John Boehner Must Go: Continuing Resolutonis and Politics as Usual (Tea Party Waterloo?)

What did John Boehner PROMIS in the beginning of his term as Speaker of the House, as part of the "debate" on the leftover "continuing resoultioni" to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal eyar, ending on Septermeber 30? You remember that first "government shut down" debate, right? You remember the SHAM deal where Booehner, with hardly a PEEOP from the Tea Party or Michele Bachmann, promised that BILLIONS of dollars were being "cut" from spending for the rest of this year. Actual "cuts": ZERO (essentially). What Boehner said was that: "This will not happen again. We will not fund the government through thee massive, ominibus spending bills or continuing resolutions. We will have 17 separate appropriatioins bills , and we will do them on time". "Politics as usual" is the KINDEST thing you can say about that. Nope. You can rightly say that Gadhafi of Libya, Mubarak of Egypt, and Asad of Syria MUST GO (or should have beeen forced to go). Boehnr is not in that class of evil, but BOEHNER MUST GO. And for the Tea Party to tamely accept the "politcs as susal" of Boehner and the Republican leadership may well constitute the Tea Party equivalent of Watrloo. Should you vote for a TEA PARTY (or "conservative") Republican who has not OPENLY broken with the "ldeadershi" (not simply a meaningless vote)? I don't thinks so. VOTE THEM ALL OUT. Boehner must go, and Tea Party politicians who have helped enable Boehner have engaged in "politics as usual", and must go as well. This is the key FAILURE of Michele Bachmann. She has not made a difference wher she could have madde a difference. Further, it is obviuios that the Republican Party has not learned a single thing--despite lies to the contrary--from the Tea Party revolution and the "politics as usual" mistakes of the past. That is why I am on the verge of declaring the Republican Party dead, and openly calling for a third (and maybe fourth and fifth) party--whether that means the reelection of Barack Obama or not.


Doubt me about Boehner and the failure of the Tea Party? Don't ever do that. What is part of the news this week? Right. It is about how we are facing a government shut down because Congress is faced with having to pass another one of those "continuing resolutions"!!!!!!! Talk about breaking your promises!!!!!!!! Boehner's promise did not last a single year. The man is a "politics as usual political hack. As this blog has stated, no one should vote for Boehner as even dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (that small Arkansas town in which I spent most of the first 12 years of my life). So what did Boehner's "debt ceiling deal" accomplish? Nothing at all, and it was never meant to accomplish anything, except to PUT A GUN TO THE HEAD OF CONSERVATIVES IN AID OF POLITICS AS USUAL. The "gang of 12" has been given the POWWER o betray conservatives, while conservatives are told that: "we have no choice but accept this, or Republicans will be 'blamed' and we will lose the election." Indeed, that was the PUROPOSE of the "gang of 12". But look at how the debt ceiling "deal" has been exposed as a FRAUD, even apart from the betrayal to come.. Remember taht '24 billion" (nothing) that Republicans proclaimed in "cuts" for this coming yar? Well, the present new "government shut down" "crisis" tells lyou exactly how much of a FRAUD that was. And the Repubican establishment is already telling you that Republicans can't afford to be blamed for a government shut down. The problem is that the debt ceiling deal SET ALL OF THIS UP--and more to come.


Rachel Maddow is more honest than John Boehner. Yep. Rachel Maddow is that far left babe on MSNBC--somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. Yet, I ound myself agreeing with Maddow about John Boehner. Boehner have a speech actually saying that a way to find "common ground" between Obama and Republicans is to do things like combine the President's "infrastructure spending" with a Republican plan on producing more energy (i.e. drilling and similar things). Rachel Maddow asked: "What does one thing have to do with the other?" And she was RIGHT. They hage nothing to do with one another. Boehner was simply talking "politics as usual"--the same kind of POLITICAL deals that ALWAYS prevent the deficit from being reduced and spendin gfrom being cut. What about that 24 billion that Boehner said the debt ceiling deal "cut" from the 2012 defict? Boehner, and many other Republicans, are obviously willing to totaly forget about that, and INCREASE the deficit for next year (if only Obama will cooperate with "politics as usual"). Republicans needed to REJECT the entire jobs bill as a BETRAYAL of the debt ceiling deal--such as it was. Instead, Republicans talk as if extending unemployment benefits, a payroll tax cut and inframstructure spending would not make a MOCKERY out of RWEPUBLICAN LIES about how they have "cut" the deficit for 2012 with the debt ceiling deal.


Nope. BOPEHNER MUST GO. And any Tea Party politician who does nto SAY "Boehner must go", in a loud and public manner, MUST GO. Defeat them all. Throw ALL of the bums out. Thje one poll with which I agree is the one that says 54% of Americans would like to THROW ALL MEMEBERS OF CONGRESS OUT. Peole like Boehner are the reason for that attitude.


This blog has yet again been proven right. What did this blog tell you? I told you that the problem with the debt ceiling fight was that it DISTRACTED from the real isues: SPENDING, CURRENT DEFICITS, and DEBT. I told you that there was no way to have that debt ceiling "fight" the way Republicans were having it, and still keep Boehner's promise about getting individual spending bills done. That was the Tea Party's key mistake: concentrating on the debt CEILING, when that is not the problem. The problems are spending, current deficits and debt. The need to raise the debt ceiling is ony a SYMPTOM of those underlying problems. I told yuo-again proven correct--that the ONLY way ou could justify the fight over the debt celing was if you WON--actually instituted "cut, cap and balance". Repubicans did not "win"--agreeing to yet antoehr "poplitics as usual", sham "deal designed to betray conservatives later. If Tea Party Republicans politicians think I will FORGET how I TOLKD THEM SO, then they are out of their minds. I don't forget, and I BLAME THEM (as well as Boehner and the Republican leadership).


Yes, this blog even told Republicans how it had to be done. And it ws not as if it were rockert science. Ben Bernnake, Fed chairman and Worst Failure in the History of World Finance, actually said the same thing. Yep. In one article, I am saying I agreed with both Rachel Maddow and Ben Bernanke on something. You may well wonder whether that means the world is about to come to an end. I digress. Back to Bernanke and the debt ceiling. What Bernanke said , and what this blog told you, was that you had to CONNECT the debt ceiling with the spending, deficit and debt. Right now, they are totally disconnected. Yes, Repubicans were trying to USE the debt ceiling increase as a means to force spending limits, but without directly connecting the debt ceiling to SPENDING BILLS. Why did Republicans not WANT to connect the debt ceiling with spending bills? It is because they believe that such a connection will make their vote on actual spendin gbills impossible. Republicans do NOT WANT peoiple to actually know exactly what is going on. The fact is that EVERY spending bill has consequences for the debt ceiing. For example, that "deal" on the coninuing resolution for the ned of 2011 (though the end of the fiscal year on September 30) REQUIRED an increse of the debt ceiling. Did Republicans want people to realize thatr? Hell no. They wanted to DECEIVE. That includes Tea Party Republicapoliticians.


What did this blog tell you ? I told you that Republkcans should tel people the truth--demand TRANPARENCY in spending. That meant that Republicans needed to acknowledge that THIER VOTE on spending through September 30 required that the debt ceiling be raised by enough to cover the spending that Congress had alrready APPVED. Spending has consequences. Thus, Republicans needed to extend the debt ceiling by just enough to get us through September 30. Then spending, deficits and debt would have been directly CONNECTED to the debt ceiling. That is what Bernanke meant, and it is what this blog told you. Then Republicans needed to MAKE the obvious connection by saying that they would raise the debt ceiling AFTER the spending bills for 2012 were passed, with statments in connection with every spending bill as to its ffect on the debt ceiling reuirement, by jsut enough to hndle the spending that Congress has JUST PASSED. In other words, Congress would raise the debt ceiling by the amount REQUIRED to accommodate the approved spending for the next fiscal year, and tell the people exactly what they are doing and why. This same process would be repeated year after year, and Congress would be REQUIRED to raise the debt ceiling every year by the amount necessary to cover their spenindg. And Congress would do that at the same time as the spending bills are passed, making the connectio between spending and the debt ceiling crystal clear. Thus, the debt ceiling "debate" and the spending/defict debate become directly connected to one another in the way they are connected in realtiy.


By failing to make this connection, as if somehow the debt ceiling could magically cause the spending and deficit problem to go away, Republicans exposed themselves as mainly seeking COVE rather than real honesty in policy. Republicans did not WANT to be obviusly responsible fore the spending they approve. And, to compound the problem, Republicans entered into this SHAM deal that will likely INCREASE the deficit for 2012 (if Republicans accept ANY part of Obama's "jobs bill"). You should see why I have said that Repubican acceptance of any substantial part of the Obama "jobs bill" will cause me to declare the Republican Party DEAD. That statement is still absolutely true.


Boehner must go. That is because "politics as usual' must go. Tea Party politicians who fail to realize this msut also go. The 2012 SPENDING and defict is where Republicans should have made their stand. Insted, they chose to engage in a sham battle over the debt ceiling, which is a CONSEQUENCE of spenidng rather than a cause of anything. Tht tactic could only have been justified if it had WORKED (and was carried through as if they intended it to work). As it is, Repubicans are going to be fighiting over spending after USING all of their political capital DISTRACTING people from the issue of spending (on a concrete basis, instead of simply saying you are against spending wihout saying HOW, which is exactly what OBAMA says).


Boehner must go. But does the Repubican Party have the courage to really take on spending in a non-sham way--not "politics as usual--when REpublicans think they can "win" by simply running against Obama? I doubt it. "A coward dies a thousand deaths, while a brave man dies but once". It seems to me that the Repubilcan Party is dying a thousand deaths, but that the FINAL death is on the horizon if Boehner "politics as usual" continues.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By theway as I have said repeatedly, I do NOT insist that a politician agree with me right down the line. There is no "perfec" politician. However, I simply cannot accept the kind of "politics as usual" that I blelieve has come close to ruining this country. Thus, Republicans have totally used up their "credit" with me as far as continuing the DECEPTION of "politics as usual" . If you disagree with me honetly, I can accept that. If you SAY you agree with me, and act otherwise, there is no way I will ever forgive youi. Nor do I accept the usual political games where a politician makes a "safe" vote KNOWING he or she is going to be on the losing side---expecting therby to get "credit" for that vote. Not here, you don't, unless you actually IGHT for that vote =, inclulding standing up and saying your leadership is enganging in shams and deception.