Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 8, 2009

'ANGRY' BOEHNER HAS ODD PRIORITIES.... In his speech on jobs earlier today, President Obama took a moment to acknowledge how far we've come from a year ago, but emphasized how much further we have to go. "[E]ven though we have reduced the deluge of job losses to a relative trickle, we are not yet creating jobs at a pace to help all those families who have been swept up in the flood," the president said. "There are more than 7 million fewer Americans with jobs today than when this recession began. That's a staggering figure and one that reflects not only the depths of the hole from which we must ascend, but also a continuing human tragedy. And it speaks to an urgent need to accelerate job growth in the short term while laying a new foundation for lasting economic growth."

The House Republican leader doesn't quite see it that way.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the administration's idea to spend money returned from bailed out banks "repulsive."

The top-ranking GOP lawmaker told reporters that money repaid from failing banks bailed out by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was never intended to fund new programs. [...]

"This makes me so angry! I was there -- I know all about TARP. First it was never intended that all this money was going to be spent. But any money that wasn't spent was going to go to the deficit. The idea of taking this money and spending it is repulsive," the Ohio lawmaker told reporters on Tuesday.

Now, Boehner is in the unique position of having never been right about economic growth at any point in his political career, so the fact that he finds the idea of a new jobs bill "repulsive" is necessarily a good sign.

But Boehner's disgust about spending money on job creation that was supposed to go to the bailout should be a tough sell. He claims to know "all about TARP." He should -- Boehner was in on the negotiations, voted for the bailout, and encouraged his caucus to do the same.

The program ended up costing a lot less than expected, to the delight of everyone, but the question is the best use of the $200 billion or so unused through TARP. Here's what voters should understand: Boehner was fine with that $200 billion being available for Wall Street. He's fine with that $200 billion being applied to the deficit that Boehner helped create. But Boehner thinks it's "repulsive" to allocate those resources on job creation, small business tax breaks, and continued aid to the unemployed.

Doesn't sound like "Speaker of the House" material to me.

Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"Doesn't sound like "Speaker of the House" material to me."

Probably because he's not the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is (thank god).

What a douchenozzle Boehner is. Maybe he'd be for it if Obama put that money into tanning beds and golf course maintenance.

Posted by: greebs on December 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

More like Smoker of the House. Boner's main accomplishment in life is to bail out the tobacco industry with his 3 packs a day addiction.

Posted by: Patrick on December 8, 2009 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Boehner was fine with that $200 billion being available for Wall Street. He's fine with that $200 billion being applied to the deficit that Boehner helped create. But Boehner thinks it's "repulsive" to allocate those resources on job creation, small business tax breaks, and continued aid to the unemployed.
-------------------------------------------------
The Democrats should be all over this. When I heard President Obama speak this morning I thought it is going to sound pretty odd for the Republicans to be against his proposal. After all, Wall Street has been bailed out and Main Street is still suffering.

The paragraph above exposes the hypocrisy of Boehner and the Republicans. They are trapped.

Posted by: Ladyhawke on December 8, 2009 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

My psychic powers -- a k a the voices in my head -- tell me that the "trickle" of job losses the President refers to is merely a short lull, and we better god damn move quick on jobs, and more than just TARP money... job losses are going up again otherwise.

...and if the billions hafta come over Boehner's dead body... why then: Bonus points!!!

Posted by: neill on December 8, 2009 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

What I find is repulsive is the fact that cons like Boehner enabled GWB to waste a huge surplus on massive tax-cuts for the wealthy who in turn fueled a housing bubble and a deregulated Wall Street to get us all in this mess in the first place.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on December 8, 2009 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

I guess it's time to play concern troll. Look, as a substantive matter, the tanned douchebag probably has a point: a substantial number of Republicans voted for TARP because they'd been assured -- by the Bush Admin -- that the survival of our financial system depended on it. "Redirecting" those funds towards different uses (no matter how praiseworthy we might deem those to be) raises non-trivial issues. Just imagine how angry Democrats would be if this was the McCain Admin proposing to "redirect" TARP funds towards some Republican-favored project (I'd suggest paying for war on Iran as an example, but Repubs don't believe in paying for war anyway, so it's not a good example).

As a political matter, however, Boehner's argument provides fertile ground for some great (if arguably unfair) campaign ads (e.g., "Repubs have no problem handing over 200 billion of your money to Wall St., but throw fits over extending unemployment, etc.").

Posted by: retr2327 on December 8, 2009 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, Boner and the rest of the bonehead GOP has been screeching nonstop that our priority should be job creation--to the exclusion of healthcare(Americans dying every day) and every other domestic issue--and now he's screeching that we shouldn't spend money for job creation?

Barney Frank was right, we might as well be debating a piece of furniture.

I know, his brilliant solution is to repeat the Bush economic policies. To quote a Guiness commercial--BRILLIANT!

Posted by: Allan Snyder on December 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Angry Boehner," huh? Sounds like the ne'er-do-well character in a blue themed comic strip. Like maybe if Sluggo had been Nancy's sadistic pimp. And had nipple piercings. And a predilection for barnyard animals. Considering the real Boehner, this would actually humanize him.

Posted by: junebug on December 8, 2009 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Boener: Another post with another turtle.

Posted by: Marko on December 8, 2009 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

"What a douchenozzle Boehner is. Maybe he'd be for it if Obama put that money into tanning beds and golf course maintenance."

and cocktails

Posted by: SaintZak on December 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Wait, Boner and the rest of the bonehead GOP has been screeching nonstop that our priority should be job creation . . . and now he's screeching that we shouldn't spend money for job creation?"

If you listen close, the GOP says "jobs," but not through spending, through more tax cuts.

Which makes a whole lot of sense in Crazyville.

Posted by: eadie on December 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

The TARP monies have $200 bil. extra, and Boehner wants to pocket it? Why does he hate good hard working Americans so much! -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on December 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be repulsed too, if a had a burp stuck in my craw that I couldn't get out.

Posted by: Banana-Eating Jungle Monkey on December 8, 2009 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

So let's get this straight. Boehner's worried about the deficit, and yet he voted for the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and TARP. But God forbid we spend money on job creation, that would increase the deficit. And good luck getting anyone in the mainstream press to call out Boehner on this BS.

Posted by: ACS on December 8, 2009 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Angry Boehner? If you get one of those for more than four hours, you're supposed to see a doctor.

Posted by: ComradeAnon on December 8, 2009 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Waaaaaaaaaaah!!

Posted by: BBaptiste on December 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly