The collapse of the House Republican leadership’s “Plan B” legislation this evening is being viewed first and foremost as a humiliating defeat for Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor. The proposal was supposed to be a clever tactic that would increase the pressure on President Obama and the Democrats since it would, at least theoretically, take the GOP off the hook for the country going over the fiscal cliff in the absence of a deal with the White House on spending and taxes. But Boehner didn’t have enough votes from his own caucus to back Plan B, even though it limited tax increases to those making over $1 million rather than the lower limits offered by the president in negotiations.
There are those who will argue that the collapse of Plan B will force Boehner back into negotiations with the president and create a situation where a grand budget deal would be possible. But the question that must be asked now is: if Boehner and Cantor could not whip up enough Republican votes for their own proposal, how is it possible that they could muster their support for an accord that would by definition be even less attractive to conservatives?
It is true that any deal struck between Boehner and Obama that would bridge the current gap between their positions on the budget would have considerable Democratic support and therefore enough votes to pass the House. But one has to ask how could Boehner’s leadership of the Republicans be sustained if on the most important piece of legislation before the Congress he relied more on Democrats than members of his own caucus?
It should be stipulated that the concerns voiced by members about Plan B are far from irrational. There is no reason to think a tax increase on anyone will boost the economy. Nor will soaking millionaires do much to cut the deficit. Nothing, other than the liberal ideology of the Democrats, would lead the country to raise taxes at a time when the economy is in such a fragile state.
But a failure to reach a deal with the White House would be a far greater catastrophe for the country than those tax hikes. Doing so would mean an across-the-board tax increase for everyone and mandate spending cuts on defense that would be ruinous.
Conservatives have a point when they say they were sent to Washington to stand up for their party’s principles, not to bow to liberal pressure. But it must also be understood that the people have spoken and, by electing a Republican House to govern alongside a Democrat Senate and president, have mandated that the two parties try to work together, no matter how much it bothers them.
Boehner seems to understand this, but the failure of his Plan B tactic demonstrates that such big picture thinking isn’t acceptable to the mindset of enough House Republicans to enable the speaker to prevail. That leaves him caught between allowing the country to go over the fiscal cliff—which would be blamed more on Republicans than the president—and a deal that most Republicans won’t buy. Either way, this is bad news for the speaker and the country’s fiscal health.
that's rather obvious. the Repubs will have to cave….. and accept what they have to accept…and blame it all on the Dems. n nConservatives aren't in position to dictate at present.
Going over the cliff under these circumstances will surrender the GOP's two most powerful issues — its anti-tax and pro-defense stance. This would be so irresponsible on the part of House "conservatives" that they would deserve to be defeated in 2016.
The Bush tax cuts were theoretically temporary. The spending cuts negotiated via the debt ceiling package were theoretically real. Sadly, under the current governance increased revenues are leveraged for even more spending. n nOur entitlements are unsustainable. At a certain point into geometrically expanding debt the funny paper money and electronic bytes of the debtor economy are no longer recognized as a medium of exchange and the real fun begins. n nHyperinflation or immediate draconian cuts could be real options if our governing class and the Democratic establishment do not disabuse themselves of the happy face illusion that since there are still heaps of blank checks in the larder government accounts must be magically flush. Tax increases matched by accounting gimmicks and savings pushed off into a decade's worth of future decisions that never quite materialize is not balance. n nGoing off the cliff and seeing what the landing looks like may be the only way to begin dealing with the deficit given the fundamental decadence of our corrupted political culture.
"Conservatives have a point ". Yes. Pointed heads. They are not 'conservatives', but ideologues. The extremists in the party lost the election, and they are now willing to let the country go down the drain for "their" principles. I disagree that they were sent to D.C. to lower taxes and nothing more.. They were not sent to Washington as robots. The electorate no doubt believed that they had a head on their shoulders (not a pointed one), and would steer a best possible course for the nation. Not one directly off the cliff.
Let me be contrarian. I favor going off the fiscal cliff. #1, first make drastic cuts, then undo some of them. This is the only way fiscal conservatives will get any significant cuts. #2, taxes should be raised on 80% of the people, including the broad middle class. What the middle class wants in goodies should be paid by middle class taxes. This hit to the economy is the only way to get the point across. Only measures like these have finally woken up the Greeks and other Europeans.
The reason Plan B failed is that no Democrats would vote for it even though it is a moderate proposal. n nThe Republican's only have a twenty-some seat majority. If the Dems in the House are going to vote "no" for every plan the Republicans put forward, no matter how reasonable, then the Republicans will need more than 90% of their member to vote in favor to get a bill passed. n nThis will never happen. nThe Republican leadership should put several reasonable proposals up for a vote and nforce the Dems to vote on them. If they can get 30 Dem votes, it will pass. n nIf not, they can say that the House Dems are being obstructionist and point out nthat they got 85% plus of the House Republicans to vote to avoid "the cliff." n nOf course, the press won't play it that way. Their view is that the Republicans should be able nto get 100% of their members to vote for reasonable things. n
Boener lost this one back in 2011 when he caved on the first debt deal. At the time, the GOP elites/RINOs (including the WSJ, National Review, and Commentary) all said that we had to cave on the debt deal in order to have a chance in the 2012 election. Well, as it turned out, we caved on the debt deal and lost in 2012. 2011 was the best chance that the House GOP had to reverse course and they blew it. Boener has no idea how to negotiate with someone like Obama. Obama can only be beat in the arena of public opinion and will never negotiate in good faith. n nWhat the House GOP should have done, from day one, is point out that the House of Representatives is the Constitutional body that our Founders entrusted to make the Nation's tax and spending decision. Yes, Boener will cave, and when he does the GOP caucus will be torn asunder. Obama has strong cards and he is playing them. He is trying to destroy the Republican party by having us bless his tax increase…and it is working.