For many Republicans, no good options on "fiscal cliff"

CBS/iStock Images

News Analysis

Imagine, if you will, that you are a returning Republican member of the House of Representatives. You want to do what you believe is right for the country; you also want to avoid a vote that will keep you from the opportunity to win reelection two years from now. And you will soon have to make a decision on the issue that has dominated Washington since Election Day: How to avert the looming combination of spending cuts and tax hikes that has come to be known as the "fiscal cliff."

• The "fiscal cliff" isn't a cliff at all
• Dems: "Fiscal cliff" first, then tackle entitlements

It won't be easy. The clearest sticking point between Republicans and Democrats comes on taxes: Democrats largely want to allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire on income above $250,000 - effectively raising taxes on the highest earners - and Republicans don't. Many Republicans, in fact, have signed Grover Norquist's pledge promising never to vote for tax increases of any kind. According to "the pledge," they could only vote to close loopholes and deductions in the tax code if they are coupled with reductions in overall income tax rates. Anything that would increase "revenues," in the terminology of Washington - that is, the amount of money the government takes in from taxes - is off the table.

There has been some pushback to Norquist's pledge in recent days from Republicans who say they will not be held hostage by it. They have not expressed support for raising tax rates on the highest earners - an issue that President Obama campaigned on - but they say they are willing to at least raise revenues by closing deductions and loopholes. But these voices have largely come not from the House but from the Senate. And the opinion of Senate Republicans isn't all that important, since Democrats control that chamber.

Play Video

Fiscal cliff negotiations continue

What matters more is what happens in the GOP-led House. And for many GOP lawmakers there, voting to increase revenue means increasing the risk of facing a well-funded challenger in their next primary campaign. This wouldn't simply be because they angered Norquist: While the media savvy founder of Americans for Tax Reform gets much of the attention in the tax debate, his organization has not spent much to unseat Republican candidates in recent years. Of the $15.8 million Americans for Tax Reform spent in the 2012 election cycle, just $3,500 was used to target Republicans. In the 2010 election cycle, just $300,000 of the $4 million spent by the group was used against Republicans.

But Americans for Tax Reform is not the only game in town. The Club for Growth, for example, spent $10 million against Republicans in the 2012 cycle. The group is powerful enough that when West Virginia GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito announced she was seeking a 2014 Senate seat, a statement by its president criticizing Capito for "a long record of support of bailouts, pork and bigger government" generated headlines. For a Republican lawmaker, angering the Club for Growth and other anti-tax groups could result in an influx of outside money that could sink your reelection bid. It's no wonder that when CBS News' political director John Dickerson asked a senior House leadership aide if a majority of House Republicans what the chances were that a majority of House Republicans would vote for a tax increase, the response was "pretty close to zero."

Yet House Republicans cannot simply vote against any tax hikes and be on their way. That's because if lawmakers do not take action on the "fiscal cliff," Americans will face a tax hike at the end of the year - when the Bush-era tax cuts, the payroll tax cut, and other ostensibly-temporary tax breaks expire. These Republicans are in a box: If they vote in favor of a deal that raises revenues, they could face a primary challenge. But if they vote against any deal, they'll be partially responsible for an across-the-board tax hike - and polling suggests Americans will place the blame largely on the GOP's shoulders. Meanwhile, Democrats have no intention of agreeing to a deal to avert the "cliff" that does not include an increase in revenue.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[Dancing-in-the-Streets]

Bad_Ranger replies:
Us Rangers always carried a few with us in our rucks -- but then you wouldn't understand that
----------------------------

LOL! Is that why my husband always says, "If you'll untie my boots, I'll give ya a twinkie!" ?? ; )

[Dancing-in-the-Streets]

Bad_Ranger says:
Dancing-in-the-Streets replies:
Good Mornin Ranger!
_________________________________________________________

Hi sweetie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Man! Ya'll had a Hell of discusion about the Ranger after I left yesterday!


