

Convet| 9.16.10 @ 6:03PM

Shirley| 9.17.10 @ 5:59AM

Jon| 9.16.10 @ 7:52PM

Kishego| 9.16.10 @ 3:34PM

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.16.10 @ 3:50PM

jrjr| 9.16.10 @ 4:57PM

Sam| 9.16.10 @ 5:05PM

Shirley| 9.17.10 @ 6:00AM

Harry the Horrible| 9.16.10 @ 3:56PM

BILOXIPAT| 9.16.10 @ 6:01PM

KingLee| 9.17.10 @ 2:29PM

Achilles Toejam| 9.16.10 @ 7:18PM

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:16AM

Tex Expatriate| 9.17.10 @ 12:34PM

charie| 9.18.10 @ 6:44PM

shajean| 9.17.10 @ 3:45PM

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:28AM

Quartermaster| 9.16.10 @ 6:45PM

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:20AM

MARTHA| 9.16.10 @ 2:35PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 2:46PM

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.16.10 @ 3:44PM

JimE| 9.16.10 @ 6:19PM

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:39AM

Jim| 9.17.10 @ 11:30AM

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:31AM

charie| 9.18.10 @ 6:47PM

Occam's Tool| 9.16.10 @ 2:55PM

Quartermaster| 9.16.10 @ 6:49PM

Jim| 9.17.10 @ 11:33AM

Convet| 9.16.10 @ 6:01PM

ohiobiz| 9.17.10 @ 12:14PM

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:25AM

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:12AM

JP| 9.16.10 @ 12:13PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 1:04PM

Neanderthal1| 9.16.10 @ 1:34PM

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:46AM

tippy| 9.16.10 @ 3:24PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 4:06PM

tippy| 9.16.10 @ 6:51PM

VN Vet| 9.17.10 @ 12:56AM

Howard| 9.16.10 @ 4:02PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 4:09PM

Quartermaster| 9.16.10 @ 6:54PM

tippy| 9.16.10 @ 6:56PM

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:40AM

Scott| 9.16.10 @ 2:10PM

SeattleBruce| 9.18.10 @ 9:43AM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 3:04PM

Ralph Averill| 9.16.10 @ 3:42PM

LM| 9.16.10 @ 4:06PM

vtwin| 9.16.10 @ 4:23PM