Image 01 Image 03

Boehner 3.0 Passes House

Boehner 3.0 Passes House

The third version of the Boehner bill just passed the House.  (218-210, 22 Republicans voted against, no Democrats voted for.)

We are on the verge of a significant — although not very satisfying or triumphal — achievement.

Now Harry Reid gets to do what he does best.

The Senate Republicans better not sell out.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Republicans who will vote against the Boehner bill (IMHO):

Brown of Massachussets
McLame of Arizona
Mukowsky of Alaska
Collin and Snowe, the BeeBop twins

William A. Jacobson | July 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm

Here’s a link to the list of Republicans voting against,

Ah, Dave Weigel, JourNolister.

“Right now, Democrats are looking to about 11 gettable GOP votes: Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Scott Brown (R-MA), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Tom Coburn (R-OK). The last three were the Republican members of the Gang of Six deficit reduction group.” Ace of Spades

Exactly why was it important to pass the Boehner bill?

The calendar:

So Monday morning Boehner and the House get to eat a crap sandwich, live on television. If they eat it Nancy will help them eat it. If they refuse to eat it, IT”S ALL THEIR FAULT!


    I strongly disagree that either the Boehner Bill OR Cut, Cap, and Balance are “crap sandwiches” . . . they would both serve to solve the immediate problem, and help to restore the nation’s fiscal health over time.

    John Boehner deserves a lot of credit for what he engineered, not your cynical criticism.

    Where exactly was YOUR solution, by the way? . . . I guess all you want to do is mirror what Reid and Obama did — criticize what Boehner accomplished without offering anything viable of their own.

    You ask:

    “Exactly why was it important to pass the Boehner bill?”

    Here’s why. Right now the Speaker of the House is in a strong political position to say, at the beginning of any further negotiations that he may chose to participate in, “We in the House have done the heavy lifting. We passed two solutions to the problem. Neither you, President Obama, nor you, Senate Majority Leader Reid have done anything but flap your gums so far.

    Mr. President, you refused to show us any plan at all — except yesterday having your Chief of Staff falsely claim to CNN that there was a “secret plan” already worked out.”

    Meanwhile, Harry Reid’s “plan” — which has not been voted on by anyone, purports to “cut” savings from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, projected out over the next ten years — wars that the President had assured us that we will not be involved in, according to his timetable!

    In other words, Harry based the lion’s share of his so-called savings on a bad bluff. There are no real savings in the Reid bill at all. That’s not “compromise” . . . that is a flat out lie.

    As far as this latest whining plea by the White House for the parties to “compromise” Boehner has already “compromised” by offering to raise the debt limit on a temporary basis, a point that he can make.

    So Boehner is now in a position of strength because he can say to Reid and Obama:

    “My causus believes our work is done. You two can select from the two solutions we have already passed, and the problem will be solved. So, you can un-table “Cut, Cap & Balance” and vote on it. Or, you pass this new bill and send it to the President for his consideration. If you refuse to act in an appropriate and constitutional manner, then YOU own the ensuing financial crisis, not the House of Representatives.”

    If you in the Senate amend and pass either one or both of our proposals, then we will respond accordingly and in an appropriate manner in accordance with what we believe is best for the nation.

    But you do NOT get to just table our proposals and then arrogantly demand that we start over and do more. Sorry, but that is not the way our system of government works.

    So, it’s your move, Harry. Otherwise, you and the Senate of the United States will be seen as having caused a default.

    And I have no doubt that the people will also blame the President for his utter lack of leadership in the circumstances.

      Viator in reply to Trochilus. | July 29, 2011 at 9:16 pm

      We’ll see how it all plays out. I hope you are right. There is nothing I would like better than the Dems wear this thing like an albatross. Meanwhile, Harry Reid, and his chorus (Durbin, Schumer) are holding a presser at this moment (Friday, 9pm) to tell the world (lie through their teeth) that the GOP is holding the country hostage (the Dem and MSM talking point de jour) by refusing to pass his bill by a simple majority. At some point we will get to see what’s in the crap sandwich.

      McCarthy: Boehner Plan a Cruel Joke


“One of the little-known features of Harry Reid’s “compromise” proposal–no detailed version of which exists–is that it would “deem” budgets to have been enacted for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. In that event, our government would go a full four years without a lawful, statutory budget being in place. Today, the Republican members of the Senate Budget Committee sent a letter to Reid protesting this procedure. You can read the letter here.”


    So, via a form of ratification, Harry wants to give an imprimatur of institutional assent to yet another flat-out lie?

    Where’s that list of Republicans again who will vote “yes” on his proposal?

    for all that so many of us did here to speak up and get Scott Brown elected to the United States Senate, would he do that?

    Do we need an open letter to Scott Brown . . . and ALL others similarly situated?