About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

And so it begins?
Author: Raine    Date: 12/12/2013 14:37:00

Yesterday, Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray unveiled a two year budget agreement.
The framework amounts to a modest deal that averts another government shutdown, replaces the sequester and provides a level of certainty on spending that hasn’t been seen in Washington for several years. But it doesn’t raise the debt ceiling, which Congress must address sometime next spring. And it’s far from a grand bargain that overhauls entitlement programs or the tax code — an approach the negotiators refused to entertain for fear of getting bogged down.

The bipartisan package includes $63 billion of “sequester relief,” $85 billion of total savings, and $23 billion in net deficit reduction. The agreement would set the discretionary spending level for fiscal year 2014 at $1.012 trillion, and $1.014 trillion in FY 2015.
Ryan is quoted as saying: "All in all, we provide $63 billion over two fiscal years in sequester relief, which is replaced with $85 billion in mandatory savings, for a net deficit reduction of $23 billion,"

Before the deal was announced, a few people had something to say about it. Well... not people, exactly... groups. Conservative groups.
Despite the limited aims of the deal, conservatives—both tea party members of the House and outside groups—began complaining before negotiators released the proposal. FreedomWorks denounced the concept behind such a deal on Tuesday. Heritage Action, the outreach arm of the conservative think tank, lambasted the early reports of a deal. The Wall Street Journal op-ed page hammered the "defense hawks and appropriators who want to break the annual spending caps in current law." A cohort of 18 of House Republicans wrote a letter calling on House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to ignore the potential deal and vote on a "clean" budget resolution.

John Boehner in turn had something to say about these groups:
“They’re using our members, and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” Boehner told reporters. “This is ridiculous. If you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.” (snip)

Responding to Boehner’s remarks, the Club for Growth issued a second statement from Chocola.

“We stand with Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, members of the Republican Study Committee and every other fiscal conservative who opposes the Ryan-Murray deal,” he said, adding that his organization did not comment until the deal was complete. “We support pro-growth proposals when they are considered by Congress. In our evaluation, this isn’t one of those.”
It should be mentioned here that Paul Ryan is a member of the Republican Study Committee. As thus, this is a pretty big deal. That a budget agreement was announced before another government crisis is mind blowing no matter what your opinion of it is.

Here is a little glimpse why:
With DeMint’s arrival, Heritage’s government relations team, which once boasted the ability to meet with 250 GOP and as many as 40 Democratic congressmen on any given day, disappeared. “The people at government affairs would go down to the Hill, and they had Hill folks saying, ‘Listen, we don’t want to meet with you because of what the folks at Heritage Action did yesterday,’” says the former Heritage staffer. Heritage analysts now have a hard time getting meetings on the Hill, even with Republicans. The congressional staffer told me that, for many Republican members of the House, “their research staff is probably not dealing much with Heritage anymore. They’re systematically going elsewhere for their information.”

Shortly after this summer’s farm bill debacle (Heritage Action pushed members to rid the bill of its food-stamp half, then still sent out a “no” alert on the revised bill, hanging out to dry members from agricultural districts), the outrage was such that the Heritage Foundation was banned from the weekly lunches of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a conservative caucus of House Republicans. This was particularly ironic as the RSC and Heritage were once interwoven: In the 1970s, Feulner had been the RSC’s first executive director. “It really speaks volumes about a betrayal of trust,” says the Republican strategist. The House GOP aide puts it more starkly: “There are over two hundred thirty bridges to be burned in the House. Over two hundred of them are burned, and they maybe have about thirty more left.”
The article goes on to discuss some of the things that led up to the re-opening the Government last October:
On the morning of October 16, just hours before a deadline whose crossing could have pushed the United States into default, and hours before a deal averted that possibility and ended the 16-day government shutdown, after weeks of pushing House Republicans not to back down from the defund Obamacare plan that had gotten everyone to this point to begin with, Needham appeared on Fox News. “Everybody understands that we’re not going to be able to repeal this law until 2017 and that we have to win the Senate and we have to win the White House,” he said.

The hypocrisy was not lost on many House Republicans, who, for all those weeks, had lived in fear of Needham and Heritage Action. As the day wore on, the video made the rounds to much indignant headshaking. “A lot of people were upset,” says the Republican staffer. “If it was impossible, then why was he going around the country convincing other well-intentioned people that it was absolutely doable? To suddenly say at the end that we knew this all along struck a lot of people as disingenuous.” It struck others as a lily-livered delusion. “It was like a general applauding himself for reaching the top of the hill, while the army is being slaughtered at the bottom,” says one Republican strategist.
That law is now known on Fox news as the ACA, as opposed to ObamaCare. It happened 3 days ago.

The Republican Study Committee banned heritage from their meetings and Fox now calls ObamaCare the ACA. Something is definitely happening here. I don't believe for a minute that Paul Ryan and the GOP agreed to this deal solely because of good governance. Call me jaded; Call me cynical. In my opinion this happened as a repudiation to outside groups like Heritage, the Club for Growth etc., who are so out of control that elected officials have been forced to actually govern. People are sick of watching Congress running from one manufactured crisis to the next -- and people will vote in 2014. John Boehner may or may not be Speaker next November but right now he and every member of Congress is concerned about holding their seats first and foremost. Paul Ryan can't run for President if he is not re-elected.

In the meantime, the right-wing is still tearing itself apart.
But the wrath is not solely reserved for Needham; his employer now inspires plenty of disgust among conservatives, too. Increasingly in Washington, “Heritage” has come to denote not the foundation or the think tank, but Heritage Action, Needham’s sharp-elbowed operation. Instead of fleshing out conservative positions, says one Republican Senate staffer, “now they’re running around trying to get Republicans voted out of office. It’s a purely ideological crusade that’s utterly divorced from the research side.” (“If Nancy Pelosi could write an anonymous check to Heritage Action,” adds the House aide bitterly, “she would.”)

As a result, the Heritage Foundation has gone from august conservative think tank revered by Washington’s Republicans to the party’s loathed ideological commissar. “It’s sad, actually,” says one Republican strategist. “Everybody forgets that Heritage was always considered the gold standard of conservative, forward-looking thought. The emergence of Heritage Action has really transformed the brand into a more political organization.”


Interesting times...

and

Raine
 

39 comments (Latest Comment: 12/13/2013 04:05:02 by Will in Chicago)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati