-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It’s basically been assumed that the deal President Obama struck with Republicans will clear through the Democratic Congress, but can we be so sure that it will, at least without some more tinkering?
Rep. Chris Van Hollen said, “House Democrats have not signed off on this deal.” Sen. Sherrod Brown declared “I’m not at all happy with this. I want to see all the details before I make some kind of commitment.” And CNN quotes one Democratic Congressional source as saying, “We won’t rubber stamp a deal between the White House and (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell…We want to make it clear. Don’t take our support for granted.”
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted Republicans in a blog post for holding “the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3 percent, do not create jobs, and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit.” She added that, “We will continue discussions with the President and our Caucus in the days ahead.”
It makes sense that Congressional Democrats would have problems with the deal, both from an ideological standpoint and an personal standpoint. Legislators want to feel like they have influence and Democrats are still in the majority for the next few weeks. True, the White House in this instance doesn’t need to woo the Sherrod Browns and Anthony Weiners of Congress. Assuming the tax proposal has the support of most Republicans, it can still pass even if a majority of Democrats in both chambers vote against it. So it’s important not to read too much into the tantrums liberal Democrats are having right now. That said, Pelosi and Harry Reid are likely angling for some sort of token concession before they bring this up for a vote. If nothing else but to treat bruised egos, because the Democratic president basically ignored them and negotiated a deal with the opposing — minority — party.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/07/deal-or-no-deal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ellis Wyatt| 12.7.10 @ 1:15PM
"add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit."
Someone explain this to me. How does letting people keep their money and not raising taxes add anything to the defecit? Spending money the government does not and never did have adds to the deficit. The government can lose something it never had.
Greg| 12.7.10 @ 3:19PM
Silly American, all the money belongs to the gubment; They decide how much you get to keep. It's simple really...
The government assumes they have 100% of the money to spend...anything less than that would be a deficit!
/Sarcasm (end Sarcasm for the non-programmer)
Warrior | 12.7.10 @ 3:48PM
This is a spending orgy and our government is Caligula. Regardles of whether you are an elected Democrat, Socialist, Independent or Republican you are drunk on spending money you don't have. If taxpayers are allowed to keep their money our elected officials have no plans on reducing the amount of spending (necessary, unecessary and/or entitlement) to balance the budget. Military budget is off limits, Social Security and Medicare sends shockwaves through the general public. Don't forget the Fed is off limits and now we are just finding out the Fed is lending money to foreign entities and we secretly propped up foreign banks, Ford, Toyota and Honda with bailout monies.
Let the party/orgy continue...
Pete| 12.7.10 @ 1:17PM
Such genuine concern from Madame P! But wait, I thought adding to the deficit "stimulated" the economy? At least that's what you said when you embezzled $1T from taxpayers for your fraudulent plan? Oh, I get it, for "stimulus" to work, it has to be directed by the federal government, because after all, individuals cannot be trusted with important decisions about their own lives, right?
ggoblue| 12.7.10 @ 1:17PM
the day the democratic party died....
A: any criticism of obama for caving is inherently racist!
B: barak loves bush's rich friends!!!
C: elections have consequences!!!!
and finally for all you libtards : hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ad infinitum
WB| 12.7.10 @ 1:59PM
Oh, by all means, if the Dims (particularly in the House) vote against the deal, the Republicans should waste no time hanging the resulting tax increase squarely around their necks come January. I'm sure the voters will be delighted to hear it, particularly when the next Senatorial elections come up.
ncatty| 12.7.10 @ 2:29PM
By all means lets toss some token concessions to Nancy and Harry. How many billions are we talking about?
Oldefarte| 12.7.10 @ 3:28PM
test
Oldefarte| 12.7.10 @ 3:55PM
These domestic terrorist Democrats had better think long and hard about their extremist positions on this tax issue. As said by others, IT IS OUR GD MONEY THAT SUPPORTS THEM AND OUR GOVERNMENT'S ACTIVITIES, NOT THEIR MONEY! Their propaganda garbage about the defecit should include the idea that they/Democrats have been adding to the government defecit/debt with their welfare legislation since at least their inactment of the 1977 CRA [which established the current housing welfare mechanism] and for which taxpayers have been paying for ever since. How dare these domestic terrorists have the gall to demand that any taxpayer have to pay more for Democrats' WELFARE SCHEMES! They've already been electorially destroyed on 11/2/10 from their exposed extremist welfare legislations, and now they're acting STUPIDLY once again. The Kennedy's, the Pilosi's, the Reid's, the Kerry's, the Schumer's, the Holland's of DC can simply begin opeing up their own personal wallets to fund their indigent constituents' cradle-to-grave welfare if desired, but don't come after mine and other taxpayers for their selfish political purposes in the future!!!!!!!!!!
Warrior | 12.7.10 @ 4:43PM
I might be madder at the idiot McConnell. He caves and provides another 13 months of unemployment to a system that is broke at the state level and has to borrow from the federal government to pay out which has to the be borrowed or printed out of thin air. Then they agree on a 2% reduction to social security knowing that it now pulls more money out than the taxes are putting in. Why agree to anything outside of the extension of the tax cuts. This is where Republicans are lame. McConnell should never negotiate with a narcissistic ideologue who pathologically lies. Instead of letting this dunce of a President hang himself, the Repulican, not Conservative McConnell capitulates to more spending on top of an extension to a tax cut that has no equivalent reduction in proposed spending. This is insanity.