House GOP blows smoke to cover hasty retreat
As face-saving efforts go, this one’s pretty meager.
Breaking from a three-day private conference, House Republicans today acknowledged that they are retreating from their demands for major entitlement cuts in return for raising the debt ceiling. But they do have conditions.
First, they will agree to extend the debt-ceiling limit only for three months, meaning that they intend to put us through this vapid exercise time and again, a process that should do wonders for confidence in the financial markets. It’s petty gamesmanship, particularly from a party that has done so much whining about government-caused “uncertainty.”
Second, they will extend the debt ceiling further if and only if the Senate passes a budget resolution by April 15.
And if the Senate doesn’t do as the House demands by passing a legally meaningless budget resolution? Will the House retaliate by forcing a default on our national debt, pushing the economy into a likely recession?
No. It will not. And people who push such nonsense are difficult to take seriously.
Oh, and one more thing. House Republicans also propose to stop paychecks for members of Congress until such a resolution passes. It’s a nice little effort at grandstanding, except for the obnoxious fact that it is unconstitutional: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”
Let’s also be clear about what “passing a budget” really means. Under the process, the House passes a resolution expressing its spending priorities; the Senate does likewise. Then the two resolutions are reconciled into what is known as a concurrent budget resolution and passed by both chambers.
However, a budget resolution does not actually appropriate or spend a dime of taxpayers’ money. It does not levy a penny’s worth of taxes. The document does not go to the president for his signature, and it is legally binding on neither chamber. It is worth the paper it is printed on and not much more.
Recent budget resolutions passed in the House have been exercises in fantasy, including demands for converting Medicare into a voucher program and slashing taxes for wealthier Americans. Senate leadership has concluded that it isn’t worth the time and floor debate needed to create a Senate budget when it clearly has no chance of being reconciled with the House resolution for adoption.
It’s also important to note that this is not a new situation. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress also did not pass a concurrent budget resolution in 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2006, all years in which the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. Somehow, the Union managed to survive.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
245 comments Add your comment
harvey
January 18th, 2013
4:29 pm
You are just like the rest of the liberals. You want to keep spending other people’s money, but the sad fact is that Romney was right, the takers are outnumbering the makers. People I know who have located here from Bosnia tell me that they see the handwriting on the wall and we are becoming a socialist state from which they will immigrate back to their home country. When Bosnia seems better to live in than America, we really are in trouble. We need to get real about government spending. it is amost too late actually.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 18th, 2013
4:29 pm
Well, it don’t take a Norman Einsteen to see how all this is going to end. By May they’ll agree that Democrats will vote against cuts to the military if Republicans will vote against cuts in social spending. We’ll be right back where we are but we’ll feel a whole lot better about it.
Erwin's cat
January 18th, 2013
4:29 pm
Forget those insufferable books by Rand, I’m not convinced Uncle Sammie has read any books!
It hurts her lips after a while
Simple Truths
January 18th, 2013
4:31 pm
Adam,
Each day, Jay writes articles dripping with contempt, pointing out all the flaws of the GOP. This is the type of talk that makes it hard to have an honest debate in this country: one side demonizing another.
If you can’t see that, well…
Fred ™
January 18th, 2013
4:31 pm
dbm
January 18th, 2013
4:15 pm
Fred ™
January 18th, 2013
4:00 pm
Very convenient for you to use ad hominem and invective so you don’t have to address Ayn Rand’s ideas. Too bad you never progressed beyond an 8th grade understanding of her.
The main thing Ayn Rand and Mother Theresa have in common is that neither one is a “ho”.
++++++++++++++++++
nice load of nothing. Your blind loyalty is what Ayn Rand required o the dummies around her she duped. She flaunted her many john’s in front of her husband who obviously was as weak as you appear to be.
What exactly do YOU call a woman who trades sexual favors for money? I and society from the beginning of time label that as a ho. (the full spelling gets auto snagged). You can obfuscate all you wish, write out little ditties that sound intelligent to you, use big words and phrases like “Ad hominem,” but that doesn’t change the fact of who Ayn Rand was and how insipid her drug induced ramblings were.
dbm
January 18th, 2013
4:31 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2013
4:22 pm
I can imagine Trump doing all of those things if he decided to drop out of society like the Galtian characters did, or if he were marooned on a desert island.
On the other hand, what makes you so sure he is like a Galtian character?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2013
4:33 pm
dbm — “Galtian characters have no problem getting dirty and smelly with “lousy” work where appropriate.”
