Boehner Frustrated With Any Opposition to Budget Deal That Raises Spending

The Republican Party's establishment continues to make its uselessness in reining in government growth in any place but an imagined future clearer and clearer, as reported in Business Insider:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) snapped at conservative groups that have come out in opposition to the budget deal reached Wednesday between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). 

"They're using the American people for their own purposes. This is ridiculous," Boehner said at a press conference with other members of House Republican leadership on Wednesday....

In the past three days, the influential Heritage Action, Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, and FreedomWorks have all signaled they would oppose the deal. They have all argued that while imperfect, the sequester has provided the only effective check on the Obama administration's spending....

When Boehner was asked in the press conference about the conservative groups, he cut off the reporter asking the question. 

"You mean the groups that came out opposed to it before they ever saw it?" he said. "... If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement."

Soon after the press conference, the groups denounced Boehner's comments. Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said that the group stood with the likes of Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), all of whom oppose the deal. 

"After carefully reviewing the budget deal, on which we never commented until it was complete, we determined that it would increase the size of government," Chocola said. "We support pro-growth proposals when they are considered by Congress. In our evaluation, this isn’t one of those."

May forces within his Party and the movement that supports it continue to frustrate the Speaker.

Rand Paul's opposition to the Ryan-Murray plan:

"The small sequester spending cuts were not nearly enough to address our deficit problem,” Paul said in a statement. “Undoing tens of billions of this modest spending restraint is shameful and must be opposed. I cannot support a budget that raises taxes and never balances, nor can I support a deal that does nothing to reduce our nation's $17.3 trillion debt."

Nick Gillespie on the plan's uselessness.

I wrote in the New York Times back in February about the importance of the libertarian strain for the GOP's future. Reason's vast body of writings on GOP establishment opposition to libertarian-leaning "wacko birds."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hyperion||

    Primary, primary, primary his arse! I'll donate, get that orange faced baboon the fuck out of congressional leadership and out of DC, period!

  • Hyperion||

    This time, the tears are going to be for real, orange man!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Does he cry Tang?

  • Hyperion||

    Orange marmalade.

  • PapaSnigz||

    I'm in his district and this is what I know about him
    1) Graduated from Moeller high school (douchebag)
    2) Is a real-estate agent (douchebag)
    3) Cries a lot (pussy)

    He's never getting one of my votes, if only someone would run against him now

  • Brandon Magoon||

    Boehner is yet another example of why we need free and fair elections in this country. This crazy Two party system is fucking us hard.

  • Hugh Akston||

    "They're using the American people for their own purposes. This is ridiculous," Boehner said at a press conference with other members of House Republican leadership on Wednesday...

    The fact that the universe doesn't collapse under the weight of the irony of statements like this just shows how limited our knowledge of physics really is.

  • CE||

    Whereas the rest of Congress just uses the American people and their pocketbooks for those people's own good!

  • OneOut||

    I wonder if he thinks his email to Harry Reid suggesting that the President say he called Boehner to the White House to beat on him about the budget, while they were really going to discuss if Congress Critters had to sign up for Obamacare or not was "using the American people" ?

    It just overwhelms me that so many of these people just absolutely and blatantly ignore the people who sent put them in office. No mandatory Obamacare for them and most of all, the legal ability to "trade forward" ( it's insider trading if we do it) blows my mind. They don't need raises, ever. Truth be known 99% of them would hold the office for free as long as they got the perks.

  • John||

    Calm down Reason. Boehner just wants to sell out on the budget deal so he can get on to the important job of selling out on immigration. Don't worry, Boehner is going to ensure you too get a pony.

  • From the Tundra||

    Whew! For a minute there, I thought we were just going to raise taxes, expand government and begin the process of crushing whatever crumbs of freedom we have left...

    Ponies, huh?

  • John||

    They are going to give Reason that big amnesty deal they have been wanting. Come on Reason, just have some patience. Bohner is going to come through for you and deliver the Democrats new voters while he is at it.

  • From the Tundra||

    Ya just don't get it, do ya John? We are a nation of immigrants. It's what makes us great! Why, when my great-grandparents made their way to these shores from the hell-holes of Scotland and Italy, they were fortunate to have all manner of government programs to support them. I mean, sure, they didn't have EBT cards or free health care or housing subsidies. Sure, they were forced to make a living any way they could to feed their growing families. Sure, my great grandpa worked in a fucking MINE when he was 13. Sure, they busted their asses and built successful businesses and created wealth that survives to this day. The point is, John, where would my family be without government help, huh? I'll tell you where: working in some rich guy's monocle factory. You just think about that when you go disparaging the awesome piece of policy called amnesty.

  • CE||

    Your great grandpa didn't start working til he was 13? What was he, some kind of shirker? My dad started working at 12.

  • From the Tundra||

    Lazy Italian. Duh.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Arbitrarily restricting the freedom of movement and freedom of association is anti-libertarian. The only legitimate reason for borders is to establish when a nation is being attacked and can justifiably defend itself. If Jose from Oaxaca wants to come across the border, it's none of your business and it's not the government's, either.

  • wareagle||

    letting in whomever wants to show up and giving them taxpayer funds for whatever reason is even more anti libertarian. So, it appears there are competing positions here unless you think the dismantling of the welfare state is more likely than some effort, no matter how token, to control the border.

    Countries tend to be defined by borders, language, and culture. Tend to be. Every nation has them. And we have an immigration system that millions have managed to legally navigate.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Nope, because your argument assumes that "we" give "them taxpayer funds for whatever reason". It's been said time and again that you can restrict welfare state benefits to citizens only, but that point keeps getting ignored by the immigration hawks because it's inconvenient to their true motivation, which is that you're scared the Brown Hordes are a roving pack of socialist zombies who will forever vote in an American Maduro.

  • wareagle||

    I don't much give a shit if the hordes are brown, green, purple, or blue-eyed blondes. I care mightily that the welfare benefits are NOT restricted, which is perhaps the key reason why the borders crowd gets interested.

    I can easily pass for a member of those hordes you think I fear, so you're just going to have to come up with something better than racial/ethnic animus as the motivation. We don't restrict the welfare benefits, which is the whole point.

  • OneOut||

    "It's been said time and again that you can restrict welfare state benefits to citizens only".

    Yeah, it's been said. Talk is cheap and it will never stick even if it were tried.

  • DarrenM||

    Illegal immigrants would be given welfare benefits for the same reason they are given amnesty to begin with.

  • Smack MacDougal||

    Expanding the size and scope of government is anti-libertarian.

    The first order of business for any authentic libertarian is stopping the growth of government, followed quickly by dismantling government and thus taking from officialdom what rightfully belongs to each one's respective freedom.

    Libertarians who champion reform in the context of the establishment, e.g., pro-gay "marriage", pro-illegal aliens to become immigrants, are not libertarians. They are liberals. Alas, they don't know reality about themselves.

    Converting illegal aliens into legal residents shall increase government, further entrenching welfare and income taxation required to service ever increasing debt to pay for that welfare.

    Get lost liberals. You are not authentic libetarians.

  • ||

    Arbitrarily restricting the freedom of movement and freedom of association is anti-libertarian.

    I don't buy in to the GOPs ideology by any means but, unless you think libertarianism = anarchism or unless Jose crosses the border in some sort of reality vacuum this statement is absurdly wrong. Property Rights are at the heart of libertarianism. If Jose wants to walk or ride from Oaxaca to Montreal, he'll need to use public (or private) roads to get there and will generally exist and survive the trip consuming property and resources along the way. It's, quite obviously, the business of every property and resource owners between Oaxaca and Montreal, especially if his goal is to in Montreal.

    The only legitimate reason for borders is to establish when a nation is being attacked and can justifiably defend itself.

    This, to me, is odd in several ways;
    First, nations are notorious throughout history for attacking each other without violating borders. A siege being the simplest and easiest example. So, it can't be the only reason. Second, the Geneva Convention and derivatives therefrom highlight a number of ways immigrants can be destructively invasive despite being allowed through a border. Given those two reasons, I think borders are far more complicated than the way you've simply distilled them. Lastly, you say 'justifiably defend itself', justifiable to whom? A larger, more authoritative, body politic?

  • ||

    they were fortunate to have all manner of government programs to support them.

    I have a great idea...our freedoms are restricted by the welfare state...so lets fucking restrict the freedom of open boarders to fix it!!!

    Wow this is brilliant. I now see the light of conservative small government. You create big government to combat big government in order to get small government. No Cosmo-metrosexaul-libertarian could ever of come up with such a brilliant plan as this.

  • From the Tundra||

    Dude, read what wareagle wrote. Unrestricted immigration and an ever expanding welfare state can't coexist. One or the other.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You don't get to hold liberty hostage because there's something anti-libertarian over there.

    Or, you can, but it ends up looking something like, "Government restricts access to birth control through the use of physician licensing, and that's why we have to mandate a pharmacist dispense birth control upon request."

    Or, "We can't end the War on Drugs, because doing so would result in increased addicts, and the public dole will pay for their habits."

    So, fuck using the welfare state as an argument for anything, because you can use it as an argument for ALL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE known to man.

  • wareagle||

    Neo,

    the welfare state argument is entirely applicable here as it affects us, US citizens and taxpayers. The desire for open borders may sound good in theory, but it relies on the goodwill of other global actors in order to be reality.

    Sneak into Mexico and see how well that works out. Sneak into most countries. Maybe some places take all comers and give them all sorts of goodies but most don't.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    the welfare state argument is entirely applicable here as it affects us, US citizens and taxpayers.

    That's true of every single political issue there is, and therefore not uniquely applicable here.

    Sneak into Mexico and see how well that works out. Sneak into most countries. Maybe some places take all comers and give them all sorts of goodies but most don't.

    Hey, look over there isn't a counterargument. Hey, Billy's mom lets him jump off of bridges didn't work with my mother and it's poor argumentation. I don't give a rip what other countries do that's anti-libertarian.

  • wareagle||

    I don't give a rip what other countries do that's anti-libertarian.

    and some here wonder why the masses don't take libertarianism seriously. The globe is not confined to this group and what other countries or don't do has spillover effects. We're a country, not a theme park.

  • John||

    Since when is "liberty" dependent on citizenship? You want to let people come here and work legally, have fun. But that is not what is going to happen. What is going to happen is citizenship, which is an issue that really has nothing to do with freedom of movement or contract. I will grant you that you as an employer should have the freedom to hire anyone you want, even someone from another country. But that doesn't in any way mean the person you hire has any right to citizenship or much of anything beyond the ability to come here and work.

    But I don't anyone here arguing for anything short of citizenship.

  • robc||

    But I don't anyone here arguing for anything short of citizenship.

    I have, but you refuse to listen to me half the time.

  • John||

    Some have Rob. But I don't see Reason proper doing that. To me, easily obtainable time limited green cards is the answer to the entire problem. Let people come here and work for a set time and then, provided they haven't gotten in trouble and been deported, let them choose between citizenship or going home. What you would find is that a lot of them would come here and work and go home.

    The Democrats only want citizenship because they want voters. If the GOP were anything but the stupid party, they would offer a compromise granting legal status but only a long path to citizenship and make the Democrats show their true colors.

  • robc||

    But I don't see Reason proper doing that.

    I think this is our big disagreement. I consider the commentariat to be a part of "reason proper".

  • sarcasmic||

    I think this is our big disagreement. I consider the commentariat to be a part of "reason proper".

    That's like saying "we are government."

    Just as society is not government, we are not Reason.

  • robc||

    Reason publishes hundreds of my short essays every year.

  • sarcasmic||

    Reason publishes hundreds of my short essays every year.

    Government lets you vote. Does that make you part of government?

  • sarcasmic||

    The local paper publishes letters when I submit them. So what?

  • DarrenM||

    they would offer a compromise granting legal status but only a long path to citizenship

    Since a green card holder can do pretty much anything a citizen can except vote and hold a government job (for security reasons), there is no reason a currently illegal immigrant needs to *ever* get citizenship.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    But I don't anyone here arguing for anything short of citizenship.

    because you don't pay attention. Which is typical of you, John - you make up these fabulous strawmen to knock down like, every single day.

  • John||

    because you don't pay attention. Which is typical of you, John - you make up these fabulous strawmen to knock down like, every single da

    I pay plenty of attention. I just don't pay attention to you because you are generally a moron who can't understand any sort of unstated assumption.

    I was speaking about Reason proper and its staff not every single commentator on the board, you half wit.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You said, "I don't see ANYONE HERE", so if you meant something else, learn how to use the English language more betterer.

  • John||

    Sure I could use the English language better. Or maybe you could think before you post and understand words are defined by context.

    Sorry you are not as bright as you think you are Randian. Sometimes life is like that.

  • robc||

    Context implied the commentariat to me too.

  • robc||

    One or the other.

    I refuse to choose. I WANT IT ALL.

    Unrestricted immigration and the end of the welfare state.

  • ||

    This is great news. If it is unsustainable then let us have unrestricted immigration that will collapse the expanding welfare state.

    Oh wait I forgot, I am talking to conservatives...they actually want to preserve the welfare state just slightly smaller then what the progressives want.

  • wareagle||

    Oh wait I forgot, I am talking to conservatives...they actually want to preserve the welfare state just slightly smaller then what the progressives want.

    consult your browser bar because you might be in the wrong place. The welfare state does not have fans here.

  • ||

    I have been here a long long time wareagle. I know what the people are fans of here.

    My argument is that if conservative or conservative leaners like John hate the welfare state so much then why do they want to preserve it from immigrants who will invariably break it.

  • John||

    Lighten up Francis. I didn't make any statement on the relative merits of immigration and amnesty. I am just saying the reason why Boehner is selling out on the budget is so that he can clear the decks to get onto selling out most of his supporters on immigration.

  • robc||

    We are a nation of immigrants.

    And colonists and natives.

    AFAICT, **ALL** of my ancestors were from the last two groups. Im sure some immigrant was missed somewhere in the family tree, but I dont have any specific evidence of it.

  • ||

    I am pretty sure Obamacare just gave the republicans a crap ton of new Spanish speaking voters. I don't think the "open boarders = more democrat voters" meme has as good of standing as you think it does. The Hispanic vote is anyone's for the taking.

    Also as a libertarian should I give a shit who gets the votes after freedom is expanded? Should it inform me as to what freedom I support?

  • John||

    If we had a confident culture that insisted on people assimilating like we once had, sure. But thanks to the Left running the schools and controlling the mass culture, we have nothing like that.

    In a country where the mass culture does everything it can to divide people into tribes and create ethnic division and indeed in a political system where both parties thrive on such, immigration might not be such a great idea.

    In America immigration has been great. In a place like Cyprus it hasn't worked out so well. And sorry but I have no faith in Libertarians' ability to even try to fight the Left on assimilation much less win.

  • Dweebston||

    Not ponies per se, but a pony mandate enforced by a pony tax penalty tax, and a new bureaucracy vested with superlegal authority to sort out all pony-legal issues in this dawning era of universal access to ponies.

  • Hyperion||

    Is there any way to add a VAT tax to ponies? Also, pony carbon tax.

  • Dweebston||

    If you trade in your old nag for a newer, more fuel-efficient model, you can claim the expense as a tax credit.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    And millions of American males suddenly logged onto RussianBrides.ru

  • CE||

    What do you mean suddenly? Is that why their servers are so slow today?

  • OneOut||

    lol

  • JWatts||

    Can I get an electric ePony? Preferably, a really nice one with a 5 figure Federal tax credit.

  • wwhorton||

    I have a mule. Can I still keep it?

  • From the Tundra||

    If you like your mule, you can keep your mule.

    Period.

  • CE||

    As long as it too, has a ribbon in its mane. And an OSHA approved saddle. And did you remember to have its hooves trimmed at a licensed horse treatment facility? And you'll want the racehorse insurance provision, in case you get injured when racing said mule, even if you never enter races.

  • JWatts||

    "I have a mule. Can I still keep it?"
    "If you like your mule, you can keep your mule. Period."

    And by Period, he means No.

  • OneOut||

    Only if you pay more for your mule, and the same saddle.

  • ||

    I'm on the Lil Sebastian Gold Cadillac Platinum Diamond Plan. What will happen to me and my awesome mini horse?

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    RIP

  • Pro Libertate||

    We need a whole lot more than small spending cuts that do nothing to kill Leviathan. KILL IT so that we, the people, can live and pursue happiness and stuff.

  • Hyperion||

    And then kill it again, set fire to it, pizz on the ashes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    And build a statue of it made from those ashes to remind people why it's bad.

  • Brett L||

    You get an article length cue and you miss it. Pro Lib, I am disappoint!

  • Pro Libertate||

    I knew it would be done without me.

  • CE||

    But what about income inequality?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, I suppose if you want to increase it, keep things the way they are. If you want most people to be wealthier and happier, then follow the Libertate Plan of cutting government and spending in ways that are so dramatic as to be worthy of Oscar nomination.

  • Hyperion||

    And while we're at it, can we primary Eddie Munster as well? What's with the no Eddie Munster alt-text, Reason? You guys are really slipping.

  • From the Tundra||

    Primary the Small Government Conservative who does P90x and bow hunts? Are you insane?

    No, we have to go after the true enemies:

    Amash, Lee, Cruz, Paul... there are probably one or two more obstructionists we can weed out...

  • Mokers||

    Good work. took me until the last sentence to catch the sarcasm.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    FUCK YOU, CUT SPENDING

  • Pro Libertate||

    Really, this message doesn't appear to be getting across, does it? Perhaps louder, with more obscenity.

  • mr simple||

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) snapped at conservative groups

    "Come on, guys. I did it your way when I shut down 10% of the government but now you gotta help me out or I won't get party invites and I'll lose out on the sweet lobbyist position I'm lining up," Boehner whined before beginning to sob uncontrollably into his hands.

  • Hyperion||

    His supply of QT self-oranging lotion from the 70s is running out. He needs more crony bucks to start up a new company to make more.

  • dreamsandanguish||

    "You mean the groups that came out opposed to it before they ever saw it?" he said. "... If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement."

    I don't care about deficit reduction. I care about debt reduction, for which deficit reduction happens to be required.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement.

    Why don't those motherfuckers burst into flames when they say stuff like this?

  • OneOut||

    Why doesn't the Amerikan proletariat burst them into flames when they say stuff like that.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Perhaps louder, with more obscenity.

    FUCK YOU, YOU COCKSUCKERS, CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING

    Still just a faint, unintelligible bleat in an overpowering gale of indifference, I fear.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They do seem quite deaf. Perhaps we could convert it into some sort of Gregorian chant?

  • kinnath||

    Where is Al Swearingen with you really need him?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Maybe the Mandela funeral guy is doing the translating.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ah, yes, is he available for hire? I believe that his unknown sign language speaks directly to the subconscious.

  • Bramblyspam||

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Gee, what a completely predictable turn of events after establishment Rs got their panties in a bunch about the shutdown. When you Nerf your only weapon, you're going to get beat. Big fucking shock.

  • Winston||

    So where's Welch and Suderman?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Fuck off sockpuppet.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So where's Welch and Suderman?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You do know that I agreed with you regarding the shutdown, right? you guys were just doing an epic amount of whining about straightforward factual reporting and you deserved to be called out for staining this place with man-tears.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    And you're still whining! Today, three months later!

  • Cytotoxic||

    No actually I'm gloating because of how right I was.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Here's an internet cookie.

  • John||

    You knew the leadership would do this. But there is serious doubt that this deal will fly with the rank and file members of the House. When that happens and the House shuts the government down, expect to see plenty of posts about the foolish conservatives in the House shutting the government down for a goal they can't achieve.

    Bottom line is, until this deal actually passes, the only people it reflects poorly on are its authors.

  • Winston||

    So I keep reading from libertarians. about how America is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Since tobacco laws are still here the latter is nonsense.

    As for the former well, um as far as I can tell the public supports minimum wage increases. So much for fiscal conservatism. Also while people in the abstract may want to reduce spending and the size of government how many people would support eliminating an actual government program? How many would support an actual politician who wants to eliminate an actual program? How many people would support an actual plan to eliminate an actual government program? Judging by the response to the sequester, the "Shutdown" and Paul Ryan the answer is no.

  • Dweebston||

    Americans generally want other Americans' oxen gored. They want their own herds left alone.

  • Pro Libertate||

    And, to be sure, minimum wage has never really increased the low-end of wages above the market. That's why the $15 nonsense is being laughed at, because that is above market in most places.

  • DarrenM||

    That's why the $15 nonsense is being laughed at, because that is above market in most places.

    That's just to put pressure on raising the minimum wage by more than is offered now. You start with a ridiculous demand and bargain from there. That's why the Republican Party is called "stupid". They skip the 'ridiculous demand' part and bargain from what they think they'll be able to get. Then surprisingly get less than that.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    As for the former well, um as far as I can tell the public supports minimum wage increases. So much for fiscal conservatism.

    That's your one example, and you didn't even provide any evidence?

    You're a fucking clown. Go back to whatever circus you came from, clown.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Jesus go back to bed and get some sleep ya grouchy fuck.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I saw one person make a collectivist pronouncement with no evidence, but I'm the one with the problem.

    You make Baby Ayn Rand cry with your lack of good judgment.

  • Cytotoxic||

    See below. I made a counterpoint whereas you spazzed out. At least sarc, your fellow shit-tier commenter, can link to a funny video.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Wait, you made a counterpoint? Where?

  • sarcasmic||

  • Winston||

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/inst.....aseID=1987

    American voters support 69 - 27 percent, including 49 - 44 percent among Republicans, raising the minimum wage. No group is opposed.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Considering the minimum wage has been about $7-8 an hour for most of its history, adjusted for inflation, raising the minimum wage isn't going to help matters any. It just leads to further exponential growth in the CPI.

    Given that most Americans can't do basic math and have no idea of the country's economic history, it's not surprising that they assume perpetual increases in the minimum wage will fix things. This is the same population that thinks paying off one set of debt with a balance transfer reduces your total debt.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Of course, what Winston left out is that Americans generally support the vague notion of raising the minimum wage because it Sounds Good, until you tell them it costs something and then they turn on it like a pack of rabid dogs.

    For some reason, though, there's a strain of Team Red commenter here who want to constantly: (a) bash reason and (b) call the American people a bunch of idiots...like that's productive.

  • Marshall Gill||

    For some reason, though, there's a strain of Team Red commenter here who want to constantly: (a) bash reason and (b) call the American people a bunch of idiots...like that's productive.

    Hilarious. What did you say about the American people in the directly preceding sentence?

    Americans generally support the vague notion of raising the minimum wage because it Sounds Good, until you tell them it costs something and then they turn on it like a pack of rabid dogs.

    You mean as if they were....idiots?

  • SugarFree||

    You mean as if they were....idiots?

    No, just ignorant. The idiots are the ones who know it will cost jobs and don't care because they have to stick it to The Man, man.

  • Winston||

  • wwhorton||

    Also while people in the abstract may want to reduce spending and the size of government how many people would support eliminating an actual government program? How many would support an actual politician who wants to eliminate an actual program? How many people would support an actual plan to eliminate an actual government program?

    You know, the thing that pisses me off about this is that when someone claims to be in favor of cutting government spending the rebuttal is always, "Well, then what entire agency would you eliminate?" It just begs the question. You're assuming that every single government agency operates at 100% efficiency, spending the bare minimum of funds. That's silly.

    Then, of course, if I were to say, "Well, let's start with the Department of Education," the response is typically something like, "But we NEED that! You must be against education!!" If you think that it's not possible to reduce the size of government, you think that the government we have now is at its absolute minimum size and operates at a level of efficiency heretofore unknown in the history of human organizations.

    Here's a for-instance. Medicare is pretty much the most easily abused government grant in the history of abuse, government, and grants. Cut Medicare funding. I'd say cut it entirely, but if you're squeamish then just reduce the reimbursement schedule and increase penalties for double- and triple- dipping on health care providers. Bam. Next?

  • CE||

    Nothing left to cut.

  • OneOut||

    If you cut the Dept. of Energy we wouldn't have any energy .

  • Winston||

    You know, the thing that pisses me off about this is that when someone claims to be in favor of cutting government spending the rebuttal is always, "Well, then what entire agency would you eliminate?" It just begs the question. You're assuming that every single government agency operates at 100% efficiency, spending the bare minimum of funds. That's silly.

    Okay then how many people would actually agree to cut the funding of some government department?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yes, we realize that most of the population doesn't understand how complex societies eventually break apart. That doesn't make what whorton is saying any less relevant.

  • robc||

    Pick almost any dept and you can find a large majority in favor of cuts to it.

    Its the small number opposed who are loud about it.

    When you COMBINE the cuts together, you end up building a loud majority.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Dammit we need to cut government! Just don't cut the military! My son is in the military! And we can't cut Social Security or Medicare! My parents depend on those! We gotta cut government! But we can't cut education! Children need education! We need less government! But don't cut the FDA! How else will we know food and drugs are safe? Dammit, government is too big! We've got to make cuts! Big cuts! Sweeping cuts!"

  • Restoras||

    We're doomed.

  • SusanM||

    Cut anything but anything!

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    The correct answer is "Dept of Education".

  • Cytotoxic||

    You have some point here but the elections of Amash Cruz and Paul would indicate there is success to be had in the SL-FC camp.

  • Winston||

    3 out of 535 is better than nothing but it will take more than that to actually cut spending. Not to mention how many people actually support any of these guys plans? And Congress will have to pass them.

  • robc||

    how many people actually support any of these guys plans?

    The people who voted for them?

    This is more true if they have been reelected.

  • Winston||

    I mean nationwide. Congress will have to pass these plans in order for them to take effect.

  • wadair||

    There are a few more than three and the number is trending up.

    The election in Texas of Ted Cruz has evidently put significant pressure on John Cornyn who is now talking more like a TPer. Wonder why?

  • Winston||

    Well it'll need to reach a point where they can actually influence legislation and get their own legislation passed.

  • OneOut||

    He's talking but we aren't listening.

    Texan's know talk is cheap. I really believe he's going down this year. Many of the same forces that were behind Cruz are already aligning behind Stockman, for better or worse.

  • DarrenM||

    There are a few more than three and the number is trending up.

    It would be better to give up while we can. Otherwise, we might actually get someone in a position of power that would do something constructive.

  • CE||

    Ron Paul got elected 11 times, with very little opposition in most of those elections.

  • Winston||

    Unfortunately it is going to take a lot more than that to cut spending...

  • Gunblitz66||

    I haven't heard that about Americans...young people yes, but not all Americans.

  • Dweebston||

    "They're using the American people for their own purposes. This is ridiculous,"

    according to the man discussing further toying with the incomes, credit, and fiduciary media of the American people.

    I guess what Boehner learned from the SEKWESTRAITON and GOVERNPOCALYPSESHUTDOWNMAGGEDON ordeals is that American voters, rather than wanting debt increases traded for spending cuts, instead wants an even more cowed bunch of pusillanimous little shits as their opposition party.

  • Winston||

    I guess what Boehner learned from the SEKWESTRAITON and GOVERNPOCALYPSESHUTDOWNMAGGEDON ordeals is that American voters, rather than wanting debt increases traded for spending cuts, instead wants an even more cowed bunch of pusillanimous little shits as their opposition party.

    ...Is he wrong?

  • Dweebston||

    I think Americans hate obsequious, conniving appeasers more than they do obstructionists.

    Then again, I'm also convinced Americans aren't nearly as complacent as they're made out, and recognize their own self-interest in further obstructing what has been a ruinous decade of deliriously innovative activist politicians. I've no idea what's the state of Boehner's home district, but I'd love to think he'll be punished for defecting to the Democrats.

  • Dweebston||

    ^I meant then again as an admission of being an optimist at heart.

  • Winston||

    It seems the public wants Congress to Get Things Done. I suppose it depends on what that means. And since the Democrats can easily blame the Republicans for being obstructionist that means no spending gets cut.

  • Dweebston||

    Perhaps. On the other hand, free stuff is a finite resource with diminishing returns, especially once you've picked the low-hanging fruit. You can't reinvent costly, all-encompassing programs like Social Security or Medicare/aid, and the aging Bismarckian programs are increasingly looking threadbare. So you're left showering progressively smaller special interests with favors at the risk of alienating the majority of your voters.

    In other words, Americans on balance will favor cutting spending once the taxes they pay in exceed the goodies they get out. You can make the 47% argument, which is potent, but those benefits will similarly need to decline as funding becomes scarcer. At some point self-sustenance will become a more attractive lifestyle than waiting in dole queues and breadlines.

  • CE||

    As Wimpy said, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today...."

    Ryan and Murray agreed to spend more now and cut spending a little, later on, maybe. What political courage and foresight.

    Ryan is finished. His street cred got run over.

  • Mokers||

    I bet we won't see many articles commenting on how Paul Ryan has a dangerous obsession with Ayn Rand now that he decided to grow up and compromise.

  • Winston||

    See? Even Ryan admits the Teahadists are crazy! /progtard

  • OneOut||

    Yeah ? So what ?

    His portfolio just jumped skyward.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Ryan is finished. His street cred got run over.

    Not on K Street.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Club for Growth President Chris Chocola

    If this guy's nickname isn't "Count" the country deserves to be consumed by the fires of Hell.

  • CE||

    +1 Frankenberry

  • wareagle||

    John Boehner: Exhibit A in making your counter to the argument of the vast ideological gulf that divides the two parties.

  • John||

    There is such a gulf. It is just not reflected in the GOP leadership. Most actual Republicans hate Boehner's guts. But what they going to do about it? Vote Democrat?

  • wareagle||

    why is that the only alternative? What stops Repubs from acting on the limited govt bullshit they always trot out? They, as much as Dems, turned on the tea party folks and treat them as kooks and outliers. And they elect Boehner as Speaker.

    They could begin by acting on what they claim as their principles. The lack of same is a big reason I left the party to start with, that and the fascination with people's private behavior. Re-read your own post: if the GOP leadership does not reflect any subtantive difference between the Dem leadership, then no meaningful difference exists.

  • John||

    why is that the only alternative? What stops Repubs from acting on the limited govt bullshit they always trot out?

    Because Libertarians are douche bags who hate most Republicans and wouldn't want their votes anyway. Why is it always the voters' fault Libertarians are not a viable third party? Don't they bear some responsibility for figuring out ways to appeal to voters? Do they do claim to be a political party after all and that last I looked was the job of a political party.

    Beyond that, the whole system is held in place by one giant prisoners' dilemma. Sure, tell Boehner and his ilk to go fuck themselves and go vote third party. I wouldn't cry any tears for that. But unless you can go all of the way and create a third party that totally destroys the GOP, all you will do is divide the vote and ensure the Dems run everything. The Democrats who hate their leadership face the same problem. Only an even number of parties produce anything but one party rule. If you had a fourth party that would equally divide the Democrats, dividing the GOP vote would not be a bad thing. But if you only divide one side, you just put the other side in complete power.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "But unless you can go all of the way and create a third party that totally destroys the GOP, all you will do is divide the vote and ensure the Dems run everything."

    As opposed to a nominal opposition party going along with the Democrats anyway. I get your point. But, at a certain point, "the Democrats will win" bogeyman gets overplayed. Unless you aspire to the role of battered spouse, backing a leadership that consistently betrays your reason for supporting them, consistently marginalizes you, and insists "you need us more than we need you" doesn't sound like much of a strategy to advance your goals.

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. Democrats win and we get something like the ACA. At least a Republican is more likely to vote against something like this (if it's proposed by Democrats that is).

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. Democrats win and we get something like the ACA. At least a Republican is more likely to vote against something like this (if it's proposed by Democrats that is).

  • David Wall||

    Its not even worth discussing a 3rd party here unless one of us has access or influence to someone with access to a billion or so to give it a reasonable shot.

    Some big money guys (e.g., Koch Bros.) and their buddies have to get the ball rolling. If they would, personally I would quit my job tomorrow to help them and I'm betting I'm not the only one who would. But until then, we have to ride and whip the broken down, tired old Repubs, even if they try bucking us off.

  • Winston||

    I think the big problem is that while the GOP are big government statists the Democrats are even worse.

    Punishing Boehner for a being a statist by then voting for an even bigger statist is not an optimal solution. It reminds me of how Bruce Bartlett went from a critic of Bush's statism and Medicare Part-D to becoming an apologist for Obama and Obamacare. It would be like if Lizzy Warren became a libertarian to protest the lack of regulation of Wall Street.

    And the LP are not a viable third party. Of course if people voted for them then they would be a viable third party.

  • John||

    See above. the whole system is held together by a prisoners' dilemma.

  • OneOut||

    I voted for Ross Perot. Many people told me they liked Perot and wished he had won, but it was my fault that Clinton won.

    They couldn't vote for Perot also ?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, they could kick him out of the leadership gig.

  • John||

    I think that is probably going to happen sometime in the next year. But Boehner is just a symptom of a larger problem, a good number of people in both parties have a real vested interest in things staying as they are.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It has surprised me they haven't shitcanned him yet. It's clear that most of the House doesn't care much for him.

  • wareagle||

    then that's a problem that confirms my point. I don't see a huge groundswell among the public for the status quo and there is some momentum toward smaller govt as folks figure out how badly govt does many things. The GOP used to talk about limited govt. Might be nice if it acted on it instead of continuing to behave as Dem-lite, and I'm not sure about the lite so much anymore.

  • John||

    There is a huge groundswell among people in power for the status quo.

  • John||

    The sequester put lie to the myth that America won't tolerate spending cuts. They actually cut spending and no one cared. The GOP didn't suffer a single political consequence for sequester. People like Boehner won't cut spending because they are thieves and love the power and influence spending money gives them.

    I am tired of people slandering the voters by claiming they won't tolerate any real spending cuts. That is just not true. The voters will tolerate and support spending cuts. It is our scumbag political class that can't tolerate the thought of stealing less.

  • Winston||

    they won't tolerate any real spending cuts

    Problem is didn't the sequester not actually reduce overall government spending?

    Another problem is that people want Congress to Get Things Done. As we have seen with the shutdown the Dems can easily reject any spending cuts and cause a shutdown and the GOP will be blamed for it which provides no incentive to actually cut anything, even if the GOP actually wanted to cut anything.

  • Winston||

    they won't tolerate any real spending cuts

    Problem is didn't the sequester not actually reduce overall government spending?

    Another problem is that people want Congress to Get Things Done. As we have seen with the shutdown the Dems can easily reject any spending cuts and cause a shutdown and the GOP will be blamed for it which provides no incentive to actually cut anything, even if the GOP actually wanted to cut anything.

  • John||

    Problem is didn't the sequester not actually reduce overall government spending?

    It did. Total federal spending dropped by 100 billion dollars from FY 2011 to FY 2012.

    http://www.usgovernmentspendin.....nding_2012

    And the world didn't end. And as far as I can tell the GOP didn't suffer a single political consequence for it.

  • wadair||

    The people want action, alright, but I'm not sure that "want[ing] Congress to Get Things Done" means wanting them to enact new and expensive progressive legislation.

  • Winston||

    The people want action, alright, but I'm not sure that "want[ing] Congress to Get Things Done" means wanting them to enact new and expensive progressive legislation.

    The people don't like Obamacare yet they don't want it repealed so it seems they are perfectly fine with old expensive progressive legislation. This of course encourages the passing of these laws since the ratchet has yet to go down.

  • Mike M.||

    Fuck John Boehner, I've known for years he's a worthless piece of shit. But man, what a disappointment Paul Ryan turned out to be. I thought he was serious and principled, but it turns out that he's just another phony with a better veneer of intellectualism.

  • John||

    People will often end up being something other than what they appear to be. So Ryan turning out to be a shit weasel doesn't surprise me. What I don't understand and what really depresses me is that the unexpected changes only ever go one way. Never, does someone who appeared to be a shit weasel actually turn out to have principles or have any kind of change of heart. Every time someone in politics has a change of heart or does something unexpected, it is always them revealing themselves to be a power hungry crap weasel.

  • SusanM||

    It makes me wonder sometimes. I mean, really what's going on? Without wanting to wade into Illuminati waters, there has to be some reason why everyone in Washington always ends up sounding the same and doing the same stupid things. I wouldn't think that any amount of isolation could blind people into being capable of such an elaborate and monumental act of self-destruction as what's happening now.

  • OneOut||

    The love of $ is the root of all evil.

  • Harun||

    I think Ryan simply knows that in order to get a budget passed in the traditional way that he could not get what he wanted and thus compromised with the Democrats, who after all, run the Senate.

    One of the goals is to get back to budgets and not using CR's etc.

    The problem is this means the Democrats have some say so, and thus demand their pound of spending.

  • kmc212||

    Barrack Oboehner.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Well, this thread turned to shit fast.

  • blist14ant||

    libertarians need to have the same philosophy as our founding fathers called rational egoism to fight the Irvin Kristol republicans and marxist democrats.

  • Santa.Claus||

  • Marc St. Stephen||

    I applaud those in congress whom are voicing opposition to this crappy deal.

    Having said that, we should all quietly hope the deal goes through - because if it doesn't, the media will make sure that most Americans blame libertarians, conservatives and republicans in general for the subsequent government shutdown and our chances of putting enough libertarian-leaning candidates in the House and Senate next election are significantly worse.

    I just don't understand why Republican politicians, en masse, can't just say, "This is the best we can get while Reid and Democrats control the senate. If you, the American People, don't like it, try pulling the voting lever with "R" next to it next November. With enough R's in congress, maybe we can actually pass a deficit-reducing budget in 2015, or any budget for that matter, as opposed to the last 5 years."

  • Harun||

    The problem is that when they did have power, they didn't shrink government.

    The voters, naturally, have some trust issues with them.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    All too true. The only good I see out of this package is some reform of federal pensions (civilian and military). I'm very disappointed that Ryan couldn't even hold the sequester cut amount and simply make the cuts "smarter." Whatever that means without entitlement reform...

  • flashgordon||

    If Ryan/ the Republican establishment made this deal when they controlled both houses of congress and the white house it would be an obvious reason to be upset. I don't think it's right, I don't agree with it, but I think the shutdown hurt the republicans. The only way to fix this if for republicans to get majorities in both houses and the white house. With Obamacare we may have a window to accomplish that. I think Ryan did what he had to do to avoid another shutdown and that's the best we can do right now. Once we have complete control I think a high priority should be a Balanced Budget amendment or some kind of stipulation that some states have that you can't borrow money for expenses. The democrats have figured out that they can spend more than we take in with no bad effects to them. A balanced budget amendment would force them to raise taxes for every extra amount they want to spend. That they haven't shown they can sell constantly higher taxes to the American people.

  • Nixonfan||

    It is gratuitous to use a picture of the Speaker crying. You can be critical without being rudely ad hominem.

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    Sure because we can just keep spending, right? We can so afford it.

    You know it's funny. As a writer I follow other writers. All of us
    post apocalyptic fiction authors seem to premise the collapse on one of two things. Zombies or the economic breakdown that will invoke tyranny.

    I didn't think it would be zombies.

    This is so obvious I can't believe half the country doesn't see it.
    Breakdown--chaos--martial law--backed by the corrupt. People through
    fear submit for a little security. A certain founder once warned us
    against that.

    The budget is trillions in debt. It isn't
    going to just be fine because we want it to be. Much like sitting on a
    beach and you hear a tidal wave is coming. Whether or not you want to
    leave the beach is irrelevant--it is still coming.

    And I fear it is coming for us soon as well.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE. A true conservative's weekly.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    What a spoiled little child.

  • LIFE.time.opertunity||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement