Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Jan. 6, 2013 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
There is plenty to criticize about the “fiscal cliff” deal, including the fact that it sets up another fight over the debt ceiling, but avoiding the cliff was great news. The series of tax increases and budget cuts that were part of the cliff, and were set to take effect Jan. 1, would have had a significant impact on the economy.
In an era of hyper-partisanship in Washington, the deal has been hailed by some people as a breakthrough. Give credit to the Senate Republicans for stepping in and negotiating a bipartisan deal after the Republican-controlled House punted.
The Senate passed its plan on an 89-9 vote even though Republicans didn’t get much of what they wanted. They apparently saw that the danger of hitting the fiscal cliff outweighed their own political agenda.
That was refreshing given that Washington in recent years has been overtaken by a winner-take-all mentality, and that has left little room for compromise and serious policy discussions.
But as much as we would like to see an end to the dysfunction in Washington, we wouldn’t describe the deal as a harbinger of change just yet. The plan the Senate approved went to the House of Representatives, where it was immediately delayed and then set upon by conservatives, who angrily complained about the bill. Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, warned against “a package put together by a bunch of sleep-deprived octogenarians on New Year’s Eve.”
Despite his criticism, LaTourette voted for the plan, saying that it was better than letting taxes go up on millions of middle-class Americans.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, LaTourette, who just retired from Congress, wasn’t joined by the majority of his caucus. Only 84 other Republicans in the House, including Nevada’s Rep. Joe Heck, voted for it. The 151 Republicans voting against it included Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy.
Many Republicans were upset because they didn’t get the deep spending cuts they wanted.
House Speaker John Boehner was criticized by members of his caucus for even bringing the bill up for a vote. Former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Boehner had essentially given up his responsibility to govern by letting the bill pass without a Republican majority.
We understand that there are different views about government spending and taxes, but given that Congress backed itself in a corner by failing to resolve the issue, lawmakers had to decide whether they would protect the middle class.
The message the majority of House Republicans sent was that it was willing to put politics above all else, the middle class and economy be damned.
That was evident last week as some Republicans were upset about getting “beat” by President Barack Obama and a group of conservatives refused to vote for Boehner’s re-election as speaker.
That is a bad sign. The nation can’t afford two more years in which Congress is held captive by ugly partisanship and petulant bickering that only hamper the economy’s recovery.
The fiscal cliff deal wasn’t perfect, but it was significantly better than the alternative. Lawmakers shouldn’t let political ideology trump protecting the middle class and the economy. That’s not what they were sent to Washington to do.
The Sun reports "Give credit to the Senate Republicans for stepping in and negotiating a bipartisan deal after the Republican-controlled House punted.
President Obama punted
SenatorHarry Reid Punted
Not just the house
We all remember ------
In a preChristmas Oval Office meeting Boehner queried Obama "I put $800 billion on the table. What do I get for that?"
Obama sniped "You get nothing. I get that for free!"
WSJ 12-22-12 pg. A6
The SUN goes on to gloat "That was evident last week as some Republicans were upset about getting "beat" by President Barack Obama."
Obama may have WON but it was AMERICA THAT LOST
This is a classic Washington charade lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi
ZERO CUTS - NO BALANCE - ONLY REVENUE INCREASES
Well what did we really expect out of this debacle.
ZERO CUTS - NO BALANCE - ONLY REVENUE INCREASES
We are no closer to a solution to reform entitlements and addressing the nation debt.
Obama is running around calling the deal a tremendous victory for himself because some rich people have to pay a lot more taxes at the expense of losing 700,000 jobs.
Obama won - yippee. Obama spiked the ball. La-De-Da
But this is a huge American failure that will be passed to the next generation - if we last that long before Moody and China pulls the plug on propping up US bonds.
But
--- Bush tax rates
2009-2010 Obama had complete control of Congress yet never eliminated the Bush tax rate cuts - in fact Obama, Reid, and Pelosi extended them in December 2010.
After 12 long years fighting and campaigning against Bush - Obama and Democrats overwhelmingly permanently approved the BUSH TAX RATE CUTS for 99.5% of Americans.
This repudiates the Clinton era rates and the $3.7 trillion is on Obama's balance sheet.
Same Circus. Different Clowns.
Motorsports said:
"The fiscal cliff cost the GOP. Continued similar tactics will cost the GOP more. Personally, there's nothing I'd rather see than a GOP that becomes completely and utterly irrelevant. In the long run that would be very good for the country. But the short term pain of watching a bunch of people with extreme far right views - for whom facts don't matter - only ideals and hate do - well that short term pain could be enough to destroy America. I actually think that some on the right are hoping that happens."
I say:
The great mystery is will the right be succesful with their fear tactics or will Americans righteously move forward?
It depends, as usual on the monsters the right are presented with, for example, Osama bin Laden, the right got 2 wars, Blackwater, etc. out of that.
I would rather see renewable energy and a sustainable food supply be our primary focus, but you know, it is Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!
Jeff,
The reason Benghazi is still being talked about is because the left wants it under the rug and the right thinks it has a political football.
I blame Obama for this. He could have cleared this up almost immediately but since he's a shallow leader he botched it. It's just like fast and furious...botched. I know you want everybody armed but hopefully not the cartels.
As far as renewable energy and a sustainable food supply you'll need the subsidies to stop and food and fuel prices to come up. As long as cheap chemically altered food is available there isn't a rush to solve the problem. Same with petro based energy.
Motorsports, the Phony Cliff cost everybody. Wake up to the reality that the left is just as corrupt as the right.
Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Comment removed by moderator. Inappropriate
"a package put together by a bunch of sleep-deprived octogenarians on New Year's Eve."
That sounds about right. Votng for even more spending is a real "profile in courage".