The New York Times has a lengthy article today reporting the fact that John Boehner has "halted" negotiations with president Obama about the budget and spending cuts. How amusing! Of course, the Times reports the news this way:
Mr. Boehner, in some ways, finds himself the leader of the House Republicans with nowhere to actually lead. Among those who placed him in his post and could conceivably remove him, the test of his leadership seems to be how little action he takes.
The amazing thing is that the Times truly believes that the refusal of Boehner to take part in further secret negotiations is news. It just shows that the Times does not even bother to learn both sides of a story; the Times just reports the pro-Obama side. Two months ago, Speaker Boehner announced that the House GOP was done engaging in back room negotiations with Obama; Boehner said at the time that all further budgeting would be done in "regular order". That phrase is Washington-speak for proceeding in the way that budgets always were passed until the Obama years. First there is a budget passed by each house. Then there are authorization bills which go through committee hearings and then a vote in each house. That is followed by appropriations bills which also must go through committee and the full house vote in each chamber. Once passed, the bills are sent to the president for his signature.
After Boehner made his announcement of no more secret negotiations, the Times just ignored it. Obama, the Obamacrats and the Obama media just proceeded on the assumption that there would be further negotiations in which they could make the GOP share the blame for any damage done. Neither Obama nor the Obamacrats would have to actually resolve anything in public. They could just continue to demagogue issues and lie about positions that they took in private.
In the weeks after the Boehner announcement, there were no negotiations. For Obama and the Obamacrats, this was just a buildup to the inevitable secret negotiations. January ended and February began, but still no negotiations. A few weeks back, Obama began his immitation of Henny Penny and he told the country that the sky is falling if nothing were done. But there were still no negotiations. Of course, Obama did not propose holding a meeting. Indeed, Obama did not even bother to call Boehner to discuss the matter. He just kept campaigning because all of the Obamacrats knew that Boehner would eventually have to meet, but he never did.
Bizarrely, the Times says that Boehner has nowhere to lead. They could not be more wrong. Boehner has led the country back into there being some transparency in the federal government. Obama always claims to be "transparent", but every important thing that Obama has done in office has been worked out in secret. Boehner and the GOP are forcing Obama to take public positions on the budget if he is to ever achieve anything. Right now, Obama has opted for achieving nothing in order to avoid taking any positions.
Boehner is not trying to avoid action; rather, he is demanding that normal and proper procedures be followed. America deserves to know what is being done and who is determining how we are proceeding.
Who knows, maybe some day the New York Times will actually understand. It may be doubtful, but it is possible.
Mr. Boehner, in some ways, finds himself the leader of the House Republicans with nowhere to actually lead. Among those who placed him in his post and could conceivably remove him, the test of his leadership seems to be how little action he takes.
The amazing thing is that the Times truly believes that the refusal of Boehner to take part in further secret negotiations is news. It just shows that the Times does not even bother to learn both sides of a story; the Times just reports the pro-Obama side. Two months ago, Speaker Boehner announced that the House GOP was done engaging in back room negotiations with Obama; Boehner said at the time that all further budgeting would be done in "regular order". That phrase is Washington-speak for proceeding in the way that budgets always were passed until the Obama years. First there is a budget passed by each house. Then there are authorization bills which go through committee hearings and then a vote in each house. That is followed by appropriations bills which also must go through committee and the full house vote in each chamber. Once passed, the bills are sent to the president for his signature.
After Boehner made his announcement of no more secret negotiations, the Times just ignored it. Obama, the Obamacrats and the Obama media just proceeded on the assumption that there would be further negotiations in which they could make the GOP share the blame for any damage done. Neither Obama nor the Obamacrats would have to actually resolve anything in public. They could just continue to demagogue issues and lie about positions that they took in private.
In the weeks after the Boehner announcement, there were no negotiations. For Obama and the Obamacrats, this was just a buildup to the inevitable secret negotiations. January ended and February began, but still no negotiations. A few weeks back, Obama began his immitation of Henny Penny and he told the country that the sky is falling if nothing were done. But there were still no negotiations. Of course, Obama did not propose holding a meeting. Indeed, Obama did not even bother to call Boehner to discuss the matter. He just kept campaigning because all of the Obamacrats knew that Boehner would eventually have to meet, but he never did.
Bizarrely, the Times says that Boehner has nowhere to lead. They could not be more wrong. Boehner has led the country back into there being some transparency in the federal government. Obama always claims to be "transparent", but every important thing that Obama has done in office has been worked out in secret. Boehner and the GOP are forcing Obama to take public positions on the budget if he is to ever achieve anything. Right now, Obama has opted for achieving nothing in order to avoid taking any positions.
Boehner is not trying to avoid action; rather, he is demanding that normal and proper procedures be followed. America deserves to know what is being done and who is determining how we are proceeding.
Who knows, maybe some day the New York Times will actually understand. It may be doubtful, but it is possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment