There actually exists a handful of Republican politicos who won't be getting invited to Beltway parties any time soon. Amazing, I know.
First up, however, the super serious pragmatists who just love Boehner's deal.
But there is silliness on the Republican side ... These are the voices of the perpetually aggrieved on the right who will oppose any deal because their aim is not conservative governance but confrontation and incitement of an anti-Washington base.
... those on the right who whine about any deal should not be taken seriously. After all, the CR shows how little credibility they have.
There's certainly a lot of "silliness on the Republican side," but neocon Jennifer Rubin has it completely backwards. Those on the right who support deal are the one's who should not be taken seriously.
And you're right. "We the People" on the right do not aim for conservative governance (exercise of authority; control). We aim for self-governance. We aim to throw the rulers out! Politicians are not our "leaders." They are mere servants who better follow our lead.
Against the Budget Deal!
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS): "In the last two hours, the country has borrowed about $352 million, so we’re making no progress in getting out of the red. The American people are looking for meaningful reductions that actually will make a difference to our $1.6 trillion deficit and our $14.3 trillion of debt."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): "I voted against this short-term continuing resolution for the same reason I voted against the last one and the one before that – because it does not set us on a path to fixing the spending and debt problems our country is facing. As I have said before, there is not much of a difference between a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $1.6 trillion deficit – both will lead us to a debt crisis that we may not recover from." Paul is also considering waging a filibuster to force the Senate to 60 votes.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): "We have to be more aggressive in tackling our debt."
Potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty (R-MN): "The fact that billions of dollars advertised as cuts were not scheduled to be spent in any case makes this budget wholly unacceptable. It's no surprise that President Obama and Senator Reid forced this budget, but it should be rejected."
National Review: There’s realism and then there’s cynicism. This deal — oversold and dependent on classic Washington budget trickery — comes too close to the latter. John Boehner has repeatedly said he’s going to reject "business as usual," but that’s what he’s offered his caucus. It’s one thing for Tea Party Republicans to vote for a cut that falls short of what they’d get if the controlled all of Washington; it’s another thing for them, after making so much of bringing transparency and honesty to the Beltway, to vote for a deal sold partly on false pretenses.
Potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) ripped the entire Washington Establishment!
He said the budgets proposed by Rep. Ryan and President Obama wouldn't put Washington on a path to limited government.
"Neither of those budgets will solve our problems, or even come close," Paul said.
"We are dealing with a problem in Washington as a budgetary accounting problem and that’s not it. It’s a philosophy problem." Paul said. "What is the philosophy of government? What should the role of government be?"
The congressman went on to question the role of government in the economy and welfare system. "Ryan," he said, "doesn’t reject that notion. I do."
"Well how are they going to do it? What do they have?" he asked. "They produce nothing. They have to steal it from somebody and give it to somebody else."
"If you don’t have enough taxes to pay the bills, you create this counterfeit machine called the Federal Reserve." Paul said. "We spent $50 billion last year we didn’t have. 'Oh print the money. That’s painless. You don’t have to borrow money.' But the whole thing is, it’s still theft. It’s counterfeit. It’s illegal."
Right there. That's why I like Ron Paul. He tells the truth. Speaks his mind. And never provides cover for the Establishment regime.
Other Republicans set to vote 'no' on the budget deal are Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, and David Vitter.
Ruh, roh. Speaker John Boehner’s office sent "stern emails" to Erick Erickson at RedState. I wonder if he's crying ...
Here’s the first email:
Subject: This is False
"Turns out it does not cut $38.5 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it only cuts $353 million."
From story: "The CBO study confirms that the measure trims $38 billion in new spending authority."
I understand you’re opposed, but at least be accurate.
Okay, I should have said "cuts the deficit $353 million."
But we’re playing with semantics here. Note what I said: "cuts $353 million."
Now note what the Speaker’s Office points out from the CBO analysis: "the measure trims $38 billion in new spending authority."
I think I’ll stand by what it being cut, because a cut implies something is going down — in the case of what we always have been talking about, the deficit.
Will the People revolt?
This may wake up enough of the masses before the House votes on the bill, so that some House members may be afraid to vote for the budget and not enough votes will exist for passage.
Neocon John Podhoretz who eats and drinks with members (usually in an effort to promote wars) explains:
The politics here are very complicated now. On the one hand, polls suggest the public is overwhelmingly in favor of there having been a deal, around 60 percent or so. On the other, politically engaged people on both the Right and the Left are profoundly upset by what they take to be unprincipled caving on the part of the leaders of the two parties.
That profound concern is likely to spur a populist revolt this week, over the next 72 hours, before the vote is taken. Already there are indications that a great many House members are going to vote against the deal. What we don’t know, or can’t know, is whether grass-roots velocity has sped up to such a degree over the past several years that we could be looking at a major meltdown of support when the votes are cast, as Republican members honestly balk at the clear deceit of the negotiators in making non-existent cuts in federal spending—and as they fear the wrath of the voters (particularly tea partiers). Meanwhile, Leftist Democrats who feel betrayed by Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might also decide to teach them a lesson by withholding support.
And then, all of a sudden, there will be a shutdown.
Shut it down! Please! Shut it all down now!