I disagree. The concept is glossed over in the book, and Rand *uniformly* writes her characters as mysteriously *more* capable than their workers, as if being a member of the producer class somehow grants you strength, endurance and speed beyond normal human capacity. Only Francisco, in my estimation, is written as a flawed member of the producer class.
“As one of Ayn Rand’s characters says, they’re all aristocrats “because they know there’s no such thing as a lousy job, only lousy men that don’t care to do it.”
And this is precisely my point. Laborers are less than producers, and complaining laborers even less so. It’s this horrifying acceptance of egregious classism that’s all the more amazing to see in someone who’s fled the Soviet state.
“If you don’t believe me, you didn’t read Atlas Shrugged carefully enough.”
I think *you* didn’t read it carefully enough. Rand *idolizes* the exploitation of workers and dismisses their concerns while granting ‘producers’ near-rock star status.
dbm
January 18th, 2013
4:34 pm
I have to leave now, so I won’t be able to answer any more smears.
DownInAlbany
January 18th, 2013
4:36 pm
Now that we’ve solved the country’s problems, how about a little Tommy Emmanuel for the ride home?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S33tWZqXhnk
JamVet
January 18th, 2013
4:36 pm
egoism
noun
1. the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one’s personal interest; selfishness ( opposed to altruism ).
2. egotism or conceit.
Fred ™
January 18th, 2013
4:36 pm
Adam
January 18th, 2013
4:19 pm
robert goulet: Ummm… clearly you have not read the book.
HAHAHAHAHA! Wow. It’s pretty funny when I HAVE read a book and people make statements like this. It seems to me to be one of those bluffs meant to smoke out people they merely THINK didn’t read the book.
I definitely read it. I wanted to see what caused such a cult following. Not seeing it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You aren’t seeing it Adam because you aren’t stupid enough. There IS nothing to see. You saw through the fantasy land while folks like RG and dbm have not. In a typical Republican way that makes YOU stupid. Just like they need a “demon” 47% to blame their failing on.
They can’t stand tall on their own merit so they have to diminish ohters. It’s always “those people” who are too stupid to see or “those people” who are moochers, or “those people’ who are to blame for the lack of success of their failed ideas.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2013
4:36 pm
R. Goulet — “I can sit on a Republican blog all day and claim that I don’t need to know what the Democrats are thinking because it is “poison,” but what does that do to help me be a more informed voter?”
Logic FAIL.
I read Rand years and years ago.
When were you ever a liberal or a Democrat?
Fred ™
January 18th, 2013
4:38 pm
dbm
January 18th, 2013
4:34 pm
I have to leave now, so I won’t be able to answer any more smears.
+++++++++++++++++++
Translation: He had his ass so readily handed to him that he has to run away while he still has the ability to fool himself.
DannyX
January 18th, 2013
4:39 pm
“People I know who have located here from Bosnia tell me that they see the handwriting on the wall and we are becoming a socialist state from which they will immigrate back to their home country.”
I know some people from Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan who say the same thing. Luckily Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan Air-air-lines is ready when I am.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2013
4:39 pm
dbm — “I can imagine Trump doing all of those things if he decided to drop out of society like the Galtian characters did, or if he were marooned on a desert island.”
I can’t. I can, however, imagine him *looking* for someone to do it *for* him.
“On the other hand, what makes you so sure he is like a Galtian character?”
He’s a ‘producer.’ How many members of Rand’s ‘producer’ class were not Galtian figures? How many lived among the workers on a routine basis?
robert goulet
January 18th, 2013
4:39 pm
Fred: Thank you for reminding me of what a wonderful talent I am.
I am not trying to change anyone’s mind about Atlas Shrugged. All I am saying is that you (not necessarily you specifically) should probably read the book before you try to tell me what it is about.
Fred ™
January 18th, 2013
4:40 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2013
4:36 pm
R. Goulet — “I can sit on a Republican blog all day and claim that I don’t need to know what the Democrats are thinking because it is “poison,” but what does that do to help me be a more informed voter?”
Logic FAIL.
I read Rand years and years ago.
When were you ever a liberal or a Democrat?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
You also failed to note JHM that you (and I) were Republicans, when were they ever (in my case) an Independent, or liberal, or a democrat in your case.
Abrazos
January 18th, 2013
4:41 pm
As a twenty-year-old, I read Ayn Rand voraciously. First “The Fountainhead” then “Anthem”, “We the Living” and finally “Atlas Shrugged”. It made ideological sense to a kid who had never worked, didn’t have a family to be responsible for, and hadn’t interacted with a world outside my own narrow one. I called myself an “Objectivist” without understanding what “Objectivvism” meant.
