Norquist: Cruz pushed GOP ‘into traffic

[questionmark]

Grover Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform and the creator of the anti-tax pledge that nearly every Republican in Congress has signed. We spoke on Tuesday about the government shutdown and its consequences for his agenda. A transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.

Read more

Hmmm... looks like, due to the Democrat's unwillingness to have a fight picked on them now the GOP does it all itself...

[supervike]

I really hope this backfires on the Republicans. Not because I have any loyalty to the other guys, but moreso because shenanigans like this should not be tolerated. Politicians shouldn't behave like children by taking ball away from those that want to play and are following the rules.

[Kowalski]

I really hope this backfires on the Republicans. Not because I have any loyalty to the other guys, but moreso because shenanigans like this should not be tolerated. Politicians shouldn't behave like children by taking ball away from those that want to play and are following the rules.

The Democrats had to see this coming.... This bill was passed in the dead of night with partisan Democrat support, and Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass it to see what's in it?"

It is completely un-Constutional to make people pay for healthcare insurance, or pay a fine, tax. It's just....it's WRONG. You can bet you a$$ if the Republicans had pulled such a stunt (Remember, couple of months back, Texas passed a controversial abortion ban, and Wendy Davis did a filibuster, that was lauded in the mainstream media?) had passed a controvserial bill, the Democrats would be doing the SAME THING. Except the Press would be praising them as "standing up for the constituents". But as it is, the Republicans are being called "Terrorists" and "Anarchy" all because they are representing their contituents.

This isn't a dig at you or anybody, I am just trying to say, if roles were reversed....Well, you get the picture. You can't pass a bill like this, with only support from your party, and the other side just plain loathes it, without some type of backlash.

It's the nature of the two party system....

I remember George Washington saying something, about how bad a two party system is....hmmm...

Edited October 2, 2013 by Burt Gummer

[Startraveler]

You can bet you a$$ if the Republicans had pulled such a stunt (Remember, couple of months back, Texas passed a controversial abortion ban, and Wendy Davis did a filibuster, that was lauded in the mainstream media?) had passed a controvserial bill, the Democrats would be doing the SAME THING.

...except they wouldn't. This isn't a hypothetical, it's what happened when the GOP passed the Medicare drug benefit a decade ago.

In addition to threatening to fire the CMS actuary for estimating how much the bill would cost and getting the Medicare administrator an ethics waiver so his conflicts of interest wouldn't disqualify him from pushing the legislation, the GOP's 3am vote lasted twelve times as long as scheduled because they had to twist arms (bribe?) on the House floor all night.

You could tell things were far from normal from the moment the Medicare bill was called for a vote in the House of Representatives — at 3:01 a.m. on Saturday, Nov. 22, 2003. [...]"The yeas and nays are ordered," the House chair intoned that morning. "This will be a 15-minute vote."

Almost immediately, 17 House Republicans voted "no." By 3:48 in the morning — almost an hour after the 15-minute vote had been called — 218 members of Congress, a clear majority, had voted against the bill, with 215 in favor.

Sometimes exceptions are made to that 15 minutes. On rare occasions, when the margin of victory is close, a vote might be held open as long as an hour. But there was clearly something different about this bill. [...]

The lobbying on the floor of the House was furious and the vote was being held open longer than has ever happened in modern congressional history. [...]

"Traditionally, the speaker doesn't vote on issues unless it's an issue of enormous moment or extremely close, and the speaker doesn't lobby on votes on the House floor," Ornstein said. "That's the reason you have a majority leader."

On this issue, however, he said, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "openly strong-armed members. It's a gross violation of the normal role on the speaker."

Moreover, Hastert was joined on the floor of the House by Secretary Thompson. That Thompson was there "is just an enormous breach of the standards of the House," Ornstein said. [...]

Finally, at 6 a.m. — nearly three hours after the 15-minute vote began — the gavel came down and the triumphant Republican chair announced that the Medicare bill had passed.

Did Democrats then spend years trying to torpedo the law out of spite? Turns out no.

Unsurprisingly, Republican lawmakers interviewed by POLITICO didn’t talk about hosting educational events or town halls to advertise the benefits [of the Affordable Care Act] as many Democrats plan to do. They won’t do anything that proactive. But they aren’t going to slam down the phone if a constituent wants to know how to get to the right website or phone number. They’ll help, just like they do when constituents ask about Social Security or Medicare.

It’s a far more muted approach than the one Democrats took in 2006, when the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit kicked in with a dizzying menu of choices that confused seniors. Many Democrats who opposed the Medicare law enacted under former President George W. Bush left their political sentiments in Washington and went back home to teach their constituents about the benefits, which include subsidies for low-income seniors.

[Kowalski]

...except they wouldn't. This isn't a hypothetical, it's what happened when the GOP passed the Medicare drug benefit a decade ago.

In addition to threatening to fire the CMS actuary for estimating how much the bill would cost and getting the Medicare administrator an ethics waiver so his conflicts of interest wouldn't disqualify him from pushing the legislation, the GOP's 3am vote lasted twelve times as long as scheduled because they had to twist arms (bribe?) on the House floor all night.

Did Democrats then spend years trying to torpedo the law out of spite? Turns out no.

Isn't Medicare going to run dry in 2024?

The new Medicare trustees report says the trust fund is now likely to run out of money in 2024, five years earlier than predicted last year.

The reason, according to CMS, is that the economic recovery has been slower than expected — making tax revenues come in more slowly.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2gbvepbSD

I really wouldn't compare Obamacare to Medicare.... Both are about to bankrupt this country....

As it stands right now, me and my husband will have no Social Security to stand on, because it will be gone. So maybe it's a good thing the elderly will be on it. They can get denied care by some bureaucrats because it's cheaper than to save them, so that is less people taking money out of Social Security....I know, that's bad, and I think it's awful but that's the way I see it. I also worry about my medical records ending up in the wrong hands as well.....

Edited October 2, 2013 by Burt Gummer

[ninjadude]

As it stands right now, me and my husband will have no Social Security to stand on, because it will be gone.

where in the world would you get that incorrect idea? oh wait - the conservamedia.

[Leonardo]

The Democrats had to see this coming.... This bill was passed in the dead of night with partisan Democrat support, and Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass it to see what's in it?"

It is completely un-Constutional to make people pay for healthcare insurance, or pay a fine, tax. It's just....it's WRONG. You can bet you a$$ if the Republicans had pulled such a stunt (Remember, couple of months back, Texas passed a controversial abortion ban, and Wendy Davis did a filibuster, that was lauded in the mainstream media?) had passed a controvserial bill, the Democrats would be doing the SAME THING. Except the Press would be praising them as "standing up for the constituents". But as it is, the Republicans are being called "Terrorists" and "Anarchy" all because they are representing their contituents.

This isn't a dig at you or anybody, I am just trying to say, if roles were reversed....Well, you get the picture. You can't pass a bill like this, with only support from your party, and the other side just plain loathes it, without some type of backlash.

It's the nature of the two party system....

I remember George Washington saying something, about how bad a two party system is....hmmm...

This is nothing to do with the "two-party system", this is about a faction within the Republicans making their play for total control of the Party line. They want Boehner out, as he is seen as too willing to compromise and Cruz is being set to either take his place, or being lined up as the candidate for 2016.

This is about pushing the 'hard-line' message. This isn't about Republicans vs Democrats, it's about Republicans vs Republicans.

[Frank Merton]

where in the world would you get that incorrect idea? oh wait - the conservamedia.

Sooner or later every Ponzi scheme must collapse. The only way this one will be rescued is if general revenues are brought in to keep it going; that will depend on the politics of the day.

[preacherman76]

This is nothing to do with the "two-party system", this is about a faction within the Republicans making their play for total control of the Party line. They want Boehner out, as he is seen as too willing to compromise and Cruz is being set to either take his place, or being lined up as the candidate for 2016.

This is about pushing the 'hard-line' message. This isn't about Republicans vs Democrats, it's about Republicans vs Republicans.

You are right in a way. What this is really about is having the people's will actualy represented. Cruz should do nothing less then represent the people who got him the job. Everyday more and more people see this bill for what it is, the final nail in our economic coffin. It should be met with full resistance.

[Jeremiah65]

What made the Cruz "waste of time" talk look so bad to the people is that there are a whole handful of other things that "we the people" hold higher in priority.

Obamacare could be made workable and affordable with a series of amendments. It's not going to go away as long as there is a democrat controlled senate and white house. Fix it another way, or...just gut it and nut it through amendments...either way...trying to nullify it or repeal it at this stage is a monstrous circle jerk that is serving no one...well...except the d-bags trying to stir up their voting block....nothing is going to get fixed this way.

Cruz had the opportunity to spend 21 hours talking about job creation, commerce and economy...but instead, he droned on and on about Obamacare and Dr. Seuss...he looked like an idiot when so many other things are more important to most people right now.

I like Ted Cruz...more or less anyway. I like Rand Paul....neither of them are my "ideal" candidate/representative...but they both have some good ideas and do seem concerned with freedoms and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They just go about doing things in an effed up way...in my opinion.

Did Cruz give the whole party a black eye? Yeah....he did. A representative that was actually concerned about their constituency would address the real concerns of the people...things like jobs, retirement, commerce....infrastructure....etc...etc...etc. Obamacare is just the "hot topic" and the grandstanding on it is not accomplishing anything real or tangible...and those that drone on and on about it (and try to repeal it nearly 50 times) look completely out of touch with the people they represent.

Just my opinion...

ETA:

The real problem with addressing the problems in Obamacare through a series of amendments is....wait for it....it would require the Congressmen and women to actually read it....

Edited October 3, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Frank Merton]

I think Cruz was lucky that almost no one actually watched his performance: all they saw was a few excerpts.

[Kowalski]

What made the Cruz "waste of time" talk look so bad to the people is that there are a whole handful of other things that "we the people" hold higher in priority.

Obamacare could be made workable and affordable with a series of amendments. It's not going to go away as long as there is a democrat controlled senate and white house. Fix it another way, or...just gut it and nut it through amendments...either way...trying to nullify it or repeal it at this stage is a monstrous circle jerk that is serving no one...well...except the d-bags trying to stir up their voting block....nothing is going to get fixed this way.

Cruz had the opportunity to spend 21 hours talking about job creation, commerce and economy...but instead, he droned on and on about Obamacare and Dr. Seuss...he looked like an idiot when so many other things are more important to most people right now.

I like Ted Cruz...more or less anyway. I like Rand Paul....neither of them are my "ideal" candidate/representative...but they both have some good ideas and do seem concerned with freedoms and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They just go about doing things in an effed up way...in my opinion.

Did Cruz give the whole party a black eye? Yeah....he did. A representative that was actually concerned about their constituency would address the real concerns of the people...things like jobs, retirement, commerce....infrastructure....etc...etc...etc. Obamacare is just the "hot topic" and the grandstanding on it is not accomplishing anything real or tangible...and those that drone on and on about it (and try to repeal it nearly 50 times) look completely out of touch with the people they represent.

Just my opinion...

ETA:

The real problem with addressing the problems in Obamacare through a series of amendments is....wait for it....it would require the Congressmen and women to actually read it....

Can they read?? LOL

But your right. Best thing to do would be to amend this thing a few times, and make it less complicated, more affordable, etc.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Burt Gummer

[preacherman76]

What made the Cruz "waste of time" talk look so bad to the people is that there are a whole handful of other things that "we the people" hold higher in priority.

Obamacare could be made workable and affordable with a series of amendments. It's not going to go away as long as there is a democrat controlled senate and white house. Fix it another way, or...just gut it and nut it through amendments...either way...trying to nullify it or repeal it at this stage is a monstrous circle jerk that is serving no one...well...except the d-bags trying to stir up their voting block....nothing is going to get fixed this way.

Cruz had the opportunity to spend 21 hours talking about job creation, commerce and economy...but instead, he droned on and on about Obamacare and Dr. Seuss...he looked like an idiot when so many other things are more important to most people right now.

I like Ted Cruz...more or less anyway. I like Rand Paul....neither of them are my "ideal" candidate/representative...but they both have some good ideas and do seem concerned with freedoms and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They just go about doing things in an effed up way...in my opinion.

Did Cruz give the whole party a black eye? Yeah....he did. A representative that was actually concerned about their constituency would address the real concerns of the people...things like jobs, retirement, commerce....infrastructure....etc...etc...etc. Obamacare is just the "hot topic" and the grandstanding on it is not accomplishing anything real or tangible...and those that drone on and on about it (and try to repeal it nearly 50 times) look completely out of touch with the people they represent.

Just my opinion...

ETA:

The real problem with addressing the problems in Obamacare through a series of amendments is....wait for it....it would require the Congressmen and women to actually read it....

I guess I can see how some folks might come to this conclusion. Personaly the "affordable health care" legislation pushed me right outta the market. So to me, and folks that find themselfs in this same situation, there isnt a bigger priority.

[Jeremiah65]

I guess I can see how some folks might come to this conclusion. Personaly the "affordable health care" legislation pushed me right outta the market. So to me, and folks that find themselfs in this same situation, there isnt a bigger priority.

I can see your position. My point was that in the grand scheme...jobs, economy and opportunity are the top of the list. If you have a decent paying job, you will either have an employee insurance option or can afford to buy personal coverage. The problem I see with this "purchase at the end of a gun barrel" is that it is taking a chunk of money out of people's pockets that could be used to stimulate growth...purchasing products that in turn create demand and growth.

This "forced purchase" does not create manufacturing demand...it props up the insurance providers and their backers...the securities of Wall Street (this is a shining example...in my opinion....of Crony Capitalism).

The common markets will see little benefit from this as now people will have hundreds of dollars a month less to spend on other things. Forget that new car or new fridge, TV, vacation...etc...etc...etc. When your premium is the equivalent to a car payment every month....does no one else see the downside of this to the economy overall?...maybe I am just jaded....

Edited October 3, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[spartan max2]

Since the governments shutdown can I stop paying taxes

[Frank Merton]

Since the governments shutdown can I stop paying taxes

Sorry, it's like a toll road, you have to pay the toll even if they are doing construction and make you drive for miles in the mud.

[spartan max2]

but anyways. What annoys me about government "shut down" and sequestion is that when the government cuts back they make it hurt on purpose.

Just like when we had out budget "cut back" they stopped tours to the white house. And right now they closed the zoos and panda cams.

All they want is for people to hurt to get their money back. They never cut the stuff that actually should be cut.

Its pure political moves

Edited October 3, 2013 by spartan max2

[Jeremiah65]

but anyways. What annoys me about government "shut down" and sequestion is that when the government cuts back they make it hurt on purpose.

Just like when we had out budget "cut back" they stopped tours to the white house. And right now they closed the zoos and panda cams.

All they want is for people to hurt to get their money back. They never cut the stuff that actually should be cut.

Its pure political moves

Exactly.

Wanna know something that chafes me endlessly...shutting down national parks. I am not a big park goer...but...this is "OUR" land. That land was bought with "OUR" money...how dare they say we cannot go just because some "rent-a-cop" isn't on site to make sure you stay on the trails and paths....that irks me to no end.

I have always had an issue with how they manage "our lands"...they use "our money" to buy up land and then fence it off and prohibit public access...and we bumble along....grazing like the sheep and are seemingly ok with this. It is "ours"...how dare you restrict access to something I am an investor in.

Sorry....off topic /rant over....

Edited October 3, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[preacherman76]

I can see your position. My point was that in the grand scheme...jobs, economy and opportunity are the top of the list. If you have a decent paying job, you will either have an employee insurance option or can afford to buy personal coverage. The problem I see with this "purchase at the end of a gun barrel" is that it is taking a chunk of money out of people's pockets that could be used to stimulate growth...purchasing products that in turn create demand and growth.

This "forced purchase" does not create manufacturing demand...it props up the insurance providers and their backers...the securities of Wall Street (this is a shining example...in my opinion....of Crony Capitalism).

The common markets will see little benefit from this as now people will have hundreds of dollars a month less to spend on other things. Forget that new car or new fridge, TV, vacation...etc...etc...etc. When your premium is the equivalent to a car payment every month....does no one else see the downside of this to the economy overall?...maybe I am just jaded....

Oh for sure. I see this as the last nail in our economic coffin.

[Kowalski]

Exactly.

Wanna know something that chafes me endlessly...shutting down national parks. I am not a big park goer...but...this is "OUR land. That land was bought with "OUR" money...how dare they say we cannot go just because some "rent-a-cop" isn't on site to make sure you stay on the trails and paths....that irks me to no end.

I have always had an issue with how they manage "our lands"...they use "our money" to buy up land and then fence it off and prohibit public access...and we bumble along....grazing like the sheep and are seemingly ok with this. It is "ours"...how dare you restrict access to something I am an investor in.

Sorry....off topic /rant over....

The Obama Administration has decided to block access to public memorials on the National Mall as a result of the government shutdown. Like its decision to end White House tours when the sequester cuts took effect, there is no rational reason for this. The Park Police, nominally in charge of monitoring these spaces, isn't even affected by the shutdown. Shutting off access to these sites is gratuitous and petulant.

On Monday, the first day of the government shutdown, a number of WWII veterans showed up at a memorial to their service to find that access had been blocked. The memorial is in a public space and is open 24/7, with almost no oversight from Park Police personnel. (Who, by the way, are exempt from the government shutdown.) The White House was, according to reports, informed of the veterans' visit and chose to block access.

Having lived in DC for 18 years, I can tell you, the WWII Memorial is simply an architectural structure in an open public space. There is no official "access" to it. There are no guards. It's a building in a park. Yet, the Obama Administration tried to block veterans from viewing the public memorial, even after hearing about the planned visit.

Fortunately, the "greatest generation" was having nothing of this and easily overcame the government barricades. (Do we yet again have to rely on this generation to show the promise of America?)

On Wednesday, the veterans' group is planning to visit the Lincoln Memorial, which the Obama Administration has also vowed to close to visitors. I have regularly visited this memorial at one or two in the morning. At those hours, it is a peaceful and reflective place. It is an open space. There is no access that needs to be blocked. It is only by a conscious decision, and a great deal of work, that access would be blocked.

This is nothing more than a petulant response by the Obama Administration to the government shutdown. Over the next week, more than 500 WWII veterans are expected in DC to visit the memorial dedicated to their sacrifice. If the Park Police again try to erect barricades to this public space, it will be another sign that the Obama Administration has made an affirmative decision to separate itself from the American public.

Obama chose this pass. He ought to be made to own it.

Link: http://www.breitbart...ss-to-Memorials

Edited October 3, 2013 by Burt Gummer

[preacherman76]

Link: http://www.breitbart...ss-to-Memorials

I just,, I dont even know what to say.

[preacherman76]

I mean did 0bama actualy think putting money time and effort into block WW2 vets from these memorials would be a reflextion on how republicans are screwing them? These people really think we are brain dead.

[Jeremiah65]

I just,, I dont even know what to say.

They are going to be paying security to block access....couldn't those same thugs be there to keep them open?

Spite....plain and simple spite.

And folks wonder why I dislike this administration so much.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Kowalski]

It is, nothing but spite, and it makes me sick.... Obama and his Administration are nothing but a bunch of spoiled selfish diaper babies.....

They even threatened the vets with arrest for crossing the Barry-cades.....

​This is what Mark Levin had to say about that.....

Conservative talker Mark Levin has a stern warning for President Barack Obama and his administration: Don’t mess with the World War II veterans.

Levin, author of “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic,” told his audience on his Wednesday radio show should there be any action taken against those veterans for visiting the World War II Memorial on the National Mall, even with the government shutdown, he would bring 500,000 people to march on the Washington, D.C. in response.

“I want to tell you folks something — I want to say this loud and clear to the people who are on Capitol Hill who are listening, to this administration: You lay one damn hand on one of those World War II vets at that memorial, I’ll bring half a million people to that damn memorial,” Levin said. “You got that? I’m sitting here stewing thinking about this — playing these damn games. You will ignite a movement in this country like you have never seen before — the biker patriot army, veterans from all over the country, every single war and battle in this country — Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever.”

“I’ll be damned if one president with his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office, with a smirk on his face, looking at his golf cart — I’ll be damned if this president or anybody else is going to shut down that World War II Memorial, period,” he continued. “These men are in their 80s and 90s, so let me repeat: You lay one hand on one of those men and arrest them for going to their memorial, which they fought, which was not paid by you, dammit — was paid by the American people — we will come out of every town and city in this nation, we will come out of every county on both coasts, both borders and we will march on Washington against your tyranny. You have been warned.”

Levin iterated that the sentiment was heartfelt and was in no way a stunt.

“This isn’t intended to be controversial,” he added. “This isn’t intended to be a joke. This is exactly how I feel in my heart and soul. I take this very personally. My grandfather fought at Iwo Jima and he fought at Guam. And my great uncle fought at Guadalcanal. And I’ll be damned if this community activist is going to shut down their memorial. They beat the Germans. They beat the Nazis. They beat the Japanese. They beat fascist Italy. And I’m not going to allow as one person, this administration, these people to beat them now that they’re in their 80s and 90s. No damn way.”

Link: http://dailycaller.c...le-to-dc-video/

Edited October 3, 2013 by Burt Gummer

[preacherman76]

This Mark Levin guy sounds alright to me.