I never advocated tax hikes.
I simply stated that the reason the bill adds to the deficit is because it prevented the largest tax increase in history from going into effect automatically.
It is always how you frame the issue. Is it really a tax increase or a return to the previous rates? Is the end of the two year payroll tax holiday an increase? Norquist likes to say the Reps who voted for the bill were voting to cut taxes, not increase them on the so-called rich. Hence, it didn't violate the pledge.
With Boehner in leadership and expiring tax cuts put into law by the Bush administration ... well, this was inevitable. I opposed the Bush tax cuts in ‘01 for the same reason that some conservatives voted against them ... because temporary tax cuts are just that: Temporary tax relief. I only support permanent reduction in the marginal rates. PERIOD. Any else is garbage.
It depends on the meaning of the word permanent. The only reason that the new rates are "permanent" is that they don't have a sunset clause. The reality is that any future Congress can change the marginal rates at any time. The Bush tax rates lasted ten years, which is a fairly long time historically. You and McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, which were only for the wealthy if you buy the propaganda.
I do not have any advice for the tea-party wing of the House GOP since they seem to have postured themselves out of the negotiations. Who participated in the negotiations?
Nonsense. The RINOs led by Boehner margalized the conservatives including conducting a purge from the various committees. The freshmen class that came in January 2011 after an historic election that gave control of the House back to the GOP and many state legislatures and other offices wanted to reduce spending and limit the size of government. When they got to Washington, they had to deal with an entrenched Rep establishment who did not share those objectives. Instead, they found that their ideas were not welcomed. They were supposed to be docile supporters of the House leadership and vote as instructed.
No spending cuts were made by the Boehner and he kept postponing the confrontation with the Dems on spending. The sequestration agreement was really a surrender to the WH and set the stage for what happened yesterday. Boehner didn't push to make the Bush tax cuts permanent in the 2010 lame duck Congress or in the 2011 debt limit ceiling fight.
The only group that wasn’t at the table was ... HoUSE conservatives. So they are not part of the governing coalition. Seems to be by choice because their constituents prefer a non-negotiable approach. It just is too much of the stupit. Stupit is as stupit does.
You are spouting the Establishment line from both parties, i.e., those damn Tea Party people are extreme and won't compromise. BS. They are the ones who are standing by their principles and refuse to go along to get along. The stakes are too high to play politics as usual. By marginalizing the Tea Party (and I have been active in the movement) the Reps are inviting a third party. This last vote that saw 151 Reps vote against the bill with about half of that number voting for it, will be the catalyst to form that third party. Conservatives have had it with the GOP. I will not contibute any longer my money and time to the GOP. I am finished with them.
The House GOP and Romney for that matter, should have embraced the Tea Party instead of running away from it. The Dems and the MSM have been very successful in demonizing and smearing the Tea Party. Boehner would not be the Speaker without them. Loyalty begets loyalty.
i ain’t much of a legislative strategerist. but something is stupid. The gingrichers didn’t run away from Michel, they took over. If the teaparty wingers cannot bring down the Boehner, then the teaparty ain’t got much strength in Congress.
I suspect that the Cantor ‘NO’ vote was approved from above to allow Cantor to succeed Boehner, if necessary, and cut off a genuine overthrow.