► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘John Boehner’

Students think John Boehner should resign because of ‘Deflategate’

by 1389AD ( 5 Comments › )
Filed under Education, NFL, Open thread at May 25th, 2015 - 10:00 pm

WCS15: Students Blame John Boehner for Deflategate

(h/t: Grumpy Elder)

Published on May 22, 2015 by Centennial Institute

This video promotes the Western Conservative Summit, which will be held at the Colorado Convention Center June 26-28, and the Youth Week, for students age 16-20, which will be held during the week prior to the conference.

Background for readers outside the US:

Deflategate” is an American football controversy in which quarterback Tom Brady and the New England Patriots are accused of using footballs that were underinflated by NFL standards.

John Boehner is a member of the Republican Party and is currently Speaker of the House of Representatives. While he has been a disappointment as Speaker of the House on account of his weak leadership and his frequent capitulation to the Democrats, Boehner has no connection with the NFL.

Obama the oblivious; and Boehner’s blowup

by Mojambo ( 134 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Health Care, Healthcare, Republican Party, Tea Parties at December 13th, 2013 - 2:00 pm

As someone on another blog wrote  I think Krauthammer can finally be forgiven for his initial indulgence in the Kool-Aid. He, along with millions of Americans, could not grasp the idea that such an unqualified buffoon could be elected to the highest office in the land. The degree of stupidity in this country was way underestimated.”

by Charles Krauthammer

In explaining the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, President Obama told Chris Matthews he had discovered that “we have these big agencies, some of which are outdated, some of which are not designed properly.”

An interesting discovery to make after having consigned the vast universe of American medicine, one-sixth of the U.S. economy, to the tender mercies of the agency bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service.

Most people become aware of the hopeless inefficiency of sclerotic government by, oh, age 17 at the department of motor vehicles. Obama’s late discovery is especially remarkable considering that he built his entire political philosophy on the rock of Big Government, on the fervent belief in the state as the very engine of collective action and the ultimate source of national greatness. (Indeed, of individual success as well, as in “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”)

This blinding revelation of the ponderous incompetence of bureaucratic government came just a few weeks after Obama confessed that “what we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.” Another light bulb goes off, this one three years after passing a law designed to force millions of Americans to shop for new health plans via the maze of untried, untested, insecure, unreliable online “exchanges.”

This discovery joins a long list that includes Obama’s rueful admission that there really are no shovel-ready jobs. That one cameafter having passed his monstrous $830 billion stimulus on the argument that the weakened economy would be “jump-started” by a massive infusion of shovel-ready jobs. Now known to be fictional.

[……]With alarming regularity, he professes obliviousness to the workings of his own government. He claims, for example, to have known nothing about theIRS targeting scandal, the AP phone records scandal, the NSA tapping of Angela Merkel. And had not a clue that the centerpiece of his signature legislative achievement — the online Obamacare exchange, three years in the making — would fail catastrophically upon launch. Or that Obamacare would cause millions of Americans to lose their private health plans.

Hence the odd spectacle of a president expressing surprise and disappointment in the federal government — as if he’s not the one running it. Hence the repeated no-one-is-more-upset-than-me posture upon deploring the nonfunctioning Web site, the IRS outrage, the AP intrusions and any number of scandals from which Obama tries to create safe distance by posing as an observer. He gives the impression of a man on a West Wing tour trying out the desk in the Oval Office, only to be told that he is president of the United States.

[……..]

Obama’s discovery that government bureaucracies don’t do things very well creates a breathtaking disconnect between his transformative ambitions and his detachment from the job itself. How does his Olympian vision coexist with the lassitude of his actual governance, a passivity that verges on absenteeism?

What bridges that gap is rhetoric. Barack Obama is a master rhetorician. It’s allowed him to move crowds, rise inexorably and twice win the most glittering prize of all. Rhetoric has changed his reality.  [………]

That’s why his reaction to the Obamacare Web site’s crash-on-takeoff is so telling. His remedy? A cross-country campaign-style speaking tour. As if rhetoric could repeal thatreality.

Managing, governing, negotiating, cajoling, crafting legislation, forging compromise. For these — this stuff of governance — Obama has shown little aptitude and even less interest. Perhaps, as Valerie Jarrett has suggested, he is simply too easily bored to invest his greatness in such mundanity.

I don’t write code,” said Obama in reaction to the Web site crash. Nor is he expected to. He is, however, expected to run an administration that can.

Read the rest – Obama the oblivious

John Boehner for whatever faults he has, actually gets it.  The Republicans can only do so much as they  only control 1/3rd of the government (the House). Rand Paul also gets it. Closing down the government was suicidal as all it did was make the Republicans look like extremists, it failed as it never had a chance to defund ObamaCare,  and it took the emphasis off of the failed roll out of ObamaCare.

by Jonathan S. Tobin

It was a short sound bite but it was replayed endlessly yesterday, angering some conservatives and leaving liberals chortling. When House Speaker John Boehner was asked during a press conference with other Republican leaders about criticisms from conservative activist groups of the budget deal struck by Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan, he exploded:

REPORTER: Mr. Speaking, most major conservative groups have put out statements blasting this deal. Are you –

BOEHNER: You mean the groups that came out and opposed it before they ever saw it?

