Skip to main content

[Also available in green]

If you've been following the debate over the impending "sequester," you have probably seen liberals quoting Speaker Boehner saying that he got 98 percent of what he wanted in the deal that created it.  What you might not have noticed is that Boehner made that remark in an August 1st, 2011 interview with CBS News reporter Scott Pelley, who had just asked him the following question:

SCOTT PELLEY: You were unable to get your own caucus behind your bill a few days ago. Do you intend to remain Speaker of the House?

In other words, what Boehner was really saying was "Why would I quit?  I just got a sweet deal!"  

In reality, Speaker Boehner had just tried and failed to sell a deal to his caucus.  His back-up plan wasn't really his plan.  As he likes to point out, the sequester was first broached by people in the White House who were desperately trying to find something that Boehner could sell to his caucus to avoid our country defaulting on its debts, destroying its credit rating, and tanking the global economy.  Boehner agreed to it because he had nothing else to offer.  Left to his own devices, the world would have come crashing down on his (and all our) heads.  He's incompetent.  

And he probably should have absorbed what Scott Pelley was (with little subtlety) suggesting.  He should have realized that he had no power and resigned.  Instead, he pushed his caucus to accept the sequester deal and went around telling anyone who would listen that it was a great accomplishment.  He started out saying that anyway, but by September of 2012 he was saying that the sequester was insane and that it would be like using a "meat-axe" on the federal budget.

SPEAKER BOEHNER: The sequester was designed to be ugly. Why? So that no one would go there. But because the president didn't help, didn't lead when it came to fixing or working with the supercommittee, Senate Democrats didn't cooperate making this -- helping us make the supercommittee function, we end up with a sequester. The sequester is like taking a meat-axe to federal spending. It is not -- it -- no one on either side of the aisle believes this is an appropriate way to reduce the role of government. And so that's why the House acted in May to pass a bill to replace the sequester. It continues to sit in the United States Senate.” [Federal News Service – Weekly Press Conference with Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), 9/21/12]

 "Meat-axe" is apparently a term he enjoys, since he repeated it just two weeks ago.  

The truth is that John Boehner hates the sequester and plainly thinks it will endanger our national security and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, in addition to being insane.  In fact, he said as much in a Wall Street Journal piece today. It's a jarring position.  So jarring, in fact, that conservative columnist Byron York is flummoxed.  

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner describes the upcoming sequester as a policy “that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more.”

Which leads to the question: Why would Republicans support a measure that threatens national security and thousands of jobs?  Boehner and the GOP are determined to allow the $1.2 trillion sequester go into effect unless President Obama and Democrats agree to replacement cuts, of an equal amount, that target entitlement spending…

...Could the GOP message on the sequester be any more self-defeating?  Boehner could argue that the sequester cuts are necessary as a first — and somewhat modest — step toward controlling the deficits that threaten the economy.  Instead, he describes them as a threat to national security and jobs that he nevertheless supports.  It’s not an argument that is likely to persuade millions of Americans.

Just a week ago, Boehner told the Associated Press that the sequester was a disaster that would present him and his members with nothing but bleak options if it went into effect.  And that's just on the budget and the economy.  Boehner surely agrees with Bill Kristol that the sequester is a political loser that is pointless, won't get the Republicans any leverage, and will threaten our national security.

So why is he playing along?  

To answer this question, perhaps we should go back to a piece that appeared on January 13th in Politico.  Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Jake Sherman reported in that piece that the  House Republicans were so deranged that they might default on our debt, allow the sequester, or force a government shutdown in the fall.  The leadership didn't know what to do with them.

GOP officials said more than half of their members are prepared to allow default unless Obama agrees to dramatic cuts he has repeatedly said he opposes. Many more members, including some party leaders, are prepared to shut down the government to make their point. House Speaker John Boehner “may need a shutdown just to get it out of their system,” said a top GOP leadership adviser. “We might need to do that for member-management purposes — so they have an endgame and can show their constituents they’re fighting.”

We don't know who that "top GOP leadership adviser" is, but he or she kind of gave the game away, don't you think?  For "member-management purposes" and to help Tea Party nut cases "get it out of their system," Speaker Boehner is going to let the sequester kick in rather than take proactive and prophylactic steps to prevent damage to our country and countless people's lives.  

That's what we're dealing with here.  That's what Boehner is dealing with here.  Unhinged lunatics are roaming around the Capitol like it's an asylum, and their drunken leader hasn't the faintest clue how to lead them.  

So, he says things like "this here grenade in my hand will blow my arm off if I pull this pin."  And then he pulls the pin.  

No compromise.  

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I think that makes sense. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BooMan23, Meteor Blades

    I wasn't sure what was happening, just thought the corporate masters would yank on the leash and voila! no sequester. But if Boehner is thinking to get some sort of poison out, this might be the only way to do that.

    We all know what happened with Newt and Clinton in the nineties.

    Or, in other words, all the repukes are carrying shivs ready to stab their own side. Hah!

    It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

    by poco on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:18:13 PM PST

    •  If those shivs were seppuku weapons... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...sure, but the problem is they are not shivs, they're chainsaws, and the collateral damage on us associated with their chopping themselves up with those is likely to be immense.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:48:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If he lets the teabaggers get their way here, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggiejean, poco

    they will be completely unmanageable forever.  Their philosophy is so extreme that shutting down the government is what they want.

    Boehner better get a better idea together and talk some dems into voting for it, or he will have a much bigger problem on his hands than he does now.

    David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

    by PsychoSavannah on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:28:52 PM PST

  •  Boehner's 98% quote vid snippet (0+ / 0-)

    Keystone XL Pipeline - Canada gets the money, Asia gets the oil, America gets the toxic refinery pollution and potential for a pipeline leak ecological disaster.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:30:52 PM PST

  •  like I said earlier... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Youffraita, PsychoSavannah, poco

    then what? (after they dump us into the great abyss)

    not a single one of them has the wits to single-handedly assemble a small IKEA bookcase

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:38:03 PM PST

    •  Nor even the wits to read (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sybil Liberty

      the schematic that comes with the Ikea bookcase, indicating HOW to put it together.

      I mean...that's like... science!

      Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

      by Youffraita on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:52:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Haven't we known for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, ask

    the past four or five years that the opposition party is completely deranged and would gladly throw the entire nation into the gutter just to make Obama a "failed" president?

    "Failed" in quotes b/c it is, of course, the GOP in the fail seat.  Has been and will be until they Get A Clue and Stop Being The Party Of Stupid.

    Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

    by Youffraita on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:50:52 PM PST

  •  BooMan I think the strategy is a little different (0+ / 0-)

    The GOP wants cuts in proposed future spending and have come to the realization that the sequester is the only way they will achieve cuts of this magnitude without having to put any additional revenue on the table. I think they would likely support a reduced set of cuts (although that's not their public position), and a different allocation, if revenues were not required to be part of the package.


    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:54:04 PM PST

    •  That's the Tea Party position (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, PsychoSavannah, poco, a2nite, ask

      but it's insane because the president wasn't elected to enact their priorities.  Boehner is just getting whip-sawed because he knows his caucus is nuts.  

    •  Fundamentally the battle is over how large a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      government we should have.

      In 2000, total government spending (including federal, state and local) was 32% of GDP.  Now it is over 38%, but there has not been a correspondingly large increase in taxation - so we have large unsustainable deficits.

      The Republicans are saying, go back to the lower spending levels, while Democrats say raise taxes to support the higher level of government spending long term needed for social programs..

      The divide is clear and wide, as the positions of both sides go to their core party beliefs.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:26:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not just social programs! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Get rid of the fucking department of homeland security and all of its hangers-on.  Get rid of the oil subsidies.  When people have to pay what gas should really cost, Tesla will be the stock to have.

        There are so many other things in "the government" that can be cut that we never even need to go near any of the social programs.

        David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

        by PsychoSavannah on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:49:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh yeah -- (0+ / 0-)

          But what about the parts of Homeland Security we NEED?

          Do away with FEMA? Or the Coast Guard? Border Patrol? Customs?

          What I WOULD like to see cut -- farm subsidies, Oil subsidies, and defense (bring all the troops home and close ALL the foreign bases.).

        •  I agree with you about the Homeland Security (0+ / 0-)

          excess, however I have not seen much in the way of Democrats pressing for reductions there, as they have in Defense.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:50:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site