Thanks Steve for staying on top of this and keeping us posted. I appreciate how hard you worked and the effort it took and just well...thanks. The beginning of a great new year where hopefully there will be a change in consciousness for this republican house.

The best part of this is that a slimy little Confederate Traitor and true Schmuck (as an NYC friend and member of the tribe put it, "He's just a schmuck with a Jewish name") ended up face down in a muddy ditch, bayoneted through and through and ready to be buried with the rest of the traitors.

Boehner just pulled off his own coup d'etat against Cantor, with the help of Ryan. Watch bad things happen to Cantor's fellow conspirators in the next month.

They say that the tone deaf cannot tell how off-key they are, and therefore think they are great singers. Mitt Romney may be evidence of this. As may 151 House Republicans. Do they honestly have no clue how that vote makes them look? Do they really not realize that they are just proving the Democrats' case that the only tax rates they care about keeping down are those for the very richest at the top?

This is one of the party's biggest image problems, that they are viewed as the tools of plutocrat billionaires who make no effort to serve the country or their constituencies as a whole. Apparently, that description is accurate for at least 151 of them.

Paul Ryan voted for this bill. There is no more dedicated supply-sider in Congress, and yet he is politically savvy enough to understand that the optics of trying to raise taxes on all Americans in order to maintain pressure for cuts for the top 1% are not good. Eric Cantor, it would seem, is not so smart.

This is one of the lessons the party should have learned from the defeat of the Romney/Ryan ticket, but it seems to still elude many of them. Fortunately, not all.

As Naomi Klein pointed out in Shock Doctrine, there's nothing like an emergency to get people to close their eyes and jump. And if there is no emergency to get those eyes closed, well, one can be provided.

Many have commented on the similarity to the Blazing Saddles scene where the Sheriff takes himself hostage. "Oh, Lordy, Lord, he desperate! Do what he say! Do what he say!" (youtube)

Boehner was not willing to allow 151 representatives return the country to recession, but is there anything here to suggest that this silly drama will not be attempted again in 3 months with a debt ceiling hostage crisis? On the other hand, maybe Boehner has had a belly full and wants his legacy to be something other than being the butt of jokes told by historians about US politics in the early 21st century. I am not holding my breath in anticipation, but his willingness to set aside the Hassert Rule did surprise me.

Presumably despite the 151 voting against, a majority of the GOP caucus is still with Boehner but didn't want to take the electorale heat for raising taxes- forcing the Dems to take the fall for that, while simultaneously making Dems vote in cuts to dividends, and estate taxes. But what if this is not so- What if Cantor rounds up most of the 151 to support him as Speaker.

In response to this, I still wonder if it would be possible that a unity caucus formed of centrist GOP and Dem representatives might vote in a compromise bipartisan speaker.

It's pretty wild, but that would make the next 2 years less dismal than it appears it shall otherwise be.

I have to believe he was trying to get this done without cutting peoples' unemployment and implementing all the automatic spending cuts that were in the last "deal". I think the economy is teetering enough.

I don't really like it either. See my post below 7.1 for more.

At least the taxes won't go up on middle incomes and all the way up to $450K (which I would call "well off"), they won't notice the increase.

I agree - bad deal. But I'm glad for the many unemployed that they will continue to receive needed benefits. $400,000 is a high mark, considering the average family income in the US is $50,054 (down slightly from 2008). Even $250,000 is five time more than that average - $400,000 is eight times. No unbiased economist sees anything above $125,000 as "middle income." But I guess it's just a matter of perspective...

We'll find out how bad a deal it really was in a couple of months. Obama has to deal with negotiations over the sequesters and the debt ceiling. He has almost nothing to negotiate with now, having given up almost all of his bargaining chips for little reason over the past week.

Someone please teach the Dems how to stand up for a principle. Quickly.

Principle? You guys got more taxes and enough new spending to go through that money and even more. $4 trillion in new debt over ten years. The only principle here is tax and spend. As always, IOKIYAD.

Oh here shooter goes confusing democrats with republicans borrow and spend policies. Really shooter your projection is really lame.

Well, considering that the two largest "spending" items on the list come in as Iraq War, Iran War and Medicare Part D. You know the one where Medicare is forbidden by LAW to negotiate the lowest possible price for the Drugs. A great Republican business principal I believe. That is your spending increase.

Not to worry Shooter, the spending side of the "Fiscal Cliff" has yet to be addressed. I am assuming many long rounds of negotiating over the next two years. Maybe they will be able to cut Defense Spending to a more realistic 350 Billion a year instead of the 750 Billion now spent. What do you think Shooter? You up to cutting the spending on the one item that accounts for 60% of total Federal Spending? Eh?

I'm wondering if the sequester might not be a Dem bargining chip in the upcoming debt ceiling fight? It does heavily cut the defense budget, something the Reps are totally against. If memory serves correctly, it also does not include cuts to the so-called 'entitlements'?

Guess we'll see in a couple of months.

That's what I was thinking. They come up right at the same time. I don't think he will play their games with the debt ceiling this time.

It's good analysis, but by Steve Benen, who blogs (superbly) for the Maddow show.

I totally agree to the superb job Steve has done in keeping us up to date and informed!

Absolutely. Bravo!

RobDon,

There is SO much wrong about this bill, but at least the 2-3 Million unemployed don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

I think you are blaming the wrong people about the Bush tax cuts - I think it was Representative Neal from Massachusetts (?) who was on CSPAN tonight that said that it was Bush who said it was "patriotic" to decrease taxes during a war and leave it for our children to pay for.

Right now, we CAN'T increase the taxes to pre-Bush levels - it would tank our fledgling economy - what would you have us do?

Remember, "permanent" means only till the next time they decide to vote on taxes.

