The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

House Passes Fiscal-Cliff Deal 257-167

Posted on | January 1, 2013 | 41 Comments

Earlier today, it was reported that House Republicans would insist on adding spending cuts to the version of the fiscal-cliff deal that the Senate passed. However, faced with the likelihood that President Obama would denounce such a measure, and the Democrat-led Senate would reject the House version, the decision has now reportedly been made to permit a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. It is currently being “debated” on the House floor and is expected to pass.

UPDATE: Darrell Issa has an interesting theory on the Republican Senators who voted for this deal:

BLITZER: All of those 89, including all of those conservative Republicans, including Pat Toomey and others, they were wrong?
ISSA: You know, Wolf, frankly I can’t account for what happens after midnight and all of that partying and revelry and drinking that goes on on New Years Eve at 2:00 in the morning.

Just don’t say they were “spending like drunken sailors.” At least sailors spend their own money.

They just began one hour of final debate on the bill at 9:46 p.m. ET, which means the vote should conclude shortly after 11.

UPDATE II: And they just voted to pass it, 257-167, with Democrats voting overwhelmingly in favor, and Republicans voting against it by about a 2-to-1 margin.

PREVIOUSLY:

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    So…the GOP is determined to Whig-Out, eh?

  • sheryl

    Seriously? How many more times are we going to allow these people to disappoint us?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003232872834 Becca Lower

    You left this one off of your Previously list, Stacy.

  • Finrod Felagund

    Vote. it. down.

    Or table it to committee or whatever. If they’re going to force-feed us tax hikes, tie the damn spending cuts to it, period.

  • Patrick Carroll

    I expect spending to continue its asymptotic ascent towards infinity, while taxes will go up, a little bit.

    The upside to all this is that not all the money in China can support this trend. It will end. The downside is me and my neighbors will have to start make plans for our personal Dien Bien Phu.

    Democrats. Jesus.

  • Pingback: Weeper Boehner votes yes on tax hikes – crap sandwich fiscal cliff bill passes House 257 TO 167 : Fire Andrea Mitchell!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003232872834 Becca Lower
  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    They disappoint me.

  • Rick20033

    Anyone who doesn’t support a primary challenger for each of the Republicans who voted for this is just as responsible for destroying the country as they are.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    I prefer my Wiig with a Kristen in front of it.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Did you ever read Peanuts? Did Charlie Brown ever get to kick that damn ball?

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    I just realized this vote was a preview of the selection for Speaker next Congress. Same 80-odd “climbers” on the R side voting Bone Head. Big bunch of Dems voting for him, too, except for the hardcore, sick-minded, Grayson types.

  • JeffS
  • JeffS

    Whups! You beat me…..I just posted the same link. My bad.

  • Far-right squish

    piss and moan

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    There was and is no good alternative. The amended version with spending cuts would not have been presented to the Senate, and the Let It Burn option would bring even more tax hikes and the spending cuts would be devastating to Defense.

    Blame whoever you wish, when America reelected Obama and enough Democrats to keep control of the Senate, she ensured no meaningful spending cuts and no serious entitlement reform would happen for at least two more years, and probably four.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003232872834 Becca Lower

    It’s fine, Jeff. Someone who was listening to our radio show tonight happened to share it in the chatroom.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    Kabuki all the way. There is no opposition party. It’s an illusion.

    Actually, let me rephrase: There is an opposition party… the entire Congress. It’s opposed to taxpayers except for their money.

    This country has failed. Not everyone understands this yet. Happy New Year!

  • scarymatt

    Not really. This law has a legitimate claim to bipartisan support.

  • Lightwave

    Very, very disappointed in Paul Ryan. No reason for him to vote for this at all. Are there any serious primary challengers who could face him for 2014? That’s a question we need to answer very quickly.

  • SDN

    Well, at least my Rep, Sam Johnson, voted against this thing.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Bravo!

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Ewwwwww!

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    I fear that you’re right, but I pray otherwise.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Bingo!

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Really…did we expect any different?

  • Pingback: Da Tech Guy's Blog » Blog Archive The House Cliff Vote: A preview of coming attractions » Da Tech Guy's Blog

  • PhillyCon

    Rush has been making a similar point. If Obama cannot own the last four years, how will he own any of this?

  • PhillyCon

    Sigh. No, you could see this stuff from a mile away, almost in slow motion.

  • Cube

    For small values of Republican votes, yes. Would it be considered bipartisan if it were something the right wanted and the vote totals were flipped?

    Oh wait, its only “bipartisan” when Democrats get their way or need political cover.

  • scarymatt

    89 is not what I’d call “small.” Sure, not a majority of them, but still quite a few. And then there’s the Senate…

    But yes, if that many Democrats voted for something reasonable, I’d say it had bipartisan support. Which I put at a lower hurdle than, say, “consensus” or anything with an “overwhelming” modifier.

    Frankly, I can’t get worked up about Yea or Nay House votes. As @Adjoran:disqus mentioned, this was about as good as the House could get, given everything else. The bill was somewhat of a Kissingerian situation where I think we were all hoping that both sides would lose.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    They flinched. Animals.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    My congressman voted no. It’s sad that I felt the need to check.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    Proposed constitutional amendment: “Any person serving in Congress must be occupied in a career or trade that requires his attendance in his district not less than 200 days each year. The houses of Congress shall adjust their rules and work schedules accordingly.”

  • Rick20033

    Big fences make for brave little dogs. The internet is a very big fence, little dog.

  • http://anexconsview.wordpress.com/ Paul H. Lemmen

    You can’t call Bingo with only one ball selected on the new card for 2013. That requires, at the least, 5 balls be drawn from the drum …

  • Quartermaster

    I would have been disappointed if they had not caved. Disappointed in a good way if they hadn’t, but it would have been completely against their political DNA not to cave.

  • Pingback: The Demographics of Envy : The Other McCain

  • http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/ Rich Vail

    As long as the current leadership of the GOP remains in place, we will NEVER get “meaningful spending cuts.” They have gone along to get along, for so long that they don’t know how to NOT spend other people’s money.

    It’s time to dump the GOP and start fresh. The GOP leadership in DC are part of the problem and will never be part of the solution. They’ve never seen a tax they didn’t like.
    We need to dump the GOP and start fresh…