The Speaker Pulled Off A Victory

Just about anyone with an opinion and an audience has weighed in on the outcome of the budget negotiations between Speaker Boehner representing the GOP and Democrats Harry Reid and Barack H. Obama.  Many on the Republican side feel that the Speaker "caved in" and "blinked" first.  Others feel that he did a fine job in his first real face off with the Democrat majority.  Two Sisters From The Right agree with Thomas Lifson, writing for the American Thinker that the GOP came out of this first skirmish with the winning hand.  There are yet bigger battles to come and we should stand fast and support those whom we've chose to represent us.  In the end, Speaker Boehner won more concessions for the GOP than anyone else has before regarding budget cuts.  We don't know what went on behind the closed doors of negotiation.  Nor do we know what bargaining powers the Speaker had.  We do know that the president tried to hold our military hostage - a ploy that failed.  In our opinion, Speaker Boehner did just fine.
Two Sisters



A.F. BRAMCO summed up the politics best with this cartoon.
Via ComicallyIncorrect.com 



The GOP did just fine

by Thomas Lifson

American Thinker   

"There is more good in the budget deal than is revealed in the budget cut number agreed on last night. Measured against the size of budget cutting necessary for the future, the numbers are small, to be sure, but this number was a tactical, not a strategic engagement. The key to the matter is momentum, principle, and precedent, which set up the strategic environment for 2012.
Andrew Stiles at NRO correctly points out the extent of the Harry Reid cave-in.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) didn't want to cut anything at first. But bowing to political reality, eventually ponied up about $4.7 billion in cuts. He ended up with $33.8 billion less spending than he wanted. And he called it an "historic" accomplishment. (Not surprisingly, the left is appalled).

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), on the other hand, initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts. House Republicans, led by an undaunted freshman class, bumped that number up to $61 billion ($100 billion off the president's budget), before settling on $38.5 billion.

That's $6.5 billion more than Boehner asked for to begin with, and $5.5 billion more than the $33 billion that Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats claimed had been agreed to less than two weeks ago. A.J. Strata highlights the much bigger win that has been foreordained by the fine print, not conveyed in the number alone:
The budget number is pretty good, mainly because it kills programs instead of lowering their budgets for 6 months. so those 6 month numbers expand and grow in the coming year (snip) [emphasis added]

Obama even admitted in his speech infrastructure projects were being ‘delayed' (i.e., de-funded in 2011). Once de-funded, they will not be back any time soon. As fox News reports, this is a lot farther than the Democrats said they would be willing to go when this all started. (snip)

However, Boehner must have had an incredible stick in those negotiations, because Reid and Obama agreed to put things to vote in the Senate which everyone deemed impossible just last week. That is the truly amazing part of what Boehner pulled off yesterday:

The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama's government takeover of health care in its entirety. The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America...
The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The last thing Reid or Obama want is a vote in the senate on Obamacare (or Planned Parenthood). But now they are going to have to vote and this is huge. If this happens, and 4 of those 23 red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2012 vote against Obamacare, then the President will have to veto a bipartisan bill that lines up with the overall will of the American voters. What could be better than isolating Obama and Obamacare from the will of the people and Congress heading into 2012?

The conclusion is inescapable that the Democrats realized they would be blamed for a shutdown, at least as much as the Republicans. The ploy of holding the troops' paychecks hostage stands as one of the dumbest political moves of the Obama presidency (and that is saying a lot). Sure there would be pictures of families turned away from the Washington Monument, but these would pale in comparison with the pictures of families near military bases unable to pay the rent or buy groceries, going into paycheck advance lenders and payting 22% interest in order to put food on the table.

One thing the American public will not tolerate is using our brave military heroes as political pawns.  Congratulations to Speaker Boehner, who, with "one half of one third of the government" pulled off a victory."



Copyright 2011 - American Thinker

Obama's Shutdown

 As Americans anxiously await to hear if the House and the Senate can come to an accord on the budget, or face  the shutting down of the government, Barack Obama and his family preapre to leave town for a previously planned family getaway.  Someone should have warned Mr. Obama that being POTUS requires more intense work than that of community organizer or a Senator who is better known for voting "Present."  One wonders, "Does Obama care if the government shuts down?" 


Utah's Republican, Sen. Mike Lee  is quoted as saying that President Obama's inability to get a budget passed last year may have been "deliberate."  Has the liberal media questioned why, if the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, they were unable to come to an agreement and to approve a budget in 2010? According to Senator Lee,  "It was either irresponsible on one hand or deliberate and malicious on the other with intention to bring about a sequence of events that would culminate inevitably in a government shutdown." Speaking on the Senate floor today, Senator Lee was quite serious.


Lee was not the only person to suspect that the government shutdown could have been preplanned.  Speaking on FOX News, radio talk show host, Chris Plante, questioned how former DNC Chairman Howard Dean could possibly have been able to predict weeks ago that the Republicans would get the blame  for a shutdown.  The answer according to Plante is simple --Dean  knew that  a showdown was coming, and he also knew that the media would be on the side of the Democrats because they are working together.  How else could Dean have stated that he knew who would win?  Plante called the media, "the Bucket Brigade, whose job it is to carry the water for the Democrats."  An apt description and a devious  ploy which does not come as a big surprise. 


The media is ready and very willing, to blame the GOP for the impasse. We believe that in doing so they are underestimating the American public's intelligence and sophistication.  There are some who are willing to be spoon fed by the  news media, but there are entirely too many others who will no longer accept the media bias as gospel.  Both the Democrats and the media persist in repeating the same tired mantra:  "The Tea Party controls the Republicans."  "The Tea Party is whispering in the ear of Republicans."  The Tea Party does not need to whisper in any one's ear.  The Tea Party has a voice of its own and speaks out in the most effective way possible -- at the polls.


The truth of the matter is that in spite of Obama's fear tactics and threats to veto any attempt to keep the American military funded, the government doesn't really "shut down" during a shutdown.  The rules for who works and who doesn't date back to the early 1980s and haven't been significantly modified since.  The Obama administration hasn't issued new guidance.


The air traffic control system, food inspection, Medicare, veterans' health care and many other essential government programs would run as usual. The Social Security Administration would not only send out benefits but would continue to take applications. The Postal Service, which is self-funded, would keep delivering the mail. Federal courts would remain open.


Once again during these negotiations, what has become most apparent to Americans is Barack Hussein's Obama inability to lead.  He threatens to veto any effort on the part of Republicans to continue paying the U.S. Military during a new government shutdown, and the media report it without question.  In case Mr. Obama has forgotten, our country is engaged in three wars in three different countries, the last of which is HIS war in Libya.  The arrogance of the man to threaten to withhold payment to the very people he has sent to put their lives in harm's way!  The insensitivity of the man to play political games with the lives of military families!


There may be a silver lining in this dark cloud that hangs over our country.  If Obama's government withholds payment for all who would be affected by the government coming to a standstill, two important things could take place.  The American people could very well realize how smoothly the government functions without all the bureaucracy and waste of money, and like it.  The Democrats' ploy to turn the voters against Republicans and the members of the Tea Party could backfire and blow up in their face. 


Everyone knows that the Democrats and the White House rejected the Republican's stopgap plan to keep the government going for another week while extending the military's pay for the rest of the fiscal year.  Using the excuse that the two riders contained in the measure were unacceptable, they turned their backs on the GOP offers.  The riders include not funding abortions in the D.C. area and keeping the terrorists detained at Gitmo without coming on American soil.  These are not new demands.  These are provisions that were in place until they were changed by the Obama administration.  If they can be called anything, the word is reversals -- and welcome reversals they would be.


In the end, the stalemate, and the refusal to reach a compromise boils down to defending Obama's health care bill.  Democrats will go to great lengths to protect Barack Obama's legacy - socialized medicine for Americans - at all costs. That includes shutting down the government while placing the blame on Republicans and the Tea Party. Their reluctance to come to an agreement with the GOP is strictly political. In spite of our country facing an astronomical deficit, they are willing, for purely political reasons, to risk bringing the government to a standstill, letting women and children go without money for groceries and bills, furlough federal employees, and close national parks.


These are the same Democrats, Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, et al. who rammed Obamacare down our collective throats and who hid an outrageous amount of expenditures in it. If Senate Democrats are really serious about cutting down on wasteful expenses and getting the economy back on track, they would realize that the path to fiscal health begins with the repeal of Obamacare.



twosisters_ftr@yahoo.com  

Had Enough?

By BornintheUSA99

How much more are we supposed to take? When do we say we have had enough? When do we take to the streets? We have a president who demonizes us, calls us extremists while he coddles thugs and dictators. How long are we to stand by as he sends his minions to stir the pot on the streets of Madison? The President of the United States, effectively the chief law enforcement officer of the land, not only does he not denounce violence and rioting, he encourages it.


How much more are we supposed to take? The overwhelming majority of Americans wanted no part of Obama Care. Nevertheless, the Obama, Reid Pelosi troika coerced, bribed and blackmailed their way, ramming a bill through Congress. Obama laughed at us and mocked us when he signed the bill. Now, twenty seven states have told Obama no Obamacare; two federal judges have ruled the law unconstitutional and what does the outlaw-in-chief do? He ignores it all and continues to implement the law. How much more? When do we say we have had enough?


How much more are we supposed to take? How much longer do we sit quietly as leftists and their pals in the Democrat party corrupt the process of our representative republic? Are we really supposed to just stand by as thugs take over a state capital building? Is it reasonable to expect that we will abide by the performance of fourteen Democrat State Senators as they flee their state to thwart that state’s legislative process? And, when after weeks of delay a law is duly passed, are we to accept it when a leftist activist county judge issues a restraining order, not as a point of law, but simply because she sided with the anarchists? This is the same judge who refused to order the striking teachers back to work, effectively saying in her ruling that the absent teachers were not striking. Not striking? How much more?


Our nation teeters on the verge of destruction; we seek and desperately need honest leaders and substantive solutions to myriad calamitous problems. How much longer will we sit by and watch so-called leaders from both parties do the Sunday talk shows spewing kumbaya nonsense about getting along? Speaker Boehner, and the freshmen we voted for that gave him the gavel, were not sent there to get along; we sent them there to reverse the down hill landslide that threatens to engulf and destroy the greatest, most free and most tolerant nation in history. How much longer will we stand by and watch?


How much longer will we allow the media to lie and distort and run cover for the very people that are destroying us? How much longer do we stay passive as they blame Sarah Palin and conservatives for the Tucson shootings yet remain silent about the thuggery that is happening in Wisconsin? Duly elected state senators’ lives are being threatened and the major media outlets hear, speak of and see no evil. How much longer do we just let them call us extremists because we believe in and honor and revere the Constitution; how much longer when we know that we “extremists” represent the majority of America?


As did the Founders, “…We have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” As did the Founders, “…we have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.” As did the Founders, we believe that, “… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” As did the Founders, we believe, “…That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”


All that’s needed to see our future is to watch Wisconsin. Elections do not matter to leftists; neither do court orders. If they don’t like the order, it is ignored, just as Obama is doing. If they don’t like the election result, they abscond and then jurisdiction shop to find a leftist judge to thwart the will of the people, as Judge Sumi has done if Madison. So I ask again, how much more are we supposed to take? When do we say we have had enough? When do we take to the streets? Isn’t it time to do so, as the Founders did, “… with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, (and) mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred Honor.”?

The Ayes Have It!

While President Obama was busy impressing the Chinese delegation, the Republicans in the House of Representatives were busy keeping their promise to the American people and calling for a vote to Repeal Obamacare.  We fear that repealing that monstrosity in its entirety will be an extremely difficult task.  Not only do they have Harry Reid in the Senate threatening not to bring the bill up for a vote, but we also have Obama, pen in hand, waiting to veto any measures that will obliterate his brainchild.  Healthcare reform was after all going to be his presidential legacy.

What Obama and all the Democrats who force that legislation through did not consider was the fact that their actions awakened a sleeping giant.  The majority of Americans do not want Obamacare, although it does sadden us to learn that some gullible citizens are being bamboozled by the Democratic Propaganda Machine, backed of course, by their wealthy contributors whose fat wallets make it possible for them to never have a need to worry about how they will pay for their healthcare.

Today was a historic day because it proved that elections do matter, and that those elected really listened to the wishes of the American people.  We believe that in spite of the odds, there is a very strong opportunity here to strip from that bill all the measures that make it unsustainable, and to do so in a bipartisan manner, without the bribery, coercion , and behind closed doors meetings that were initially employed to force those who in reality opposed Obamacare to vote for it.

Two Sisters From The Right join with Generation America Advocacy in their statement that this is the single most pressing issue the over-50 generation faces today. We are advocating in favor of a free-market health care system where individuals have the freedom to determine the level of healthcare they want, the doctors they want, the medicines and treatments they want and make their own end-of-life decisions.  Those of us who are seniors and carefully planned for our future so that we would never be dependent on our children, do not want the government interfering in our lives.  Even more, we don't want our children and grandchildren left saddled with debts incurred by the government, that would burden their future lives.

So, it is with gratitude that we applaud the members of the House of Representatives who voted "Aye" to repeal Obamacare.  It was indeed a good day in the House today!

The House Votes to Repeal ObamaCare
by Jeffrey H. Anderson


Reflecting the clear and strongly held views of the vast majority of Americans, the House has voted overwhelmingly to repeal ObamaCare.

Last March, the House voted to pass ObamaCare by a tally of 219 to 212 -- a margin of 7 votes; today it voted to repeal ObamaCare by a tally of 245 to 189 -- a margin of 56 votes. Ten months ago, the vote was 51 percent to 49 percent -- a margin of 2 percentage points; today it was 56 percent to 44 percent -- a margin of 12 percentage points. So the margin for repeal was 49 votes and 10 percentage points bigger than the margin for passage.
 
Many have described this as being merely a symbolic vote. But, in truth, the 112th House will never pass a more important bill. It seems quite strange, moreover, that anyone would ever call legislation to repeal a 2,700-page law, which also happens to be the President's centerpiece initiative, anything other than substantive.
 
Now the repeal bill will advance to the Democratic Senate, where senators will have the chance to respond to the people's will by voting yes, voting no, or refusing even to hold a vote. Their choice, too, will be substantive -- and will say a lot about the current composition of that body.
 
But before transferring our thoughts too much to the Senate, let us take a moment to appreciate what has happened today in the House: Less than ten months after ObamaCare's passage, the repeal movement has notched its first legislative victory!
© Copyright 2011 The Weekly Standard LLC

CHANGE IT BACK

The problem that most troubles Americans at the present time is the economy.  As long as people are not going back to work there will not be any chance to recover from this financial crisis. Another great concern is the size of government, and too much government control in our lives.  As much as we detest ObamaCare, and wish to see its repeal, we have to face the fact that the task that the new GOP House have set for themselves is not an easy one. 

Back when the Democratic majority was ramming ObamaCare down our throats,  Nancy Pelosi said something to the effect that "we must pass the bill to know what is in it."  We all scoffed, and we were angry that they were passing a 2,000 page bill that few, if any, had bothered to read.  Our question  now is, have WE read the entire bill?  Do WE know the complexities of repealing it?  How do we feel about the issue of unemployment vs repeal?

Yes, ObamaCare, as it is written, must either be completely changed or repealed.  We've already begun to feel it's adverse effects, it's constraints on our pocketbook.  But, a wise voter is well informed.  Let us take the time to read what conservative experts have to say on the issue.  We don't want to rush into a drastic move that will leave the GOP with egg on its face.  What we need from this 112th Congress is incremental successes.  Do the doable.  Set the stage for a huge GOP victory in 2012.


We advice that all read Paul Ryan's Road Map for America.  A lot of the footwork has already been done.  If we fail in the next two years, we will not succeed in 2012.  By reading some of the comments to articles we've red, we have the feeling that many of our fellow conservatives believe that repealing Obama care is as simple as 1, 2, 3.  We would like to see the new Republican congress undo much of what the Obama administration has done. Change it back! 

The new Congress started out on the right foot today by giving the Constitution of the United States its rightful place by having it read.    As they were sworn in, the new Congress took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States.  That is an Oath Liberals took and now seem to have forgotten.  Our newly elected officials, the Speaker, and the Majority Whip, have a long road to haul ahead of them.  The must get Americans back to work, cut back spending, give control back to the states and the people, and begin to repeal that outrage they call a health care bill.


Below is a very thoughtful explanation on how to approach the ending of ObamaCare. It is one step in taking our country back, but it is not the only one.   Please take the time to read it.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

Obamacare: The End of the Beginning
by Avik Roy
January 5, 2011 4:00 A.M.

For the foreseeable future, health care must be the dominant focus of conservative domestic policy.
Sixty-eight years ago, after a long-sought victory in Egypt that marked a turning point in World War II, Winston Churchill said, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”


In what will be a long and arduous struggle to bring fiscal stability and true reform to our tottering health-care system, partial Republican control of Congress was a necessary first step. But, now, the hard work begins.


The Republican health-care platform, such as it is, is pretty simple: Repeal Obamacare and replace it with incremental, common-sense, politically popular reforms. The GOP’s “Pledge to America” may therefore have been an appropriate platform for a midterm election. However, the document barely begins to address the profound and difficult issues that any serious government must. Indeed, if the early signals are any indication, the troubling reality is that the Republican health-care agenda for 2011 and 2012 may actually make it harder to repeal Obamacare in 2013, and thereby harder to achieve conservatives’ long-term goal of a humane, efficient, and fiscally sustainable health-care system.

The best way to grasp the enormous difficulties ahead is to work backwards.


Runaway growth in government spending is America’s biggest fiscal problem today. Growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending, in turn, accounts for nearly all the projected future growth in government outlays relative to GDP. If the principal domestic-policy goal of conservatives is to restore the country to a truly limited government that can live within its means, we can achieve that goal only through serious and thoughtful reform of health-care entitlements.

That is to say: For the foreseeable future, health care must become the single dominant focus of conservative domestic policy.


Hence, our first and most important problem is intellectual. Conservatives speak often of repealing and replacing Obamacare. But how many can articulate a conservative vision of what our health-care system should look like? Leading Republican politicians have plenty of detailed opinions on a broad range of subjects. But does anyone know what John Boehner’s vision is for the future of American health care? How about the main contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination? To ask the question is to answer it.


FREEDOM, SECURITY, AND INNOVATION
It should be said that, within the diminutive circle of conservative health-policy wonks, there is a fair amount of agreement as to where we should go. But translating that wonkery into plain English isn’t easy.


Among less specialized conservatives, a common refrain is, “I’m not clear on the details, but that Paul Ryan sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.” And Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan is indeed a solid start. But unless other Republican leaders fully immerse themselves in health-care policy, they will be able neither to articulate the core principles of free-market health care, nor to address new issues as they arise, nor to persuade American voters that they should be trusted to enact far-reaching reforms.


The core health-care principles that Republicans should embrace can be summarized in three words: freedom, security, and innovation.

First, the conservative vision must, out of both principle and pragmatism, hold that the best health-care system is one that trusts individuals to make the choices that are best for them and their families. The liberal view of health care is the opposite: that individuals are neither knowledgeable enough nor wise enough to make health-care decisions for themselves; instead, these decisions are best left to unelected government experts.

Second, conservatives must stand firmly behind the principle of a safety net for those who are genuinely down on their luck, and also for the principle that those who pay for insurance and play by the rules will get the care that they’ve earned, without losing out on technicalities. Liberals might agree rhetorically with these principles, but they use them as a pretext for expanding the entitlement state, with destructive effects: extension of government insurance to those who don’t need it, at a cost the country can’t afford, and strangulation of private insurers with onerous regulations that the market can’t sustain.

Third, conservatives must always keep in mind that the entire point of health care is to extend and enhance life. Thus their vision can include, but must be broader than, the hot-button issues of abortion and stem-cell research. A pro-life health-care policy involves accelerating the pace of medical innovation, by reducing the regulatory and financial burdens we place on the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. That means strengthening the influence of market forces, as opposed to subsidies and price controls, on the development of drugs and devices. It also means streamlining the FDA so that innovative new therapies can reach the market more quickly and cheaply. It means minimizing, and if possible eliminating, the ability of federal bureaucrats to deny life-extending care.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to look askance at medical innovation. Most progressive health-care economists blame new medical technologies for rising health-care costs: costs that can, in their view, be lowered only by restricting patients’ access to those technologies. In addition, new drugs and medical technologies are developed by private companies, for profit: a concept to which many on the Left are instinctively hostile.

Health-care policy is exceedingly complex, and translating these basic principles of freedom, security, and innovation into actual legislation will not be easy. Doing so must start with three policy goals.

First, Republicans must foster a truly free market for health insurance by eliminating the differing tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually purchased insurance. Second, Republicans must make dramatic improvements to Medicaid, using Mitch Daniels’s impressive reforms in Indiana as a template. Third, Republicans must move Medicare onto a sustainable path that puts financial control in the hands of seniors themselves rather than central planners.

On all three fronts, Obamacare moves us in exactly the opposite direction. The law will force employers to provide insurance for their employees, instead of allowing them to leave that money in their employees’ paychecks so that they can buy insurance for themselves. The law will dramatically expand Medicaid in ways that will accelerate the pending bankruptcy of several large states, even though Medicaid provides far worse care than people can obtain on their own. And the law will effectively eliminate Medicare Advantage and other programs that helped move Medicare from its traditional single-payer approach into a more market-oriented one.

THE OBAMACARE TRAP
And so, it remains true that the most critical task for Republicans in the 112th Congress is to lay the groundwork for the ultimate repeal of Obamacare. Given that House Republicans don’t have the power to repeal the law by themselves, what can they do in the meantime? More importantly, what should they do in the meantime? The question has been asked, but it hasn’t been adequately answered.

We must remind ourselves of the electoral realities. For Republicans to succeed in repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), they will need to control the House, the Senate, and the White House. From a political standpoint, if Republicans are not able to achieve this in 2012, they are unlikely ever to repeal Obamacare.

Read the rest of the article here>>

— Avik Roy is an equity research analyst at Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co. in New York City. He blogs on health-care issues at The Apothecary.