I went back and read “Atlas Shrugged” when I was forty and had been out in the world a while. I had to laugh at my twenty-year old self who was so enraptured by Ayn Rand purism. At about the same time, I was decidedly not amused that Alan Greenspan, head of the Fed, was a Rand devotee and said, “I still found the broader philosophy of unfettered market competition compelling, as I do to this day.” As one who lost 40% of my investments in early 2009 due to “unfettered market competition”, I concluded that the Ayn Rand philosophy was not only a youthful fantasy, it was mighty costly when applied. It was to me, anyway.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2013
4:41 pm
Harvey — “People I know who have located here from Bosnia tell me that they see the handwriting on the wall and we are becoming a socialist state from which they will immigrate back to their home country.”
I hear that Clognia-Hertztagetintoya is beautiful this time of year.
DebbieDoRight - The FB Player's Imaginary Girlfriend From Canada
January 18th, 2013
4:41 pm
dmb: Very convenient for you to label Ayn Rand as “high” so you don’t have to understand or properly respond to what she said.
Very convenient of YOU to label her as a God and every word that falls from her mouth as Gospel so you wont’ have to see the truth.
AynRand was what we’d call today a sociopath.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2013
4:42 pm
Fred — “You also failed to note JHM that you (and I) were Republicans, when were they ever (in my case) an Independent, or liberal, or a democrat in your case.”
I was leading him there, as the horse must first be led to water before it will drink.
Fred ™
January 18th, 2013
4:43 pm
robert goulet
January 18th, 2013
4:39 pm
Fred: Thank you for reminding me of what a wonderful talent I am.
I am not trying to change anyone’s mind about Atlas Shrugged. All I am saying is that you (not necessarily you specifically) should probably read the book before you try to tell me what it is about.
+++++++++++++++++++
That song was always a favorite of mine and I got to see you (Goulet lol) do the play in later years as Arthur.
As to Ayn Rand? Like I said, I’ve read that book at least 5 times over the last 30+ years………. and I would suggest that maybe it’s you who fails to understand.
M.C.
January 18th, 2013
4:45 pm
True altruism is self sacrifice. You give all that you have for others. You then become an egoist taking all that others have to give.
It’s suicide.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 18th, 2013
4:46 pm
AynRand was what we’d call today a sociopath.
Well, what do you expect from a woman that can’t even spell “Ann” right?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 18th, 2013
4:48 pm
Just back from a meeting with comrades. How are you sh$tkickers and rubers doing?
DebbieDoRight - The FB Player's Imaginary Girlfriend From Canada
January 18th, 2013
5:08 pm
Ayn Rand is one of America’s great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day.
She opposed democracy on the grounds that “the masses”—her readers—were “lice” and “parasites” who scarcely deserved to live. Yet she remains one of the most popular writers in the United States, still selling 800,000 books a year from beyond the grave.
She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess. With her assertions that government is “evil” and selfishness is “the only virtue,” she is the patron saint of the tea-partiers and the death panel doomsters.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 18th, 2013
5:17 pm
So far the House GOP has publicly read the US Constitution twice. Did they overlook the 27th Amendment each time?
barking frog
January 18th, 2013
5:21 pm
Ayn Rand was a scam artist that wrote butter for rich butts so
they could attempt to justify their wealth without guilt or obligation
to help the less fortunate and it worked for a while then she became
a meth head and had to go to the government for assistance in
her last years while the wealthy applied her philosophy to her.
robert goulet
January 18th, 2013
5:29 pm
JHM: “Logic FAIL. I read Rand years and years ago. When were you ever a liberal or a Democrat?”
So let me get this straight… I have a habit of reading Jay’s blog (among others) so that I can be a more informed voter. Someone said that they did not need to read Ayn Rand because it is all “poison.” I asked how someone could make an informed opinion if they had not actually read the subject of the opinion. I make a point that I could sit in my own little bubble claiming that everything on the outside is “poison.” Then you question if I have ever been a Democrat? Talk about Logic FAIL…
I generally disagree with Jay on everything he writes, but I like to read it because he generally backs his arguments up with facts. The facts may be skewed in his favor at times, but I do not expect any more or less. I don’t understand why you, as you state, a former Republican, would argue against this?
