Like Reagan at Reykjavik, Boehner passes on a bad deal

July 10, 2011

So in the end, it was bit of a Ronald Reagan moment for John Boehner on Saturday. Just as the U.S. president walked away from a bad arms control agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland in 1986, the House speaker passed on President Barack Obama’s mega-debt reduction deal in Washington.

In both case, the asking price was just too high. For Reagan, it was lethal limitations on his Strategic Defense Initiative. For Boehner, it was a trillion-dollar tax distraction from America’s true fiscal threat: spending run amok: “Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes.”

A GOP congressional source was a bit less diplomatic, telling me Saturday afternoon via email:

Their fierce insistence on higher taxes is beyond bizarre. After months of demanding ‘clean’ increase to avert economic calamity (default), WH threatens economic calamity (default) unless they get economic calamity (trillions in tax hikes). No wonder these guys are governing over an economic calamity (9.2% & growth malaise), w/ an economic calamity on the horizon (debt explosion as mapped out in president’s budget). The bipartisan consensus on tax reform (broader base & lower rates) was championed by President’s fiscal commission, and yet now is being rebuked by the President. Lowering top rates that would help make America more competitive was too large a leap for a true class warrior.

Indeed, as negotiations wore on, Obama got tougher on taxes (pushed hard by the hard left), and the deal he was cooking up almost certainly wouldn’t have been revenue neutral as he tweaked rates and reduced tax deductions. Not even close. Nor did it help that Obama reportedly balked at a spending-cut trigger if certainly tax reforms were not completed.

Or maybe Boehner also realized he was becoming a role player in an Obama-directed drama whose dramatic focus was securing a second-term for Obama. Either Obama got his big tax-hike deal and a) created a tea party revolt in the GOP, b) looked like a statesmen and c) partially deprived Republicans of a valuable line of attack in 2012 … or there was no deal, and Obama could hammer the GOP until Election Day for caring more about tax cuts for the rich than fiscal responsibility.

Boehner apparently will take his chances with door #2 and push for a roughly $2.4 trillion deal (with a debt ceiling hike, too) based on spending cuts already agreed to and some non-tax revenue raisers. Deeper spending cuts and structural entitlement reform would be better, but that is going to have to be a 2013 thing. Indeed, what entitlement reforms Obama was agreeing to were insufficient to Republicans.

Indeed, there were arms control agreements after Reykjavik, just as there will assuredly be more debt deals in the future. There must be or, as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts, debt as a share of GDP will explode from 70 percent today to as high as 250 percent by 2035 — assuming no economic implosion first. And no amount of tax increases will stop that. Some will push for just such options, of course. Liberal think tanks are devising plans to increase the total U.S. tax burden by at least 30 percent or more over the next two decades.

The other course is to reform entitlements and boost revenue by growing the economy faster. Boehner and the GOP, hopefully, took a step in that direction on Saturday and will take another one when they meet with Obama Sunday night.

 

52 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

[...] to Know Sunday EditionThe debt ceiling talks will likely continue well into the evening tonight after the talks pretty much imploded late last night. Here are a couple or three points to remember.1) Do not trust anything the MSM says about John [...]

[...] Writes James Pethokoukis: [...] maybe Boehner [...] realized he was becoming a role player in an Obama-directed drama whose dramatic focus was securing a second-term for Obama. Either Obama got his big tax-hike deal and a) created a tea party revolt in the GOP, b) looked like a statesmen and c) partially deprived Republicans of a valuable line of attack in 2012 … or there was no deal, and Obama could hammer the GOP until Election Day for caring more about tax cuts for the rich than fiscal responsibility. [...]

[...] with the same concerns (and even the same Reykjavik analogy) that we have expressed here. His update on John Boehner’s “Reykjavik moment” is most notable for the message he quotes [...]

[...] as James Pethokoukis (who beat the establishment media like a drum on this story) suggests, there is little political [...]

[...] the right, meanwhile, James Pethokoukis compared Boehner walking away from this long-term deal to Reagan walking away from a “bad [...]

[...] who doubt should at least read Pethokoukis’s latest from early this morning, which references a real source this time, before concluding that all is [...]

I know your you’re too young to remember, but it’s amusing to read about how important it was to preserve SDI.

Posted by nickindc | Report as abusive

Wow, and I thought CARTER sucked.

Posted by Bbcfunguy | Report as abusive

Boehner never really wanted a compromise; this is about capitulation so that Republicans could pin an economic collapse on Democrats for not agreeing to cuts faster.

So let’s agree to disagree and let the default occur, and see what happens. Republicans like Ron Paul seem to think it’ll be good for the US; Paul Ryan’s bill was only slightly smaller in cuts than an outright default.

Let’s do it. We’ll let the cards fall where they may, and we’ll line up the losers and kick them out of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court for the next 50 years.

I’m tired of this tit for tat rhetorical fight; we’re going to test a pure Libertarian idea. Who’s with me?

:D

Posted by GRRR | Report as abusive

[...] spirit of the Gipper lives, Speaker Boehner walking away from bad deal from James Pethokoukis, Reuters: So in the end, it was bit of a Ronald Reagan moment for John Boehner on Saturday. Just as the U.S. [...]

The Republicans need something to say “no” to since they haven’t held the cards in four years now. Please don’t forget folks who got us into two wars simultaneously, that have cost trillions of dollars, and W declared victory just months after one began on the hull of an aircraft carier. That same war the “Republicans” declared victory on, is still on-going a decade later. They are short-sighted idiots who really don’t deserve to be making laws for the rest of us, and more importantly their guidance on every major isuue, has proven to be wrong and costly.

Posted by schmetterling | Report as abusive

If nothing else the Republicans seem short on compromise. You know, the old notion that each side gives a little to reach a beneficial agreement. From a purely non-partisan perspective, it does appear that in this case the Democrats have capitulated on some points, while the Republicans have yielded little.

Posted by Marla | Report as abusive

WOW. The people with the most decadent lifestyle in the world, and in history, are still not happy.

Friend of mine crossed the US in a caravan for his honeymoon and couldn’t believe how delapidated the whole place looked. Almost spoiled his holiday. Yet you have people who own islands or have 150 cars in the garage, who don’t want to pay a penny more in taxes in order to save their own country.

Ice age, please come! Lets have the dinosaurs back. No matter what anyone else tells me, they must have been smarter than the human race.

Posted by Rhino1 | Report as abusive

The right-wing article of faith dutifully repeated here by Mr. Pethokoukis, that our problem is runaway government spending, is simply not supported by any facts. The only fact ever cited to support this article of faith is the fact that the federal government spends money. However, it is a fact that the trillion dollar Bush tax cuts, recently extended, created a trillion dollar annual deficit. It is also a fact that, with those tax cuts, taxes in the US are the lowest in almost a century and nearly the lowest in the world. It is also a fact that low taxes remove incentives for companies to hire (because the value of the deduction declines). It is also a fact that, prior to the Bush tax cuts, we had an annual surplus. So, I understand the faith-based message that “we have a spending problem”, but that message does not line up with the facts.

Posted by yrbmegr | Report as abusive

“So let’s agree to disagree and let the default occur, and see what happens.”
Be careful. You might get what you wish for.

Posted by jhchang | Report as abusive

Just like there are two sides to weight loss (calories consumed and calories burned) there are two sides to our debt problem (revenue and expenditures). Why is the GOP only able to see one side? Oh yea, the corporations and the rich own them and won’t let them see the revenue side. Oh, and just so we don’t get way too delusional as this article is, SDI NEVER WORKED. After spending 20-30 billion dollars a year for 3 decades, it still does not work, and that had NOTHING to do with the Russians. Couldn’t we have used this money instead to reduce expenditures?

Posted by possibilianP | Report as abusive

Reuters, I understand that this is an opinion piece, but does Pethokoukis add anything to our national conversation that Fox NEWS doesn’t already cover? I come to this site because it’s the last bastion of unbiased coverage on the web. You don’t lean left or right. You report the facts. Printing opinion pieces like this just undermines that distinction. Please show this guy the door.

Posted by TrueIronPatriot | Report as abusive

Republicans do not want to stop runaway spending at all. They just want to stop runaway spending on the American people as a whole. They need those FICA taxes to pay for another invasion and another 20 years of war on the Muslims. Don’t you get it? Taxes are the price we pay for a foot on our necks.

All this is political burlesque for the gullible masses. You are being duped. They have the same agenda and it is not to benefit you.

