Club for Growth: We still hate Boehner’s plan

The powerful Club for Growth sent a message to lawmakers today: we still hate Speaker John Boehner’s debt-ceiling plan.

“Earlier this week, the Club for Growth urged House members to vote against the original Boehner Plan,” Andrew Roth, the vice president of government affairs for the anti-tax group, wrote in a memo to congressional offices Thursday. (RELATED: Tea Party Nation leader: Boehner isn’t listening to us)

“Now that Republican leadership has made changes to the bill in light of the CBO’s score, we are now reaffirming our original key vote. Therefore, the Club opposes the new Boehner Plan and we urge all members to vote against it.”

A vote on the proposal is expected Thursday.

The free-market group made three points in the memo:

“The increase in the debt limit is immediate and real, but most of the spending cuts are only promised and stretched out over ten years. History has shown that future spending cuts rarely materialize. Nothing binds a future Congress from erasing them.”

“Compromise in Washington is a noble idea, but only if it leads to solving the problem at hand. This bill does nothing to fix the fiscal crisis. It merely kicks the can down the road.”

“The mere voting on a Balanced Budget amendment is nowhere near the same as demanding that it be part of the debt limit increase. A Balanced Budget amendment is the kind of structural reform that credit agencies are looking for to avoid a credit downgrade, not another Washington deal that avoids making the hard decisions now.”

  • Pingback: Blog @ MoreWhat.com » Cut, Cap and Balance Fades, Obama Tanks, Reid Blocks Proposals

  • MonkChanan

    Boehner is playing games. I’m a conservative, but Boehner’s plan doesn’t do ANYTHING about the over-spending problem. So we quarantine the slick old party sell-outs. Boehner was more interested in playing “Gotcha” (have them have to go through this in a year’s time, before the election!) than he was caring about his country needing to cut 4 trillion to remain afloat.
    Therefore Cantor should take it into his own hands, say “My turn.” And go over to Sen Mark Warner’s office – who as a conservative Democrat wants also to cut 3.7 Trillion from the debt. So then THEY cut a deal: Cantor can come up with something that the class of 2010 can like, and Warner, who also wants to CUT, can write the agreement in such a way as to get his fellow Senators to like it. Then it goes to Obama and he will have a BIG CHOICE TO MAKE WON’T HE????

  • NJK

    I can no longer respect John Boehner. He’s not trustworthy anymore. He loves the camera and loves his title. He’s bought and paid for. A Congressional whore.

  • JR Cash

    Idiots. Dying on this relatively small hill is completely nonsensical. Take your gains, and mount the next offensive. This is the completely wrong time to go write-our-suicide-note-we’re-all-in.

    The government welfare/spending state wasn’t built in a day, and it won’t be demolished by HALF of Congress on a debt ceiling vote. Time to rethink your strategery, folks.

    • AViewFromTheCourse

      When exactly will be the right time? We were told when the ’11 budget “battle” took place that this would be the line-in-the-sand. Now we’re told “don’t go to extremes! Be flexible, compromise! This is nothing, be patient and wait for the next battle – then we’ll get em!”

      I call bs.

      If they revert to the 2007 budget (all the way back 4 years ago!), then they can more then live within the projected $2.6T in ’11 receipts. Fixed.

      • samac

        AView, I think you would have to go back further to 2000 levels pre Bush to balance, but that should also be possible. But JR Cash is right. We need to take a gain and continue fighting.

        I have not heard a single Republican with a plan to balance the budget this year, or even in 5 years. Rand Paul is the prob the closest, but his plan cuts many Republican priorities like defense and has 0% chance of getting even a Republican quorum. Until we have that plan, how can we go all in?

        So even though we supported appropriating something around $1 trillion more, we refuse to increase the debt limit? OK. This is just a tactic to further reduce spending and we will vote to increase the limit (well not Bachman and other publicity seekers, but most) when we get a good deal.

        Good negotiating leverage. But only if you want to negotiate. If you are fundamentalist about all tax increases, it is a guaranteed loss. Is 10-1 spending/ tax ratio good enough? Nope. There will be 100 Republican votes against this. Has to be 100% spending cuts.

        Now any negotiated deal will be heavily dependent on Democrat votes. Which means a bad deal. Maybe better than nothing since it will cut some spending, but not better than what we could have.

        Meanwhile, the special interest tax credit lobbyists like Norquist will help hoist another $2 trillion or so worth of debt onto the country waiting for the next election, and then disingenuously claim a principled stand against spending, without reducing it substantially, and against taxation, which they merely shift onto helpless future voters.

        And unfortunately, a good part of the Republican base hasn’t figured out this game and will applaud the hard core hold-outs. Maybe they think absolutism will help win 2012, despite all polls to the contrary. Maybe we hope people really don’t examine the issues too closely and will buy into the soundbites. Meanwhile the opposition will have $1 billion to get their message out.

        Obama will rightly point out how Republicans voted to maintain counterproductive and completely unjustifiable tax provisions for special interest- and he will be right.

        There is no good reason why a hedge fund managers to pay 15% tax on their income (and defer actually paying that tax for years) while a doctor, or small business owner, or anyone who doesn’t manage other peoples money pays 35%. In fact, the Ryan plan, which is brave and had some merits, effectively proposes that the hedge fund managers pay 0%. Talk about walking into a trap!

        And their message will become, Republicans could have reduced the deficit, but were too beholden to special interests… A point that will be true as long as the tax absolutism continues to rule Republican party.

        The supposedly principled Norquist enforced position that all loophole/ tax credit subsidy eliminations have to be offset with other tax cuts guarantees status quo for rent seekers. Sure Republcians would like lower rates and fewer loopholes, but the requirement for no net revenues limits the support for such a proposition. All a lobbyist needs is a few Republican defenders to maintain a subsidy. And that is the insider game now- the new K Street project.