House passes fiscal cliff deal

posted at 8:01 am on January 2, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

10:45 p.m., 257-167.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) and most other top GOP leaders took no public position on the measure and offered no public comment before the 10:45 p.m. vote. Boehner declined even to deliver his usual closing argument, leaving House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) to defend the measure as the “largest tax cut in American history.”

The bill will indeed shield millions of middle-class taxpayers from tax increases set to take effect this month. But it also will let rates rise on wages and investment profits for households pulling in more than $450,000 a year, marking the first time in more than two decades that a broad tax increase has been approved with GOP support.

The measure, which dealt with the tax question while punting sequestration cuts and the debt ceiling, passed with the support of 85 Republicans, including the Speaker who took the unusual measure of casting a vote, and 172 Democrats. Here’s the roll call, with the notable Yes vote of Rep. Paul Ryan and the notable No votes of incoming Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Eric Cantor. Ryan’s vote will, of course, set up a 2016 primary debate on it that some conservatives believe he’ll never overcome. Color me skeptical that three years from now he won’t be able to defend it well enough to get through the process. Ahem, McCain and Romney.

Earlier in the day, the GOP caucus had entertained the idea of amending the Senate bill, which the Senate claimed it would not touch, thus ending this toxic game of ping-pong with a trip over the cliff as the markets opened today. By the time the GOP caucus met for the second time Tuesday, at 5:15 p.m., the tone in the room was reportedly vastly different than it had been earlier in the day. The Speaker offered to bring the bill to the floor for spending-cut amendments if 218 Republicans were in favor of it, but even conservative votes were backing off late Tuesday:

I’m with Phil Klein on this, that the deal is an objectively horrible one, but a relatively good one, given the options. He writes a helpful Good, Bad, and Ugly of the bill, here. Although I hate the Bad and the Ugly, I think some underestimate the Good of getting most of the Bush tax cuts extended permanently. Democrats never wanted any of them to be permanent, and indeed denied the existence of any Bush tax cuts for anyone other than the rich until two years ago when Obama suddenly discovered these tax cuts for the middle class. As of today, if the bill hadn’t passed, the tax cuts Obama and Democrats denied existed for 10 years would have become the Obama tax cuts. And don’t forget, they want and need taxes to rise on the middle class to pay for the level of government spending they want to perpetuate. I know some are in favor of making that happen to teach the middle class exactly what government costs, but I’m not sure that does anything but undermine the central rationale for voting Republican. In the future, these rates for everyone under $450K are a better baseline for broader tax reform that we would have had if we’d persisted in renegotiating this deal in a new Congress, over the cliff, with a more liberal Congress.

A cautionary note on attacking the deal based on the $4 trillion CBO score, too:

What has been shocking, however, is that I’m seeing a number of conservative critics blasting the deal for increasing deficits by $4 trillion when about 92 percent of that projected increase comes from tax cuts that they support. Brent Bozell, for instance, issued a statement calling the deal a “surrender,” complaining that “not only does this bill fail to make meaningful spending cuts, it actually spends another $4 trillion we don’t have!” Excuse me? For decades, conservatives have been complaining — for good reason — whenever liberals conflate tax cuts and spending. Now, in campaigning against this fiscal cliff deal, they are following the lead of liberals.

Let’s just take a moment to remember why this is so significant. By describing tax cuts as a “cost” and as “spending” as liberals typically do, it suggests that all income is effectively the federal government’s to keep. Anything less than 100 percent taxation is effectively a subsidy if this line of reasoning is followed to its logical conclusion. However, conservatives have always rightly argued that it’s the people who have the right to their own earnings. When Americans pay fewer taxes than they otherwise would, it doesn’t represent a cost — it represents savings.

This deal does increase deficits by nearly $4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office — but more than $3.6 trillion of that amount comes from forgone tax revenue.

All that being said, the deal is indeed a crap sandwich. Looking back, I wonder if it could have been better if House Republicans had voted for Plan B, which raised rates on those making $1 million and up, but I don’t see a scenario where it would have gotten better after today. Do you?

Ed made the unorthodox point that delinking the tax hikes from the spending cuts might be a good thing for Republicans as they go into the next round of debt ceiling negotiations:

The deal did not include any resolution on either the sequester or the debt limit. If there is a silver lining for Republicans, it’s that they have successfully delinked tax rates and spending issues in this fight. The next round of bargaining will deal only with government spending, and House Republicans will have the debt ceiling as a powerful card to play.

It wasn’t an intentional delinking, but more of a delinking dictated by defeat, but it does make Obama’s pitch for a “balanced” approach sound even more dumb the next time around. The GOP must make crystal clear in that discussion that every cent gained by this “fair share” approach Obama harped on for two straight years has already been spent, already gone, out the door. Most of the American people truly do not understand the gravity of the debt problem, which is why Obama can trick them into thinking this is a solution. What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate. The problem is we must rely on Republicans to communicate.

I’ll leave you to watch Krauthammer decry “complete surrender.” He makes an interesting argument for how Republicans could have improved the situation at this late date by putting forth a cleaner version of this bill on day one of the new Congress, staking claim to the tax cuts and eliminating a lot of the pork in the Senate version. Not a bad idea, but I’m not sure I trust Republicans to pull off something so deft, which is really the problem with all of these negotiations, isn’t it?

Krauthammer

Sigh.

Update: The icing on the crap cupcake— it took a total of $3 million to fly Obama from Hawaii and back (yep, he’s going back) to do…exactly nothing. Deficit reduction!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

I look upon government as a necessary evil and agree with James Madison in Federalist #51:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Nice to know you’re on the side of evil.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Illinadiva, sorry for the late reply. Yes, the debt ceiling is when we can extract dem concessions. I predict it, and when I do, it happens.

Umm.. Boehner can’t negotiate his way out of a paper bag, so I doubt it. What will likely happen? 1. Obama will demagogue the issue and the Rs will roll over. Or 2. Obama will unilateraly raise the debt ceiling and set off a Constitutional crisis. After all, he won. The Rs can use it to reframe the debate for the upcoming elections but they aren’t going to get any spending cuts out of it.

Lol. Why do you think Ryans vote affects his Presidential ambitions? A year and a half from now, the story would be that Ryan voted FOR massive tax cuts. Your current outrage would be duly forgotten. Lol. But I don’t see what anyone sees in a Congressman or Senator, Ryan or Rubio? I’d only go in for a Governor.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 1:15 PM

1. Umm.. Are people going to see more money in their paycheck because of Ryan? No, they aren’t. If he tries that tactic, then he’ll get laughed off the stage.

2. Ryan already starts at a disadvantage because he isn’t as “shiny” as Marco Rubio. Also, part of the R primary electorate seems to think that nominating a Cuban American is going to help the party woo Mexican American voters. The best way for Ryan to win is if enough primary voters figure out Rubio is a lightweight. Not sure how angering well-informed Republican voters who might not fall for the Rubio schtick helps him with that.

3. The whole fiscal cliff debacle was so tawdry that he cannot even spin it as a Profile in Courage thing in a general election or with New Hampshire indies. Coming out for Simpson-Bowles during the last debt ceiling debate or even a month and a half ago might be able to be spun that way, but this hadn’t.

Not sure why Ryan voted for it unless Boehner blackmailed him by threatening to release more workout photos.

Illinidiva on January 2, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Nice to know you’re on the side of evil.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Nice to have confirmation that you are delusional. I used to sort of be into that whole anarcho-capitalist, Rothbardian-y kind of stuff, too. Then, I grew up.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Nice to have confirmation that you are delusional. I used to sort of be into that whole anarcho-capitalist, Rothbardian-y kind of stuff, too. Then, I grew up.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I don’t think delusional means what you think it means. All government is force and coercion. This is a fact. You described government is a necessary evil, therefore you are siding with evil.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Lol. RWM and KJ. When have I ever supported McCain or Romney? Thought you two had better intelligence.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Oh…you’re a Paulian, then, like 16 year old Dante.

kingsjester on January 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Incidentally: the only people I know of who “LOL” in each and every posting, compulsively, are twelve-year-old girls on Justin Bieber message boards.

Just sayin’, is all.

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

LOL

:)

Nice to have confirmation that you are delusional. I used to sort of be into that whole anarcho-capitalist, Rothbardian-y kind of stuff, too. Then, I grew up.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM

You haven’t been paying much attention to Dante up ’til now, have you? :)

Anti-Control on January 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM

I don’t think delusional means what you think it means. All government is force and coercion. This is a fact. You described government is a necessary evil, therefore you are siding with evil.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I guess the LA riots and New Orleans after Katrina are your ideas of paradise.

You haven’t been paying much attention to Dante up ’til now, have you? :)

Anti-Control on January 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM

I try not to. :-)

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

are twelve-year-old girls on Justin Bieber message boards.

Just sayin’, is all.

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Why do you hang out on Justin Beiber message boards with 12-year old girls?

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I guess the LA riots and New Orleans after Katrina are your ideas of paradise.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Now that’s a silly thing to say, especially from someone who tried to paint himself as being familiar with anarcho-capitalism.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I guess the LA riots and New Orleans after Katrina are your ideas of paradise.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Now that’s a silly thing to say, especially from someone who tried to paint himself as being familiar with anarcho-capitalism.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:38 PM

RWM, why do you think you’re a libertarian? Your hostility towards Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism certainly implies you are hostile to libertarian ideals. Perhaps a minarchist?

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Why do you hang out on Justin Beiber message boards with 12-year old girls?

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM

How do you know I’m not Justin Bieber…? ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 2:43 PM

RWM, why do you think you’re a libertarian? Your hostility towards Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism certainly implies you are hostile to libertarian ideals. Perhaps a minarchist?

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

He can’t possibly think he’s libertarian.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Dainte’s just mad his legs aren’t as nice as the ones in that screencap.

Dainte/His Legs 2016!!

CurtZHP on January 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Yeah…what kind of libertarian dismisses Rothbard? What did you “grow up” to become, a Keynesian? I would suggest that’s a regression.

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

The Congressional GOP can always, when faced with a choice of The Right Way, The Wrong Way, and The President’s Way, be counted upon to do the wrong thing.
Once more, the Stupid Party strikes.

Another Drew on January 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Ha, the lazy knowledge and accusations. Let me take it apart. easyt, did you even read the above post by MKH? Your $4 trillion fable was already taken apart. Let me guess, you read it somewhere, copied it, and pasted it here. Lol. ddritn, when have I ever complained bout O’Donnell? Can you prove it? How bout RWM and KJ? Cat got your tongue bout your accusations? Lol. Don’t make absurd accusations if you can’t prove it, wingnuts. In the case of RWM and KJ, you’re both above average intelligence.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM

FURTHER SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE FOOT…Behner calls off vote for Sandy Relief Aid Package, leaving Sandy victims waiting ‘out in the cold’…

KUDOS to Boehner — the bill was FILLED WITH B$ PORK….but he should have had his House members go line-by-line eliminating the pork then quickly pass the bill stripped of all pork.

FURTHERMORE Congress / the House needs to pass a bill that states EVERY BILL MUST STAND ON ITS OWN – ANYTHING NOT HAVING TO DO WITH THE BILL WILL BE STRIPPED FROM THE BILL – NO MORE PORK. And if the [pork’ can’t stand on its own merrit as it’s own piece of legislation then it probably should never be passed anyway!

easyt65 on January 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Now that’s a silly thing to say, especially from someone who tried to paint himself as being familiar with anarcho-capitalism.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:38 PM

First, I am a WOMAN. Secondly, I am very familiar with Rothbard, anarcho-capitalism, Rockwell, etc.

You say that all government is repressive. That’s true, but as I said, I consider government a necessary evil. What do you think would happen without any government whatsoever? Do you think that everyone would behave as you and I would? I think that history proves otherwise.

Having said that, I want government as small and as limited as possible with the more constraints put on politicians and their apparatchiks.

RWM, why do you think you’re a libertarian? Your hostility towards Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism certainly implies you are hostile to libertarian ideals. Perhaps a minarchist?

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

You do realise that there are different forms of libertarianism, don’t you? Rothbardianism is but one strain, as is the anarcho-capitalistic form.

Why do I consider myself a libertarian? Because I am. Here are some of my positions past/present that I compiled years ago:

Anti-central planning, pro-drug decriminalisation, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare, anti-all entitlement programmes, anti-Medicare Part D, anti-home ownership subsidies, anti-farm subsidies, anti-ethanol, anti-business subsidies, anti-Patriot Act
anti-TSA, anti- data storage of personal data and intrusive physical searches, anti-Iraq war, anti ground war in Afghanistan, anti-CCTV by government, anti-licence scanners, anti-EZ Pass tracking by government, anti-NASA, anti-NCLB, pro SSM, pro legalisation of prostitution where it is supported by the community, wouldn’t stop anyone from having an abortion although I loathe the practise, anti-prohibition measures (like the lightbulb), anti-Bush’s stimulus, anti-Obama’s stimulus, anti-Obamacare, anti-cap-n-trade, anti-deficit spending of any kind, anti-ALL bailouts, anti-TARP, &c.

I LOATHE government and politicians. I am, however, realistic enough to know that anarchy can be every bit as intolerable as government.

If you believe that the libertarian movement is confined solely to the axis of Ron Paul-Rothbard/Rockwell-Alex Jones, then I’m afraid that you are seriously under-counting the number of libertarians. There are many of us, who have not supported Ron Paul, but consider ourselves libertarians. In fact, I like Rand very much.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM

FURTHER SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE FOOT…Behner calls off vote for Sandy Relief Aid Package, leaving Sandy victims waiting ‘out in the cold’…

KUDOS to Boehner — the bill was FILLED WITH B$ PORK….but he should have had his House members go line-by-line eliminating the pork then quickly pass the bill stripped of all pork.

easyt65 on January 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM

And, how would that have worked since the Senate has left town and the new Congress commences at noon tomorrow? A new Congress means that all old bills are rendered moot.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:05 PM

How bout RWM and KJ? Cat got your tongue bout your accusations? Lol. Don’t make absurd accusations if you can’t prove it, wingnuts. In the case of RWM and KJ, you’re both above average intelligence.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM

What accusations?

As for “absurd accusations,” please see your use of the word “wingnut” to describe me.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Yeah…what kind of libertarian dismisses Rothbard? What did you “grow up” to become, a Keynesian? I would suggest that’s a regression.

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Yeah, I’m a Keynesian.

**eyefuckingroll**

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Yeah…what kind of libertarian dismisses Rothbard? What did you “grow up” to become, a Keynesian? I would suggest that’s a regression.

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Yeah, I’m a Keynesian.

**eyefvckingroll**

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I’m with Phil Klein on this, that the deal is an objectively horrible one, but a relatively good one, given the options.

The options were Cyanide or Arsenic.

portlandon on January 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

@RWM What accusation? You have short term memory loss or something? Just check it out this thread, and maybe you’ll regain your memory. ‘You’ve been very successful with Dole, McCain and Romney’. You have any proof that I supported any of the 3, or were you spouting inanities? Go ahead, check it out. Lol

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM

First, I am a WOMAN. Secondly, I am very familiar with Rothbard, anarcho-capitalism, Rockwell, etc.

You say that all government is repressive. That’s true, but as I said, I consider government a necessary evil. What do you think would happen without any government whatsoever? Do you think that everyone would behave as you and I would? I think that history proves otherwise.

Having said that, I want government as small and as limited as possible with the more constraints put on politicians and their apparatchiks.

Himself was grammatically correct. You don’t seem to be familiar at all with Rothbard or anarcho-capitalism if you think an anarcho-capitalist society would be one of riots and warlords. Dismissing facts as delusional just because they cause you discomfort is irrational.

Why do I consider myself a libertarian? Because I am. Here are some of my positions past/present that I compiled years ago:

The logical conclusion of libertarianism is anarchism. Both are predicated on the non-aggression principle, that no one has the right to initiate force against another, and that force is only justly used in defense of property (which includes the self, the fountain of all rights of property). The main difference, of course, is that libertarian believes a government should exist, and that its role should protect natural rights and be a tool for common defense. However, given the fact that all government is force and coercion, the very existence of government is antithetical to the non-aggression principle.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 3:16 PM

LOL

Drudge Poll; with 300,000 votes; 85% want Boehner gone as Speaker.

Good riddance

Norwegian on January 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

@RWM What accusation? You have short term memory loss or something? Just check it out this thread, and maybe you’ll regain your memory. ‘You’ve been very successful with Dole, McCain and Romney’. You have any proof that I supported any of the 3, or were you spouting inanities? Go ahead, check it out. Lol

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM

You’re the one that has been defending the GOPe and calling others “wingnuts” for criticising them. Please excuse me for thinking that you were a GOPe and, as a result, supported your fellow GOPers like Dole, McCain and Romney b/c they could win…unlike wingnuts. I’m sure that I am the only one that could have possibly made such an error.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Himself was grammatically correct. You don’t seem to be familiar at all with Rothbard or anarcho-capitalism if you think an anarcho-capitalist society would be one of riots and warlords. Dismissing facts as delusional just because they cause you discomfort is irrational.

Grammatically correct or not, I’ve corrected you many times on my gender. As I said, I am familiar with both. I simply disagree that there doesn’t have to be any government at all.

The logical conclusion of libertarianism is anarchism. Both are predicated on the non-aggression principle, that no one has the right to initiate force against another, and that force is only justly used in defense of property (which includes the self, the fountain of all rights of property). The main difference, of course, is that libertarian believes a government should exist, and that its role should protect natural rights and be a tool for common defense. However, given the fact that all government is force and coercion, the very existence of government is antithetical to the non-aggression principle.

All true, but in the real world, aggression will ALWAYS exist. But, here’s your contradiction:

“…is that libertarian believes a government should exist, and that its role should protect natural rights and be a tool for common defense.”

“… given the fact that all government is force and coercion, the very existence of government is antithetical to the non-aggression principle.”

So, we are back to my original point: Government is a “necessary evil.” You’ve just admitted it.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM

‘Please excuse me’ and ‘made such an error’. Good. Atleast you’re honest. Thanks for that. I take back the ‘wingnut’ accusation. You’re an asset to HotGas.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Now that’s a silly thing to say, especially from someone who tried to paint himself as being familiar with anarcho-capitalism.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I tried painting the cat once. I was bout 6 years old.

Man did I get in trouble….and the cat wouldn’t come near me after.

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM

LOL

Drudge Poll; with 300,000 votes; 85% want Boehner gone as Speaker.

Good riddance

Norwegian on January 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Honestly surprised it’s that low.

(sincerely)

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 3:34 PM

LOL

Drudge Poll; with 300,000 votes; 85% want Boehner gone as Speaker.

Good riddance

Norwegian on January 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Why do I imagine certain diehard CINO Boehner cultists hereabouts animatedly hopping up and down at that, squeaking: “… drat those cursed, meddling kids! DOUBLE drat them!” like one of the evil codgers invariably dressed up as a ghost pirate or whatnot on old episodes of Scooby-Doo…? ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Grammatically correct or not, I’ve corrected you many times on my gender. As I said, I am familiar with both. I simply disagree that there doesn’t have to be any government at all.

I don’t keep a spreadsheet on HA posters and their personal information.

No, I made no admission that government is a necessary evil. You are the one who did that. I stated that all government is force and coercion, and therefore evil.

Maybe you don’t know what antithetical means? I don’t know why you would think my showing a contradiction in libertarian thought and how that contradiction logically leads to anarchism means I believe that government should exist.

No one is saying that aggression wouldn’t exist; only that state-sponsored aggression wouldn’t exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I’ve read the whole thread. Unfortunately, one of the CINOs got shot down by MKH as soon as he started whining bout Plan B. Lol. Good enough for me.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM

The cat got the CINO’s tongue, I guess. Gotta go for now. Catch y’all later.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM

No, I made no admission that government is a necessary evil. You are the one who did that. I stated that all government is force and coercion, and therefore evil.

I said that we returned to my original statement that government is a “necessary evil.” You admitted that government is necessary, but then said that it is oppressive. That is the very definition of a “necessary evil.”

Maybe you don’t know what antithetical means? I don’t know why you would think my showing a contradiction in libertarian thought and how that contradiction logically leads to anarchism means I believe that government should exist.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe, it was because you claim to be a libertarian and you wrote:

“…is that libertarian believes a government should exist, and that its role should protect natural rights and be a tool for common defense.”

No one is saying that aggression wouldn’t exist; only that state-sponsored aggression wouldn’t exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.

First of all, you assume that one is necessarily worse than the other. Saying that one is better than the other is like the argument that the gun-grabbers are inadvertently making. They point to the UK and its gun ban. Sure, the homicide rate from gun usage is lower than the US, but the violent crime rate beats the US and even South Africa – widely considered one of the most violent places on earth. Plus, gun crime went up 89% between 1997 and 2009 and the government has acknowledged that it is easier today to buy a gun on the street than it is to buy many drugs.

Are the Mexican drug cartels, which have corrupted the government and murdered tens of thousands, better or worse for the people of Mexico than the government itself or does it really mattered? Are the Islamist militias in Somalia, Mali, etc, any better than “state-sponsored agression” committed by governments?

Secondly, you also assume — and this is what used to infuriate me about Rothbard — that an ararcho-capitalist society could actually come to fruition on a global scale and, realistically, you would need it on a global scale in order to prevent “state-sponsored aggression.” Anarcho-capitalism, like communism, may work in theory, but both fail in practise.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Next Up IN February: Obama wants the debt ceiling raised & said he will NOT COMPROMISE with Republicans on this issue. He said he will NOT allow an increase in the debt ceiling to be tied to a demand for additional spending cuts.

Republicans should DEMAND that any increase in the debt ceiling only be allowed AFTER Obama presents a budget & once that budget is passed! (An ANNUAL Budget is REQUIED BY LAW; however, Democrats, who held a super-majority control of Congress the last 2 years during the Bush administration & the 1st 2 years of Obama’s administration, & this President has not passed a budget the last 4 years!

Republicans should DEMAND that EVERY DOLLAR the debt ceiling is increased should be tied directly to $1 Dollar of Spending Cuts….
& Republicans should let the whole D@MN thing come to a screeching halt – the government shut down – if these 2 demands are not agreed upon.

Obama/Democrats, of course, will engage in massive FEAR-MONGERING by telling the American people their SS Checks won’t be mailed out if a deal is not met…BUT THAT IS A LIE – THEY AUTOMATICALLY GO OUT NO MATTER WHAT!

The trouble is, as we have just seen & saw in the last debt-ceiling ‘battle’, Boehner / the GOP doesn’t have the B@LLS to oppose Obama in any way….

What happens when the Debt Ceiling is reached & the Govt is out of money? Govt offices/agencies do not report to work, close down for business….which means they can’t waste money on anything not automatically covered….Social Security, for example, is automatically funded – checks go out no matter what. (Remember that the next time Obama/Liberals tell you that SS Checks won’t go out if the GOP doesn’t give them what they want!) Bottom Line is the Govt shutting down saves us hundreds of billion$ per day until the type of deal this country NEEDS desperately is reached! Like I said, though, Boehner & the GOP are gutless & will cave…AGAIN…to give Obama whatever he wants…

easyt65 on January 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

invariably dressed up as a ghost pirate or whatnot on old episodes of Scooby-Doo…? ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

lol…The good ones (without scrappy).

(that was for you AP)

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Why do I imagine certain diehard CINO Boehner cultists hereabouts animatedly hopping up and down at that, squeaking: “… drat those cursed, meddling kids! DOUBLE drat them!” like one of the evil codgers invariably dressed up as a ghost pirate or whatnot on old episodes of Scooby-Doo…? ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Rumour is that Boehner will be resigning this afternoon at 5 PM EST.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Rumour is that Boehner will be resigning this afternoon at 5 PM EST.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Hearing that on hannity…

I’ll beleive it when the gavel is pulled from his cold, nicotine stained, RINO claw.

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I’ve read the whole thread.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM

How sore your poor lips must be.

Rumour is that Boehner will be resigning this afternoon at 5 PM EST.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

UH-oh. Suicide watch for li’l tommy71…? ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

We can only hope. Nice rebuttal to Dante. He does like to play Rhetorical Games, though.

kingsjester on January 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Rumour is that Boehner will be resigning this afternoon at 5 PM EST.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

lol.

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 3:57 PM

You’re an asset to HotGas.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Too bad you aren’t. :)

Anti-Control on January 2, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Whose legs are those?!!!

ultracon on January 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I’ve read the whole thread.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM

How sore your poor lips must be.

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Hilarious.

soooo stealing this.

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

We can only hope. Nice rebuttal to Dante. He does like to play Rhetorical Games, though.

kingsjester on January 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM

You give Dante more credit than I – I think he is just an oblivious freak of nature who’s mentally incapable of being that calculating.

Anti-Control on January 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM

You’re the one that has been defending the GOPe and calling others “wingnuts” for criticising them. Please excuse me for thinking that you were a GOPe and, as a result, supported your fellow GOPers like Dole, McCain and Romney b/c they could win…unlike wingnuts. I’m sure that I am the only one that could have possibly made such an error.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

‘Please excuse me’ and ‘made such an error’. Good. Atleast you’re honest. Thanks for that. I take back the ‘wingnut’ accusation. You’re an asset to HotGas.

tommy71 on January 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Sarcasm goes in one ear and out of the other with you, eh?

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Nice rebuttal to Dante. He does like to play Rhetorical Games, though.

kingsjester on January 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Thanks. His pretzelisation is amusing.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Rumour is that Boehner will be resigning this afternoon at 5 PM EST.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

From the House, or from the Speakership?

cptacek on January 2, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Anti-Control on January 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM

I’ve tried to engage with him before. His argumental style makes a Carousel envious, in its circular nature.

kingsjester on January 2, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

OK, then when you “grew up”, whose work do you find superior to Rothbard?

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM

OK, then when you “grew up”, whose work do you find superior to Rothbard?

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick, etc.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

From the House, or from the Speakership?

cptacek on January 2, 2013 at 4:07 PM

I heard from the Speakership, but it would be hard to imagine him remaining in the House afterwards.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I heard from the Speakership, but it would be hard to imagine him remaining in the House afterwards.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Resign from the party, Weepy; go for the hat trick. ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick, etc.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Super! So how do you think that the above-referenced folks differed in general from Rothbard’s thoughts on the role, or lack thereof, of the government in an economy?

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I said that we returned to my original statement that government is a “necessary evil.” You admitted that government is necessary, but then said that it is oppressive. That is the very definition of a “necessary evil.”

No, I do not admit that government is necessary, because I don’t believe government is necessary. You are the one claiming government is necessary.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe, it was because you claim to be a libertarian and you wrote:

No, I’m an anarcho-capitalist, not a libertarian. I think we’ve struck upon the source of your error in ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold, or admissions that I have not made.

First of all, you assume that one is necessarily worse than the other.

I’m making no assumption there at all; I am stating it directly: a society not predictated on force, coercion, and compulsion is immoral and absolutely worse than one based on liberty, property rights, and voluntary relationships.

Secondly, you also assume — and this is what used to infuriate me about Rothbard — that an ararcho-capitalist society could actually come to fruition on a global scale and, realistically, you would need it on a global scale in order to prevent “state-sponsored aggression.” Anarcho-capitalism, like communism, may work in theory, but both fail in practise.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I’ve never made any statement or assumption that anarcho-capitalist society could come to fruition on a global scale. In fact, I’ve never made any statement or assumption that one could come to fruition period. Statists aside, there will be people such as you who claim to desire liberty, yet who will side with force, slavery, and coercion – evil, as you put it.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM

AAaaww….CRAP! If the House passed this, they’ll pass anything.

Hammie on January 2, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick, etc.
Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Let me rephrase: In what ways are the folks you mentioned above better messengers of libertarian ideals then Rothbard?

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick, etc.

Resist We Much on January 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

How interesting, given Rothbard’s relationship with von Mises, his devotion to Mises’ work and Austrian economics, and given the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s class on Anarcho-Capitalism as well as there promotion of Rothbard and his works.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 4:34 PM

I’m making no assumption there at all; I am stating it directly: a society not predictated on force, coercion, and compulsion is immoral and absolutely worse than one based on liberty, property rights, and voluntary relationships.

Please strike the word “not”.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 4:35 PM

from reason.com “But as Rothbard makes abundantly clear here, very important differences exist between the fallibilistic, utilitarian, limited-government thinking of Hayek (and Friedman, and to a great degree Mises) and the natural rights–based anarchism of Rothbard. (Rothbard, along with Hayek and Mises, did believe that a free society would be the richest and most option-filled of arrangements, and thus defendable on pragmatic grounds. But he also believed, like Rand, that there was an objective moral order discoverable by reason that made human liberty right, whether or not in any particular case it would tend to work out for the best in some practical sense.)”

“Both Hayek and Rothbard were more than intellectuals; they were advocates. And while what they ultimately advocated was different, in the context of today’s ever-growing government, the rest of the world isn’t too wrong in lumping them together for practical purposes. In many ways, though Rothbard certainly didn’t think so when contemplating the unpublished Constitution of Liberty, their approaches were complementary rather than competitive. In a world of different minds, different sorts of arguments are going to appeal to different people for different reasons. It’s the kind of intellectual division of labor that economists such as Rothbard and Hayek should both be able to appreciate.

If Hayek and Rothbard were (unbeknownst to Hayek) at war, it’s a war that both won and neither won. That the two tendencies survive is all for the best both for libertarian ideas and the general shape of human intellectual and political history.”

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 4:49 PM

If she returns, it should be interesting.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 5:09 PM

If she returns, it should be interesting.

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Just ask her out and get it over with already.

you’ve obviously got quite the crush.

lol

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 5:13 PM

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/02/obama-in-hawaii-fiscal-cliff-standoff-behind-him/

So wait…. we’re already 2 days over the cliff and 0bama left town without signing the bill??

LOL… he’s about as funny as Chevy Chase.

cane_loader on January 2, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Oh, just fly the bill out to him. It will probably take less than a million, thereby saving real money!

tom on January 2, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Just ask her out and get it over with already.

you’ve obviously got quite the crush.

lol

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 5:13 PM

That would make you Chuck Woolery, wouldn’t it…? ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 5:32 PM

That is totally the best picture of John Boehner I have ever seen. Right side particularly.

Other than that, I have nothing good to say about the current state of GOP House political acumen, so I won’t say anything at all. For once.

MTF on January 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Its taken me this long to get those legs.

Yeah, I work in the wrong building.

BobMbx on January 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Dante on January 2, 2013 at 5:09 PM

That’s what usually happens here when someone brings up authors they haven’t actually read. I know I shouldn’t be like that, but its hard for me to believe that someone calling themselves a “libertarian”, that agrees with “Von Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, Nozick” would turn around and dog Rothbard…doesn’t really fit…not that these men agreed on everything, but you gotta explain yourself at least.

iwasbornwithit on January 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM

That would make you Chuck Woolery, wouldn’t it…? ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Hot Gas Love Connection

Tim_CA on January 2, 2013 at 5:51 PM

He’s done.

Matthew Boyle ‏@mboyle1

It’s not a rumor. Outgoing Rep. Jeff Landry just confirmed they have 17. Enough to unseat Boehner.

cdog0613 on January 2, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Final score:

REALITY: 1

tommy71: 0

Here endeth the lesson. ;)

Kent18 on January 2, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Screen shot’s best pair of legs on Hot Air since Tina Korbe’s during Santorum interview.

Deep Timber on January 2, 2013 at 6:17 PM

You do know why he left the bill behind, right? If he doesn’t auto-pen it before 11:59 am tomorrow, the provision that (supposedly) limits Congressional pay is unconstitutional. The last I checked, there was no severability clause.

Plus, the constitutionality of the auto-pen has never been tested. What better time than now (for him and Reid at least) to test it and have Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black declare it insufficient.

Steve Eggleston on January 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Speaking of constitutionality, this is a bill that raises taxes, and unless I’m missing something, it originated in the Senate. Doesn’t that make it unconstitutional under Article I Section 7?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

ITguy on January 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

ONLY a complete idiot uses the word “permanently” with anything one Congress does over the next Congress… and I’m looking directly at you Mary Katherine Ham.

When the Democrats regain control of the House (and they will because so much of hte Republican base has COMPLETELY HAD IT with the spineless Republicans in the House), the Dems will completely forget the word “permanently” (or any derivative thereof) and proceed to raise taxes on whomever they wish to raise taxes on.

And the Republican members of the House will jump up and down and scream about how the tax rates were supposed to be PERMANENT but none of it will matter so long as the Democrats have sufficient votes to change the tax law.

Any Congress can change any law a previous Congress enacted! Simple as that. But the complete idiots in The Stupid Party are all patting each other on the back saying “job well done”, “we showed them!”, etc. etc., while the Democrats are laughing at them behind closed doors for being complete fools who are so easily duped.

Mahdi on January 2, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Screen shot’s best pair of legs on Hot Air since Tina Korbe’s during Santorum interview.

Deep Timber on January 2, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Careful though. :) Tina’s legs are attached to Tina. I fear the wider shot.

But it’s true. Ho hum, ho hum, usual ho hum — O, Hi there! How’s your day going?

Axe on January 2, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Speaking of constitutionality, this is a bill that raises taxes, and unless I’m missing something, it originated in the Senate. Doesn’t that make it unconstitutional under Article I Section 7?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

ITguy on January 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM

That won’t fly. This is an amendment to H.R. 8 from the 112th Congress. Any house of Congress can amend any bills. That bill number would put that bill as having been introduced on the first days of the 112th Congress and in the House of Representatives (hence the H.R. indicator). The 112th Congress began their session in January 2011.

Hammie on January 3, 2013 at 1:25 AM

*Looks at thumbnail picture*

Dem legs.

Reaps on January 3, 2013 at 3:55 AM

I’m just interested in who the babe with the great legs on the wall is.

Shambhala on January 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6