Posted under CoffeeTime
Norquist says fiscal cliff deal is “technically” a tax cut. I say Norquist is technically FOS. His rationalization is pure sophistry.
Here are the five Republican Senators who voted no on the fiscal cliff. My two Georgia Senators were not on the list. Hopefully Saxby (Taxby) Chamblis will have a primary challenger in 2014.
Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Richard Shelby (Ala.), and Chuck Grassley (Iowa).
Democrat moves to block Congressional pay raise. I believe Barrow is the last white Democrat to represent a non-minority majority district in the Deep South. He won a close race this time by spending a lot of money and running a very populists campaign. This will add to his populist street cred.
Here is the House roll call for the fiscal cliff deal. Every Republican from my state voted no along with Democrat Barrow discussed above. Ron Paul did not vote. In general the Redder the state the more likely the Republican delegation was to vote no, and the Bluer vice versa.
Update: It looks like Boehner will hold on.
Sean Scallon on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:44 am #
I would be very surprised if someone challenged Boehner.
You know why? Because they need someone to blame when things go wrong. He makes a nice pinata. Otherwise someone else would have to fill that role and nobody wants it.
RedPhillips on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:51 am #
It looks like you are correct.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Fiscal-Cliff-Boehner-re-election/2013/01/02/id/469834
The problem is no one wants to run against him and fail and then face the consequences.
Sean Scallon on 03 Jan 2013 at 5:08 am #
If they really wanted Boehner to go they would have done so in 2009 or in 2011. They know what he is deep down is but nobody else wants to be thrust forward lest they get shot at too or have to take responsibility for their rhetoric. So they’re stuck with him because at least he’s willing to take the beating for making unpopular decisions like some jobber in a pro wrestling match. This is not exactly profiles in courage.
Sean Scallon on 03 Jan 2013 at 6:15 am #
Notice too there are a lot of Conservative establishment figures (Norquist included) who are sticking up for Boehner, saying the deal is the best thing since sliced bread. I suspect they’re trying to prop him up or the leadership anyway lest the whole structure fall into chaos and some “tea partier” takes charge of the House Republican which they do not wish to see. Had they been more critical, then a movement to remove Boehner might have reached critical mass. Instead it’s just bunch of bloggers and websites demanding his ouster. That’s not enough.
Matt Weber on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:38 pm #
For that matter, what would they want a Boehner replacement to do? The Republicans got outfoxed politically on this whole thing, so it isn’t just a matter of putting someone with the right ideology in. Maybe this attitude is part of why the Republicans are so bad at politics these days.
RedPhillips on 03 Jan 2013 at 5:09 pm #
I don’t know of anyone who is saying the deal is the “best thing since sliced bread.” What its defenders are saying is that it was close to the best we could hope for or the best of a bad situation.
I suspect a majority of House Republicans would concede off the record that Boehner is bad for the party’s image just as the majority of Dems would probably concede off the record that Nancy Pelosi is bad for the Dems image. The problem is that challenging the leadership is a dangerous game. Plus it’s probably true that a lot of those with good sense don’t want the job.
JDP on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:38 am #
the problem is the Republicans don’t have a growth message besides continuing current tax rates (this being the one exception in a bad situation) and a bunch of the more “principled” (not something i really get, the current leadership is conservative, it’s just certain “firebrands” are symbolically moreso) people suggested are seriously flawed, unless “sticking it to the media/Obama” is the only objective and nothing else is considered.
it’s framed as a moderate sellout vs. conservative argument but it’s really just about general political sense, talents, which Boehner isn’t great at but some of the more “hardcore” types are worse.
JDP on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:39 am #
i mean cutting spending (though nebulously referred to) is obviously an important general policy but that and growth policy are two separate things.
Richard Channing on 04 Jan 2013 at 3:41 pm #
I don’t think anybody can correctly call the current Republican leadership “conservative”. They raise taxes and want to give Obama amnesty. I think “stupid” (or worse) is a better description.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:04 pm #
Richard Channing,
Of course the Republican leadership is conservative. Sure, they now favor gun confiscation, amnesty for illegal aliens, and increased domestic surveillance.
But they support subsidies to Israel. That’s all that counts.
Richard Channing on 04 Jan 2013 at 8:28 pm #
You are correct HB2. It’s how simpletons like Sean Hannity can call Joe Lieberman a “conservative” Democrat.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:12 pm #
Richard Channing,
Ugh. I know. When I hear that, I feel like puking.
RedPhillips on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:21 pm #
JDP, growth is obviously a good thing. Growth is, all other things being equal, better than non-growth. (From a conservative standpoint, growth could potentially be destructive, but that is for a different discussion.) But I’m skeptical of growth as a policy cure. First of all, I’m not sure that 5% growth rates or whatever are sustainable indefinitely. (As an aside, a lot of pro-growth people are pro-imigration and the growth they support is somewhat artificial.) But essentially they promote growth as a policy objective because it potentially allows them to not have to make hard choices. If we can just grow the economy then we will collect more revenue and decreased the debt, then we don’t have to think about pesky things like cutting spending.
C Bowen on 04 Jan 2013 at 11:50 pm #
Growth is not necesarily a good thing in a fiat economy as their is no decent measurement to say whether there was growth or contraction. Very recently, pro-growth meant large debt financed infrastructure projects/transaction subsidies (hardly free market.) EBT cards, for example, provide growth, but who supports that system?
Non-growth even contraction is fine–it encourages leisure over labor trades and risk and punishes credit (but I guess that point about leisure could be debated) and from a consumption point of view, rewards savers with cheaper prices.
If Republicans get serious about the last point, they might get the stones to end the endless “unemployment” payment schemes and tackle the political cycle of the Fed’s boom/bust plan, but for the time being they keep going on about jobs so the income tax can fleece the populace a bit more productively in order to finance more projects.
Cutting spending, tied to preserving welfare state payments is the magic, but that doesn’t serve Republican or Democrat bosses, hence all the misdirection.
Sean Scallon on 05 Jan 2013 at 5:22 am #
Apparently there was a coup attempt, and it might as well been made by clowns, it would have been the same farce.
With enemies like these Boehner can be rest assured he still remain as Speaker as long as he wants to.
Here’s the link to what happened: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/04/just_how_incredibly_incompetent_was_the_anti_boehner_coup_attempt.html
RedPhillips on 05 Jan 2013 at 6:24 am #
Sean what is the point of being snarky? The fact that the coup attempt was so amateurish is to be mourned, not snarked about.
JDP on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:59 am #
“They raise taxes and want to give Obama amnesty.”
i know the latter was mentioned after the election but i doubt it. in all likelihood, at most the GOP will suggest a willingness to sign on to minor bills only affecting select illegals, the Democrats will push for full Comprehensive blahblah and still accuse the GOP of being mean racists, and everything’ll fall apart again.
fact is even if Boehner wanted to sign on to the latter (which again i have my doubts even considering his post-election comments, guessing he wanted to seem “nice”) he’ll have a revolt in his caucus.
the former, i dunno what people really were expecting in this particular situation, other than banging their heads against the wall until Obama somehow had a change of heart and agreed to a House GOP deal. they pushed it up to $400/450K anyway.
Israel doesn’t really factor into my thinking although i don’t share the animosity toward it that some seem to, which i think sometimes poison legit critiques of its policies.
Sean Scallon on 05 Jan 2013 at 9:21 pm #
Because Red, as the Keystone Kops or Inspector Cleuseau proved, incompetence can be funny.
I didn’t consider it snark, it was more gallows humor.
Besides, what do want me to cry about? People who won’t step up and put themselves on line, or try to do so and look stupid considering the man they’re trying to overthrow is hardly Ceasar.
It mreminds me of an old saying: “It’s no wonder you weep like a woman for what you couldn’t defend like a man.”
C Bowen on 05 Jan 2013 at 9:53 pm #
The “coup” was only to enhance Cantor’s status via the media. It was a sham.
Real coup attempts have dead bodies and resignations.
savrola on 07 Jan 2013 at 8:36 pm #
The Republicans are in general incompetent and stupid, and the parliamentiary procedure is not only muddled but irelevent.
Why do you want us to take this seriously, Red?