Adam
January 18th, 2013
5:33 pm
Simple Truths: This is the type of talk that makes it hard to have an honest debate in this country: one side demonizing another.
Right because it’s not like it’s a two way street or anything….
Your initial post was that there was hate. There was not. After consideration of what I assume was another posters comment, you changed it to contempt.
The bottom line is Jay hasn’t filled his posts with vitriol. Instead he brings up some points about the GOP. Further, it is worth noting that one need not measure up to some ideal of fairness in order to express an opinion, even if one does not do as Jay has done and do so by citing historical fact.
If you want to see both sides get along, you can start by trying to encourage people on the conservative side to follow Christie’s path. Surely that will b more comfortable because they get to keep their name calling but have to drop several agenda items that they have been told to support as governance.
Cosby
January 18th, 2013
5:41 pm
Why bmae the republicans or the wimps as they should be called…lets just give Barry Soetoro a blank check, tell hinm to write ad much as he wants and then watch the cliff come. Budget, debt ceiling – if any household or business was run like these weesels – both parties – they would not be around. how about, Jay, an honest blog on waht the DC elite is not doing…being responsible and then a blog on holding them accountable…but wit it must be Republicans only taht are screwing the USA…Obama aka Barry, Harry and nancy would nev er do that…what a bundh of BS..justlike this biased paper and the rest of the news media….all full of Sh..!!!!!
Adam
January 18th, 2013
5:53 pm
robert goulet: As I mentioned, I read it and honestly it was a waste of time. The only benefit I got out of reading it was being able to rebuff the logical fallacy the cultish use to dismiss any argument against the Sacred Writings of “Well OBVIOUSLY you didn’t READ it.”
The bottom line is it is all based on a lie. The government and the people do not suddenly have a societal collapse if a segment of society that identifies as “thinking people” leaves it. People certainly don’t need a sage to come off the mountaintop and ramble on about how bad collectivism is.
We are a collective society that also recognizes individual rights. But we balance the two. Instead of insisting on one or the other, we find a middle ground. What the Objectivism mindset does is focus only on the individual, and that society as a whole is merely a bunch of people who cooperate because all of them get something out of it. This is contrary to human nature, which is to care for the elderly and sick and children all at great expense to one’s own well being at times, and this type of human tribal mentality has been shown through archaeological evidence.
It is human nature to build a collective society. We can’t help it. It’s what we want to do. And we don’t necessarily get some logical benefit from doing so.
Objectivism ignores all of civilization as a proper influence, and yet the sum of human knowledge, which Ayn Rand herself says is somehow up to the individual to obtain, cannot be gathered into one human being’s mind. It is distributed. I know things you don’t know and vice versa. This is not an accident. Ayn Rand treats things as though a human can just learn whatever they want and retain it if they just decide to. That doesn’t work either. It is especially in conflict with her ideas about capitalism and the supposed virtues of following her capitalist views.
Adam
January 18th, 2013
5:59 pm
The real underlying problem is that Ayn Rand and her fictional characters are treated as deities and the behavior of Ayn Rand aficionados is cult like. It would be fine if we were just talking about someone being fans of books but objectivist people seek to change a society based on nothing but works of fiction and weak logic.
RF
January 18th, 2013
6:16 pm
“As one who lost 40% of my investments in early 2009 due to “unfettered market competition”, I concluded that the Ayn Rand philosophy was not only a youthful fantasy, it was mighty costly when applied.”
Yeah, tell me about it. And the fact that we lost so much when it was preventable had the government been doing something besides rampant deregulation is what really gets me steamed. That and the fact that I have taken repeated pay cuts every year while being told “you should be glad you have a job” has me really tired of the conservative rhetoric about “competition” and “job creators” when those folks have, by all accounts, fared this mess rather well. It’s like saying “thank you” to the rapist.
Adam
January 18th, 2013
6:24 pm
RF: hear hear
Adam
January 18th, 2013
6:33 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/john-galt-is-a-crybaby-an_b_1263671.html
RF
January 18th, 2013
6:41 pm
“but objectivist people seek to change a society based on nothing but works of fiction and weak logic”
To me, it’s like a last-ditch effort to find something, anything, to justify what is clearly a crumbling system of cultural belief and governing. The ideology of thewhite guy as the only real, capable leadership is changing, and those devotees of whom you speak are only grasping with the tenacity of the dying at an almost laughable view of life and the world. Instead of embracing the unchangable diversity of our country, instead of coming to terms with the fact that they have to embrace and appeal to a broader audience, they resort to quoting Rand as some sort of authority. It saddens me because we need conservative balance and our government works because of the push and pull of opposing ideas. That opposition works because in the end they know that the real business of maintaining this nation takes place in between two opposed ends. They’ve let the extreme of their party take over, and despite the repeated proof that the extreme end isn’t capable of governing in a diverse society, they jump desperately at anything that will justify that extremism.
