Boehner out as Speaker?

Via Fox News

John Boehner could be in for a fight Thursday when the newly seated House votes for the next speaker, with conservatives grumbling about his leadership and a report surfacing about a supposed plan to challenge him. 

The 11-term congressman, who’s endured his share of political turbulence, presumably enters the election with the upper hand. So far, a single viable Republican challenger has not emerged and the rules of the vote tend to work in Boehner’s favor. 

But Boehner’s potential troubles were compounded by a late-night flare up with outraged northeast lawmakers over a decision by the speaker to postpone a vote on an aid package for Superstorm Sandy victims. 

I am not sure if Boehner is out, or if the next Republican will be better, but I do not have much faith in the GOP to get it right if Boehner is replaced. Meanwhile, stories like this make me wonder if this country is even capable of righting the ship.

The fiscal deal cemented Tuesday night includes a one-year extension of tax credits for the wind-energy industry that will cost taxpayers an estimated $12.1 billion.

The extension was part of a tax-extender package that the Senate Finance Committee approved in August and was included in the final package that Congress approved before sending it to the president.

Congressional Republicans and other fiscal conservatives opposed the extension, arguing the deal between Congress and the White House was supposed to include cuts to federal spending, not additional subsidies for alternative-energy programs.

Prior to the vote, Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander cited several reasons to end the tax credit – including the cost to taxpayers, putting coal and nuclear energy at an economic disadvantage and wind companies producing just 3 percent of U.S. electricity despite receiving billions in subsidies over the past 20 years.

 “A better idea is to reduce the debt and increase research for solar, batteries, carbon capture from coal plants, more energy-efficient buildings, advanced biofuels and the disposal of nuclear waste,” Alexander wrote in The National Journal. “Then let the marketplace decide which fuels can produce enough clean, cheap reliable energy.”

The Production Tax Credit was created in 1992 and has been extended for wind companies several times over the past several years at an estimated cost of $16 billion to taxpayers.

Using taxes to reward certain behaviors, or to punish others or using taxes to favor one business over another is a dreadful mistake. It goes against the founding principles of America, and against common sense. If an industry cannot survive on its own, let it die. Propping it up with tax dollars hurts everyone eventually. Not to mention that these types of subsidies are SPECIFICALLY what we out to be eliminating to cut spending. Seriously, folks, our fiscal troubles are bad, and getting worse because Congress has no ability to stop spending.

 

Video: When you lie down with dogs…………..

Nice Deb has the video of Rick Santorum smacking the Bishops around

Bravo! Santorum nails it. When you give ANY control, AND support to Liberalism, you end up ceding your rights to them.

Deb also teases us with the news that the final two GOP contenders, no, I am not counting you Mrs. Paul, or your fishstick supporters, might be Santorum and Mittens, then breaks our hearts with the news that Newt’s ego is going to make Mitt inevitable.

BREAKING NEWS from National Journal: Gingrich to Hold Post-Caucus Press Conference

Instead of the traditional election night party, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will hold a press conference after the Nevada Caucus on Saturday, raising new speculation about his future in the race.

Kids, now that Santorum is leading Obama in one of the national polls, maybe Gingrich is reading the writing on the wall. If he does drop out, rather than campaign to the end, as promised –  he is a patriot who deserves our thanks. Mittens would need  to up his game, now, with only two not-Romneys left in the race.

UPDATE:

Nope: Newt to Mitt: Forget the Fantasy, I’m Staying in, Staying on Offense

Sigh…

Gee, thanks Newt, looks like I will have to break out that extra-large clothes pin that says Mitt on it this November!

Obama’s dream come true?

Zip at Weasel Zippers asks the question that popped into my mind the second I heard the news that the “Super Committee” had failed to reach a decision on spending cuts

Was gutting the military his plan all along or is that giving him too much credit?

Was the Leftist dream of more gun control behind Fast and Furious? Will ObamaCare ultimately lead to rationing? Seems that some question pretty much answer themselves don’t they? Obama will have his defense cuts, and he will veto any attempt to thwart him

(National Journal) — President Obama Monday evening blamed Republicans for the failure of the super committee to meet its deadline for a debt plan and warned that he will veto any attempt to eliminate the automatic spending cuts that go into effect with that failure.

In an appearance in the White House briefing room a little more than an hour after the committee officially conceded failure, the president said his answer to those who want to eliminate those cuts “is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.”

Turns out that this super committee was a joke, didn’t we all kinda know it would be? And it turns out that this turns out to be a victory for Obama. He can gleefully slash defense spending, AND blame the Republicans at the same time!

By the way, here is what will get cut because the GOP “leaders” played ball on this.

In his straightforward and scathing piece for today’s New York Post, Heritage senior fellow Peter Brookes discussed the devastating impact a sequestration of the defense budget would have on America’s military.

If the congressional “super committee” cannot find $1.5 trillion in budget savings over the next 10 years by November 23, the law would trigger automatic spending “sequestration” cuts of $1.2 trillion—of which roughly half a trillion or more would be from the defense budget. This spells major trouble for U.S. national security.

Since President Obama has been in office, Brookes points out, there have already been some $850 billion in Defense Department spending cuts (past, present, and future) over a 10-year period. These cuts eliminate 50 major weapons programs, and any more cuts would, in the words of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, “be shooting ourselves in the head.”

According to the report, the cuts would effectively “hollow out” America’s military. They would deeply undermine the Marine Corps and the expeditionary fighting force, leading to the smallest force in 50 years and compromising their ability to deploy to hot spots quickly in the event of a crisis—a hard-learned lesson from the Korean War. The cuts would take the Army below pre-9/11 troop levels and lead to an Air Force with two-thirds fewer fighters and strategic bombers than in 1990.

And last but not least, the Navy would have to mothball over 60 ships, including two carrier battle groups, shrinking it below pre–World War I levels.

America’s nuclear deterrent force—the foundation of U.S. national security—would be undermined as we would likely lose one of the legs of the U.S. nuclear triad. As the U.S. nuclear deterrent shrinks and loses credibility, some of the 31 countries that enjoy protection under the U.S. nuclear umbrella may consider going nuclear out of growing fears about their vulnerability. This would be extremely destabilizing and could lead to costly conflicts.

Unbelievable, God help us get to January20, 2013 quickly. This administration is absolutely dismantling this great nation. The economy, the military, spitting on our allies, kissing the collective asses of our enemies, and on, and on, and………….

Were Rick Perry‘s Remarks on China Changing ’Their Virtues‘ Really ’Rambling?’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

Via The Blaze

Decide for yourselves, but I do not hear any rambling here, sounds like a good answer to me. Maybe The National Journal was distracted by Huntsman’s Gay tie?

 

National Journal considered Perry’s “rambling” comments on China during the Saturday night GOP debate to be “long” and “convoluted.” They have the transcript here. Watch and see what you think:    

National Journal: The Most Liberal Members Of Congress

The Most Liberal Members Of Congress – National Journal

Nine senators tied for most liberal in National Journal’s 2010 Vote Ratings issue. Here’s a look at the 10 most-liberal senators:

For the 10 most-liberal representatives head to the end of the gallery.

Tied for first—Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio

Although he could face a tough reelection battle in 2012, Brown shows no signs of trimming his sails. He was tied as the most-liberal senator in 2009, making it two years straight he’s been tied for most liberal.

Tied for first—Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.

Both Maryland senators tied most-liberal senator in the 2010 vote ratings. Cardin also tied for most-liberal senator in 2009.

Tied for first—Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Leahy was the 29th most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 73.8.

Tied for first—Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Levin tied for 11th most liberal in the 2009 vote ratings with a composite score of 84.3.

Tied for first—Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

Mikulski ranked eighth most liberal in 2009 with a composite score of 85.2, which was a more-liberal score then the 83.3 that tied her for most liberal in 2010.

Tied for first—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Reid made a big jump to tie as the most-liberal senator in the 2010 ratings. He was 22nd most liberal in 2009 and the 25th most liberal in 2008.

Tied for first—Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Sanders is the only independent senator with a most-liberal vote rating in 2010.

Tied for first—Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

Stabenow ranked the 21st most-liberal senator in 2009 with a composite score of 78.3.

Tied for first—Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.

Whitehouse also tied for the title of most-liberal senator in 2009.

Tied for 10th—(left to right) Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.

Senators from seven states had identical liberal scores. Gillibrand and Schumer are one set of the pairs.

TOP TEN LIBERAL REPRESENTATIVES

Tied for first—Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Judy Chu, D-Calif., John Lewis, D-Ga., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., John Olver, D-Mass., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.

In 2010, four of the 10 most-liberal members of the House were women (pictured above). Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., almost made the list as the 11th most-liberal member in 2010, a big jump from the 51st most liberal in 2009.

Tied for eighth—(left to right) Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., George Miller, D-Calif., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

With composite scores of 95.3, Markey, Miller, and McGovern round out the 10 most-liberal members of the House. All three members had a composite score in the 80s in the 2009 vote ratings.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story