John Boehner's Next Worthless Promise: Trillions Not Billions

How can John Boehner with a straight face promise any solid budget cuts at this point? He couldn't even lead the House to come up with $100 billion in spending cuts as promised in his Pledge to America as Congressman like Billy Long of Missouri voted to continue funding NASCAR teams with your tax dollars.

$100 billion soon became $61 billion soon became $39 billion. Oh, but Boehner is promising us more of this leadership.

That's why this week, we'll advance our fight from saving billions of dollars to saving trillions of dollars as we turn our full attention to the GOP budget outlined by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., aptly titled "The Path to Prosperity."

Yup trillions is the next word Boehner is going to use. Unable to come up with $100 billion in spending cuts, Boehner is now going to play with math to convince you the GOP has a plan to cut trillions. Oh it sounds good until you start taking a look at the truth.

First off, there won't be a trillion dollars cut in government spending in a years time under the plan, even though it wouldn't be hard to cut a trillion considering the bloated military budget and other budgets that are breaking the bank. The Paul Ryan plan Boehner is pushing only cuts about $500 billion per year--that's a long ways from a trillion. The trillion dollar talking point is going to be used to fool the American people.

The plan cuts spending for ten years. There is a problem. The plan is only good if Republicans stay in power in the House in the next ten years, and obviously many of us real Constitutional conservatives don't feel they are off to a good start.

There is another problem in the Ryan plan that may keep it from reaching its goals. It reinvents the same things that have broken the bank--FDR's News Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society entitlement programs. Do you really want to bank on these cuts as long as the GOP is going to promote the same welfare entitlement programs that broke the bank in the first place?

Here's what Mike Church said on the subject:

The conservative author William Voegeli wrote an essay in 2007 called “The trouble with limited government”. In that essay, Voegeli argued that conservatives should mount a campaign to repeal the legacy of FDR, the New Deal and the rest of the welfare state. At its conclusion Voegeli wrote “A conservatism that labors to reverse liberalism's displacement of Americans' rights as citizens with their "rights" as welfare recipients may not achieve victory, but it will at least deserve it.” Let us dig a nice, big hole next to Russell Kirk and Barry Goldwater’s graves for Paul Ryan and the GOWP to bury the Republican opposition to the welfare state and any chance of achieving victory over it.

In what can only be described as a stunning defeat for Jeffersonians. Ryan and company announced Republican plans to call an armistice on opposing the welfare state and instead to “modernize it for the twentieth century” after all says Mr. Ryan, “it hasn’t been reformed since the 1960’s”. It also hasn’t been seriously questioned unless you count Bill Clinton’s 1996 head fake in that direction. What this means folks is that the 2 party system of Republicans and Democrats now agree that wealth transfer, the brainchild of German philosopher Karl Marx among others is now part of Republican mantra.

Let me put that in context for you using Bill Clinton again: “The era of Republican Big Government is just getting started”. I say the era of splitting the union and forming new republics needs to get started now too.

So how is it we can put any faith in Boehner and his trillion dollar promise? He compromises with Democrats despite a clear Tea Party mandate to cut government spending. He couldn't lead the House to produce the $100 billion in spending cuts he promised. I just don't have much faith in this Republican deal or John Boehner.

Finally, let me ask you this question. Rand Paul proposed $500 billion in spending cuts with actual items to cut from a Constitutional stance, and he went ignored by the Republican party. Why is it Boehner and Ryan get accolades for $500 billion in cuts while Senator Paul goes unnoticed--as we are told Ryan's plan is the best plan out there even though reinvents entitlement programs. Was Senator Paul's budget cuts even considered?