"Cut, Cap, and Balance" Constitutional Amendment

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am currently watching a guy named Jeff Flake on CSPAN in the comments in the House replay.

Been a lot of noise.

The only rep who got the serious gavel for staying over her time was, from Texas (bless her heart) the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.

Even saw Chris Van Hollen (D Maryland) invoke the name of Ronald Reagan.

It's been most entertaining.

Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/19/wasserman-schultz-west-let-the-fur-fly/#more-167974

 

[leftysergeant]

Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/19/wasserman-schultz-west-let-the-fur-fly/#more-167974

She accused the torture monkey of doing a crappy job of representing the people of his district.

Screw him. If he can't take criticism, he should just run away like he did from the court martial that he should have gotten in Iraq.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/19/wasserman-schultz-west-let-the-fur-fly/#more-167974

From your link:

West fired back in his message, challenging the four-term Democrat.

"If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!" he railed.

Stating "If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face" in an email is some funny stuff.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stating "If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face" in an email is some funny stuff.

And of course this leads me to believe that West said his piece and then left the chamber before Wasserman Shultz spoke. Seems to me if you choose not to listen to your opponent's rebuttal, you don't get to complain that your opponent rebutted other than "to your face"! [ETA: I mean how "cowardly" could it be to make remarks on the House floor in a nationally televised debate?]

And yeah. . . making that complaint in an e-mail is rich.

 

[DeathDart]

Cut, Cap, and Balance

A Constitutional Amendment will save the rich a lot of money on purchasing Senators and Representatives

With a 2/3 majority in both houses, they only need to buy a little over 1/3 of them to stop them from raising taxes. Right now, they need to buy over half.

Cut, cap, and balance, running the government just like a business, with democracy in the closeout bin.

 

[leftysergeant]

And of course this leads me to believe that West said his piece and then left the chamber before Wasserman Shultz spoke. Seems to me if you choose not to listen to your opponent's rebuttal, you don't get to complain that your opponent rebutted other than "to your face"!

The torture monkey does have a record of making absurd statements and then running away from any accountability.

 

[Snide]

And yeah. . . making that complaint in an e-mail is rich.

I think you mean, "Making that complaint in an e-mail is job creator."

 

[Bri]

Did you happen to catch whatever it was Wasserman Shultz said that got West so steamed?

Here's what Wasserman Schultz said:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/west-calls-wasserman-schultz-vile/

“The gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, unbelievable from a member from South Florida,” Ms. Schultz said in a speech on the House floor.

Mr. West apparently took issue with the fact that Ms. Schultz made the comments just after he left the House chamber.​

You can see the full video at that link. Pretty innocuous, really.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Allen West: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Apology 'Not Happening'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/allen-west-debbie-wasserman-schultz_n_905658.html

During an appearance on Fox Business Network on Thursday, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) signaled he has no intention of apologizing to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.), who chairs the Democratic National Committee, for using strong language to criticize her in an email.​

Oddly, the day before he claimed to Huffington Post's Jen Bendery that he had already apologized.

On Wednesday, however, West suggested to HuffPost's Jen Bendery that he had said he was sorry to Wasserman Shultz for the message in question. (Click here to listen to audio of what the Republican lawmaker had to say.)

Shortly after, a spokesman for Wasserman Schultz indicated that the congresswoman never received an apology from West. A spokesman for the congressman clarified that it's "absolutely false" that West said he was sorry.​

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oddly, the day before he claimed to Huffington Post's Jen Bendery that he had already apologized.

On Wednesday, however, West suggested to HuffPost's Jen Bendery that he had said he was sorry to Wasserman Shultz for the message in question. (Click here to listen to audio of what the Republican lawmaker had to say.)

Shortly after, a spokesman for Wasserman Schultz indicated that the congresswoman never received an apology from West. A spokesman for the congressman clarified that it's "absolutely false" that West said he was sorry.​

I'd be curious to see West's apology. If it's sincere, it certainly shouldn't come with a demand for an apology from Wasserman Schultz.

It also should be done publicly--we're talking specifically about the behavior of elected representatives in the chamber of the House. I think after the debt crisis is sorted out (at least temporarily) there should be talk of censure of West. We really shouldn't have to tolerate such childish behavior at that level of government.

 

[Bri]

I'd be curious to see West's apology. If it's sincere, it certainly shouldn't come with a demand for an apology from Wasserman Schultz.

Listening to the audio linked to in that article, he does seem to say "and I just apologized" but it's not entirely clear. Given that the following day he said he wouldn't apologize, Wasserman Schultz spokesperson said that he didn't apologize, and his own spokesperson said that he didn't apologize, it's probably safe to assume he didn't apologize.

I think after the debt crisis is sorted out (at least temporarily) there should be talk of censure of West. We really shouldn't have to tolerate such childish behavior at that level of government.

I'm not sure if he can be censured for a private e-mail. He's taking a lot of flak for it since Wasserman Schultz made it public, and rightly so. I suspect he's going to have to apologize for real, in public, at some point.

But let's remember that this is the same guy who claimed to have a higher security clearance than the president of the United States.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure if he can be censured for a private e-mail.

Was it private? I gathered that it was sent to many members of the House.

Even so, his rhetoric comes close to "fighting words". I think communication to another party becomes that person's property, so Wasserman Shultz had every to make it public if it wasn't already.

I think this behavior toward a colleague in the House should not be tolerated.

