"The [Boehner] plan was met with skepticism — and in many cases outright rejection — by several conservative House members who said its savings did not go far enough. President Obama and most Congressional Democrats also have rejected the proposal, saying it is only a short-term solution and could lead to market uncertainty and instability."
Here is a question to which I don't have an answer or, at least, don't seem to have an answer: Why would Boehner and Cantor - the Republican Party leaders and powers that be - propose "a plan" that was, from the outset, unacceptable both to members of Republican Party who need to be placated and to Obama who holds the veto power? How do you make sense of this?
One thing is that, obviously, this "plan" is really not a plan at all. It is something else, although I cannot say what it might be. But if human beings offer "a plan" that is bound to fail - and they know it is going to fail - then it must be something like a Trojan horse. And if we add into the equation that Boehner and Cantor probably don't want to lose their power - because what politicians actually do things that in the long run cost them power? - then we need to ask: How does this plan preserve that power? How could rejection of the "plan" actually help Boehner and Cantor, in the long run?
I have these questions but not the answers. But then, apparently, others, like the NY Times, don't even have the questions as they seem to take the position that Boehner and Cantor don't know what they are doing or are merely looking for a way to satisfy these freshmen Tea Party types, as if they, Boehner and Cantor, did not know what these freshmen wanted. But if we know, simply from reading the paper, how could Boehner and Cantor not know? This doesn't seem very plausible, at least not to me. So, again, we come back to the question: What the heck is going on here?