Truth be told, a great deal of the partisan gridlock – at least where the finances of the nation are concerned – wouldn’t exist today if the politicians we elect to office would simply cease being politicians upon being tasked with doing the business of government; if they simply followed the rules of government as set forth by the Founding Documents. But then, as James Madison said, “If men were angels…”

In a prior article, Why Is Boehner Negotiating with Obama at All?, I pointed out:

“Article I, Section 7, of the United States Constitution reads:

“‘All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.’

“And while the verbiage that follows outlines the processes by which the presidential veto and congressional veto overrides are to be executed, nowhere is the power of the purse – the ability to create legislation that raises revenue – extended to any other branch of government or congressional body.

“I bring this fundamental tenet of our system of government to the forefront because I am puzzled as to why House Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), are negotiating budgetary financial matters, a responsibility and purview exclusively vested in the US House of Representatives, with anyone outside that body, let alone the Executive Branch, which only has the constitutional power of the veto over said legislation?

“Such are the questions that arise when the bully pulpit is used to usurp the constitutional order of our government.”

So, you can imagine how happy I was to read that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), has told his fellow Republicans that he is done with private, one-on-one negotiations with President Obama. The simple fact of the matter is that he never – ever – should have entered into negotiations with anyone from the Executive Branch over issues of raising revenue in the first place; not on the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, the budget, tax reform, deficit reduction…none of it. Pure and simple, the Executive Branch, other than allocating revenues granted to it to through the constitutionally mandated legislative process, to the agencies and departments under their purview, has no authority over the raising of revenue whatsoever. I defy anyone to find any provision in the US Constitution that contradicts that fact.

The reality that President Obama (and through him his team) can co-opt authority over matters of national finance simply by bullying his way to a “negotiating table” under the perverted guise of “leadership” says a lot about how far we have gotten away from the constitutional process of government. That the elected officials in the Legislative Branch do not howl in protest over the usurpation of the Separation of Powers – and perhaps that they don’t know better to howl in the first place – presents as a frighteningly, but all to true, commentary on just how constitutionally illiterate (or subversive) our elected officials have become. The same, sadly, can be said of the electorate itself.

If, and that is the optimal word here, our elected federal officials adhered to the US Constitution as the rulebook by which government is executed (which it is), legislation would follow a path that goes something like this:

▪ Legislation regarding the generation and securing of revenue (including matters of debt reduction, budgeting and borrowing) would be created working through regular order, letting the House work its will.

▪ The legislation would be advanced to the US Senate where they “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” (Note: had the 17th Amendment not been passed allowing for the direct election of Senators by the electorate, Senators would still be charged with protecting the rights of their respective States from the overreach of the federal government.)

▪ The legislation would then go to “conference” where the original legislation would be reconciled between the two chambers.

▪ The legislation would then be presented to the Executive Branch (as is the proper procedure for any piece of legislation), where the President can either sign it into law or veto it.

▪ At this point the House (because the legislation for our purposes has to do with revenue generation) would reconsider the legislation and the objections of the Executive Branch and either override the veto or make changes so as to satisfy the Executive’s objections. The overridden or revised bill would then go to the Senate for a similar procedure.

So, as you can see, the only options available for President Obama (or the Executive Branch), constitutionally, are to either sign the legislation into law or veto the legislation presented. Nowhere – nowhere – in the US Constitution is the Executive Branch afforded negotiating rights on matters of raising revenue but for those two options and at that moment in the timeline.

That understood, what we just witnessed – with the US Senate crafting legislation regarding the raising of revenue and the Executive Branch negotiating from the start with the leadership of the US House – was wholly in usurpation of the constitutional process by which revenue legislation is supposed to adhere. In fact, it could be said that the entire piece of legislation, by way of its origination, is unconstitutional.

Yet, because there will be no constitutional objection to this travesty of process, American taxpayers are now saddled with higher taxes and over $4 trillion in new debt over the next ten years, and we haven’t even dealt with the sequestration, the debt ceiling or the budget, all of which will, most likely, see an arrogant and belligerent Executive Branch bullying its way to yet more “negotiating tables”; negotiating tables at which they do not belong. I am willing to bet that through it all, taxes spending and the national debt will rise, and deficit reduction will remain in the realm of political rhetoric; the filth of political opportunism soiling the futures of our great-grandchildren.

On January 21, 2013, Barack Obama will place his hand on the Holy Bible (we assume) and swear this oath, as mandated by Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Nowhere in that oath exists the caveat, “…unless I think the document is flawed.” Barack Obama’s job as President of the United States is to uphold and protect; to defend the US Constitution. That means adhering to the provisions, limitations and authorities held within, including the legislative process by which revenue is raised for the federal government.

So, when you hear Mr. Obama say: “I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” two thoughts should come to mind.

First, your eyes should roll, given the fact that all the Obama Administration has done over the past four years is scream that they need to spend more money. Blaming Congress for racking up trillions in new debt with nothing to show for it but fictitious “jobs saved or created” numbers that don’t reconcile with the unemployment and workforce stats is tantamount to piling up debt on your Dad’s credit card and then blaming him for being a spendthrift.

Second, you should be asking yourself – and your elected representatives – this: What gives Mr. Obama the right to say he “will not have another debate with this Congress,” over the debt ceiling when he has no authority to debate it in the first place? More importantly, you should ask yourself why your elected members to the US House would allow their leadership to include Mr. Obama in debates exclusive to House membership…ever.

The time to understand the US Constitution – to become constitutionally literate – is now…as is the time to actually start asking these question. Your great-grandchildren’s’ freedom may just depend on what you do right now.

It’s quite possible that Boehner is the favorite Republican of Oval Office denizens. He’s never won a showdown with Obama. He huffs and he puffs and he blows his own House down. Cong. Boehner is the Ambrose Burnside of GOP strategists. He’s always a pontoon or two short of victory.

Which is why his three–vote margin was uncomfortably close for the Obama administration.

Speaker Boehner — and admittedly much of the Republican brain trust both in and out of elective office — is trapped in a binary, tactical battle with the White House. A battle he manages to re–fight and re–lose on a regular basis. The fiscal cliff confrontation was simply not a choice between passing Obama’s tax and spending increases or plunging headlong off the cliff.

A truly strategic thinker would have seen there was a third option. An option that was difficult in the short run, but promised a lasting victory in the long run.

I outlined that strategy here in mid–December. I contend that Obama has a legitimate mandate to raise taxes, so let him raise taxes to his heart’s content. Instead of fighting and losing, House Republicans step aside and let the Democrats pass a bill that gives the public a mandate right upside their head.

Only the Democrats do it without a single Republican vote.

Instead, Boehner states very plainly the GOP believes this bill is wrong and raising taxes will damage the economy. Unfortunately, the people have spoken, so the GOP will abstain on this vote. Making the 2014 off–year election a referendum on the Obama plan.

A referendum Republicans will win in a landslide, if we are correct. If we are wrong, and the voters actually want big, bigger and biggest government, then it doesn’t matter anyway.

Using a political rope–a–dope strategy means Republicans can’t be blamed for pushing the country over the fiscal cliff, nor can they be blamed for the recession redux that follows passage of Obama’s Christmas list.

Instead, binary, short–term, tactical thinking has saddled the nation with a terrible deal: $41 in new spending for every $1 in elusive spending cuts. And what’s worse, because the House GOP leadership helped pass the bill, Republicans now have part ownership of the blame for Obama’s failure!

Ss long as Boehner is speaker, this willing participation in mutually assured economic destruction undercuts responsible conservatives in the future.

On the other hand, Republican governors, when presented with an almost identical situation, made just the type of choice I’m advocating.

GOP governors loathe Obamacare. They believe it to be bad policy, bad medicine and bad government. Now Obamacare is the law of the land and the next step is implementation on a state–by–state basis. In any potentially chancy political situation Democrats can be certain to monopolize all the credit and outsource the blame if things go wrong.

Acting on this principle, Democrats established a system where each state is supposed to create a health insurance exchange, which insulates national Democrats from blame. When Obamacare goes horribly wrong, state governors will be in the line of fire, since they created the exchange.

If Boehner had been governor of say Virginia, he would have fallen right into the trap and worked to create an exchange that implemented Obamacare and dispensed blame to Republicans.

Fortunately Bob McDonnell is governor and he — along with other wise Republicans at the state level — refused to create an exchange. Leaving Obamacare a Democrat sole proprietorship, since the exchange will be run by the feds. Obama owns the law and he owns the outcome, because Republicans refused to participate.

Looking ahead, our next defeat will be the vote on increasing the debt limit. Sure Boehner has pledged that he won’t negotiate with Obama in the future, but I fail to see where being buffaloed by Harry Reid is an improvement.

Unfortunately for conservatives, Boehner is an excellent strategist when it comes to protecting his career. As Virginia Del. Rich Anderson (R–VA) points out, back in 2009 Boehner was a strong supporter of a secret ballot for union elections.

Boehner declared that a public vote with union organizers watching would “actually would strip workers of free choice in union organizing elections…. Instead, it would leave them open to coercion and intimidation — from either union officials or company management — to sign or not sign a card expressing their desire to join a union.”

Which makes the 12 Republican members of the House who voted against Boehner on Thursday all the more noble. Since he was watching teamster–like as each one of them voted against him.

Voting as a conservative in the Boehner House is not conducive to career advancement. As the four freshmen Congressmen who lost their committee assignments last month, in retaliation for failing to toe the company line, will be happy to tell you.

Republicans, for decades, have been sucked in by the Democrat Party’s last-minute engineered emergencies like the “fiscal cliff”. This crisis is manufactured under the transparent drive to increase taxes. Republicans walk into negotiations demanding spending cuts and come out with tails between their legs and higher taxes. Frankly, it’s as ancient a story as The Three Little Pigs.

Almost everyone knows the story of Ronald Reagan. He thought he went for a deal that raised one dollar in taxes for every three dollars in spending cuts. Unfortunately, the majority of those cuts never came. While the Washington Post refutes the claim, there is still strong evidence to suggest that this is what Reagan believed when signing the deal.

Continuing on, let’s not forget President George H.W. Bush who, in 1990, was promised two dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar in tax hikes. Sadly the story ended with a 137 billion dollar tax increase and an additional 22 billion dollars in spending.

Following suit yet again, Boehner and a host of Republicans believed that they could negotiate their way to a compromise with a party who simply wasn’t interested in a win-win scenario.

These examples aren’t meant to make Republicans out as martyrs. We are all big boys and girls with our own separate philosophies and motivations. The Democrat’s strategy works every time because Republicans refuse to learn their lesson every time.

But here is where the ball game changes: After all these years of misled Republicans, Speaker Boehner has made it clear that he will no longer negotiate with President Obama. Boehner has learned the lesson Republicans should have learned decades ago: Negotiating reasonably with Democrats is the way one loses to Democrats. Which is exactly why, moving forward, we need John Boehner as Speaker.

Michelle Stansbury

Michelle Stansbury has nearly a decade of experience in political strategy and has recently opened a consulting firm targeted at helping businesses and campaigns flip their marketing and public relations strategies through new media. Michelle is also a weekly commentator on the Hayden Collins Radio Program and a national speaker. To book Michelle for an event or inquire about her professional consulting services click here. To get more updates, follow Michelle on Twitter or Subscribe on Facebook

On taxes he has said “For purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions.”

Where repealing Obamacare is concerned: “Well, I think the election changes that. It’s pretty clear that the president was reelected, Obamacare is the law of the land.”

What were Boehner’s remarks regarding amnesty for illegal aliens? “A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

This is not the kind of leadership Conservative Americans deserve.

Boehner appears to be falling into the same trap Republicans have repeatedly fallen in to when dealing with “progressive” Democrats.  Time after time, Republicans have agreed to “compromise”; essentially capitulating to “progressive” Democratic demands in exchange for meaningless, empty promises.

Abandoning American principles by caving in to “progressive” demands has never led to success for Republicans. Republicans have tried the surrender approach before and it has never worked.  The only way Republicans ever make gains is by standing by the principles of liberty and freedom that made America great.

Passage of amnesty legislation will not help the GOP win Hispanic voters. Passing amnesty in 1986 did nothing to help Ronald Reagan and his fellow Republicans in the 1988 midterm elections. The Republicans still lost. Hispanic voters kept voting for Democrats, as they continue to do to this day.

The facts show, Republicans like Boehner who support amnesty are helping “progressive” Democrats import more Democrats.

Since becoming Speaker, Boehner has blocked voting on immigration enforcement in Congress.  This includes a bill that would have freed up seven million jobs currently held by illegal aliens.  Not only is Boehner apparently willing to help “progressives” import more Democrats he also holds the morally reprehensible position of allowing unemployed American workers to suffer.

Less than a week after losing a fairly close election it is understandable that the losing side feels under siege.  Nevertheless, feeling under siege does not justify surrender.

The only real solution for Republicans is to employ the considerable talents of young Hispanic leaders within the Republican Party to reach out to Americans of Hispanic descent and explain to them why America’s founding principles are more in line with their values and beliefs than are “progressive” ideas.

If Republicans wish to remain a vibrant Party that seriously contends in future elections, this is the path.  The sooner Republicans begin the process the better.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/boehner-caving/

O’Donnel also said, “Unless Congress acts, on January 1st [2012] working Americans would pay higher taxes and jobless benefits would run dry for many long-term unemployed. House Republicans who met late Monday blasted the Senate solution, a two-month extension.” She played a clip of John Boehner (R-OH) saying, “Our members do not want to just punt and do a two-month short-term fix where we have to come back and do this again.”

Further comments aired in the same segment:

• Unidentified Man: “It’s Grinch time in Washington, Mr. Speaker.”
• Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH): “Another phony crisis courtesy of the extremist bah humbug House Republicans.”
• Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “It’s just the radical tea party Republicans who are holding up this tax cut for the American people and jeopardizing our economic growth.”
• Jay Carney (White House Press Secretary): “I think Americans who are paying attention to this must be pulling their hair out when they look at the House now refusing to do what the Senate did.”

O’Donnel said that in-fighting exposed a rift between Republicans in the House and Senate. She then played a clip with Eric Cantor (R-VA) saying: “We outright reject the attempt by the Senate to kick the can down the road for 60 days.”

On ABC World News, correspondent Jim Avila spun the fight as one between unpopular Republicans and a resurgent Barack Obama. Avila said that the country’s anger is “reflected in today’s ABC News/Washington Post poll, showing a job approval rating of just 20 percent for Republicans in Congress who have blocked the payroll tax cut while President Obama’s approval rating jumped to 49 percent.”

On the CBS Early Show, corespondent Nancy Cordes said, “House Republicans say that just creates too much uncertainty for the taxpayer, not knowing whether this payroll tax cut is going to expire after two months or not. And so, they want a one-year deal.”

While both networks focused their attention on an unruly House, neither said anything about the point made by ABC’s Jake Tapper on his Political Punch blog: Officials from the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc. have expressed concern to members of Congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by President Obama cannot be implemented properly.

But, as Rich Mitchell says, “The phrase ‘couldn’t find their butts with both hands tied behind their backs’ comes to mind as I analyze the feat of stupidity undertaken by the leaders of the House and Senate in the Social Security revenue cut proposal (a.k.a. payroll tax holiday).” He continues, “The Senate bill offers a two month, 2% tax holiday on payroll social security taxes. The House bill offers the same holiday but over a year’s time. The Democrats have to swallow a provision that puts the Keystone XL pipeline on the front burner.”

He concludes, “A better play for the Republicans would have been to agree to the two month extension no strings attached. Then in February when we’re still talking about it, mention that the GOP gave something in December, the DNC gave nothing – just as they have for the last 3 years. The democrats are all take and no give – no compromise.”

Right now the MSM is doing its best to spin this as an Obama and Democrat victory. Perhaps Speaker Boehner should consult Rich Mitchell before making any other moves.

UPDATE! Boehner Buckles On Tax Cut Extension. As Jeff Viral, on December 22, 2011, said, “After immense pressure from not only Democrats, but House and Senate Republicans as well, Speaker Boehner agreed to a new deal for the 2 month payroll tax extension. It was major change of decision ending an intense standoff with Democrats.”

But that’s just my opinion.

From John Boehner’s YouTube channel

Speaker Boehner speaks on the importance of a full year payroll tax cut extension.