ETA: I guess it's the sign of changing times. I can remember when political opponents would go out of their way to treat each other with the veneer of respect. There was a time when using first names, for example, was something you only did with your friends. With your enemies, it would always be as many honorifics as you could get away with using--"The esteemed honorable representative from the great state of . . . "

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, the bill has passed the House, by a vote of 234 to 190.

Michele Bachmann was one of 9 republicans to vote against it, while 5 democrats voted for it. The reason why she voted against it is because she had earlier pledged not to vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

They proposed this because they know it has no chance of happening.

I bet if a republican wins the presidency in 2012, this bill will suddenly disappear.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They proposed this because they know it has no chance of happening.

I bet if a republican wins the presidency in 2012, this bill will suddenly disappear.

I bet it will disappear before that point! It's dead in the water now, and I bet nothing more will happen with it in this session of Congress.

 

[Toontown]

They are down to their last few days to get a viable bill written, examined, passed, and signed. A compromise bill which will make it ideologically possible for both red-ass monkeys and bue-ass monkeys to pass a credit-ceiling increase, sidestep a credit downgrade, and avoid a fiscal and economic meltdown.

So what do they do? They strike a pose, trying to make it look like they are sane and fiscally responsible, wasting days attempting to pass a bill they know has no chance to survive the Senate or the presiden'ts veto.

This is precisely the kind of doo-da parade that is causing the credit agencies to have a "negative outlook" on the future of the U.S. credit rating. At this point, it's not the debt that is giving the credit raters pause. The debt has been higher as a percent of GDP, and we came out of it smelling like a rose. It's all these crazy politikers who have swarmed all over Washington. Power-grubbers and crusaders, trying to win an academy award for best acting job.

Yeah, we sure do believe those politikers really do want to do something meaningful about our national problems. That's why they're so busy striking all those poses and making all of those hand gestures. After all, how can they ever do anything useful unless they can seize the reins of government? Compromise is, after all, out of the question. This crop of politikers doesn't do compromise. They just try to mass up and run over anyone in their path.

 

[DrBaltar]

If the Republicons have the majority in congress, we're screwed.

We need a republican majority in congress to unscrew the screwing that took place in Obama's first two years. I don't agree with requiring a supermajority to raise taxes though. Perhaps they added that for when they need to concede something in the interest of compromise?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They are down to their last few days to get a viable bill written, examined, passed, and signed. A compromise bill which will make it ideologically possible for both red-ass monkeys and bue-ass monkeys to pass a credit-ceiling increase, sidestep a credit downgrade, and avoid a fiscal and economic meltdown.

So what do they do?

I still think some version of the McConnell backup plan is most likely what will happen. This accomplishes the goal of raising the debt ceiling that really everyone knows has to happen (even if they'll never admit it), allowing the Tea Party House Republicans to vote against it without blocking it, and shifting the blame for failure to reach a compromise on the problems to Obama and guaranteeing that the same problems/debates will continue at least until the 2012 election.

And this is sad too, because this budget problem is one that can be resolved.

 

[leftysergeant]

We need a republican majority in congress to unscrew the screwing that took place in Obama's first two years. I don't agree with requiring a supermajority to raise taxes though. Perhaps they added that for when they need to concede something in the interest of compromise?

Excuse me, but, are you one of these people who think that it was Obama and not the Shrub who started two wars without bothering to find any way to pay for them and then told his rich owners that they wouldn't have to pay their share of anything else?

 

[Toontown]

I still think some version of the McConnell backup plan is most likely what will happen. This accomplishes the goal of raising the debt ceiling that really everyone knows has to happen (even if they'll never admit it), allowing the Tea Party House Republicans to vote against it without blocking it, and shifting the blame for failure to reach a compromise on the problems to Obama and guaranteeing that the same problems/debates will continue at least until the 2012 election.

And this is sad too, because this budget problem is one that can be resolved.

Sad also because merely raising the debt ceiling is not going to prevent a credit downgrade. The ratings agencies have said there is a high probability of a credit downgrade if the underlying fiscal problems are not dealt with.

Kicking the can down the road and using the issue for a political football begins to look like an insanely desperate tactic under these circumstances. It's like deliberately holing a ship and then trying to take it over before it sinks.

Plus, Obama has said he will veto the short term plan unless there is broad agreement on a long term plan and the lawmakers simply need time to write it up and pass it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sad also because merely raising the debt ceiling is not going to prevent a credit downgrade. The ratings agencies have said there is a high probability of a credit downgrade if the underlying fiscal problems are not dealt with.

Kicking the can down the road and using the issue for a political football begins to look like an insanely desperate tactic under these circumstances. It's like deliberately holing a ship and then trying to take it over before it sinks.

Yep.

While raising the debt ceiling is a must, it's not sufficient.

Plus, Obama has said he will veto the short term plan unless there is broad agreement on a long term plan and the lawmakers simply need time to write it up and pass it.

That "unless" sounds like a significant out for him. And I think he will not veto a plan that allows for increasing the debt ceiling if it rolls around to Aug. 1 and Congress has passed nothing else.

The Gang of Six plan sounds ambitious (and I'm skeptical that they really could have come up with a major tax overhaul that quickly), but it won't sail because of the "absolutely never" votes in the House. Sadly, I think some version of the McConnell shell game is the only thing that will get through.

I dearly hope I'm proven wrong!