-
WND's Aaron Klein: Obama Spoke at Socialist Conference
May 25, 2012 | 19 comments
-
Will WaPo's Erik Wemple Apologize to Hannity?
May 21, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Hannity Tonight: Vetting Obama
May 18, 2012 | 42 comments
-
CNN Blackballs Tyrrell for Calling Obama "Stealth Socialist"
May 14, 2012 | 31 comments
-
Obama's Fear of Hannity, and Wright Hush Money
May 14, 2012 | 32 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Sean Hannity practically jumped through the television camera last night in a passionate denunciation of Senator Mitch McConnell's plan to give President Obama unilateral authority to raise the debt limit and making the cuts to support it.
"I don't want him making that decision!" exclaimed Hannity in alarm at the thought of ceding that much power to Obama.
Within seconds the Newt Gingrich of Reagan days - the smart, pointed and happily wicked backbencher - appeared on screen. Gingrich, too, sharply opposed McConnell's idea - and had a far better one.
"I think the House Republicans should call President Obama's bluff," said Gingrich.
The former Speaker and now-presidential candidate elaborated:
House Republicans ought to go in tomorrow, pass a $100 billion cut on spending and a $100 billion increase in the debt ceiling, so they're exactly balanced that takes us all the way through to September. And they should call that the Social Security Payment Guarantee Bill.
Then they should say to the president, "Here, we've taken care of August. All you have to do is get Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats to pass it. You sign it. We can guarantee every senior citizen their social security check. Now, Mr. President, are you prepared to stop senior citizens from getting their check?"
Put the shoe back on his foot. Make him responsible. And you could do that once a month, for the next 18 months -- and you can find a $100 billion a month to do it.
There's more, to be found here with our friends at The Washington Examiner.
Hannity agreed.
What's important to understand here is that the behind-the-scenes drama within GOP circles is only the latest in an almost 80-year internal battle between conservatives and the GOP Establishment over the size and role of government. Right from the get-go of the New Deal and Great Society there have been Republicans who supported the idea of what Barry Goldwater once sarcastically called "the dime store New Deal." Which is to say, they went along with FDR and LBJ and the prevailing expand-the-government winds of the day, just a little less so. If LBJ wanted to spend a hundred grand on program X, there was a clique in the GOP that said X could and should be done - but for fifty grand. The Great Society on the cheap.
The problem now -- which Ronald Reagan was on to back in 1964 in his Time for Choosing speech -- is that all of this massive spending would finally catch up with Americans. Said Reagan then:
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world.
Mind you -- this was 47 years ago!
So here we are.
Reagan himself helped to turn the tide against the Establishment GOP mindset. "A political party is not a fraternal order. A party is something where people are bound together by a shared philosophy."
And that shared philosophy is winning the day in talk radio, on Fox News, the Tea Party and from various bully pulpits inside the House and Senate GOP as well as on the presidential campaign trail.
But the notion by some Republicans -- even if unintentional -- of accommodating Leviathan, of playing the role of the "dime store New Dealer" still exerts a powerful pull for a few.
Senator McConnell is a good and decent man. But this is decidedly not the way to go.
The fact of the matter is that after almost 80 years of kicking the can down the road, America's liberals, to borrow from Margaret Thatcher, have finally run out of somebody else's money. This is, precisely as Gingrich said to Hannity last night, a power struggle. A fundamental and historical power struggle between the 80 percent who want a citizen centered government and the 20 percent who want a Washington-centered government. And like crack-addicts threatened with the loss of their drug of choice - the desperation among liberals for more, more, MORE! -- has set in.
No Republican in their right mind should help these people feed their habit.
Gingrich has it right: a $100 billion cut for a $100 billion debt ceiling rise. Month by month. Social Security gets paid -- Grandma gets her check. No tax increases. Period, nada, done.
The chickens have come home to roost.
View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/07/13/gingrich-hannity-call-obamas-b
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Ineffective Greenhouse
- Laughing on the Wrong Side
- A Case of Intracoastal Blues
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Siegfried X| 7.13.11 @ 12:27PM
"[Democratic Senate Leader] Harry Reid praises Republican debt proposal"
talkradio55| 7.13.11 @ 12:53PM
Proof that the deal sucks! If Harry Reid likes it, it can't be any good. This is exactly why Jon Huntsman should not be nominated.
Rob Wood| 7.13.11 @ 12:39PM
I agree with most of this article except WHY would we not do a 100 billion dollar cut and a DECREASE in the debt ceiling to HOLD IT THERE! Otherwise these idiots will just fill it back up to the brim with spending again!
Warrior| 7.13.11 @ 5:32PM
Why don't just ask the democrats to open the social security lockbox and pay it with all that money the liberals swear is still available to keep this entitlement solvent.
W| 7.13.11 @ 12:43PM
Newt has a good plan. Simple and effective. I read McConnell's plan and it is is difficult to understand, and to implement. It must have been writtent by a couple of ruling class lawyers. Maybe this will start Newt's presidential run
Siegfried X| 7.13.11 @ 12:58PM
McConnell's plan is like when the House "deems something passed". It's a way for Congress to do something, but pretend it didn't.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.13.11 @ 1:13PM
McConnell has failed us, Newt has failed us, if there is and (R) behind their name they have failed us. Do not raise the debt ceiling. It is as simple as that.
Sheila| 7.13.11 @ 12:59PM
The Repukes will cave - count on it. It's what they do; it's who they are. You get the government you deserve.
Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 1:07PM
No promises today against future performance some day off. Newt has a role to play this year akin to that played by Steve Forbes in 2000. A man of ideas who is not the candidate but understands the issues.
CalMark| 7.13.11 @ 1:49PM
Exactly right. Newt is good at floating ideas and starting things up, but he never finishes ANYTHING, from the Conservative Revolution of 1994 to not just one, but TWO, trilogies he left hanging at just two books.
Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 2:44PM
The Pearl Harbor set was a good read.
CalMark| 7.13.11 @ 3:09PM
Yes. Real page-turners. It would have been very interesting to see how he finished things off.
darcy| 7.13.11 @ 1:52PM
Mr. McConnell is a good and decent man? Neville Chamberlain was a good and decent man, too, and remember how that turned out. Being good and decent counts for little when one is dealing with master manipulators and megalomaniacs whose ruling motto is that the ends justifies the means.
McConnell is being played; that's the charitable view. But perhaps he's just weak in the area of principle, perhaps he's just old and near the end of his life and it won't matter to him that the country that nurtured him will descend into ruin because he lacks the spine to stand up to the thugocracy at the helm in Washington D.C. He won't be around to witness America's ignominious decline; he and his colleagues are insulated from the damage they inflict -- they make sure of that when they exempt themselves from the laws they pass (Obamacare comes to mind).
The interest on our national debt is $4Billion dollars a day. My personal portion of that debt, and yours, is $50,000. And apparently this is just peachy keen with the Republican power-sharers who frankly, borrowing from Rhett Butler, just "don't give a damn."
Oldefarte| 7.13.11 @ 1:59PM
What Jeffrey editorialized [AND what both McConnell and Newt say] is correct, but remember that this historical fiscal battle is OUR FAULT! That's right, we allowed these socialist Democrats [who are the epitome of a drunken sailor with a stolen credit card] to hold office. We elected these Democrats in Goldwater's days and today. if Republicans would have had the political power that Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and now Obama [along with their majorities in congress throughout history], the probability of this crisis would have been 5%. To coin Wild Bill's phrase, ITS THE DEMOCRATS, STUPID!!!!!!!
darcy| 7.13.11 @ 2:18PM
In the main, I agree with you, but for this fact: When the people DO elect conservatives to Congress the incoming members are attacked mercilessly by the inside-the-beltway establishment members and very quickly brought to heel: "Why, don't you know, son, that we here in Washington have our own way of doing things. Just relax, now, and let us show you how to get along. We're a tightly-knit club up here on Capitol Hill, and the important thing is to remember that you don't get ahead here by making enemies; all those high-fallutin principles work well on the campaign trail -- makes the little people feel all warm and fuzzy -- but you have to know that governing, and committee assignments, are all dependent on not rocking the boat. You understand, now, son, don't you?"
Al Adab| 7.13.11 @ 2:47PM
True indeed Darcy. The insider, these are the rules, mindset prevents a lot of progress. Of course, being just one voice among 435 rather dilutes any influence a single member might have. It is going to be a long climb back to Liberty.
squalis| 7.13.11 @ 2:06PM
I have asked this question on this site multiple times: If we cut spending, why does the debt limit need to be raised? Seems to me, we could lower the debt limit. I have yet to see anyone answer this question.
CalMark| 7.13.11 @ 3:23PM
We silly taxpayer civilians just don't understand how it's done in Washington.
When our Lords and Masters wail about "deep cuts," they mean slight decrease in rate of growth: reducing 5% annual growth to, say, 4.9% is considered a radical bloodletting. Programmed expansion automatically becomes the new "baseline."
Unless, of course, we are talking about trivial stuff like Defense, where cuts are always very deep and painfully real. Close down "unnecessary" bases! Cancel "unneeded" programs! Terminate "excess" active duty personnel (especially front-line combat people--war is won among desks and filing cabinets). And programs crucial to national defense, but not protected by a Congressional poo-bah, are by definition expendable.
There. D.C. Spending 101.
Rick V.| 7.13.11 @ 2:17PM
"Put the shoe back on his (Obama's) foot." How about putting it where is belongs, in his mouth?
darcy| 7.13.11 @ 2:20PM
Or, UHA.
Rick V.| 7.13.11 @ 2:34PM
Touche'.
Wayne | 7.13.11 @ 4:45PM
I like Newt's plan. It does not require the GOP to negotiate at all. They just put in that small increase along with a small cut, and let Reid and Obama explain why they vetoed it. The GOP should not be negotiating at all with Obama, as their is a process put in place by the constitution.
LC Jackboot| 7.13.11 @ 6:32PM
Because they can only 'bend-over' if they negotiate. That's the way they keep Dems from saying mean things about them, right?
yisong| 10.29.11 @ 2:43AM
Three Row Roller Bearings are constructed with three independent rolls of rollers to handle a combination of axial, radial and overturning moment loads. http://www.1stbearing.com