1 Jan

House GOP Backs Down…Voting On Unamended Senate “Fiscal Cliff” Bill Tonight

                                       

House Republicans were meeting earlier today to amend the Senate’s fiscal cliff bill:

A bipartisan plan to avert year-end spending cuts and tax increases slammed into stiff opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where conservatives argued that it didn’t including any meaningful reduction in spending.

…In a closed-door caucus later Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Boehner presented GOP lawmakers with two options for overcoming an impasse, according to a senior House GOP aide.

One was to amend the Senate bill to include spending cuts and return it to the Senate. The alternative was to simply put the Senate bill to a vote. Early Tuesday evening, Republican leaders were trying to gauge which of the two options had the most support among the party rank and file.

How much in spending cuts? 30 billion.

Pathetic and I think most of the Republicans know it so they have decided to put the original Senate bill up for a vote:

Its unclear if Boehner has the votes to get it passed but any bill that doesn’t include major spending cuts is junk anyhow.

Ace:

House has finished with its three non-fiscal cliff votes. Just recessed subject to the call of the chair.

But the GOP will definitely grow some balls in the next two months. Related: Lucy totally promises to leave the football on the ground next time.

Friggin incredible. No balls whatsoever.

Update

Update:

And so it goes:

At 11 p.m. ET, it’s a done deal. 257-167, with Democrats providing most of the votes. The Dems split 172-16, Republicans split 85-151. Boehner didn’t come close to satisfying the “majority of the majority” rule, which leaves him on thin ice for Thursday’s Speaker vote. At least he didn’t hide, though: He voted yes tonight, as did Paul Ryan, much to Team Rubio’s delight. Meanwhile, the rest of the leadership team — i.e. Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy — voted no, although Cantor waited until the bill had 218 votes to register his meaningless disapproval.

Hard to believe we might have the same leadership in the next Congress as we did for this process, but then not long ago it was also hard to believe we’d have the same leadership in the White House and the Senate in 2013 as we had in 2012. And yet here we are.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, CINO (Conservative in Name Only), Congress, Conservatism, Economy, John Boehner, Obamanomics, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, January 1st, 2013 at 5:13 pm
| 289 views

17 Responses to House GOP Backs Down…Voting On Unamended Senate “Fiscal Cliff” Bill Tonight

  1. Smokey Behr says: 1

    Boner (sic), Cantor, and McCarthy need to be tossed out on their ears. The House GOP needs some serious leadership, and these 3 certainly aren’t it. Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Tom McClintock should be in their respective seats. I hope the incoming GOP House members aren’t going to be as spineless.

    ReplyReply
  2. annie says: 2

    After seeing what is in the bill they should all be voted out of office. I am so sick and tired of these politicians paying back the rich and the hell with the little people that they say that they are there for. They are a bunch of spineless idiots……………..

    ReplyReply
  3. Budvarakbar says: 3

    @annie: I read yesterday where in the last election 94% of the congressional incumbents were all voted back into office — and the article stated that the current approval rating of congress was 9% — nothing really changed.

    ReplyReply
  4. johngalt says: 4

    @Budvarakbar:

    I believe that the disapproval numbers surrounding Congress have much to do with the ignorant and prideful electorate believing that their congress-critter is A-OK, and that most of the others are not. I believe that this phenomenon goes across party lines, as well.

    If the poll question was asked about their own particular congress-critter, the approval numbers would look quite different.

    ReplyReply
  5. bwax says: 5

    How about no paychecks for any of the lawmakers until the budget is balanced? I mean balanced like I have to balance my household, no accounting double counting tricks.

    Cutting all foreign aid and substituting workfare for welfare would go a long way to cutting spending.

    ReplyReply
  6. Dc says: 6

    I was watching this process intently..as CNN and MSNBC and just about every major liberal rag breathlessly tried to make this about “republicans” and remind everyone just how radical the tea party is, etc..and that it has been the tea party all along who’s against the american people, etc. etc., etc. blah, blah, blah.

    Watching this vote unfold tells an entirely different story about the House. There are PLENTY of votes to pass “anything” that the supposed “moderates” including DNC agree on. There are about 140 people there as a result of tea party support. They just about ALL voted against this. It STILL passed…by a wide margin.

    What does that tell you about the meme the MSM has been pushing about this caucus being the problem? The problem has been they can’t get ANY body to agree on anything….including Democrats!! Because if they could…they have ENOUGH votes to pass anything they want even WITHOUT a single teaparty vote.

    So much for the myth.

    ReplyReply
  7. bwax
    you got it, cut foreign aids, mean trillions,
    OBAMA RAISE AMERICAN RICHER ‘S TAX AND SEND TRILLIONS TO FOREIGN AID,
    IS THAT NOT TREASON? TOWARD AMERICANS. AND AMERICA,
    IF NOT WHAT IS AND ALSO DENY THE AMBASSADOR AND 3 SEALS THE HELP THEY DEMANDED LONG BEFORE AND ON , UNTIL THEY WHERE KILLED, THAT WAS 17 TIMES,
    HELL, THE TOLD THE SEALS TO STAY PUT, DENYING THEM THE DESIRE TO HELP THE AMBASSADOR,
    WHICH HAD THEM KILLED, AND SCREW UP OBAMA’S PLAN TO PROTECT THE MUSLIMS ATTACKERS.

    ReplyReply
  8. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 8

    Personally, I agree with John Dean that we should have just gone over the cliff. Raise taxes on everyone — back to where they were in the 1990s. Cut government spending with an ax — including defense. Start paying our bills, in real time. Endure whatever economic hardship we need to endure to right the ship. Sacrifice now, for the long term good of the country.

    But it is what it is. Who benefits from the deal? Everyone currently paying taxes. Who gets screwed? Everyone who pays taxes ten years down the road and beyond.

    Here are some great graphics showing how much current taxpayers “won” in the fiscal cliff deal:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/these-2-tax-charts-tell-you-exactly-who-won-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/266744/#

    P.S. Advance apologies for increasing blood pressure, but the following was not only funny political satire, but it illustrated why the GOP leadership really had no choice but to take the deal. Despite all the class warfare rhetoric, what it really did come down to was the GOP being perceived as being willing to go to the mattresses to protect the 1.5% from having the same marginal tax rates that they had during the 90s. This doesn’t even compare to the tax rates of the 60s and 70s, when we were steadily paying down our national debt, where the top marginal rate was 70% and capital gains was 50%. Average Americans aren’t stupid; they know class warfare when they see it and they know tax fairness when they see it. And the GOP would have just gotten killed over this, had they not gone along.

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In the aftermath of the fiscal-cliff deal, Republicans in Congress issued a heartfelt apology to the top 1.5 per cent richest people in America, offering “messages of profound condolence” for allowing their taxes to increase slightly.

    “Our hearts go out to them,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), still teary-eyed after hanging up the phone with a multimillionaire in Orange County, California. “We came to Washington to do the work of 1.5 per cent of the American people, and we didn’t get it done.”

    The House Speaker said that he had spoken to several members of the top 1.5 per cent who were “understandably despondent” over seeing their taxes rise marginally as a result of the deal: “Some of them were so upset they even considered moving to Canada, until they found out the taxes were higher there.”

    Mr. Boehner said that he tried to offer the wealthy consolation by reminding them that because of an increase in payroll taxes, millions of middle-class and working-class Americans would be suffering more than they would: “That usually put them in a better mood.”

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) assailed the fiscal-cliff legislation today, calling it “a classic example of putting 98.5 per cent of the American people ahead of the rest of the country.”

    Offering words of hope to the top 1.5 per cent, Mr. Cantor said, “In a few months we’ll have the next debate about the debt ceiling. As God is my witness, we will try to do a better job of bringing this nation to the brink of Armageddon.”

    But to billionaires such as Harland Dorrinson, a longtime super-donor to the G.O.P., such assurances ring hollow: “If the fiscal-cliff deal is the kind of performance we can expect from Republican politicians, what’s the point of owning them?”

    Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/republicans-apologize-to-top-15-per-cent.html#ixzz2Gr8nJcF5

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  9. openid.aol.com/runnswim
    no cutting the MILITARY ON A WAR TIME STILL KILLING THE BRAVES IN AFGHANISTAN,
    THAT IS BESIDE THE NON DECLARE WARS IN OTHER MUSLIM COUNTRIES LIKE YEMEN.
    WHAT DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE BRAVEST SAVING YOUR ASS, WITH A CUT BUDGET,
    IT IS THE WORSE DECISION AND WHAT FOR?
    FOR OBAMA TO SPEND CARELOUSLY ON MUSLIM COUNTRIES, THOSE WHO BURNED HIS IMAGE
    OUT OF HATE ON THE 9/11/12, IT’S ABOUT TIME THE PEOPLE THINK OF THOSE FIGHTING FOR
    THEM TO SAY THINGS LIKE THAT, FREEDOM TO CORRUPT THEM SELFISHLY, WHILE THE BRAVEST OF THIS AMERICA GET HURT OR DIE.
    IS IN THERE DECENCY SOMEWHERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE
    TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT AN AMERICAN IS,
    THE LEST THEY CAN DO IS WAIT FOR THE WARS TO FINISH AND THE BRAVES BACK HOME BEFORE CUTTING THEIR NEEDS,
    WHY DON’T THEY CUT ON PARTYS COSTING MULTI MILLIONS INSTEAD

    ReplyReply
  10. johngalt says: 10

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Personally, I agree with John Dean that we should have just gone over the cliff. Raise taxes on everyone — back to where they were in the 1990s.

    Did you miss my posting, Larry? I’ll link it for you:
    http://floppingaces.net/2012/12/21/a-comparison-of-tax-rates-reader-post/

    In a quick summary, though, I pointed out that the growth of federal revenues under the Bush tax rates were greater than the growth of federal revenues under the Clinton tax rates, per percent growth of GDP.

    In terms of total revenue seen over ten years, the difference would be as high as $2.2 Trillion, in favor of the Bush tax rates. $2.2 trillion, Larry. That is how much revenue the government would be potentially giving up by adjusting all tax rates back to the Clinton era rates.

    I do agree with you about the spending, though. For that, it might have been better to “go over the cliff”, as Congress did not address that one bit, and it seems that Obama and the Dem leadership in Congress would rather just be allowed to increase our credit limit as high as they want, instead of addressing the true culprit in the government’s financial mess, the spending.

    ReplyReply
  11. johngalt says: 11

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    One point, as well, to back up what Ms. Bees has posted.

    A slashing of the Defense budget without an actual plan of action will result in less support for our soldiers overseas. I was in during the Clinton years and the Defense cuts made during that time were not focused on maintaining the operational capability of whatever units were left intact. Instead, they made “across the board” cuts that resulted in loss of support back here at home that essentially led those out in the field to be required to do more with less without any plan on how to accomplish it. The troops out in the field lost serious efficiency points as well as capabilities due to this. I saw this first hand, Larry.

    I don’t disagree that Defense needs to be cut to some degree, but I don’t trust any of the Congress people, or Obama, to do it like it needs to be done. And you shouldn’t trust those people to do that either.

    ReplyReply
  12. johngalt
    yes,
    one GENERAL SAID IT WILL BRING THE MILITARY BACK BEFORE THE 90’S,
    THEY KNOW BETTER , AS YOU SAID, IT PUT THEM AT RISK.
    AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND LOVED ONES

    ReplyReply
  13. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 13

    Hi John, No, I didn’t see blog post referred to in #10. I got so sick of the vituperative name calling on this blog (worse than it’s ever been), that I’ve stopped being a regular reader/contributer. The fiscal cliff deal was very important, though, and it was interesting, with respect to the bipartisan vote; so I wanted to see how the deal was being perceived by my conservative friends.

    Your linked blog post is precisely the sort of conversation which interests me and which formerly attracted me to this blog. It’s an excellent blog post and I’ll look forward to responding to the issue raised and supporting data offered.

    P.S. I’m going to take the time to provide a thoughtful response, but below is a link to an introductory consideration. Owing to prior debates (with Mata) over this issue, I do have reference materials which are relevant. I’m planning on updating this to address specifically your central thesis and supporting data.

    http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1864/republican-tax-nonsense?

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  14. openid.aol.com/runnswim
    if you are reffering to my answer, as being offensive, vituperative, name calling,
    I apologize for it was not my intention to insult,

    ReplyReply
  15. Greg says: 15

    Darrell Issa stated that he would vote against extending the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of all American tax payers, because it’s totally irresponsible to do so without making the spending cuts that are necessary to pay for them.

    Did I miss something when I blinked? Like, maybe, a total reversal of the GOP’s long standing assertion that tax cuts pay for themselves by stimulating economic activity, thereby increasing federal revenue?

    ReplyReply
  16. TOM HARTMANN ON RADIO SAID OUTLAW THE BILLIONAIRES,
    watch the billionaires cross to CANADA AS FAST AS HE SAID IT.
    AND SEE HOW IT WILL LOOK AFTER THEY ARE GONE,
    THE COMMUNIST WILL HAVE THE AMERICA LOOK LIKE A THIRD LOOK COUNTRY, FROM OBAMA ANCESTORS,
    THAT’S WHAT HE IS AIMING FOR,
    BEWARE OF HIS SMILE FOR REVENGE

    ReplyReply
  17. GREG when you hear a DARREL ISSA TALK THIS WAY,
    YOU HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES WHAT IT MEAN,
    A GREAT DESTRUTIVE YEAR 2013 ,

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>