Speaker of the House John Boehner has hinted that any deal to avoid the fiscal cliff on January 1 negotiated in the Senate by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Majority Leader Harry Reid would be subject to amendments when it reaches the House.
In practical terms, this means that chances to conclude a deal before the January 1 deadline are remote.
At issue — the tax rate increase on “the rich.” It is likely that any deal coming out of the Senate would raise the income level for the tax rate increase to no more than $500,000 from the current $250,000. Even if there were enough House Republicans who would go along with any tax increase at all, that number would probably be unacceptable to a majority of those opposed to raising the rates. Boehner will have a hard time selling any increase to his caucus below $1 million — a figure that the president has indicated is off the table.
McConnell and Reid have promised to deliver a proposal to the Senate on Sunday.
If there is a Reid-McConnell deal, officials said, it would probably include these elements: an extension of current income-tax rates for most Americans; a measure to block a scheduled expansion of the alternative minimum tax; an extension of unemployment benefits and possibly a measure to prevent a scheduled cut in Medicare payments to doctors.
A wide range of other issues are on the table that could serve as sweeteners or stumbling blocks, potentially including elements of a stalled farm bill. Mr. Obama wants to include an extension of the U.S.’s borrowing limit, which will be breached in the spring, but that is unlikely, officials said.
The president also wanted to postpone the $110 billion in spending cuts due to take effect Jan. 2. Mr. Boehner said he wouldn’t agree unless other programs were cut to compensate. A GOP aide said it was “clear” the spending cuts wouldn’t be addressed this round.
Likely to be included is a measure blocking a Jan. 1 increase in the estate tax, an issue that divides Democrats and is make-or-break for senators of both parties. “I’m totally dead set on keeping the rates right where they are,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), guessing that 60 senators shared his position.
How the House will respond to any Senate deal is a crucial unanswered question. According to a spokesman, Mr. Boehner told the president the House would consider whatever bill passes the Senate, either accepting or amending it.
Are there enough bitter end Republicans in the House who could torpedo a deal? It would depend on two factors: whether almost all Democrats would vote for a Senate deal and just how much influence Boehner still has over his caucus. If all House Democrats support a deal coming out of the Senate, Boehner would be granted some leeway in herding Republicans to the finish line. The speaker could lose up to 25 members and still carry the day.
But given Boehner’s inability to convince Republicans to vote for his “Plan B” proposal last week, it is an open question whether he could hold enough of his own caucus to get a deal done. It didn’t help that Boehner purged some tea party members from influential committees — only to see the ideological compatriots of Reps. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), Justin Amash (Mich.) and Dave Schweikert (Ariz.) stiff the Speaker when he needed them for his Plan B gambit. Are there any inducements or threats that Boehner could offer that would change that dynamic? It is not wise to underestimate the power of the speaker but Boehner has not been able to show that he has the fortitude to crack the whip to get reluctant members back in line. Even appeals to members that the GOP would suffer ruinous losses in the 2014 midterms if no deal is reached appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
Given that time is running out, the Senate may not pass a deal until Monday — if they can come together to pass anything at all. At that point, with a matter of hours remaining before the deadline, Boehner may be forced into a straight up or down vote on the Senate proposal. Any amendments desired by House Republicans would have to be cleared in the conference committee — a remote possibility given the time constraints and the insistence by Senate Democrats in sticking with Obama’s plan.
It will take all of Boehner’s skills as a politician to convince his reluctant caucus that this stop-gap deal — with no amendments — is the best that can be achieved and that the GOP should accede to the president’s wishes.
Don’t bet the House on it.
I cannot reiterate how offensive I find it that the President is basically going to destroy the idea the the House is where the people place preeminence on tax decisions, by his using the more imperial and aristocratic portions of government to force a raise–by being willing to destroy the government if he does not get his way (not the first tim a Democrat has done this). I understand that as a practical political matter my offense matters not, but it does reinfrce me in my belief that eventually, if this slide towards Leviathan does not stop, we are going to have to a divorce as a nation.
I mean, liberals believe in “no-fault” divorce, don’t they?
I’d also oike to say that I emphatically agree with Erick Erickson–things just need to come to the floor of both houses and be deliberated, instead of folks like Harry Reid unilaterally blocking flow due to party concerns. It destroys the deliberative nature of the Congress, and places factional interest over national.
Neither the Speaker of the House nor the Senate Majority leader should be able to disenfranchise any state, any district, in the sense of not geing able to get that state’s or district’s issues heard by the entire membership of each house, if that membership (as a whole), so chooses. We elect representatives of regions, not give overlordship, election to election, to parties embodied in one man.
There needs to be a serious discussion on whether the current way bills and amendments are processed is best for a constitutional republic. I think we need a more egalitarian system of greater equal relative power between districts and states, independent of party affiliation. Less party, more representation (and “true” representation, especially on large issues, not this “I am the Lord of my district” stuff). We need to find a way to reenergize the connection between the local citizenry and representative, instead of it being relatively isolated citizens in large districts, and a distant representative known only through 30-second attack ads and whatever the media chooses to allow through. That is the way to Leviathan, the way citizens become subject.
These should be the ideals. How to insure they become a commonplace, of course, is the issue.
Upon thinking of the matter more, and do pardon the soliloquy–this site is often my sketchpad and rough draft–it is my profound belief that Senators were more in tune with the people, and more accountable to them, back in the days of being voted in by state legislatures, than today. This is not to mean that the situation might not have had its flaws–just that with state populations today roughly being the size of the entire United States during the early part of its history (Founding to Civil War), it seems as if it is simply impossible for the citizenry to know or control a Senator, accept on the most basic and shallow level (easily subject to demagoguery), whereas state legislators would presumably have had more intimate contact, and would be less susceptible to demagoguery, —and that, in addition, that the state legislators are knowable by the people of a local community, easily so.
Perhaps there needs to be a mixed system. After all, that is why the Lincoln-Douglas debates were held–to have the people influence the legislature.
Second–I propose the following, for future Constitutions– that Presidents may not veto revenue bills at all (but may spending), that they may do so, but rates cannot rise for a year after the veto; or that they can, but that any subsequent increase in rates enacted for a period of six months after the veto do not take effect until after the next election. One man should not be able to tell the entire nation what its taxes shall be, nor bring the government to a halt until he gets his way. As we are seeing with Obamacare, the power to tax is the power to destroy.
The States are beginning to feel their oats. What with unions getting lashed by right to work laws etc.. Now would be a good time to go for Federalism. Was it the 18th amendment? Gay stuff, marijuana, immigration, Obamacareless, unfunded Federal liabilities. I can’t pay any more for porch monkeys; pregnant pigs, fuel vouchers, rural school bus service, medicaid, energy assistance, food stamps, free breakfast,lunches for students even in the summer. Move to where the jobs are.If you can’t make it here then you don’t belong here.Block grants to States and everybody works like I have. Two jobs means less time for unprotected sex for these morons. I am pissed.j
PS. Sorry for sounding erratic.
1) The current breakdown of the House is 241 Republicans and 191 Democrats with 3 vacant seats right now. Total: 432, 50% of which is 216. Thus 217 passes anything.
2) If a bill comes out of the Democrat controlled Senate, all 191 House Democrats will vote for it. Just as they can be assumed to automatically vote against any bill coming from the Republican side. There may be a bunch of Democrat true believers who will object to any bill that does not create a Peoples’ Republic immediately; but at the end of the day they will vote for the Democrat Senate Bill. q.v. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic%20centralism .
3) Thus, all Boehner needs to pass the Reid-McConnell capitulation to Obama will be 26 out of 241 votes to get to the magic 217.
4) There are 21 Committees in the House, the Chairmen and Whips of which have been appointed by Boehner. That gives him 42 no matter what.
5) They will, of course, promise to really, really, REALLY fight next time when the Debt Limit comes up. Unless of course the Senate bill gives in to Obama’s demand that the President have sole control over the debt limit. In which case the false promises will be far more vague, but just as false.
6) The best case remaining is that the 50 or so TEA Party/Patriot Movement Representatives vote either “NO” or “Present” as a step to establishing a separate caucus and a future separate party.
There is no option that does not lead to economic collapse. Let it happen with Democrat fingerprints all over it.
Subotai Bahadur
Of course there’s an option: run out the clock. Amend the bill, and force a conference committee. Once we get to Jan 3, the bill is void and must start the process over in a new Congress, and before any business happens, the Congress must vote on rules and leadership positions.
From the Senate Conservative Fund –
“Senators love to hide the laws they pass.
If you pay close attention, you’ll see that nearly every substantive bill the Senate passes harms you and your family through more spending, higher taxes, and more regulations. It’s the Washington way. And I wish this was limited to when Democrats are in power, but the Republican record isn’t much better.
This is why senators in both parties don’t like to debate legislation for any meaningful amount of time and it’s why they will do anything to avoid having to vote for specific provisions hidden inside their bills.
The desire to hide their legislation is also why a new filibuster reform proposal was announced yesterday that will:
1. Shorten the time a bill is debated down to just two days; and
2. Eliminate all but two Republican amendments per bill.
It’s designed to help politicians in the Senate pass more laws without you knowing about it.
You will hear Harry Reid and other liberals complain about obstruction, but that’s not their real problem. They can pass just about anything they want if they’re willing to engage in an open debate. But there’s the rub. Liberals don’t want to debate because they know voters don’t like their ideas.
And it’s not just the Democrats who want to make it easier to pass liberal legislation; many Republicans do too. In fact, the new filibuster reform plan is backed by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and will likely attract support from other establishment Republicans.
You see, the plan only guarantees two Republican amendments and those amendments can only be offered by the Republican Leader and the top Republican on the committee with jurisdiction of the bill. This protects senior lawmakers, but it means a freshman like Ted Cruz (R-TX) won’t be allowed to offer his ideas.
Senate conservatives should oppose the new filibuster reform plan and propose their own changes to the rules to:
1. Require 72-hours notice before considering a bill;
2. Allow each senator to offer at least one amendment; and
3. Require 67 votes to end debate if the bill adds to the deficit.”