House Dems ask Boehner for ‘no shutdown’ vow

Rep. George Miller helped wrangle 178 House Democrats – including the rest of the Bay Area’s delegation – to sign two freshmen’s letter calling on Speaker John Boehner to publicly say he won’t use the threat of another government shutdown or debt default as a political tactic in the budget talks.

“Republicans shut down the government and nearly defaulted on America’s debt because they couldn’t shut down the new health care law,” Miller, D-Martinez, said in a news release. “Americans paid a steep price for that partisan and irresponsible action, costing the economy $24 billion and causing economic confidence to plummet. We’re calling on the Republican leadership in Congress to vow ‘No More Shutdowns’ or threats of default as we work out our legitimate differences over the federal budget.”

The letter – led by Reps. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., and Annie Kuster, D-N.H. – said “the most powerful source of uncertainty to American families and businesses is the threat of a government shutdown and default on our debts. That is why we are writing to you to urge you and your leadership to publicly declare that you will not again use the threat of a government shutdown or default as leverage in the important discussions regarding long-term deficit reduction and economic growth.”

OK, everyone – hold your breath now while we wait for Boehner to comply with their request…

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • Elwood
  • JohnW

    Headline of NewsBusters blog: “White House Predicted in 2010 that 93 Million Would Lose Their Health Plans Under ObamaCare”

    Talk about misleading! Makes it sound like those people are going to lose coverage. False.

    First, the 93 million is a Forbes estimate, based on the Administration’s projections of how many employer and individual plans would relinquish grandfathered status due to substantial changes in the plans. Noel Sheppard’s NewsBusters is not correct when he says that regulations from the Administration interpreted the grandfathering provision “so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.” The NewsBusters blog includes a link to the Federal Register that provides the details on changes that are allowed to occur without losing grandfather status, including premium increases above the medical inflation rate. Apparently the author didn’t bother to read that part.

    The ACA specifically provides that, if a person is in a grandfathered plan, they can keep it, even if it is a worthless plan that is capped at $25k, doesn’t include hospitalization and excludes cancer coverage. Because both employer and individual plans change all the time, it was fully expected, that, eventually, all plans would lose grandfathered status.

    Just because somebody’s plan loses grandfathered status doesn’t mean they “lose their insurance.” It just means that the person transitions to another plan that is ACA-compliant (i.e., insurance worth having) if the plan they had wasn’t already compliant.

    Obama should have been more precise in his oft-repeated “if you like it, you can keep it” statements. But he didn’t lie.

  • Elwood

    “Obama should have been more precise in his oft-repeated “if you like it, you can keep it” statements. But he didn’t lie.”

    Gee, I’m having a lot of trouble with the difference between “should have been more precise” and “didn’t lie”. The next thing will be a statement from Obama’s designated liar, Jay Carney that “that statement is no longer operative”.

  • JohnW

    “Gee, I can’t tell the difference.”

    Okay, so I’m trying to sell you a Prius, and tell you it has a fuel efficiency rating of 50 mpg.

    You buy it, and find out that, because you normally drive it only a couple of miles a day, for quick trips to the store, you get less than 40 mpg.

    I probably should have said that the rating is 40 mpg but that you might get less depending on your driving habits. But did I lie?

  • JohnW

    Make that last sentence “…that the rating is 50 mpg but…”

  • Elwood

    You didn’t lie. But Obama did. Deliberately and willfully.