What do you think the odds are of Boehner getting the Senate bill to pass the House?
I just don’t believe he can make it happen. I get all the issues progressives have with Obama as a weak negotiator. I’m personally concerned that Obama is not all that committed to preserving the social safety net. On the other hand, Boehner has consistently shown an inability to get his caucus to follow him, even on deals that are extremely favorable to Republicans. He’s no Tom “I’ll Make you Squeal Like a Stuck Pig Until You Vote the Way I Tell You too” Delay. He has the least power of any Speaker I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Perhaps someone can explain to me how Boehner (or any other member of the House GOP Leadership, for that matter) can corral the herd of cats that currently make up the Republican Caucus to accept the terms of the Senate deal. In fact, I don’t see him getting a majority of Republican members to sign off on any deal with Obama, especially since I suspect many of them think Obama will cave some more if they kill it. Why would any Republican Congressperson risk getting primaried over a deal that raises taxes (I know, it only raises them on a very small minority of well-off people, but nonetheless …)?
But I suppose I could be wrong.
I suspect they are right. OTOH, Pelosi says she only needs two dozen Republicans and like 90% of Senate Republicans voted for it so maybe they will push the Congressmen from their states. On the Third Hand, who can tell what goes on in the minds of these twisted liars in Congress? Maybe the Senate just voted overwhelmingly because they knew the House would kill it, just like Democrats passed EFCA when they knew the House would kill it but ran like scalded dogs when they actually had the power to pass it.
No wonder the public rates politicians below used car salesmen on honesty.
Democrats should force the Repukeliscum to put at least 50% of their caucus into this piece of shit bill. I do not want to see Dems save teh Repukeliscum and allow more intransigency to be rewarded.
Which is preferable:
The answer is neither is preferable. FICA taxes go up on people earning less than 100,000 regardless.
I’m so old I remember when the FICA tax holiday was a bad idea. In 2010.
I’m so old that I remember the idea of removing the ceiling on it and raising the FICA for all income.
The FICA holiday was the stupidest and most idiotic idea that I have ever heard of. It should NEVER have seen the light of day. I am so happy to see that tax restored.
Not so stupid economically, but politically really dumb.
Should have taken a page out of the GWB playbook and sent all taxpayers a $300-$500 check. Would have been cheaper and recipients would have noticed it far better than they did the reduction in their FICA tax.
All they’ll know when they get their first 2013 paycheck is that its smaller than the last one. Smaller because their taxes are higher. They’ll know that with more sureness than they knew that they were reduced in 2010.
The open question is who they will blame for that.
There’s lots of posturing going on, and as you point out, Boehner is an extremely weak Speaker.
The NYTimes says that the Senate won’t accept any changes to the bill that was passed there.
I suspect that there will be no vote on the Senate bill until the new House is sworn in. If that’s the case, I don’t expect a vote until mid-January (due to swearing-in stuff, committee stuff, etc., etc., and the desire of the Republicans to try to make Obama sweat). That’s a long time in situations like this – lots can change.
Boehner doesn’t want to lose another vote, and it’s hard for me to see that Nancy wants to save a bill that would probably be amended by the teabaggers.
Things are in flux. It’s hard to know how it will turn out. Maybe this act will be over tomorrow. Dunno.
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
If there’s no vote in this session, that means a redo of the bill or bills, or acceptance of the enforced cuts and tax increases. The Senate bill is dead at the end of this session.
True, but AFAIK, they can start a new bill, copy & paste the text of the 112th Congress Senate bill into the new bill, and vote on that (after the requisite delays).
I don’t expect they would do that, though. Too many in the House and Senate want to get in on must-pass bills, so there would be tremendous pressure to make changes if a bill has to be voted on in the 113th Congress.
I guess we’ll know soon enough how this part of the battle turns out…
Cheers,
Scott.
Oh, come on, man. Dotcha know that Sen. Warren will hulk-smash the bill and break up the banks and make the House GOP pass it as well?
What do you think the odds are of Warren running for President in 2016 considering Hilary’s health? I know it seems absurd on it’s face, but so did a black man named Barack Obama running and winning in 2008.
Odds? Zero. She’ll be the darling of the left blogosphere —- and appear on no primary ballots.
There’s no history of that kind of ambition in her bio anywhere. Presidential candidates possess a certain level of megalomania of which she’s shown no trace.
Obama may have come out of nowhere, but there were plenty of premonitory signs.
Well, as we all know, a lot can change in four years.
Wow, broke the Denny Hastert record.
It doesn’t appear certain that the Speaker will even allow a vote on the Senate bill, so I don’t know that the Hastert rule is dust quite yet. We’ll know very soon.
OTOH, one quarrel with this representation from Boo’s post:
“Why would any Republican Congressperson risk getting primaried over a deal that raises taxes (I know, it only raises them on a very small minority of well-off people, but nonetheless …)?”
The Bush tax cuts expired today. The House would be voted for tax cuts, not tax increases. Perhaps, just perhaps, that trivial difference will become significant today.
I doubt it, though. Boehner has his vote for the Speakership on Thursday. Cantor has already publicly knifed the Senate bill, and could use that same knife to cut the Orange Man’s throat in two days. I’d take odds on John following the Hastert rule and poison-pilling the Senate bill. It is said that Boehner warned his caucus that they would be accused of doing just that if they sent the bill back to the Senate, but enough of his caucus is the Honey Badger, so Boehner’s got a tough choice.
FYI, not Boo’s post, mine. I see tyour point, but any teahadist in 2014 running against a Repub member who votes for this deal will call it a tax hike, not a tax cut. JMO
I concede that may happen on the tax thing, Stephen- they’re not so great with facts on that side of the ideological divide.
BTW, Amy Kremer from Tea Party Patriots was on Chris Hayes’ show on Sunday. She is appallingly misinformed. When she was asked specific questions about current Federal policy decisions, she simply displayed zero ability to accept the post-election balance of power in Congress and the Presidency. This was closely related to her inability to bring any info to bear other than “Wespendtoomuch$16trilliondebt!” Also, she claimed that Tea Party supporters do not care about social issues. Insulting and ridiculous.
Record, not rule. Record for suckitude.
I think the question is this: does Boehner expect to be Speaker for the next Congress? If so then he scuttles this bill; if not then he passes it with a majority of Democrats and a handful of Republicans, then he endorses Cantor for Speaker. I don’t see any other options with Cantor on the record opposed.
If I were him, I’d resign and take a “not-lobbying” lobbying job tomorrow. But maybe he has delusions of grandeur. Most drunks I know do.
Pelosi says Dems want a straight vote on the senate bill, so presumably she and Biden have twisted the Dem arms to vote yes.
Repubs demand amendments and say that the “plan” is to present something 218 Repub turds can stomach—i.e. the Hastert “rule”. That means an amendment and no Dem votes. And the deal blows up.
If Boner decides to present the senate bill, it probably passes as a result of strong Dem support. He will have negotiated the fiscal cliff, gets his Responsible Adult merit badges–and loses his speakership as a result.
You’d think he’d be delighted with that result—back to the days of carefree whiskey drinking and vote missing while Teapartying Eric gets to maintain the fiction that the US gub’mint hasn’t collapsed.
So what does the Boner do? An historic decision. Have a drink, John, that’ll clear your head….
Ms. Nancy is on record stating that she does not have enough Dem. votes to pass the bill. I wonder if the Wall
St. money people know the tea baggers will not care if the market crashes Wed.
Oh I hope so! I have cash in my account and have my purchases planned. Going to get aggressive with the IRA now that I know I can’t count on SS or my pension.
Lots of people seem to believe they will pass it with amendments added that include more spending cuts.
But what cuts? They have not directly stated what cuts in the past, I find it hard to believe they will suddenly come up with some. Their whole strategy seems to have been they want cuts to Medicare and SS, but they want the Democrats to name the cuts, and then use the Democrats to vote them into law.
So now we are to believe they will do it themselves.
Not a chance.
No vote, the bill dies in the House. And Cantor gets his Speakership.
.
Well, I guess I agree, I don’t see them proposing any cuts to social security and Medicare, but these are some crazy mofos in the GOP caucus. I wouldn’t put it past the tea party caucus idjits to go public with suggested spending cuts, most likely the elimination of Medicaid, or raising the retirement/eligibility age for SS and Medicare to 67.
You KNOW what the amendment will be, repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act.
And Wall Street makes out like bandits regardless. Did they even close the “carried interest” loophole? And has anyone seen this today:
http://www.businessinsider.com/dividend-taxes-2013-1
Don’t they always?
I don’t know the answer, but I would point out:
Obama is in a stronger position than you seem to think.
He is committed to preserving the social safety net. I know why you fear otherwise, and I don’t blame you for worrying, but it’s 95% posturing.
Last but not least, bear in mind that Boner needs something like 40-45 votes, no more; the rest would be Democrats.
It will get worse for the Republicans, not better, the longer this drags on.
Hope you are right.
priscianus jr is correct. This is a test for the house GOP. Can they vote on a bill from the Senate that passes with strong by-par support? If they cannot vote no/yes why are they in DC?
To shill for K street.
zero chance he passes it. New Congress comes in and Meet the Pressers this weekend are filled (more than the usual) with Rep victims.
Shocker, that.
Oh and what will happen with the fillibuster challenge this week?
I think it passes amended or there is no vote, which means it dies either way.
What pisses me off is that progressives are fully in line with the deduction cuts. The element of deductions easy and painless to reduce is donations to non-profits, and while a few of these may be bogus, non-profits do tremendous good to society. When rich people donate to the Red Cross, or Stanford, or the Sierra Club, the benefit to the non-profit far outweighs the benefit to them, and most non-profits benefit society as a whole or specifically target the needy (the indigent, the disabled, disaster victims). Although the moderately rich donate somewhat less than the middle class, the truly rich donate a lot, and the aggregate effect is almost all to the good. Cheering on the Pease limit is extremely short-sighted.
Progressivism on one foot, a la Rabbi Hillel, “Make rich people suffer”. The rest is commentary.
Yes, absolutely true. It amazes me that so many want to cap deductions. that is the very best part of the current tax code. We need rich people to divert their tax money to local charities. THis is a good thing.
No thanks. There’s no evidence that it increases charitable giving. It’s a giveaway to rich people:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Jeebus, Obama weakcaveOMGspineless.
Get a grip.
I really really really really hope that the Repukeliscum hold fast and deep-six this dreadful piece of shit of a bill.
If Obama thought we were going over the cliff anyway, he could not have scripted a more-damaging scenario for all his opponents. Sucks to be them.
Sucks also to be the people who are actually hurt, but it may be easier to help them if our opponents are crippled by self-inflicted flesh wounds.
The MSM are talking like they are sure the House will pass it. Apparently Clancey has lowered the boom.