<smile>
-------------------------
Yeah, I think Dan's rather jealous of how well you do with the Ladies!
; )

[rksharma-2009]

When a political party signs their soul to one man, instead of the people voting for that party, it is obvious that these people do not care about the country and the people. Republicans have no good options, this is what CBS is saying. Republicans always had options to work for the people and do the right thing, but have chosen not to, instead bow to the tax guy. On the other hand, democrats have made it clear that they want to help 98% of the people and are pushing policy that in fact helps 100% of the people, because tax cuts for income under 250,000.00 will even help the rich people, and so it is up to the republicans to do the right thing if they want to. However, having sold their soul to Grover Norquist, they are refusing to do the right thing.

[rksharma-2009]

When a political party signs their sole to one man, instead of the people voting for that party, it is obvious that these people do not care about the country and the people. Republicans have no good options, this is what CBS is saying. Republicans always had options to work for the people and do the right thing, but have chosen not to, instead bow to the tax guy. On the other hand, democrats have made it clear that they want to help 98% of the people and are pushing policy that in fact helps 100% of the people, because tax cuts for income under 250,000.00 will even help the rich people, and so it is up to the republicans to do the right thing if they want to. However, having sold their soul to Grover Norquist, they are refusing to do the right thing.

[nanc12]

Bad_Ranger replies: Now go be a good little Comrad Marxist and get on your knees facing DC and pray and give thanks to your lord and Savior, Obama
HAR!
-----------------
Bit of a Johnny One-Note, aren't you? Do you think that by saying this over and over again, it somehow becomes an intelligent comment?
I love how the neocons, who think they have the monopoly on faith, have no qualms about blaspheming their Lord and Savior. Dems, on the other hand, don't presume to give Obama divinity. I guess the neocons really believe it!

[nanc12]

I never told you to go hang yourself, nor would I ever say that to anybody. But go ahead and keep accusing me of it.

Not putting God on the platform does not confer divinity on the President, just sayin.

[IPonUall2]

Grover Noquists' crusade is obsolete and completely wrong.
This crusade of his was Reagan era, when the nation was a producer long before the great recession his policy ultimately brought forth with Bush spending incompetence while America spewed millions of jobs to China destroying the backbone of economic strength at home.

[TimeToEvolve]

The problem is that we have a nation that is almost completely corrupted now by Wall Street money. The reason Bonehead doesn't get it is because he is just a pawn for the billionaires like most of Congress.

Doesn't everyone wonder why they can only do good things for the rich and to do anything for the 99% is literally like pulling teeth. I just can't believe how far we have let these greedy sucker go to take over our country.

[Larnan5]

Boehner's brain must have been replaced by a empty shell. Obama won by 4 1/2 million votes but Boehner's empty space in his head doesn't get it. The country does not like you and the GOP. They like Obama more!!!!It's time the GOP got it. If we go over the cliff so do the republicans., but they go first.

[tdehoff]

Here is my advice for the R's. Appear to be helping the D's and O get their tax increase. This will require Boehner to be willing to scrafice some R's (make sure they are RINO's). If their theory that Tax increases will hurt the economy then in 2013 as the economy stalls into a recission then O and D's now have total and complete ownership of it. (no more blaming Bush and the R's)

In 2014 the american people will give you more R's in both house's (Getting control of the senate requires you to find good candidates not idiots who say stupid things). You can use 2015 to 2016 to slow the spending down and then if you run a crediable conservative candidate (Dole, both Bush's, Cain and Romney were not conservatives) who is young and good looking (single women) who can clearly articulate the solid conservative, constitutional principals that made this a great country you will have a massive election win in 2016.

If your theory of tax increase's hurting the economy is wrong then you still have control of the house to attempt to control the purse while O is in the WH. and it will be back to the drawing board with what you will need to do next election cycle in 2016 because the tax issue was just destroyed for you.

[hypnotoad72]

So halting every penny of subsidy and entitlement going to corporations that offshore jobs isn't a good idea?!!!!!!!!

Giving prop-up money to corporations that offshore jobs, in case the usual suspects still haven't figured it out, means less revenue for government because more people are out of work.

Ditto for stagnating or dropping wages. Less revenue. Deficit increases as a result.

And given how all the tax cuts and subsidy and other handouts were given to people who call themselves "job creators", where are the middle class wage-paying jobs and other opportunities to re-create a stable economic paradigm again? They gut it, get bailed out, and then blame everyone else... it's unethical and immoral...