Yes, Rob, you are. The problem is that the Bush tax cuts were VERY heavily weighted towards the super rich. This takes care of part of that problem, although not all of it.

This bill takes care of a SMALL part of that problem - we need to do more to solve the inequalities that exist in our economy if we want that economy to ever become healthy again!

We ARE going to have to raise the taxes on all of us eventually - we still have two wars to pay for, and I for one don't think my children or grandchildren should pay for our mistakes!

RobDon . . . The problem was the stunning fiscal irresponsibility of the G. W. Bush administration. Tax cuts should have been reversed as soon as the 9/11 attacks occurred. Iraq and Afghanistan should have been paid for--as John Kerry suggested--with general tax increases. The prescription drug bill should have included price controls over--and competitive purchasing of--pharmaceuticals. Instead of paying military contractors 10 times what those in the military would have earned for the same work, additional soldiers should have been recruited at regular pay rates. Oil subsidies should have been removed from the books until the budget was back in balance.

Unfortunately, we have eight years of the most fiscally reckless and shortsighted president in history. It will take years of careful work by Obama and the Dems to get things back on track.

I agree, mpguy. We live in a time when no one except servicemen and their families have been asked to sacrifice anything to help make and keep this country strong. And by strong I am not talking about military might. Nor am I implying religious conviction. I am talking about a willingness to give something, anything, to your country to support the values of freedom and democracy.

We, as a people, spend too much time squabbling amongst ourselves over petty differences even while enjoying a prosperity that continues to be the envy of the world. What's wrong with giving something back, whether it's in the form of public service or paying taxes? Why are we quibbling about a fiscal cliff when we have been trying to claw our way out of a fiscal pit for a decade? Greed and selfishness have replaced service and sacrifice as the paradigm of 21st century America.

Exactly, they are so full of cr@p.

I am not happy that this will come back up again, but i know one thing for sure D's and R's and I's that like Medicare, SS and the child food programs like WIC and others better start calling and writing their Reps. about this. They want to cut all of it until it all dies.

This was only part 1.

Part 2 is going to be bloody.

Typical R's would not do it, call the Senate dictators.

POTUS is blamed either way. Either he is a dictator or he didn't come to the table. What a bunch of idiots.

I am not looking forward to the next battle royale. Get ready to dial phones and send emails. We have to let these folks in Congress know we are not going to stand for cuts to the New Deal that hurt the least powerful in the country the most.

Exactly. I'm all for cutting costs. But all of the data shows that the middle class has taken the brunt over the last 30 years, and that's WITH all of the benefits we have. Start taking them away? You'll strangle the very economy we have moving in the right direction now.

So: we need the people who have benefited greatly over the last 30 years to start feeling some of the pain. Their party gave us a hefty slice of that deficit, so pay up. It's time.

And fercryingoutloud: someone teach the loonies in Congress what compromise is all about. This is a chess game, people, you have to participate. You can't just pout in the corner. Play or forfeit.

The House had already done that. They passed a bill to not raise taxes on anyone, Bruce.

Yes, the House passed a bill that would protect the wealthy even though they could well afford to contribute to the country's cash problem, which was the whole point of the exercise. They wanted to "starve the beast" in order to destroy those programs that help people, like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. They are so obvious about it that only intellectually challenged people can't see it for what it is.

We really could use a third party, and libertarian might work. We could rename the Republican party the anti-abortion party... or the pro-life party, and let someone else make the case for fiscal responsibility. The Republicans aren't using that particular tag line.

It's difficult to argue with a cynic because they have so much evidence on their side. - Molly Ivins

I miss Molly. Thanks for that and I could not agree more.

It has always been thus. Only on rare occasions has the Federal legislature risen to the occasion and passed future oriented legislation. The only recent example that comes to mind is the ACA, and that was so full of holes that it is on exhibit in the Museum of Swiss cheese.

....and look at the effort Cantor and crew put in to try to deny the band-aids!

I hope so. I would like to know why they voted "no." Were they on the same side as the repubs or were they opposed coming from the opposite direction? In other words, did they vote against it because it went too far or not far enough?

I don't see the super lefties breaking away anytime soon.

And I don't see anything wrong with the senate dictating.

Second the motion.

Shawn: the payroll tax reduction will not be renewed under the compromise. Therefore, most of us will still have some sort of tax increase. That is one failure that the compromise contains, alas.

The "payroll tax" cut was really a direct attack on the social security trust fund, and it was a 2% tax that was reinstated in this bill, as it needed to be. The worst of the recession is over, and it was a temporary cut that was not supposed to last as long as it did. Gutting the only source of funds for social security is NOT what we want to continue doing.

Survival of ourselves and our planet should be our abiding goal.

I hope TPM comes out with the list of Republicans who voted no.

their meandering districts will make it very difficult, but educating the voters of their districts- beginning now- as to where their true selfish interest lie, I concur is the way to target them early.

Unfortunately, it will probably work out just the opposite. They'll be conservative heros and the ones who voted for it will be primaried.

one of the fallouts of this battle may be that in the next congress the House republicans have less power, as a fractured caucus. It would appear that there 85-ish not completely stupid house republicans.

Think back to the house debt ceiling battle. The R-caucus was confused but nearly united. They had what 5 or 10 "defectors." Now they have 85.

It remains to be seen what the 113th House will look like, but I think the TP/Small Gov/Libertarian movement has lost some power, regardless.

Also, apparently Luke Russert had a better handle on how the GOP voting would go than members of the GOP caucus. At one point he was interviewing one of them and asked about how many the Rep thought would support the bill. After the Rep said he doubted it would get into the triple digits, Luke suggested "around 80 or 90 then?", to which the Rep answered "more like 50".

Well, with 85 GOP members voting for the bill, it appears that Luke had the right of it, and that Rep he interviewed misjudged the support in his own caucus.