Dharma Bum
January 18th, 2013
6:43 pm
America is exhausted. The same tired, worn-out, and empty rhetoric litters the media and comparatively little gets done. At this point, we Americans deserve this… people continue to keep the Democrats and Republicans in power when the evidence has overwhelmingly shown year after year that NEITHER party is willing to take responsibility for anything and NEITHER party has the best interests of America as their foremost priority. Demonization and defamation of the opposition has replaced legislation in Washington D.C..
Elections Have Consequences
January 18th, 2013
8:14 pm
Incredible, isn’t it? This abject failure of a President has refused to address spending by walking away from Simpson-Bowles, failing to make any substantive cuts-except for Medicare-and has raised taxes across the board-and it’s it the fault of the House.
The latest GAO report details the trouble this country is in-and no amount of deflection is going to mute that.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-271R
Simple Truths
January 18th, 2013
9:32 pm
Adam: “The bottom line is Jay hasn’t filled his posts with vitriol.”
I disagree Adam. Jay’s posts are filled with vitriol. Read some of his posts and sample his word choices. Jay is part of the problem.
While it is a two way street, I’m not going to overlook what Jay is doing because someone else is also a part of the problem. If you want to call out what conservatives are saying as preventing healthy discourse, you are free to do so.
Mr Right
January 18th, 2013
11:42 pm
Simple Truths
January 18th, 2013
9:32 pm
Adam: “The bottom line is Jay hasn’t filled his posts with vitriol.”
I disagree Adam. Jay’s posts are filled with vitriol. Read some of his posts and sample his word choices. Jay is part of the problem.
While it is a two way street, I’m not going to overlook what Jay is doing because someone else is also a part of the problem. If you want to call out what conservatives are saying as preventing healthy discourse, you are free to do so.
We all know what Jays agenda is –Smear the GOP, pretty much never give them credit for anything while doing the opposite for the Dems! If Jay didn’t do that he wouldn’t be Jay!
JKL2
January 19th, 2013
1:45 am
Demwits: Why don’t you just say you want to send everyone a check $1mil and call it a day?
Spend baby spend!!!
Raising taxes on the evil rich solved 6% of our financial problem. Pay increases for everyone!
Donovan
January 19th, 2013
10:39 am
What a cocky little liberal punk you have turned out to be with the re-election of that radical Marxist.
Talking about the antics of the GOP members of the House? Have you conveniently forgotten the antics of your Democrat rabble when the GOP dominated both houses during the early days of the Bush administration? Back then you people thought you were in the minority.
No big deal about not passing a senate budget for the last 4years? I guess when you Democrats want to keep spending and keep ringing up the national debt, there can’t be a budget. You lousy little hypocrites!
Go take your dumb progressive rear end into the weekend with another one of your very progressive and hip songs, you idiot.
Adam
January 19th, 2013
12:05 pm
Simple Truths: I disagree Adam. Jay’s posts are filled with vitriol.
Then your definition of vitriol and mine differ, I wonder how your own definition would change if I presented exactly the same tone and word usage from this post leveled against the left?
Adam
January 19th, 2013
12:11 pm
Donovan: LOL. Your post exemplifies what I mean by vitriol. Simple Truths, take note.
You equating a GOP majority with antics to a Democrat minority with antics is false analogy. Secondly, we haven’t had a real budget since 1997, and yet in 1998 and 1999 we did fine on making sure revenue outpaced spending. The real problem is the tax cuts, another Bush led initiative that left us with no good options. Combine that with the rapid increase in spending (I forget the calculus term but it saw a dramatic upswing throughout the Bush years) and you have the exact recipe for why were are in this mess.
Behold: A graph of revenue and spending via the Heritage Foundation!
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/growth-federal-spending-revenue-680.jpg
Spending took an upswing, revenue became a wavy line, and it wasn’t until Obama got in office that the spending leveled out.
The facts are the facts: Republicans in Presidential office do not control spending, they control revenue. Democrats in Presidential office control spending and sometimes increase revenue. And the chart shows which of these works better for getting a handle on the year by year deficit.