Mr. Obama defended the debt package as “responsible” in paying down the national debt and added that it’s “not going to dismantle our social safety net.” He also took a jab at Republicans, remarking, “I give the other side credit. They are single-minded in their focus in wanting to cut programs and shrink government.”

[...]

While the debate over the debt limit may have discouraged his supporters, particularly progressives, the president said during his fundraising events that the struggle proved just how important the next election is.

“We’ve already seen over the last week just how different the two visions are in terms of which direction we should take the country,” Mr. Obama said in a video teleconference with supporters. “This is really important moment in our history.”

So they don’t slip past, I’ve put two honest quotes from the president in bold. Things to keep in mind, as Obama and his campaign team shrug off crushing deficits in an attempt to blame conservatives for America’s credit downgrade:

• President Obama believes it reflects poorly on conservatives that we want “to cut programs and shrink government.” Is there anyone left who believes President Obama has an answer for anything that’s not more spending and bigger government?
• CBS notes that Progressive supporters of President Obama are especially troubled by the lack of tax hikes in the debt ceiling deal. At this point, are there any non-Progressives who support President Obama?

As the president says, there are two distinct visions for America’s future. Obama sees no reason for budgets, no cause for entitlement reform, simply excuses to wring job creators a little drier in support of limitless government. The other vision – best argued by Congressman Ryan and Senator Rubio – would draw a path that doesn’t end with America at the foot of a cliff.

Follow me on Twitter: @jasonahart

Cross-posted at that hero and Third Base Politics.

Not that it matters to the handout-junkies and bureaucracy-lovers who make up the Democratic Party’s base, but the House has passed a second bill to extend the federal debt ceiling. In case you’ve forgotten, the House is controlled by the Grand Old Party of No, and the world is going to end if the debt ceiling isn’t raised by Tuesday.

Here’s the president’s Treasury Secretary on the need for an extension that runs through Obama’s reelection campaign:

“The most important thing is that we remove this threat of default from the country for the next 18 months,” Geithner said in an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “You want to take this out of politics.”

Emphasis mine; this could be the Freudian slip of the year. Democrats don’t want to take the politics out of the debt ceiling fight – they want to take the debt ceiling fight out of the nation’s political conversation. Eventually, voters will realize President Obama’s fix is higher taxes, and Senator Reid’s fix is gutting the military.

Isn’t it funny how, time and again, the adults in Washington demand policies identical to the far left’s? Let’s review:

• World ends without debt ceiling increase
• House Republicans pass Cut, Cap & Balance bill
• Reid, Obama say Cut, Cap & Balance is DOA
• Obama pushes for tax hikes
• Reid suggests slashing defense spending
• House Republicans pass Budget Control Act of 2011
• Reid, Obama say Budget Control Act of 2011 is DOA

As I said this morning, compromising sucks when the other side is nuts, but this is what House Republicans have to deal with.

A debt ceiling compromise beats the prospect of a second Obama term by a landslide the size of Texas. I’m glad Congressman Stivers, my representative in the House, voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011. I’m glad Speaker Boehner, my parents’ representative, worked to create a bill the shameless demagogues in the Senate and White House might be forced to pass.

Official releases on the Budget Control Act of 2011 follow. From Stivers:

“I supported Speaker Boehner’s bill because it cuts spending and changes the way that Washington works. It puts caps on spending and moves America toward a balanced budget. A default could result in economic disaster including higher costs for car, student and business loans as well as mortgages; it could result in lower stock prices; higher gasoline and import costs and higher unemployment. This scenario is unacceptable and moving forward Members of both parties need to work together toward reaching an agreement on the debt ceiling to prevent a default.”

From Boehner:

Thanks in part to your support, this evening the House passed an important bill to cut trillions in spending and end our debt limit crisis.

It’s the second time in the last two weeks that the People’s House has spoken. Twice now, we’ve passed legislation to cut trillions in government spending, avoid a job-crushing national default, and advance the cause of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

In contrast, Washington Democrats have done nothing. They refuse to put a plan on the table. In fact, it’s been 821 days since the Democrat-run Senate has passed a budget.

Let me be clear, our bill isn’t perfect, but it’s a positive step forward, carefully negotiated in a good faith effort to find a solution to the current crisis.

Now it is time for the Senate to act. The Senate must pass the House bill and send it to the President for him to sign into law. There is no excuse for inaction.

Follow me on Twitter: @jasonahart

Cross-posted at that hero and Third Base Politics.

Since I cheered on Speaker Boehner a week ago, I feel compelled to offer some support to Congressman Jordan today – although, to paraphrase a great motivator, my support and a nickel will get you a hot cup of jack squat.

In the debt ceiling debate the GOP is fighting demagogues who live and breathe class warfare, and would sing the virtues of increased spending to the point of bankruptcy. It’s understandable that, given the circumstances, tensions have been high between conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) leader Jim Jordan and Speaker Boehner.

Was it dumb for an RSC staffer to send out a list of Republicans targeted for supporting Boehner? Probably; I’ve seen some annoyingly divisive GOP vs. GOP messaging the past couple of days. But, I doubt it would be easier for Boehner to sell a compromise if Jordan and fellow conservatives were quick to abandon Cut, Cap & Balance.

I can say confidently that feeding anonymous quotes like these to reporters is a bad call:

Two Republican sources deeply involved in configuring new Ohio congressional districts confirmed to The Dispatch today  that Jordan’s disloyalty to Boehner has put him in jeopardy of being zeroed out of a district.

“Jim Jordan’s boneheadedness has kind of informed everybody’s thinking,” said one of the sources, both of whom spoke only on condition of anonymity. “The easiest option for everybody has presented itself.”

[...]

“He doesn’t know it, but he solved a problem for Republican line-drawers by (figuratively) standing up and saying, ‘I’m a jerk and I deserve to be punished,’ ” said one of the sources.

[...]

“The downside of being in an uber-safe district is you often don’t develop the strategic skills you need to survive in the arena and in this case that is going to be painfully evident to Jim Jordan.”

Are there really two GOP insiders who don’t realize this plays perfectly into the leftist narrative of principled conservatives as extremist cranks? Fortunately, Boehner and Jordan appear capable of acting like adults after the RSC email debacle:

“Jim Jordan and I may not always agree on strategy, but we are friends and allies, and the word retribution is not in my vocabulary,” Boehner said. “I look forward to continuing to serve with him in the U.S. House after the redistricting process in Ohio is complete.”

Meghan Snyder, Jordan’s spokeswoman, said, “We would hope that standing strong in favor of lowering spending and balancing the federal budget would not be a reason to eliminate the district of a sitting member of Congress.”

Yes, compromising sucks when the other side is nuts, but the Senate and the White House would be happy to keep spending until the whole contraption caves in. Let’s not rush to shoot ourselves in the foot while Harry Reid and Barack Obama have America’s military over a barrel!

[Update: Corrected a (boneheaded?) typo in paragraph two.]

Follow me on Twitter: @jasonahart

Cross-posted at that hero and Third Base Politics.

You’d never mistake me for an unbiased observer of John Boehner – as I’ve admitted, I’m a fan – but the guy has spent an awful lot of time in Washington. That makes it difficult to remain confident in the congressman’s ability to wrangle with President Obama, King of Class Warfare, over spending cuts vs. tax hikes.

Conservatives, take heart! The president sees the debt ceiling debate as a terrific excuse to raise taxes amid his spending binge, but Speaker Boehner remains a steady advocate of smaller government:

“I can tell that you [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor and I were very disappointed in this call for higher revenue,” Boehner said. “Secondly, they refuse to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform. That’s the bottom line. I take the same oath of office as the president of the United States. I’ve got the same responsibilities as the president of the United States. And I think that’s for both of us to do what’s in the best interest of our country. And I can tell you that it’s not in the best interest of our country to raise taxes during this difficult economy and it is not in the best interest of our country to ignore the serious spending challenges that we face.”

This is what it’s all about, folks. We can’t afford the handouts politicians have promised their various constituencies. Are we going to rid the tax code of loopholes and prune the federal government back to saner dimensions? Or will the Democrats win, treating anyone who dares to succeed as fertilizer for a bureaucratic thicket from sea to shining sea?

Two reminders for Progressive eggheads who will cry that the GOP is preventing a grand bargain because they have no ideas: House Republicans passed a budget months ago. Senate Democrats haven’t bothered to write one for over two years. If big government works so well, why are its official champions so incompetent?

Follow me on Twitter: @jasonahart

Cross-posted at that hero and Third Base Politics.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by last summer’s Dodd-Frank “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection” bill is scheduled to open its doors today, but there’s a bump in the road: those accursed Republicans won’t let Obama place its Director!

The choice of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head a new federal consumer-protection agency did not pacify Senate Republicans, who vowed to fight his nomination until President Barack Obama agrees to revise the powers of the bureau.

Lucky timing for the president, who can only avoid for so long the Democrats’ refusal to produce a budget, let alone try to balance it. An array of talking heads appear content to treat the creation of another federal agency as pragmatism in action, supporting big government until the Wile E. Coyote “splat” goes up at the foot of the cliff.

Why is the G-No-P fighting the CFPB, aside from their deep-seated racism? Using one decent idea – simplified credit card and mortgage paperwork – as sugar, Democrats are pushing a permanent, ill-defined bureaucracy about which we can be sure of only two things:

1. The CFPB will spend bushels of money.
2. Some or all of the CFPB’s rules will have severe consequences.

It’s Obamacare all over again… demagogue an issue, torch a strawman opposed to all regulation, and write 2,000 pages of red tape behind closed doors. The media cheers a noble cause, while more serious problems (in this case, Fannie, Freddie, and mandates in the name of social justice) continue pushing us toward the abyss.

At least we know Richard Cordray is a moderate; once during his term as Attorney General he refused to make a ruckus over an obvious racket:

“We believe these lawsuits do not have any legal merit whatsoever,” Cordray said during a news conference today. “We will not be joining these lawsuits.”

Naturally, the suit Cordray deemed meritless was the states’ challenge to the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” otherwise known was Obamacare. Cordray’s give-no-quarter approach to private industry – coupled with an inclination to let the federal government trample citizens while wasting trillions – will fit in nicely when President Obama appoints him during the next Congressional recess!

Not convinced that skepticism of Czar Cordray’s new agency is warranted? I can’t think of a better argument against the CFPB than simply repeating the primary co-sponsors’ names: Barney Frank. Chris Dodd. Thanks, Mr. President, but no thanks.

Follow me on Twitter: @jasonahart

Cross-posted at that hero and Third Base Politics.