In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Saturday, July 13, 2024

Boehner: ‘We need to repeal old laws, not pass new ones’

John Boehner's words of less than wisdom:  "Let's repeal old laws, not pass new ones" (AP Photo/Scott Applewhite)
John Boehner’s words of less than wisdom: “Let’s repeal old laws, not pass new ones” (AP Photo/Scott Applewhite)

John Boehner, the always questionable, often irrational Speaker of the House, says Congress should be in the job of repealing laws, not passing new ones.

“We ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal,” Boehner says in an interview scheduled to be aired on CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

Responding to a question about how little Congress is doing when it comes to passing laws to help the nation, Boehner said the House of Representatives that his party controls with an iron hand “should not be judged by how many laws we create.”

Typical Boehner. He often maintains, the measure for success should be how many laws Congress can get rid of, especially any laws created since Barack Obama became President.

Under Boehner’s questionable leadership, the House of Representatives had passed more than one attempt to repeal Obamacare, a wasted effort that always fails to pass the Senate.

Such actions, Boehner claims, is what Congress should be doing.

Boehner claims America has “more laws than the administration could ever enforce.”

He admits his view may be unpopular because this country has a divided government. Boehner says he and his allies in Congress are fighting for what they believe in. And he adds — quote — “Sometimes the American people don’t like this mess.

He failed to admit, however, that his “leadership” in the House created much of the mess that is the hallmark of his party.


Copyright  © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue

Enhanced by Zemanta

10 thoughts on “Boehner: ‘We need to repeal old laws, not pass new ones’”

  1. No ! ‘ BONER ‘ !….Unless I Slept through Civics Class….

    YOUR Job is to CREATE LAWS ! that GOVERN a Democracy !

    It’s The Supreme ‘ Kangaroo ‘ Courts’ Job to REPEAL LAWS ! ( Or Accept Them ).

    NOT to have The Answer : ‘ NO ! ‘ ….Because YOU,and the Rest of Your T.E.A. Bagging/Rascist/Fascist/Goose-stepping/LUNATICS on the Right (sic)….

    DON’T like who’s in The Oval Office !….Which The Country TWICE VOTED in by a LANDSLIDE !

    But don’t let the FACTS stop YOU EVIL ! Rat Bastards !

    The Country is Changing !….No matter how hard YOU S.O.B.’s on The Right TRY to SUPPRESS VOTER RIGHTS !….Women RIGHTS !….Trying to DESTROY Labor Union’s !….Trying to Destroy The Dept. of Education ! ( Because YOU want a Nation of Morons ! ).

    Who ONLY Watch False News,and LISTEN to the Right-Wing Noise Machine on The Radio !

    I’ll say this Again ! : It IS in Human Nature to PROGRESS FORWARD ! ( NOT Backwards ! ).

    And One way,or the Other….WE WILL Drag YOUR @SSES ! into the 21 Century !

    Wether you Like it ?….Or NOT !
    ” EVIL Flourishes when Good People Do NOTHING ! “—-Edmund Burke

  2. My understanding is that when a piece is authored “by Capitol Hill Blue” it is an editorial, therefore it is meant to be opinion, and it is not anonymous.

    This is standard practice in the print and online news media. See, for example EDITORIAL
    Justice Sequestered
    in today’s New York Times. Perhaps CHB needs to spell this out more explicitly like the NYT does.

    I don’t know if this editorial was changed since you wrote this. I did listen to his interview and I don’t see anything here that is misquoted.

    • Hal, the story was mine and carried my byline along with the identification that I write for “Capitol Hill Blue.” I think there was a database problem when it was first published and only “Capitol Hill Blue” appeared as the byline. Even so, as you correctly pointed out, it was never anonymous. Such facts, I believe, do not matter to Woody. I edited his comment because his claim that it was “anonymous” was misinformation.

      • If you guys made a mistake, so be it. It was not clear which of the 6 people on staff wrote the article, hence the “anonymous” writer. I found it ironic due to your own complaining about anonymous posters.

        Also, we don’t normally see other staff doing editorials other than Doug, and this story did not have Doug’s name on it, nor was it, or is it currently filed in the “Doug Thompson” category.

        Hal, your examples prove my point. The example clearly states “EDITORIAL” and “By THE EDITORIAL BOARD” whereas the by line on this story only indicated “Capitol Hill Blue” prior to Doug fixing the error.

        One of my biggest issues with this article:

        Instead, he maintains, the measure for success should be how many laws Congress can get rid of, especially any laws created since Barack Obama became President.

        Makes it sound like Boehner said he especially tries to repeal Obama’s laws, which is not what he said.

        I think maybe the problem is that I care too much, and it’s probably time for me to take another long break from this site.

  3. I don’t care for Boehner’s House leadership or lack thereof I should say, but on this one, I think he’s dead spot-on.

    Congress continues to pass laws willy nilly without countenancing the fact it costs big bucks to enforce them that we just don’t have in these times.

    Enforcement is not cheap and the U.S. is virtually top heavy with enforcement entities across all agencies.

    There’s thousands of laws on the books that have proven to be impotent and not cost effective in terms of “bang for the buck” (old defensse dept. phrase). Obamacare, now looming on the horizon is going to be an example of a megabust in terms of cost effectiveness vs. efficacy for improved medical coverage. It’s a byzantine nightmare that’s also going to cause even more unemployment and hardship due to companies already moving many fulltime workers to part time status, less than 20 hours per week. I’ve had small business owners disclose such to me.

    Too bad his idea concerning this issue cannot and will not be implemented.

    Carl Nemo **==

  4. I was struck by his comments too. He wants us to believe that the only legislation Congress passes requires enforcement.

    The word “enforcement” is meant to inflame the emotions of those who are concerned about government overreach and intrusion into our private lives.

    Of course he doesn’t care about that. He does care about government regulation of corporate America.

    But then again:

    “Corporations!” a protester shouted, apparently urging Romney to raise taxes on corporations that have benefited from loopholes in the tax code. “Corporations!”

    “Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

    Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!”

    “Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?” Article, Washington Post

    Does this 22 year veteran of the House not know that much, if not most, legislation requires implementation rather than enforcement?

Comments are closed.