I came across this unexpected quote in the Congressional Record dated July 28, 2011:
"And yesterday, in a meeting of the Republican conference, their leadership tried to rally votes for this bill by playing a clip from the movie, ``The Town.'' The quote they used--and I guess this was supposed to be inspirational--was this: ``I need your help. I can't tell you what it is, you can never ask me about it later, and we're gonna hurt some people.''It was Rep. James McGovern (D - MA) speaking during the Budget Control Act debate in the House during the week when the debt ceiling debacle was coming to a head. John Boehner had introduced his own version of the bill and he treated his caucus to a clip from the Ben Affleck movie, "The Town," to introduce them to some of the concepts behind the legislation. "... and we're gonna hurt some people.''
Rep. McGovern continued:
"The people they’re going to hurt are senior citizens on Medicare and Social Security. They’re going to hurt children who don’t have enough to eat. They’re going to hurt students trying to afford a college education. They’re going to hurt the very people who can least afford to take the hit, all in the name of protecting tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires."
What was I doing with the Congressional Record?
It started with one lie told by John Boehner to distance himself from the negative consequences of budget cuts about to go into effect . . .
. . . and it was followed by another lie told by Bob Woodward to reinforce Boehner's claim that the potentially harmful budget cuts were President Obama's idea.
On February 22, 2013, the Washington Post ran an article with Woodward's tale about the origin of the budget cutting sequester:
"Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved."Since Boehner ended up voting in favor of the Budget Control Act and the sequestration with it, he won't be able to divorce himself from it so easily. He made an effort to pretend that the House approved sequestration replacements on two different occasions. He described them as repsonsible substitutes for sequestration. They were nothing more than typical slash and burn Republican ideology manifestos with sequestration repeal added as an afterthought. Boehner stumbled when he tried to accuse the Democrats in the Senate for holding up passage of the bills. As Speaker, he should have known that they expired at the end of the 112th Session of Congress.
Woodward is a disgrace. One more shill for Republican con artists. One more nail in American Journalism's coffin. As if it needed one. When Americans desperately need an objective observer who can communicate incisively, he has nothing to offer but the lowest propaganda. Instead of telling us about events he chops them up so that no one would have any idea the sequestration was part of or connected to anything else. Except the White House. Of course. His version of the debt ceiling debacle conveniently leaves the Republicans invisible.
On July 28, 2011 There was debate about the bill including Rep. McGovern's statement about the meeting Boehner held the day before with his caucus.
Rep. David Dreier began the proceedings:
Rep. David Dreier (R - CA) Mr. Speaker, it’s about 1 1/2 minutes after 3 p.m. on July 28, 2011. At this moment, we begin the debate on one of the most crucial items that we have had or will have before us. Since 1962, on 75 different occasions, the United States Congress has chosen to increase the debt ceiling to ensure that we paid our past obligations. It has been done 75 times without ever having any strings attached whatsoever.Rep. Dreier spoke at length about the bill before he got around to mentioning the sequestration provisions. The following exchange was typical of the debate:
Rep. David Dreier (R - CA). Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply to say that there are in fact exemptions that are in this bill to ensure that Social Security and Medicare are not touched, and we need to remember that. When it comes to this sequestration process, it is not touched. And for those who are saying that this measure will in fact bring about those cuts, they have not read the bill and are mischaracterizing it.With plenty to argue about in the House budget bill, the sequestration didn't get a lot of attention during the debate.
Rep. Robert Andrews (D - NJ) Mr. Speaker, I’m not talking about the sequestrations. I’m talking about the fact that this commission’s instructed to find $1.8 trillion in cuts and Medicare and Social Security are not exempted from those cuts. This is a roadmap, this is a users guide as to how to cut Social Security and Medicare. We reject it. It is a committee that is empowered to cut Medicare and Social Security. We will not stand for it.
Rep. David Dreier (R - CA). Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my friend this is not a committee that is empowered to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is a committee, a joint select committee, that is empowered, for the first time, to submit to both Houses of Congress recommendations that we will have an up-or-down vote on.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D - MD) Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. This is nothing more than political posturing by the Republican majority. And I think it’s important for the American people to understand that this majority has asked us time and time again to vote to end Medicare, to cut Social Security, to cut Medicaid, and they’re doing it once again. No question about it. What’s being offered up by this majority is nothing short of recklessness, absolutely nothing.
To be continued:
~How the final bill was cobbled together and who suggested including the sequestration provisions.
~A jaw-dropping example of irony, or is it hypocrisy.
~Calling out extortionists.