Saturday, January 12, 2013

THE BEST SOLUTION TO THE GUN PROBLEM IS THE CREATION OF GUN-FREE ZONES

!!!!







http://conservativevideos.com/2013/01/gun-free-zone-comedy/

HAGEL MATTERS ONLY BECAUSE OF WHAT HIS NOMINATION SAYS ABOUT OBAMA'S POLICIES

!!!!

The Meaning of Hagel
The nomination signals to the world Obama’s desire to shrink U.S. influence.
By Charles Krauthammer

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
 


Former senator Chuck Hagel



“This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
— Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev, March 26, 2012



The puzzle of the Chuck Hagel nomination for defense secretary is that you normally choose someone of the other party for your cabinet to indicate a move to the center, but, as the Washington Post editorial board points out, Hagel’s foreign-policy views are to the left of Barack Obama’s, let alone the GOP’s. Indeed, they were at the fringe of the entire Senate.



So what’s going on? Message sending. Obama won reelection. He no longer has to trim, to appear more moderate than his true instincts. He has the “flexibility” to be authentically Obama.
Hence the Hagel choice: Under the guise of centrist bipartisanship, it allows the president to leave the constrained first-term Obama behind and follow his natural Hagel-like foreign-policy inclinations. On three pressing issues in particular:



Military Spending



Current defense secretary Leon Panetta said in August 2011 that the scheduled automatic $600 billion defense cuts (“sequestration”) would result in “hollowing out the force,” which would be “devastating.” And he strongly hinted that he might resign rather than enact them.

Asked about Panetta’s remarks, Hagel called the Pentagon “bloated” and needing “to be pared down.” Just the man you’d want to carry out a U.S. disarmament that would shrink America to what Obama thinks is its proper size on the world stage, i.e., smaller. The overweening superpower that Obama promiscuously chided in his global we-have-sinned tour is poised for reduction, not only to fund the bulging welfare state but to recalibrate America’s proper role in the world.


Israel



 The issue is not Hagel’s alleged hostility but his public pronouncements, his refusal to make moral distinctions, for example. At the height of the second intifada, a relentless campaign of indiscriminate massacre of Israelis, Hagel found innocence abounding: “Both Israelis and Palestinians are trapped in a war not of their making.”



This pass at evenhandedness is nothing but pernicious blindness. Just last month, Yasser Arafat’s widow admitted on Dubai TV what everyone has long known — that Arafat deliberately launched the intifada after the collapse of the Camp David peace talks in July 2000. He told his wife to stay in the safety of Paris. Why, she asked? Because I’m going to start an intifada.



In July 2002, with the terror still raging, Hagel offered further exquisite evenhandedness: “Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.” Good God. Exactly two years earlier Israel had proposed an astonishingly generous peace that offered Arafat a Palestinian state — and half of Jerusalem, a previously unimaginable Israeli concession. Arafat said no, made no counteroffer, walked away, and started his terror war. Did no one tell Hagel?


Iran
 
 
 
Hagel doesn’t just oppose military action, a problematic option with serious arguments on both sides. He actually opposed any unilateral sanctions. You can’t get more out of the mainstream than that. He believes in diplomacy instead, as if talk alone will deter the mullahs. He even voted against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

 
 
 
Most tellingly, he has indicated that he is prepared to contain a nuclear Iran, a position diametrically opposed to Obama’s ostensibly unalterable opposition to containment in his first term. What message do you think this sends the mullahs?


And that’s the point. Hagel himself doesn’t matter. He won’t make foreign policy. Obama will. Hagel’s importance is the message his nomination sends about where Obama wants to go. The lessons are being duly drawn. Iran’s official media have already cheered the choice of what they call this “anti-Israel” nominee. And they fully understand what his nomination signals regarding administration resolve about stopping them from going nuclear.



The rest of the world can see coming the Pentagon downsizing — and the inevitable, commensurate decline of U.S. power. Pacific Rim countries will have to rethink reliance on the counterbalance of the U.S. Navy and consider acquiescence to Chinese regional hegemony. Arab countries will understand that the current rapid decline of post-Kissinger U.S. dominance in the region is not cyclical but intended to become permanent.



Hagel is a man of no independent stature. He’s no George Marshall or Henry Kissinger. A fringe senator who left no trace behind, Hagel matters only because of what his nomination says about Obama.



However the Senate votes on confirmation, the signal has already been sent. Before Election Day, Obama could only whisper it to his friend Dmitry. Now, with Hagel, he’s told the world.





— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2013 the Washington Post Writers Group.

MIX A KERRY, A HAGEL AND A JACK LEW IN THE POT AND AMERICA WILL GET INDIGESTION

!!!!
Obamacare’s Other Shoe
The Pentagon and Chuck Hagel
By Mark Steyn

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE 

 


 

Former senator Chuck Hagel

 
If you had buttonholed me in the Senate men’s room circa 2003 and told me that a decade hence Joe Biden would be America’s vice president, John Kerry secretary of state, and Chuck Hagel secretary of defense, I’d have laughed and waited for the punch line: The Leahy administration? President Lautenberg? 


Celebrate lack of diversity! But even in the republic’s descent into a Blowhardocracy staffed by a Zombie House of Lords, there are distinctions to be drawn. Senator Kerry having been reliably wrong on every foreign-policy issue of the last 40 years, it would seem likely that at this stage in his life he will be content merely to be in office, jetting hither and yon boring the pants off whichever presidents and prime ministers are foolish enough to grant him an audience. Beyond the photo-ops, the world will drift on toward the post-American era: Beijing will carry on gobbling up resources around the planet, Czar Putin will flex his moobs across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Arab Spring “democracies” will see impressive growth in the critical clitoridectomy sector of the economy, Iran will go nuclear, and John Kerry will go to black-tie banquets in Europe. 


But Chuck Hagel is a different kettle of senatorial huffenpuffer. And not because of what appears to be a certain antipathy toward Jews and gays. That would be awkward at the Tony Awards, but at the Arab League the post-summit locker-room schmoozing should be a breeze. Since his celebrated “evolution” on marriage last year, President Obama is famously partial to one of those constituencies, so presumably he didn’t nominate an obscure forgotten senator because of his fascinating insights into the appropriate level of “obviousness” the differently oriented should adopt. So why Hagel? Why now?



My comrade Jonah Goldberg says this nomination is a “petty pick” made by Obama “out of spite.” I’m not so sure. If the signature accomplishment of the president’s first term was Obamacare (I’m using “signature accomplishment” in the Washington sense of “ruinously expensive bureaucratic sinkhole”), what would he be looking to pull off in his second (aside from the repeal of the 22nd Amendment)? Hagel isn’t being nominated to the Department of Zionist and Homosexual Regulatory Oversight but to the Department of Defense. Which he calls “bloated.”




“The Pentagon,” he said a year ago, “needs to be pared down.” Unlike the current secretary, Leon Panetta, who’s strongly opposed to the mandated “sequestration” cuts to the defense budget, Hagel thinks they’re merely a good start.  That’s why Obama’s offered him the gig. Because Obamacare at home leads inevitably to Obamacuts abroad. In that sense, America will be doing no more than following the same glum trajectory of every other great power in the postwar era.


I feel only a wee bit sheepish about quoting my book After America two weeks running, since it’s hardly my fault Obama’s using it as the operating manual for his second term (I may sue for breach of copyright and retire to Tahiti). At any rate, somewhere around Chapter Five, I suggest that, having succeeded Britain as the dominant power, America may follow the old country in decline, too:
“In what other ways might the mighty eagle emulate the tattered old lion? First comes reorientation, and the shrinking of the horizon. After empire, Britain turned inward: Between 1951 and 1997 the proportion of government expenditure on defense fell from 24 percent to seven, while the proportion on health and welfare rose from 22 percent to 53. And that’s before New Labour came along to widen the gap further.



“Those British numbers are a bald statement of reality: You can have Euro-sized entitlements or a global military, but not both. What’s easier to do if you’re a democratic government that’s made promises it can’t afford — cut back on nanny-state lollipops, or shrug off thankless military commitments for which the electorate has minimal appetite?”



Democrats put it slightly differently: In 2004 John Kerry demanded to know why we were building firehouses in Iraq but closing them in America (the municipal fire department apparently falling, like everything else, under the federal government). Barack Obama prefers to say that it’s time for the United States to do some nation-building at home — the pilot program in Afghanistan having worked out so well.


 Either line will do, and, like Britain’s inverted budget priorities, both implicitly acknowledge that a military-industrial complex and a dependency-bureaucrat complex are incompatible. And that’s before you factor in Washington-size borrowing, under which, within this decade, the interest payments on the debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese military. America can fund the Pentagon or the People’s Liberation Army, but not both, not for long. Having gotten the citizenry to accept a supersized welfare bureaucracy, Obama reasonably enough figures he can just as easily get them used to a shrunken American presence in the wider world.



So the president is looking for his equivalent of Denis Healey, the Labour cabinet minister who in the 1968 defense review announced an all but total withdrawal of British forces from “east of Suez” — a phrase that in the imperial imagination is less geographic than psychological.  Kipling’s English Tommy on the road to Mandalay: “Ship me somewheres east of Suez  . . . ” And then a cheeseparing defense minister says: No, we won’t. Not now, not ever again. It’s over.



Who would you hire for the Pentagon’s east-of-Suez moment? According to the Washington Post, Obama picked Hagel to “bridge the partisan divide.”




Even for the court eunuchs of the palace media, that must be hard to type with a straight face: He seems to be all but entirely loathed by his own party. Nevertheless, he is technically a Republican, not to mention a bona fide war hero. Only Nixon can go to China, and only a pro-life, pro-gun, climate-denialist, homophobic, Strom Thurmond–loving, medal-draped Republican can go to the Pentagon and tell them to start clearing out their desks. Obama has picked a guy whose rhetoric is more anti-Pentagon than his own, and who, unlike most of the cabinet senators, has a record of executive experience that suggests he may well live up to it.



If he pulls it off, it’ll be a big part of Obama’s legacy. And, if he doesn’t, I’m sure the media will be happy to remind everyone that, oh well, Hagel was a Republican.  But beyond the politics is a real question. He’s not wrong to raise the question of Pentagon “bloat.” The United States has the most lavishly funded military on the planet, and what does it buy you? In the Hindu Kush, we’re taking twelve years to lose to goatherds with fertilizer.



Something is wrong with this picture. Indeed, something is badly wrong with the American way of war. And no one could seriously argue that, in the latest in the grim two-thirds-of-a-century roll call of America’s un-won wars, the problem is a lack of money or resources. Given its track record, why shouldn’t the Pentagon get a top-to-toe overhaul — or at least a cost-benefit analysis?



Just to be clear: I disagree with Hagel on Israel, on Iran, and on most everything else. But my colleagues on the right are in denial if they don’t think there are some very basic questions that need to be asked about the too-big-to-fail Department of Defense. Obama would like the U.S. military to do less. Some of us would like it to do more with less — more nimbly, more artfully. But, if the national-security establishment won’t acknowledge there’s even a problem, they’re unlikely to like the solutions imposed by others. “Petty” and “spiteful”? No. Obamacare’s other shoe.




— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2013 Mark Steyn

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

ED KOCH VOTED FOR OBAMA KNOWING THAT OBAMA WOULD STAB ISRAEL IN THE BACK

!!!!


COMMENTARY MAGAZINE

Ed Koch: I Knew Obama Would Betray Israel



I admire former Mayor Ed Koch’s willingness to break with his own party on issues of principle, but his comments to the Algemeiner today are mind-boggling. In between some very strong denunciations of the Chuck Hagel nomination, Koch casually let it drop that he suspected Obama would abandon his pro-Israel positions after the election. The former mayor, of course, endorsed Obama’s reelection and served as one of his surrogates to the pro-Israel community:


“Frankly, I thought that there would come a time when [Obama] would renege on what he conveyed on his support of Israel,” said Koch, adding, “it comes a little earlier than I thought it would.”
“It’s very disappointing, I believe he will ultimately regret it,” Koch said, “and it undoubtedly will reduce support for him in the Jewish community, but I don’t think he (the President) worries about that now that the election is over.” …
Koch explained to The Algemeiner why he decided to back the President’s re-election even though he says he suspected that Obama would backtrack on his pro-Israel overtures. “I did what I thought was warranted and intelligent,” he said, “He was going to win! There was no question about it. I thought it would be helpful to have a Jewish voice there, being able to communicate.”
The Mayor says he has no regrets, “it’s wouldn’t make any difference. The Jews were going to vote for him no matter what. And that’s the nature of the Jews. They are always very solicitous of everybody else except there own needs and community.”


Just a reminder, here’s what Koch said in a video endorsement for the Obama campaign in October:



“I’m confident President Obama will continue his unambiguous commitment to the Jewish state in his second term, building on his record of leadership by preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and funding the Iron Dome missile defense system that is saving Israeli lives.”


To summarize: Koch believed none of that, but still vouched for Obama with Jewish voters because a.) Obama was going to win and it was important that Ed Koch maintain good relations with the White House so he could encourage pro-Israel policies (which isn’t working out too well, considering the Hagel nomination), and b.) Jews were going to vote for Obama no matter what (which would kind of mean Ed Koch’s entire schtick is irrelevant, no?).

Comments (56)

+17
K2K's avatar - Go to profile
K2K 81p · 1 day ago
it never occurred to Ed Koch to stay silent before the election?
What will Jack Lew now do re: SecTreas? Does he realize he is Obama's Court Jew?
3 replies · active 2 hours ago
Yeah, Koch missed a perfectly good opportunity to STFU.

If an 88 year old Jewish war vet, couldn't speak the truth (and he really should have felt free to speak the truth at this point), he should have kept quiet.
Oh Alana, who exactly is Jack Lew and why do people not like him?

And while we are at it, is Eric Holder staying on, or who will be AG?
+1
K2K's avatar - Go to profile
K2K 81p · 2 hours ago
well, Ed_, I cited Jack Lew, not Alana. Lew is Obama's current WH Chief of Staff, and about the only name out there for SecTreas.

From what I read, GOP Senators don't like Lew from when he ran OMB.

My beef is that Lew made his money, during a short break starting in 2006, from mostly government service, running a hedge fund for Citi that bet on the housing meltdown. (Also, I want Sheila Bair as SecTreas.)

However, Jacob Lew is an observant Jew. That will certainly fuel the myth that the 'Joos run all the banks' (Paulbot alert!).

Holder is staying for another year. The real nomination battle will be EPA!
That was pretty much Alan Dershowitz's reason for voting for Obama as well.
1 reply · active 5 hours ago
+3
yamama's avatar - Go to profileH
"he was going to win anyway" How stupid is that!
-2
Ed__EdD's avatar - Go to profile
Under Robert's Rules, one must be in the prevailing side of a vote in order to move to reconsider the vote at the next meeting. Hence if you know that your side is going to loose the vote anyway and hence your voting "against yourself" isn't going to make a difference, it is often wise to do so in order to be able to be able to make the motion to reconsider at the future date.

Ed Koch is 88 years old, and two years ago, Debbie Schlussel stated the opinion that he was *then* in "the early stages of dementia." See: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/36892/ed-koch-has-... So there may be some issues there -- along with the desire to return to the limelight in at least a little sense.

I see and respect Ms. Goodman's point -- but then there is the Faustian choice of if Obama was going to win anyway, would it better to be in a position to do what he is doing now, and speaking out in a way that he might not have been able to had he not campaigned for Obama?

Notwithstanding all the above, will Koch have traction with Jewish voters? Will he put the scare into the Pro Israel Democrats?
+4
S's avatar
S · 1 day ago
Carter lost a substantial number of the Jewish vote - people should not have figured that Obama was going to win and therefore vote for him. If the Jewish community would have stood together, it would have made a difference.
we ALL knew, Ed!
1 reply · active 8 hours ago
I didn't.

And I *have* done that trick of voting against myself so that I could make the motion to reconsider later.
Koch: "it wouldn’t make any difference.I thought it would be helpful to have a Jewish voice there, being able to communicate.” Even a member of the Lodz Judenrat couldn't have said it better.
4 replies · active 7 hours ago
-6
AntiProp's avatar - Go to profile
You should be ashamed of yourself for making this false and offensive comparison.
Let's remember that the members of the Judenrat also sincerely believed that they were acting for the greater good of the Jewish community.
-7
AntiProp's avatar - Go to profile
Ed Koch is not acting under threat of imprisonment, torture, or death, and Obama is not a Nazi. You should be equally ashamed of yourself for attempting to defend this indefensible statement.
-4
HillelA's avatar - Go to profile
"There is something almost charming about the left’s habit of using childish name-calling...."
-- Seth Mandel in Commentary
Whether it's because of advanced age or some other reason, Mr. Koch has become so adept at advancing specious arguments to justify his support for Barack Obama, I think he should be seriously considered for the next open cabinet position.
+30
rulieg's avatar - Go to profile
rulieg 81p · 1 day ago
I was stunned when I read Koch's article earlier today. "oh yeah, I knew he was gonna stab Israel in the back EVENTUALLY, I just didn't think it'd be right now" ???

welcome to liberal Judaism, 21st century style. whatever mental gyrations it takes to keep supporting Barack Obama shall be done.
1 reply · active 12 hours ago
Truly. Again, the term blackwhite comes to mind. Since I am not a Party member, it is not a compliment.
Koch should be (and no doubt is) ashamed. But nobody should have fallen for it. Obama's true nature as an isolationist appeaser has been clear from the start. Like all isolationists, he believes that the way to stay out of trouble is not to have allies count on you. And like all appeasers, he believes enemies can be appeased by "engaging" them while disengaging from allies.

This is looking like a replay of the Republican-led (and Democratic-followed) isolationism of the post-WWI years. Back then, the US decided France and Britain were the threat to European peace, and Germany was the power whose grievances needed to be appeased.

So, here we go again.
4 replies · active 4 hours ago
No, I think it is worse now -- if nothing else, imagine what Hitler could have done with a dozen laptop computers and basic copies of MicroSoft Office.
+3
Edward's avatar
Edward · 5 hours ago
I think you misunderstand Barack Obama. Obama is neither an appeaser nor an isolationist, rather, he is someone who believes that he is entitled to power regardless of his views or what the electorate really thinks. He appeases when he thinks that advances his power; he'll stand firm if he thinks that advances his power.

The Hagel nomination is his way to give the finger to anyone and everyone who has disagreed with his "policies" or his desire for power. He is saying, in effect, I won the election, so now I do whatever I want regardless of what I said on the campaign trail or in those cute electronic messages I sent you.

Voters either realized that this is the real Obama or they didn't. Those who realized the reality should, and probably did, vote for Romney, regardless of what they might have thought of Romney's policies. Those who didn't realize they were being conned owe the rest of us a bigger apology than Mayor Koch is offering here.

Face it guys, we now have a loose gun not just on deck but with his hands on the rudder.

SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL IS A BAD CHOICE TO SERVE AS DEFENSE SECRETARY

!!!!


Newsletter Logo facebook Logo twitter Logo
January 8, 2013 SHARE

Spoiling for a fight over Chuck Hagel

By Wes Pruden
If Barack Obama wants a fight over his appointment of Chuck Hagel as secretary of Defense, the Republicans have a constitutional responsibility to give him one.




The Senate’s role, to “advise and consent” to the appointment, is a description of duty, not a command to “echo and obey,” which is the president’s idea of how Congress should respond to all of his appointments, legislation, whims, wishes and dreams.
Mr. Obama, like all presidents, is entitled to choose his aides, helpers, assistants, deputies and seconds, subject to the advice of the Senate, and to consent once the senators are satisfied that the president knows what he’s doing. The rest of us have to depend on the judgment of the senators, frightening thought though that can be.


Mr. Hagel comes with some qualifications that commend him to all of us. He served two terms in the Senate, leaving with no moral or legal blemishes on his record – no scandal in a men’s room, no arrests for driving drunk or drugged, nor is he pursued by indictment for mis- or malfeasance of office. Congress often lives up to Mark Twain’s description of it as our native criminal class, but Mr. Hagel comes clean. There’s no paper on him. Unlike some of the chickenhawks in Washington, Democrat and Republican alike, Mr. Hagel never dodged putting on his country’s uniform. He returned from the Vietnam War a wounded hero, a grunt with two Purple Hearts.


Some other things in his record commend him to President Obama for the wrong reasons. They might make him the president’s soul mate, but such statements and sentiments have put him well outside the consensus of the rest of us. He has said harsh things in the past about Jews and Israel that the president would never have said, but might appreciate Mr. Hagel’s saying them.


Mr. Obama knows what’s coming once the Hagel hearings begin, and in introducing Mr. Hagel began slapping on the whitewash. “Chuck Hagel is the leader that our troops deserve,” he said. “He is an American patriot. As I saw during our visits together in Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops see a decorated combat veteran of character and strength. They see one of their own.”
All true, though the troops are always glad to see visitors from home and the president shouldn’t mistake good manners for rousing applause for the visitor’s views. No one suggests that Mr. Hagel is not an American or not a patriot, though trying to wrap another man’s patriotism around himself is not a persuasive presidential argument. We can stipulate that Chuck Hagel is no John Kerry, the president’s choice for secretary of State. Mr. Hagel did not return from the Vietnam war to libel American soldiers as killing brutes who mutilated and defiled enemy dead. Mr. Hagel will be asked to defend his judgment, not his patriotism. President Obama’s introduction of Mr. Hagel was a cheap shot aimed at anyone with a legitimate question about that judgment.


The president’s casting of his choice of Mr. Hagel as a stroke of bipartisanship, meant to soothe raw feelings of Republicans in the wake of the election, is neither a stroke of bipartisan bonhomie nor a proffered sip of soothing syrup. Mr. Hagel, who pointedly declined to endorse his old sometime friend John McCain in his 2008 race against Mr. Obama, long ago went over to warm himself at the enemy’s campfire. The Hagel nomination is a slap in the face, just as the president meant it to be.


Whatever else he is, Mr. Hagel is the president’s kind of Republican – he opposes tightening the screws of sanctions against Iran, he opposed the troop surge that finally turned the tide in Iraq, and, most of all, he makes all the right noises against America’s only reliable ally in the Middle East. He’s no friend of Israel and he’s no friend of America’s mission in the Middle East. There’s not enough whitewash in the White House tool shed to change that.



Former Sen. Chuck Hagel
The Republicans should avoid making the case against Chuck Hagel solely a case against his views on Israel, important as that will be. He obviously doesn’t like our ally in the Middle East very much, and he has made offensive remarks about Jews in America. But the case against making him the secretary of Defense is much larger than that. He may be just the man to serve up a dish of crow to his old Republican friends, but he’s the wrong man for America.




Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.



THE EDUCATION OF JOHN BOEHNER BY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

!!!!


OPINION

The Education of John Boehner

Leverage for the next clash: GOP willingness to let the spending sequester take effect.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

What stunned House Speaker John Boehner more than anything else during his prolonged closed-door budget negotiations with Barack Obama was this revelation: "At one point several weeks ago," Mr. Boehner says, "the president said to me, 'We don't have a spending problem.' "


I am talking to Mr. Boehner in his office on the second floor of the Capitol, 72 hours after the historic House vote to take America off the so-called fiscal cliff by making permanent the Bush tax cuts on most Americans, but also to raise taxes on high earners. In the interim, Mr. Boehner had been elected to serve his second term as speaker of the House. Throughout our hourlong conversation, as is his custom, he takes long drags on one cigarette after another.


Mr. Boehner looks battle weary from five weeks of grappling with the White House. He's frustrated that the final deal failed to make progress toward his primary goal of "making a down payment on solving the debt crisis and setting a path to get real entitlement reform." At one point he grimly says: "I need this job like I need a hole in the head."


The president's insistence that Washington doesn't have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called "a health-care problem." Mr. Boehner says that after he recovered from his astonishment—"They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system"—he replied: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem." He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: "I'm getting tired of hearing you say that."


With the two sides so far from agreeing even on the nature of the country's fiscal challenge, making progress on how to address it was difficult. Mr. Boehner became so agitated with the lack of progress that he cursed at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Those days after Christmas," he explains, "I was in Ohio, and Harry's on the Senate floor calling me a dictator and all kinds of nasty things. You know, I don't lose my temper. I never do. But I was shocked at what Harry was saying about me. I came back to town. Saw Harry at the White House. And that was when that was said," he says, referring to a pointed "go [blank] yourself" addressed to Mr. Reid.


Related video

Editorial board member Steve Moore on his interview with Speaker John Boehner and President Obama's denial that Washington has a spending problem. Photo credit: Associate Press.



Mr. Boehner confirms that at one critical juncture he asked Mr. Obama, after conceding on $800 billion in new taxes, "What am I getting?" and the president replied: "You don't get anything for it. I'm taking that anyway."


Why has the president been such an immovable force when it comes to cutting spending? "Two reasons," Mr. Boehner says. "He's so ideological himself, and he's unwilling to take on the left wing of his own party." That reluctance explains why Mr. Obama originally agreed with the Boehner proposal to raise the retirement age for Medicare, the speaker says, but then "pulled back. He admitted in meetings that he couldn't sell things to his own members. But he didn't even want to try."


Mr. Boehner is frustrated that Republicans were portrayed by the press as dogmatic and unyielding in these talks. "I'm the guy who put revenues on the table the day after the election," he says. "And I'm the guy who put the [income] threshold at a million dollars. Then we agreed to let the rates go up, on dividends, capital gains as a way of trying to move them into a deal. . . . But we could never get him to step up," Mr. Boehner says with a shrug. Negotiations with the White House ended in stalemate when "it became painfully obvious that the president won't cut spending."


Once the talks broke down, the eventual scaled-back deal with no spending cuts was brokered by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, with Mr. Boehner on the sidelines. He says that after the tax package passed the Senate, the House Republican caucus debated two alternatives. One was to amend the Senate bill by attaching spending cuts, and the other was to vote up or down on the Senate bill.


"We were already off the cliff," he says of the rushed Jan. 1 vote, and he feared that a no vote would do "serious damage to the economy." He denies twisting arms to win passage. Even though a majority of Republicans voted no, and he took flak from conservative groups as a sellout, "in the end, most of our members wanted this to pass, but they didn't want to vote for it."


In hindsight, what does he think was his biggest strategic mistake? "What I should have done the day after the election was to come out and say: The House has done its work. The House passed a bill that replaced the sequester with real spending cuts. The House passed a plan extending all of the current tax rates. We passed a budget. We call upon the Senate to do their work."


The left has been crowing that it walked away with the crown jewels and forced Republicans to cave on their "no new taxes" principle. Mr. Boehner sees things differently: "The law of the land was that all of the rates were going up January 1, period. So the question was, were we going to cut taxes by $3.7 trillion."


He's no cheerleader for the final deal—he derides the special-interest corporate-tax provisions as containing "an awful lot of garbage" and grouses about "extending unemployment without further reforms"—but he defends it as the best bad outcome that could have been expected: "Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn't get that. And so, not bad."


Where does the fiscal debate go from here? The speaker is adamant on two points: First, Republicans won't be agreeing to any more tax increases during the next two years. "The tax issue is resolved," he says, and it will be discussed only in the context of a broader debate about tax reform—specifically, lower rates. He dismisses the president's declaration that any future budget cuts will have to be "balanced" with more tax hikes.


Second, Mr. Boehner says he won't engage in any more closed-door budget negotiations with the White House, which are "futile." He adds: "Sure, I will meet with the president if he wants to," but House Republicans will from now on proceed with establishing a budget for the year following what is known as "regular order," and they will insist that Harry Reid and Senate Democrats pass a budget—something they haven't done in nearly four years—before proceeding.

The real showdown will be on the debt ceiling and the spending sequester in March. I ask Mr. Boehner if he will take the debt-ceiling talks to the brink—risking a government shutdown and debt downgrade from the credit agencies—given that it didn't work in 2011 and President Obama has said he won't bargain on the matter.


The debt bill is "one point of leverage," Mr. Boehner says, but he also hedges, noting that it is "not the ultimate leverage." He says that Republicans won't back down from the so-called Boehner rule: that every dollar of raising the debt ceiling will require one dollar of spending cuts over the next 10 years. Rather than forcing a deal, the insistence may result in a series of monthly debt-ceiling increases.



Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
The speaker of the House on his way to the budget vote, Jan. 1.



The Republicans' stronger card, Mr. Boehner believes, will be the automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs—defense and domestic. It now appears that the president made a severe political miscalculation when he came up with the sequester idea in 2011.
As Mr. Boehner tells the story: Mr. Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester—the other "cliff"—because it included deep defense cuts. But Republicans never raised the issue. "It wasn't until literally last week that the White House brought up replacing the sequester," Mr. Boehner says. "They said, 'We can't have the sequester.' They were always counting on us to bring this to the table."


Mr. Boehner says he has significant Republican support, including GOP defense hawks, on his side for letting the sequester do its work. "I got that in my back pocket," the speaker says. He is counting on the president's liberal base putting pressure on him when cherished domestic programs face the sequester's sharp knife. Republican willingness to support the sequester, Mr. Boehner says, is "as much leverage as we're going to get."


That leverage, he reasons, is what will force Democrats to the table on entitlements. "Think of it this way. We already have an agreement [capping] discretionary spending for 10 years. And we're already in our second year of it. This whole discussion on the budget over the next several months is going to be about these entitlements."


Given the bruising of the past several weeks, Mr. Boehner is surprisingly optimistic about getting a deal done on corporate and personal income-tax reform. "The president understands the need for tax reform," he says. "The president admitted . . . in the first meeting that we needed to do tax reform, and he was for a tax reform process that would lower rates."


Mr. Boehner sees Republicans with two goals: lowering tax rates and closing loopholes, as happened in 1986, and equalizing tax rates between small businesses and large corporations. His optimism that Democrats will agree to that framework seems Pollyannish since they are now advocating closing loopholes to raise revenues—without lowering rates.


The driving passion for Mr. Boehner in these fiscal debates is his conviction that trillion-dollar deficits are sapping the country of its energy and prosperity. When I ask him when the impact of this debt will start to be felt, he says: "It's already here today. It's killing our economy. It's causing investors to sit on their cash. They're afraid to invest. It's a wet blanket on top of our economy."
He sees debt as almost a moral failing, noting that when he grew up in a "little middle-class, blue-collar neighborhood" outside of Cincinnati, "nobody had debt. It was unheard of. I just don't do debt."


Mr. Boehner says that the only way to build long-term economic growth is to reduce the nation's debt through entitlement and tax reform. But can such a deal be achieved with a president who doesn't even think that Washington has a spending problem? "He believes in the power of government," Mr. Boehner answers. "I believe in the power of the American people. It is really that simple." And really that difficult.
 


Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.


A version of this article appeared January 7, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Education of John Boehner.