REPORTER: Are you worried –

BOEHNER: They are using our members and they are using the American people for their own goals. This is ridiculous. Listen, if you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.

This is not the first time Boehner has responded to criticism with anger and frustration. But it was a dramatic change of tone on the part of the convivial and often-teary-eyed and sentimental House speaker when it came to the conservative groups and their Tea Party supporters within his caucus.  [……..] Though no one should expect Boehner to be a changed man from the indecisive speaker of the shutdown crisis, he may have learned at least a couple of important lessons from that difficult experience. The days of the Tea Party tale wagging the House Republican big dog appear to be over.

The incident and the debate about the budget deal are bringing out into the open a conservative civil war that had previously been conducted behind closed doors, at least as far as the House leadership was concerned. Prior to the shutdown there was little doubt that Boehner wasn’t happy about the way some House conservatives and, even more importantly, advocacy groups like Heritage Action and FreedomWorks were helping to limit his options in negotiations with the Democrats. Though he made it clear enough that he knew the decision to try and force the defunding of ObamaCare was doomed to failure and that it would hurt his party, Boehner wound up bowing to the demands of Heritage, Ted Cruz, and the rest of the suicide caucus in the House.

The thinking then was that Boehner worried that if he thwarted those who believed such radical tactics were the only possible response to the health-care law’s implementation, the House Republican membership would be irretrievably split and his speakership might be threatened. What followed was a disaster that not only materially damaged the Republican Party but, just as importantly, served to obscure the ObamaCare rollout fiasco for three weeks as the mainstream media focused instead on those who had warned him against letting himself be buffaloed into a futile shutdown.  […….]

However, the conclusion of this drama also exploded the myth that Heritage and company really had the power to thwart any effort to pull back from the brink. When Boehner finally concluded a deal that was little more than a face-saving surrender to end the shutdown, the activists screamed bloody murder and warned they would back primary challenges against any Republican who went along. But the tide had shifted against them and few heeded their threats. By the time the dust settled, even some on the right like Senator Rand Paul were admitting the whole thing had been a mistake.

The speaker emerged from this trial chastened by the experience but perhaps also realizing that the bark of the Tea Party caucus was worse than its bite. Many Republicans will oppose the Ryan deal that more or less formalizes a truce with the Democrats on budget issues for the next year and Heritage and others will, as they did with the shutdown, try and make it a litmus test of conservative bona fides. But Boehner and even a conservative deep thinker like Ryan have rightly come to the conclusion that the agreement with Senate Budget Committee chair Patty Murray is not only as much as they can reasonably hope to get. Even more to the point, they understand that paralyzing the government and Congress with manufactured crises, in order to push for more deficit reduction and the entitlement reform the nation needs but won’t get so long as control of Congress is split between the two parties, is a critical mistake. The nation as a whole and even most rank-and-file Republicans have had enough of the shutdown mentality. Three months ago, it may have seemed as if Boehner had no choice but to accede to the demands of the Tea Partiers. The shutdown may have convinced him that he doesn’t have to do that anymore.

Having methodically worked his way to the leadership over the course of a long career in the House, Boehner is no pushover.  […..] But the events of the last few months may mean that he will never again be bullied into taking a course of action that he knows is mistaken. This week he has called the Tea Party’s bluff in exactly the manner that many in his party wish he had done back in September. If he sticks to this resolve, both the Congress and the Republican Party will be better off for it.

Read the rest – Has John Boehner learned his lesson?

Palooka Of The Month: November Winner, John Boehner

by Flyovercountry ( 117 Comments › )
Filed under Immigration, immigration, Republican Party at December 5th, 2013 - 9:20 am

I guess it’s all in the first line of the article that I’ve linked to here, that for the first time in quite a while, the Conservative Movement was showing signs of life again. We were becoming more unified than we had been in roughly three decades, and all of it thanks to the realization of the Obama Agenda becoming a reality. This really is the one issue that can change our fortunes in this war, and help us to help put the nation on the right track.

All our House Speaker had to do in order to insure our victory going forward was to keep his yap shut about extraneous issues that more than half of us don’t agree with anyhow, and keep highlighting our solutions to the major issue concerning every man, woman, and child in America today. That, as it turns out, was asking a bit too much from John Boehner. He had other ideas, and french kissing the canvas seems to be one of those.

I suppose my surprise with this idiotic maneuver is in itself surprising. I mean, it’s not as if counting lighting fixtures on the ceiling while a referee counts to ten is something new for our dive taking turkey, only slightly more famous for the tears he’ll spew while preparing to acquiesce. It’s more surprising now, since victory in this war seemed so imminently possible just two short weeks ago.

From the Hotair article linked to:

House Speaker John Boehner has hired a high-profile immigration adviser, his office announced Tuesday, a surprising move that pro-reform and anti-reform advocates alike interpreted as a step toward reform.

Becky Tallent, an immigration policy wonk, is a well-known figure among immigration advocates, having helped spearhead Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain’s efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform under President George W. Bush. This year, she took a prominent role in the debate as director of immigration policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center, where she organized a team of pro-immigration Republicans and Democrats, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell in an effort to craft a workable policy proposal…

“I think it’s a clear signal that the speaker is serious about getting this done,” Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, told msnbc.

It would appear as though we are going to get screwed with this immigration thing whether we want it or not. My particular beef with immigration is not with allowing as many members of the Latino community as wish to become American Citizens the ability to do so. After all, their wish is to become productive members of our community, and to assimilate themselves into our culture, while adding to it. My beef is that the immigration policy, just like the last time, will still exclude that group of people in favor of the group who practices jihad, and not necessarily that inner self introspection variety either. We will get the continued influx of those who want nothing to do with our freedoms or culture, but seek to destroy it. That influx of jihad practicing bomb planting thugs will of course be accompanied by the requisite lectures on tolerance, and why we should welcome the terrorists with open, if yet bloodied arms.

With all of that being said, one question still burns. With the nation as a whole, wishing to resist the latest proposals on immigration reform by a whopping 60/32 margin, why on Earth would John Boehner wish to make this push now? There literally, is not one positive thing that can happen for his side politically. He is either trying to take that dive on purpose, or he is attempting to sneak something through the he knows his side of the aisle hates, and has calculated that the time is right to piss off the base and still have high hopes of not being punished for it during the 2014 Midterms. Either way, his is beneath contempt and well worthy of the November Palooka Prize.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Lawmakers and their aides may be exempt from Obamacare

by Mojambo ( 122 Comments › )
Filed under Health Care at April 26th, 2013 - 8:00 am

All I can say is that apponitment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court was a great one, wasn’t it? If this does not encourage the voters to get rid of the entire lot of them (Congress) then nothing will.

by John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. […….]

A source close to the talks says: “Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get done.”

Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.

Democrats, in particular, would take a public hammering as the traditional boosters of Obamacare. Republicans would undoubtedly attempt to shred them over any attempt to escape coverage by it, unless Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) give Democrats cover by backing it.

[…….]

The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty.

Plus, lawmakers — especially those with long careers in public service and smaller bank accounts — are also concerned about the hit to their own wallets.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is worried about the provision. The No. 2 House Democrat has personally raised the issue with Boehner and other party leaders, sources said.

[…….]

Several proposals have been submitted to the Office of Personnel Management, which will administer the benefits. One proposal exempts lawmakers and aides; the other exempts aides alone.

When asked about the high-level bipartisan talks, Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, said: “The speaker’s objective is to spare the entire country from the ravages of the president’s health care law. He is approached daily by American citizens, including members of Congress and staff, who want to be freed from its mandates. If the speaker has the opportunity to save anyone from Obamacare, he will.”

Reid’s office declined to comment about the bipartisan talks.

However, the idea of exempting lawmakers and aides from the exchanges has its detractors, including Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a key Obamacare architect. Waxman thinks there is confusion about the content of the law. The Affordable Care Act, he said, mandates that the federal government will still subsidize and provide health plans obtained in the exchange. There will be no additional cost to lawmakers and Hill aides, he contends.

[…….]

Waxman has been working on this issue with congressional colleagues and the Obama administration.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said if OPM decides that the federal government doesn’t pick up “the 75 percent that they have been, then put yourself in the position of a lot of entry-level staff people who make $25,000 a year, and all of a sudden, they have a $7,000 a year health care tab? That would be devastating.”

Burr added: “And that makes up probably about 30 percent of the folks that work on the Senate side. Probably a larger portion on the House side. It would drastically change whether kids would have the ability to come up here out of college.”

[…….]

“I have no problems with Congress being under the same guidelines,” Burr said. “I think if this is going to be a disaster — which I think it’s going to be — we ought to enjoy it together with our constituents.”

The developing narrative is potentially brutal for congressional Democrats and the White House. The health care law, controversial since it was passed in 2010, has been a target of the right and, increasingly, the left. There are concerns about its cost, implementation and impact on small businesses. If the two sides agree on a fix, leadership is discussing attaching it to a must-pass bill, like the government-funding resolution or legislation to hike the nation’s debt limit.

Republicans, though, haven’t been able to coalesce around a legislative health care plan of their own, either. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pushed a bill this week that would shift funds from a health care prevention fund to create a high-risk pool for sick Americans. That bill couldn’t even get a vote on the House floor as conservatives revolted, embarrassing Cantor and his leadership team. GOP leadership pulled the bill.

But the secret talks about exempting Capitol Hill hands from the exchanges has the potential to be even more politically risky. During the 2009-10 battle over what’s now dubbed Obamacare, Republicans insisted that Capitol Hill hands must have the same health care as the rest of the American people. The measure was introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who spent months negotiating the details of the health care law but later became a major Obamacare critic.

[……….]

OPM also has to decide where the members and staffers would be covered. According to several people who have spoken with OPM officials, lawmakers would probably be in the exchange of the state they represent. But staffers would sign up in the state where they usually live — that means district office employees would join home state exchanges, and Capitol Hill staffers would mostly be in Washington, Virginia or Maryland.

Read the rest –  Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption