E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe news releases arrived via email at almost the exact same time Wednesday. The liberal Campaign for America’s Future was screaming for “No Deal” and warning of a “Grand Swindle” of cuts to Social Security and Medicare should President Obama go wobbly in his fiscal cliff negotiations.
At the other end of the spectrum, the plea by the conservative Americans for Prosperity -- an organization backed by the Koch Brothers -- warned of House Speaker John Boehner’s position offering a “trillion dollar plus tax increase” in order to get some nebulous spending cuts down the road.
As the two men who must settle this get bombarded from their flanks, the fiscal cliff has become a mudslide.
“I hope he understands that we’re encouraging him and helping him do the right thing,” Tim Phillips, President of Americans for Prosperity tells NBC News, following Boehner’s inability to get enough members of his caucus to vote for Plan B, Thursday night.
Boehner’s income tax-centric idea would have let Bush-era rates expire on yearly income above $1 million or more. The speaker pointed out that was a fraction of 1% of American taxpayers.
Still, many Tea Party-aligned rank-and-file in the GOP caucus refused to go along with anything that could be construed as a tax hike, even if it was for a relative handful of the population, and with the increase being automatic as the Bush tax cuts expire.
Never mind that. Phillips says AFP let GOP members know “this was absolutely an important vote, and that we were going to be ‘key-voting’ these tax increase votes” when it comes to rating the legislators.
“We’re not saying we’re going to go out and primary [target] Republicans who voted for” Boehner’s measure. “But we were saying this is an important vote. Don’t walk away from the core values of not raising taxes.”
Since no vote was taken, it’s conjecture on how many Republican House members refused to go along with Boehner, but suffice it to say there would not have been 218 votes to get a majority in the chamber. Democrats were certainly not going to help.
But in the end, the caucus rabblerousing undercuts Boehner’s negotiating prowess with the president, since any eventual deal, if there is one that includes a whiff of tax increases, will now require Democratic votes.
Phillips recognizes the straitjacket Boehner’s now in, with his conservative base and the White House tightening the straps.
“But in these near-term negotiations, it does make it more difficult, frankly, to do what he shouldn’t be doing anyway, which is raise taxes.”
For Phillips, it’s a matter of preventing Congress from approving tax hikes, which are binding, while promises of spending cuts are fleeting.
Leave a Comment:
"Boehner's negotiating prowess" ... now that's an oxymoron if I every read one!
That's it TeaPeople....guess they forgot about that vote 2 years ago....the Budget Control Act!
It's gonna happen......You couldn't forstall it, sooooooo
Politics is reality-show for ugly people....
this is true at least in this case - Speaker Failure Boehner the Orangeman fits the bill.
Time to "End Tea Party as we know it."
Hey, Ursula-279622
Boehner is just MORON....an impotent MORON.
Those dirty Kochs are at it again!
Well, if they don't raise taxes on the Top 2% wealthiest Americans, we can say hello to more and more years of adding interest on to the debt, which guarantees more and more debt without spending a dime.
In today's news conference, Boehner was asked if he worried about losing his speakership after the Epic Failure.
Boehner said, 'NO,' then started crying.
To Obama and Boehner.......
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy". ~ MARTIN LUTHER KING JR
On the spectrum of things, compared to the Teapublican Party over all, Boehner does not elicit my harshest criticism. And the silver lining is that Cantor and the Teabag Crazies were the ones behind this major failure -- not to mention the audacity to abandon their responsibilities and go home for Christmas.
And these oath takers, pledge makers, pact with the devil Teapublicans who forget they represent their constituents and the population of the nation as a whole, not the Koch Brothers and special interest groups like Americans for Prosperity. Who are so cowardly they fear Norquist's threats to "primary" them or to have funds cut off from another failure, Karl Rove. And who are so stupid it hasn't occurred to them that if there are never tax increases and only tax cuts that eventually there would NO revenue at all -- brilliant!
I do not want the president or Dems to save Boehner and the GOP -- Where is the outrage from sane Republican supporters? It is these supporters who need to raise a ruckus the way the Teabaggers have, take to the streets and rally, call, Email, and make the biggest stink to get their representatives to put Country First. It is their responsibility.
If the president or Dems save Boehner and the GOP, then the teachable moment will be wasted. We'll have to put up with their Bullsh!t Mountain for even longer. NO. I'd rather go off the "cliff."
Agreed, and the last debt ceiling debacle that resulted in a downgrade of our credit rating also increased the interest and debt. The Teapublican Crazies are either stupid or treasonous or both.
The GOP bet all their financial and political capital on winning the Senate and White House and LOST.
The American public will NOT accept a government that won't work.
If the GOP keeps this up, they will find them out of office.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Don't you just love the hypocrisy of PMSNBC and the rest of the lamestream liberal media?
But of course they don't make any mention of Campaign for America’s Future association with MoveOn.org, the Tides Center and Apollo Alliance, all funded by the socialist billionaire George Soros.
Liberals truly have no shame.
dear obama voters: nobody can explain obama better than the man himself: at war hero's eulegy obama refers to himself 63 times.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-uses-funeral-service-talk-about-himself_690960.html
If the economy 'tanks', it will be Obama's fault. While Obama will try his usual "Blame the Republicans' rhetoric, history puts the blame on the President, so it should be interesting to see if Obama wants a 'Legacy' of a failed economy, with virtually no growth in the economy and jobs over 8 years.
At least Carter had some economic growth and jobs creation, even though he's widely seen as a dismal failure. Obama has nothing so far. For example, according to the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average number of jobs in Bush's last year (2008) was 136,790,000, but for 2012, it is only 133,169,000, a LOSS of 3,601,000 jobs.
And the economy has grown by only 6.66% in 4 years, and average growth rate of 1.66% per year, vs the 43.61% growth under Bush (an average growth rate of 5.45%).
And history will also report that the National Debt will increase from the $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008 to almost $25 Trillion after only 8 years under Obama.
His 'Legacy' will be worse than Jimmy Carter.
dirp "The GOP bet all their financial and political capital on winning the Senate and White House and LOST."
And the Democrats bet all of their financial and political capital on winning the House, and they LOST.
Republicans won the House with a substantial majority on the basis of controlling Obama's wild spending and the spiraling Debt, so they have a 'mandate' to cut the Deficits. If Obama hasn't improved the economy/jobs after 6 years, the Republicans could well regain the Senate in 2014 - especially since the Democrats will have 20 seats to defend, vs only 13 for the Republicans.
I have to say that NONE of the Bush Tax custs were paid for.
I think we all need to get over it; the free party is over. Taxes go up - if you want a break, follow Mitt's recommendataion and ask your parents for it.
Otherwise, we have a deficit problem here in the States, we also have a spending problem partially caused by free tax cuts ,two unfunded wars and an aging population.
Time to pay up and let's get to it
It's time to pay the bills
Boehner is an utter failure; GOP is little GOPeep that can't.
Boehner reminds me of Ted Baxter on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show. First he swaggers to the microphone, all full of himself, looking so executive-chic in his snappy suit and tan, then he breaks down into a blubbering basket case when it's clear no one takes him seriously and he has no idea what to do. And Mary, (Nancy Pelosi?), has to rescue the poor sot.
Harry Reid reminds me of Gilligan on the Gilligans Island Show. First he does something stupid and then the President Obama takes his golf hat off and smacks him upside his head calling him a dumby all the while.
ozzie ...
Say what you will about Harry Reid but at least he doesn't filibuster himself!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1168002/-McConnell-filibusters-himself-making-the-case-for-filibuster-reform#
That little one needed to be smacked with more than a golf hat!
ozzieyo1-numbers,
stupid is as stupid does. thanks for nothing.
Brilliant Brian
calling him dumbie?... Oh, Ozzie... Just wave your white flag and be done with it.
Layton--I've been trying to figure out which is worse---McConnell filibustering himself or Boehner calling for a vote that his own side wouldn't support.
That's the problem, Steeler Fan, he should bring things up for a vote whether his side fully supports it, or not. He is Speaker of the House, not the Speaker of the Republicans, not the Majority Leader, or even the Majority Whip. The idea that a Speaker should only bring up bills that his (or her) side supports is an invention of the Republicans back when Bill Clinton was President, and is the wrong way to run the position of Speaker. Nancy Pelosi was trying to make that point a week ago when she was giving him advice, but he is too whipped by the extreme of his party to be able to stand up to them, and do what is right for America.
Steeler Fan, I think Matthew's response was perfect! They're both bad calls!
For republicans it's all about jobs, jobs, jobs - their own.
I don't know they think this could possibly solve. They've been doing this for years now and it hasn't helped anyone or anything, least of all it doesn't help to lower the deficit, nor does it help to pay down the debt.
AG, there you go again saying they will use the additional tax revenue to pay off debt when you know they will spend it. Get a freaking grip on yourself and admit that the only reason you want them to tax the wealthy 2% of Americans is to make you feel better, PERIOD. Please at least be honest about it.
The bottom line is no matter the outcome the top 2% are going to pay their fair share and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
Anything to make you feel better job1, NOT!
Well Ozwald... If you're in that top 2% (NOT), You'd likely know how to spell "dummy". So, what's the reason (besides sycophantic boot-licking) that the very wealthy cannot afford to pay a slightly higher percentage in taxes? Something say... STILL A LOWER PERCENTAGE THAN YOU OR ME !!!
What exactly makes them less responsible? Your worship of them? Be careful, that boot you lick has a heel on it...
People that make $250,000 do pay more than you or I for income tax what the hell are you talking about?
They OFTEN pay a SMALLER percentage than we do. Why are you so protective of them?
How can you say that? Are you talking about capital gains? As far as ThEM goes they are Americans just like I am that's why I want to protect there personal income just like yours.
So what we have here is a deliberate and further polarization of the political spectrum by the TEA Party representatives. Maybe the Republican Party should disown them in order to force them to realize that our legislative system is built on compromise.
Why are you so against a balanced budget Matthew?
ozzie - your question is a deflection of the issue.
That said, I am not against a balanced budget. I am in favor of making it happen through intelligent negotiations and compromises as necesary. It's a case of increasing revenues AND cutting spending. One or the other won't work independently.
Ignore ozzieyo1, Matthew (good name, btw). He is a Republican/TP Inc. talking point regurgitating machine who not only doesn't have a single original thought, but doesn't even have a clue about what he posts about. He can't engage in a real debate because he knows that he doesn't have the facts on his side, so he does this deflection thing. Once you answer his deflection, out pops the talking points. Don't waste your time.
Matty's, really now? let the debating begin!
How are you going to balance the budget by raising taxes on the 2%?
Transparent yet somehow visibly stupid... Great come-back there Ozwald... I've never heard anyone say they'd balance the budget by collecting more from the welfare queens you concubine for... Just collecting monies due, that's all.
ozzieyo In Matthew"s first post where did you get balanced budget out of that?
yoozzie Tell us how you would balance the budget. You sound like you have the answers.
ozzie - As stated in my previous post (which was apparently overlooked by you), " It's a case of increasing revenues AND cutting spending. One or the other won't work independently."
That fiscal combination and political compromise is required to balance the budget. Good day, sir.
It's a good start. The more revenue in the closer we come. It's sad how this 47% that voted for Willard, work so hard to protect the top 1 to 2% that could care less for them.
Here's a better start cuts across the board in all spending. How about this talking point libs........wait........a little longer.......We have a spending problem not a revenue problem! You got to love it!
Nope a revenue problem.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
You win the prize, Job1! It's been a revenue problem since 1983.
I support the spending problem side - two wars, both unfunded; Medicare Part D drug bill, unfunded; and while going to war cutting taxes. Republicans love to spend, but don't like paying.
And before someone jumps me about these policies being ancient history, we will be paying for our history for years to come.
AFP - Americans For Prosperity? I don't think so. A more appropriate name would be: AFPOOP - Americans For the Prosperity Of the One Percent.
Talk about talking points Matty. Can't come up with something a little more specific? Why Matty?
More specific? O.K. ... Ozzie for the Prosperity of the One Percent... "OZZPOOP"!
yoozzie troll on little man.
No they are for smaller government and that's why you blood sucking liberals can not stand them.
There goes ozbo with his talking points - the only thing government has ever done under the GOP is get bigger and bigger.
Red, and go to war. Unfunded war at that.
Maybe the real problem is that the House of Representatives, due to gerrymandered districts, is no longer a representative body. It is dysfunctional because too many of its elected members represent such narrow constituencies within their own districts and do not face even serious primary challenges, let alone general election challenges.
even with gerrymandering Bachman and Cantnor faced very stiff re-elections this past Nov., I sense that even in these gerrymandered districts there is a growing discontent with the party of no.
Why does the 47% that voted for Willard, work so hard to protect the top 1 to 2% that could care less for them.
Because they are Americans too. Why do you want the government to take peoples money that they earned fairly?
That is the price they have to pay to live in the greatest nation in the world. And they will pay. Why fight it because it will happen.
"I got 98% of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."
That was what Speaker Boehner said on July 31, 2011 when he and the Republican House of Representatives reached a deal with President Obama and the Senate on the debt ceiling...the deal that has us currently headed towards the Fiscal Cliff.
Tell me, Mr. Speaker, when your party said no to Plan B last night, was that part of the 98% that you wanted or was that part of the 2% that you didn't want?
"If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 40 you have no brain."
Winston Churchill
I'll leave you libs with that....Peace!
And if you are a tea bagger at any age you are a DA.
There goes ozzieyo1 spouting a right wing talking point again. Problem is, it isn't even a real quote, Churchill never said that . . . or anything even close to it.
Eric Canter assured Boehner that he had the votes for Plan B. Surprise!!
I'm not a big fan of the Speaker, but if I were him I would never turn my back on the House Majority Leader.
There are few rules as hard and fast as (a) Never put a witness on the stand without knowing exactly what he is going to say, and (b) Never bring a bill to the floor without knowing the vote count.
The only solution is to get rid of the Tea Partiers in 2o14. In spite of Republican statehouse gerrymandering, Democrats polled more than a million more house votes overall in 2012. Doubt it will happen, but that is the only way. Meanwhile, my advice on issues from budget to gun regulation is never mind whether something will pass, "MAKE 'EM VOTE!".
koch bros ,aka ( kkk ) , anybody really looking at these turds , ,,,,,, tax returns ?????
Gotta love Tea Party logic- we'll let tax cuts for everyone expire before we vote to save tax cuts for 99% of the population because we're opposed to increased taxes. See the problem, Teatards?
The Republican Nazi Party are caught in a web of their own lies and failures.But no worry more lies are easy
Rather than attack each other, how about coming up with a plan to balance the budget? Republicans believe it can be done with spending cuts alone. Democrats believe it can be done with only tax increases.
I believe it needs to be done with both tax increases and spending cuts totalling in the hundreds of billions of dollars in each category. The "fiscal cliff" does this but only cuts the deficit in half, it doesn't balance the budget. Neither party is interested in balancing the budget and the higher the debt goes ulitmately the higher interest payments will get. I can see interest payments on the debt topping one trillion dollars a year in the not too distant future if something isn't done to control the budget.
Please attack the problem not each other!!
That's a stupid thing to think. It makes it FAR easier for the Democrats to get ALL the rates reset back to where they were befor the cuts were enacted. Free and clear, no cuts required. I think that's probably the best anyway. That will allow the Republicans to "recut" the rates for most Americans, rather than raise rates for the top few freeloaders. It will be interesting to see what they do after the cuts start. I am sure they will want to "uncut" some of the defense cuts. Maybe that would be a good time to hit them with a Pay For It clause. Any increase in spending needs to be paid for.