Posted by txgadfly | Report as abusive

This article is certainly right-wing. I am an independent and don’t think partisanship works in Washington in the past, today or tomorrow.

Republican President Ronald Reagan, while being a conservative, promoted bipartisanship such as Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives sat together, instead of party lines.

This article promoting partisanship is not suitable to Washington politics today.

Compromises must be made by both Democratic Party and Republican Party. And what Obama has been touting is closing the tax break loopholes.

While I’m not leaning toward Democrats, I just want to highlight Republican should also compromise instead of simply attacking Democrats as Democrats compromised to cut spending deeper and also reform Social Security to a certain extent.

A curious question: It was Republicans who champion deep spending cuts, but now Obama wants a $4 trillion cut while John Boehner scales back to a $2 trillion spending cut?

Isn’t John Boehner inconsistent?

Now a fiscal conservative scales back deficit cutting…

Posted by danieltsang | Report as abusive

Pethokoukis, I’ll bet your favorite gig in the MSM circus is Fox News. Am I right? There is nothing non-ideological in this piece, meaning there is nothing in this piece of value to anyone actually concerned with the present economic situation. This piece is pulp.

Your “GOP source” is barely literate (was it Palin?), and the commentary (“Carter sucked”, “Obama sucks”) is perfectly suited to this piece. What a waste of time.

Posted by BowMtnSpirit | Report as abusive

When Pethokoukis separates from Reuters for whatever reason, I know he’ll find a happy home at Fox News.

Sheesh…I agree with TrueIronPatriot – the bias bleeds on this one.

Posted by snarkus | Report as abusive

“prior to the Bush tax cuts, we had an annual surplus”

It’s long past time for this silly leftoid fantasy to die.

There have been some federal budget surpluses in the past, but they’re worthless – of interest only to accountants. The budget (when the government even has one) is merely what they admit to planning to spend vs. revenue they hope will come in. The nasty habit of moving embarrassing expenses (like, say, the Post Office) “off budget” moves the budget numbers even further into fantasy land.

The important number is expenditures vs. revenue. The difference between those two is either the year’s deficit, or a surplus. These figures are published annually by the Treasury. The US hasn’t had a surplus since 1957. Since then, nothing but red ink; some years redder than others, of course.

Can’t blame any of that on Bush.

Posted by sauer38h | Report as abusive

[...] It’s times like these when I envy wingers their delusions a bit. Jimmy P thinks that Boehner is now the second coming of Ronaldus Maximus: [...]

I’m glad that you inserted the GOP news blast verbatim, to show the true slant of your opinion. To blame the Obama administration for the calamity is akin to blaming the weatherman for the weather. To be fair, President Reagan was blamed unfairly for the recession of the eighties, yet rightfully blamed for the failure of Reaganomics to cure the problem (10% & growth malaise, to keep the phrasing).

America’s recession is due to credit withdrawal due to a lack of oversight on banking regulations. This is a massive version of the Savings and Loans collapse, which was a massive bailout/handout to rich guys during the Reagan administration (wasn’t that W’s brother, Neil Bush, who cost us $1.3 billion for the failed Silverado S&L?). It was Reagan approved laws (‘deregulation’) which allowed for S&L’s to appraise their own loans, allowing for a credit bubble similar, but smaller than today’s.

And let’s revisit that Reykjavik Reagan victory, shall we? The deal that was on the table was the reduction of ALL nuclear weapons systems (not some watered down removal of outdated medium range weapons). Reagan was sure either Gorbachev was either up to no good or terrified of SDI, or both. But Gorbachev was trying to prevent a meltdown of the Soviet economy, and not paying for maintenance of a nuclear arsenal was a good starting point. So Reagan backed out on a truly historical accord to protect a billion dollar boondoggle. Seriously, how many billions have been spent on SDI and it still doesn’t work? To protect us from the handful of Chinese or rusting Soviet ICBMs, all of which could have been disposed of at Reykjavik? Those weapons which we now fear more as terrorist opportunities than as military threats? Could you imagine the international pressure that could be brought to bear on North Korea for testing an ICBM if both Russia and the US had terminated their programs? Reykjavik was the true opportunity to beat swords into plowshares, and is a dismal reminder of how politicians in the past have failed to seize historical opportunities because they felt that they sounded like a bad deal. Thank you, Mr. Pethokoukis, of reminding us of The Golden Age of Reagan and reminding us of how we both failed to grasp an opportunity and failed to learn from our mistakes, so that we continue to pay for them.

PS… the cost of maintaining those 450, 30+ year old ICBMs is around $5 billion.

Posted by Mike_s1 | Report as abusive

I stopped reading after the second paragraph: “It was a trillion-dollar tax distraction from America’s true fiscal threat.”

eerr what? I never realized cutting tax loopholes in the estimated worth of $400 billion logically lead to Trillion+ dollars… Did you even study math?

Also, take a look at the nonpartisan CBO’s release on the fiscal situation with the U.S. before making such problematic statements. Such garbage like this opinion piece is one reason why we Americans can never have a clear, honest debate about anything dealing with our government. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc1221 2/06-21-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf

also, we can’t be “revenue neutral.” How do you expect to pay off debts when all you’re doing every year is just equaling everything to 0. Where does the money come from to contribute to paying down the national debt? This is the biggest problem with these arguments: THEY DO NOT MAKE MATHEMATICAL SENSE.

When your starting point is -15 and you earn 3 every year and give out 3 every year, you’re still left with -15… (3+(-3)-15 = -15)

Posted by mr.geopolitical | Report as abusive

I am warning you Reuters, I came to this site specifically to get away from hack journalism like this. Ask your commentators to explain their position in a less childish and partisan manner.

Posted by Aristocrat | Report as abusive

This article is a pathetic piece of propaganda. Mr. Pethokoukis comes from the Northwestern machiavellian school of journalism. He insults the intelligence of the Reuters readership. Get your facts right Mr. Pee, the SDI was a piece of humbug just like your article. It was a fantasy cooked up by a Hollywood actor. It is still a fantasy. The Soviets got conned. Just like you are trying to con the public. If the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes, the result will be a country like Greece.

Posted by middleterm | Report as abusive

middleterm-

I always get a chuckle when people like you say stuff like ‘If the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes…’

According to the IRS, the top 10% of income earners in the U.S. pay 68% of income taxes.

Posted by jambrytay | Report as abusive

so what does that prove?

Posted by middleterm | Report as abusive

so what does that prove?

Posted by middleterm | Report as abusive

It’s the Republicans who are beyond bizarre in this mess, unwilling to negotiate and split the difference, unwilling to accept a real, truly serious debt reduction package, and all because they don’t want to pay a little more in taxes.

But what do they care? They get what they want either way. If the debt ceiling is not raised, its Social Security and Medicare that will suffer draconian cuts in the end. But if their debt package is accepted, its Social Security and Medicare that will suffer the most cuts. The only way they lose is if they accept a tax increase.

And for this, they are willing to nuke the USA’s credit rating.

Posted by AllForLight | Report as abusive

if 68% is not enough, what would you propose the top 10% pay?

Posted by jambrytay | Report as abusive

Obama just says he does NOT raise taxes for the sake of raising taxes.

He said in reducing deficit without raising revenue, as Republicans intend to do, will mean deeper cuts to Americans, public service, etc.

Why the author continues to dismiss this?

And some Republicans are really insane in saying defaulting won’t pose any problem after all the stark warnings from Treasury, S&P, Moody’s…

After all, the US financial system is founded on “credit”.

With US holding its AAA credit rating for 235 years since 1776, the US government is the safest borrower.

If the safest borrower suddenly defaults, what should bankers in Wall Street think, huh?

The 2007-2009 financial meltdown was solely owing to a “credit” crisis, no one was willing to lend Lehman Brothers money and Barclays walked away without US government guarantee.

Now, Republicans are politicians who are closer to Wall Street, so what does it prove when Republicans say defaulting doesn’t cause any problem?

That alone speaks volume, though.

Posted by danieltsang | Report as abusive

And here I thought Reuters was one of the few non-partisan news sites out there. Guess I’ll have to keep looking after this one-sided article.

FYI-post WWII, you know, during an economic recovery, the debt increased to 120% of GDP. Also, how is the government supposed to create more jobs with less money? I love how Corps are flush with cash but aren’t creating any jobs, just buying out competitors and eliminating more jobs.

We NEED a return to the historically normal rate of taxes on the rich or we are all doomed.

Posted by TikoBroje | Report as abusive

The last time i bothered to listen to the pundits, just before the great collapse, they were telling us all that everything was going great. Then as soon as the calamity fell upon us they started screaming that the sky was falling. Hmm, when are these people like the writer of this column going to get a real job and do something useful, like picking garbage?

Posted by ofilha | Report as abusive

Why is no one raising the simple fact this whole mess is from 2 unfunded wars? Wars that made huge profits.

Why spiral our children into a 3rd world country with no education, infrastructure or moral responsibility just for the sake of paying off a war that made a select few very rich?

We cannot tax these sacred cows – because they are master manipulators who have tied their taxes to the belief that reduced corporate taxes trickle down to the people to pay for their education, infrastructure and moral responsibility. NOT!

We are not the brave new America of freedom. We have sunk back to a class society very quickly and it will stay that way. The US constitution was a brief dream that no longer exists.

Posted by Butch_from_PA | Report as abusive

IF the republicans do not compromise there will be a default and US debt will never again be trusted. I find it hard to believe that the GOP, after destroying the economy in 2008, would try to make things worse, perhaps terminally worse.

Posted by wyldbill | Report as abusive

The best thing for the majority of Americans would be a default. Then they would have to stop our 3 current wars. Nothing else will make them stop. And they cannot tell you the difference between “victory” and “obedience”.

Let them default. They already are going to default on Social Security and Medicare. Why not the rest of their obligations?

Posted by txgadfly | Report as abusive

Obama – what ever happens I support you.

Posted by uc8tcme | Report as abusive

https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A %2F%2Fb.rw%2Fhuf4Vj&h=qAQCmodD2

Reuters, please terminate the hack journalist: James Pethokoukis. I cannot find one cogent argument in his “analysis” piece. My analysis is Pethokoukis = FAIL.

Posted by gurari | Report as abusive

America was built on credit and investments from “old money” in Europe. A “Democracy” was born with no agreeable monetary structure or controls.
Federalism was created to support a central bank. The country grew on credit but did not provide anything in the form of social services for the sick and poor. Barons were created that cornered most of the wealth and built American Castles. Sweatshops and low wages prevailed
Barons were all too happy to sell and extend credit and the country grew but fought like hell when social responsibility was raising its head.
Unions were created and medical care was made available but at a cost the Barons were not willing to keep providing.
Along comes “Free Trade” and provides an out to rid the Barons of workers that feel entitled to social services.
Now the Barons have their golden opportunity to cut entitlements to the bone under the premise that more money in their pockets relates to more jobs.
They will invest that money in China, Viet Nam and India and keep the profits overseas until the next “tax amnesty” rolls around.
This cycle will never be broken again.

Posted by rcd1160 | Report as abusive

The top 10% pay 68% of income taxes.
What an asnine statement.
That group of people make 500% + more than the average worker.

Posted by rcd1160 | Report as abusive

I see the Kos Kids have shown up.

The article discusses why Boehner thought he had to step away from the deal. How could it not be an article with a “right-wing” view?

Posted by SqueakScolari | Report as abusive

[...] if the big deal is somewhat less than ideological pure. For an example of what I mean, consider this line from James Pethokoukis, hailing John Boehner for pulling a Reagan at Reykjavik and walking away from the lure of a big [...]

[...] that would help make America more competitive was too large a leap for a true class warrior." James Pethokoukis | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com (emphasis mine) __________________ People are most conservative on issues that they know most [...]

once again this idiot displays his fox news mentality. Give me a freakin break!

Posted by UCantBeSerious | Report as abusive

why not go back and pass Obama original budget that was voted 97-0 and see where the country goes. That would show his true leadership skills wouldn’t it?

Posted by gdog1961 | Report as abusive

This guy, Pethokoukis, should be working for Rupert. If I wanted to read this GOP tripe I would watch the Fox propaganda channel.

Posted by actualtaxavoter | Report as abusive

What a Republican Shill!!!

Dear James…could you be more of a partisan hack?

What about the two wars? the record expansion of government under the Homeland Defense umbrella? What about Medicare Part D?

You fail to mention the costs of these issues that were set in motion under Republicans and account for a huge portion of our current out of control spending.

The wars alone account for $3.7 Trillion and 26% of the National Debt!!!

No-tax-and-spend Republicans did it again.

Now they are working feverishly to blame it on Obama and use it as cause to eliminate/destroy all social programs.

Partisan hack job, nothing less.

Posted by NobleKin | Report as abusive

I don’t do a lick with my millions to hire new jobs and why should I have to? That’s forced socialism. I make tens of millions off the small workforce I have, and I deserve every penny, and none of you people sucking at the hog’s teet deserve any of it. I’m rich and the GOP stands up for me as a taxpayer, and that’s why they’ll keep getting my donations, better them than some charity that just gives it to people who should be working but won’t.

ROMNEY 2012

Posted by horriblepeople | Report as abusive

Enough with taking care of the old and disabled. I make my money fair and square, I want it for me! I don’t want my tax cuts removed because bleeding hearts want to help a bunch of lazy people.

Romney 2012

Posted by horriblepeople | Report as abusive

What a contrived story.

The problem is Boehner is not a leader, he is just a spokesman. He has no sway over his caucus and thus is just spouting platitudes.

Is this Fox news or what?

Posted by PacificView | Report as abusive

SDI important to preserve? Are you kidding? Do you understand the technology involved? LOL. Had Reagan pulled off that accord the world would be far different and less threatening place. I agree with many of the posts here..James you are a hack and your opinion is literally worthelss. I come to reuters for news and business perspective NOT dribble from a young man who obviously has little grasp of history, politics, or economics. I never post here so this is a first for me.

Posted by thepoet45h | Report as abusive

if the top 10% pay 68% of taxes and make 90% of the money they’re not paying enough. Republicans compromise is “I want it all my way”.

Posted by kehenalife | Report as abusive

Ok, top 10% pay 68% of all income tax receipts – but they make 95% of all the income… THERE is your disparity pal. If you want a flat tax, I’m all for it as long as there is an exemption for people making 20% less than the median income (which would roughly translate to $20k/yr). The magic number for govt budget as a slice of GDP is 18-20%, so we make the flat tax rate 20% with no loopholes period (except for the poor exemption) and THEN you can take the moral high ground about cutting expenditures. Right now govt revenues as a ratio of GDP is 13.6%

Posted by CDN_Rebel | Report as abusive

“if 68% is not enough, what would you propose the top 10% pay?”

Well, being that they own about 75% of the wealth in this country, that would be a good place to start.

Posted by 4ngry4merican | Report as abusive

comparing the current debt ceiling/spending/income brouhaha to Reykjavik is pure bovine feces.

Posted by nemo999 | Report as abusive

“if 68% is not enough, what would you propose the top 10% pay?”

“Well, being that they own about 75% of the wealth in this country, that would be a good place to start.”

This is a specious argument. It also is classic class war—-anyone with money must give it away. How about this for your communist brain: All those without the 75% of money work for free since they have no income to tax and the top ten percent get their taxes raised by the 90%’s average gross output/income. That is simply fair.

Posted by ghostinmachine | Report as abusive

Evidently 68% is not enough…to set the record straight, the IRS study I cited said the the top 10% earned about 44% of the income…looks like the Communist party has a good crop of recruits on this board “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

Sorry folks, but we need rich people. Our economy works, in part, because we put a big, fat brass ring out there for motivated, talented, hard working people to aim for. People are not going to work ridiculous hours, take big risks, and make sacrifices for socialist wages.

Posted by jambrytay | Report as abusive

Reykjavik, Boehner passes on a bad deal is rely bad

[url=http://www.helplinelaw.com/lawyers/ mumbai-lawyers.php]Mumbai Lawyers[/url]
[url=http://www.helplinelaw.com/lawyers/ delhi-lawyers.php/]Delhi Lawyers[/url]

Posted by Helplinelaw | Report as abusive

Reagan walked away from a deal with the Russians so he could keep on playing with his very expensive silly toy, Star Wars. Whoop-de-do! A fine model of Republican thinking.

What Boehner walked out on was Obama’s attempt to get a Republican Congress to pay for eight years of Republican mis-management, two unbudgeted wars, Bushlet’s mega-payoff to Big Pharma, and eight years of borrowing from the Chinese to finance tax cuts for the rich.

Buncha spoiled brats, whining, puking and mewling.

Posted by DavidLJ | Report as abusive

[...] re-election campaign (as if he ever stopped campaigning) is what did all this in: First, as James Pethokoukis (who beat the establishment media like a drum on this story) suggests, there is little political [...]