Fiscal Cliff MEGATHREAD: Wile E. Economy falls off, lands in cloud at bottom

[OttoVonBismarck]

So your point is that Boehner spent a weak touting a plan he knew he didn't have the votes to pass?

No, my point is a compromise could still pass because it'd most likely get 100+ Democratic votes which means instead of 218 GOP votes Boehner only needs 115 or so.

Are you stupid or something? I said this:

I think people are overreacting to this. Boehner's plan B was opposed by the President and Pelosi, so it was not going to get a single Democratic vote in the House. Which means he'd need almost his entire caucus to pass it.

With a compromise vote, a vast majority of the Democrats will vote for it, even some of the ones balking about Obama's agreement to cut spending will be brought in line as evidence suggests the Democrats have more party control than the Republicans. So most likely if we get a compromise it will pass the House the same way the Budget Control Act 2011 will (the legislation that got us to this point), Boehner was able to get about 175 Republicans (66 voted against it) and 95 Democrats. But when Boehner is trying to pass his "Plan B" with 0 Democratic support suddenly he needs at least 218 of his own caucus (which means fewer than 20 Republicans can buck his leadership--over 60 did in the Budget Control Act.)

My point had nothing to do with Boehner, but was instead about a compromise still being viable. People saying it aren't don't understand apparently that a compromise would mean decent numbers of Democrats supporting the bill.

[Valmy]

I am not sure that a reduction in US farm subsidies would be such a bad thing

I am not necessarily campaigning for farm subsidies or government intervention.  Just making an observation that the things the poor and middle classes spend most of their incomes on are getting more and more expensive.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I am not sure that a reduction in US farm subsidies would be such a bad thing

The milk bill isn't quite so simple, it's a poison pill sort of thing designed to force compromise. Basically if a new milk bill isn't passed, the U.S. government, under standing 1949 law will be required to buy milk at a very high price based on calculations from the 1940s that calculate milk producer's costs under the assumption dairy farming is labor intensive (as it was in the 40s.)

This massive government purchase of milk at a high price would create both short and long term problems.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure that a reduction in US farm subsidies would be such a bad thing

The milk bill isn't quite so simple, it's a poison pill sort of thing designed to force compromise. Basically if a new milk bill isn't passed, the U.S. government, under standing 1949 law will be required to buy milk at a very high price based on calculations from the 1940s that calculate milk producer's costs under the assumption dairy farming is labor intensive (as it was in the 40s.)

This massive government purchase of milk at a high price would create both short and long term problems.

Ah, I see.  So even worse than it is now.  Who is responsible for creating this default position?  Seems to me that it is of a different character then tax cuts expiring.  Someone had to have a something similar to malice of forethought to dream this up.

Your analogy to a poison pill is apt it seems.

[Faeelin]

I don't think people are saying that compromise is impossible and that we are stuck with the fiscal cliff forever.  They are sayin that Boehner's plan to show the GOP could craft a viable alternative has failed because his party bolted.  So your point "it's not a big deal, because if enough Democrats agree we'll get something" is true but not the point. 

People are giving Boehner crap because he couldn't keep his party in line, and has spent days talking about a Plan B he couldn't get enough of his own party to support.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I guess the 1949 bill was "permanent legislation" that is superseded annually by the annual farm  bill. If there is no farm bill, it isn't superseded:

Linky

The Agricultural Act of 1949 contains the basic provisions for setting milk prices. The act is superseded every time a new farm bill is passed, but if no farm bill or extension is passed the old law goes back into effect.

Under a mechanism for guaranteeing a minimum milk price that covers producers' cost, the government guarantees to buy milk products at that cost, but producers can also sell on the consumer market.

Industry officials say in current market conditions the government price could be double the current rate. In that scenario, farmers would sell their dairy products to the government instead of the private market and store prices would surge, then they could collapse as the government sold off its stockpiles.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think people are saying that compromise is impossible and that we are stuck with the fiscal cliff forever.  They are sayin that Boehner's plan to show the GOP could craft a viable alternative has failed because his party bolted.  So your point "it's not a big deal, because if enough Democrats agree we'll get something" is true but not the point. 

People are giving Boehner crap because he couldn't keep his party in line, and has spent days talking about a Plan B he couldn't get enough of his own party to support.

A plan which Reid said had no chance in the Senate and which Obama said he would veto.  Even if it passed the House it was never going to be more than a negotiating position.

[crazy canuck]

I guess the 1949 bill was "permanent legislation" that is superseded annually by the annual farm  bill. If there is no farm bill, it isn't superseded:

Linky

The Agricultural Act of 1949 contains the basic provisions for setting milk prices. The act is superseded every time a new farm bill is passed, but if no farm bill or extension is passed the old law goes back into effect.

Under a mechanism for guaranteeing a minimum milk price that covers producers' cost, the government guarantees to buy milk products at that cost, but producers can also sell on the consumer market.

Industry officials say in current market conditions the government price could be double the current rate. In that scenario, farmers would sell their dairy products to the government instead of the private market and store prices would surge, then they could collapse as the government sold off its stockpiles.

It is surprising that nobody has simply revoking the old legislation as part of a new legislative package.  I wonder how many of these kinds of brinksmenship typic devices (or as you accurately termed it poision pills) are built into other pieces of US legislation.

[Faeelin]

A plan which Reid said had no chance in the Senate and which Obama said he would veto.  Even if it passed the House it was never going to be more than a negotiating position.

That's right. And Boehner has shown that he doesn't have enough support in the party for his position. Because a marginal tax hike  of a few percent on people making over a million dollars a year to pay off the deficit is too much for the modern GOP.

[derspiess]

a marginal tax hike  of a few percent on people making over a million dollars a year to pay off the deficit

It'd barely make a dent in the deficit.

[Faeelin]

It'd barely make a dent in the deficit.

So what you're saying is that Boehner's plan on tax hikes would barely make a dent in the deficit, wouldn't affect the vast majority of Americans, and still couldn't get enough of his party's support. 

I'm trying to understand why Republicans would vote no on this.  Is the principle that no tax hikes are acceptable as part of dealing with the deficit?

And if you don't have a vote for this, and given how close Boehner and Obama had gotten, what was the point?

[derspiess]

It'd barely make a dent in the deficit.

So what you're saying is that Boehner's plan on tax hikes would barely make a dent in the deficit, wouldn't affect the vast majority of Americans, and still couldn't get enough of his party's support. 

I'm trying to understand why Republicans would vote no on this.  Is the principle that no tax hikes are acceptable as part of dealing with the deficit?

Because it's lose-lose to them.  They piss off their base of support by favoring a tax hike without it ultimately doing any good, given that it was DOA even if it passed the House.

That said, I'd have voted for it just to put the ball in the Dems' court.  I was skeptical at first but I'm starting to agree with those who believe that Obama doesn't want a deal.

[Faeelin]

By don't want a deal, you mean that the deal he proposed (and came close to Boehner's own offer) was a lie? So Obama was a genius who expected the GOP to collapse in infighting?

[derspiess]

By don't want a deal, you mean that the deal he proposed (and came close to Boehner's own offer) was a lie?

That's a bit too strong of a word.  I'd say it was a bit disingenuous. 

So Obama was a genius who expected the GOP to collapse in infighting?

Another strong word (my, aren't you fond of those).  But it is obvious he's been running circles around the GOP in this debate.  Not that he's in the right-- just giving a good political performance.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't think people are saying that compromise is impossible and that we are stuck with the fiscal cliff forever.  They are sayin that Boehner's plan to show the GOP could craft a viable alternative has failed because his party bolted.  So your point "it's not a big deal, because if enough Democrats agree we'll get something" is true but not the point. 

People are giving Boehner crap because he couldn't keep his party in line, and has spent days talking about a Plan B he couldn't get enough of his own party to support.

A plan which Reid said had no chance in the Senate and which Obama said he would veto.  Even if it passed the House it was never going to be more than a negotiating position.

I wonder how many GOP votes Boehner could have gotten if it had been clear there would be enough Dem support to pass it and Reid had not indicated it would be DOA when it hits the Senate. You know these guys are going to get a shit sandwich from their constituents if they vote for a tax increase, so the ones who might actually vote for one that's likely to pass would probably not vote for one that's going to fail anyway. No point in eating the sandwich if it does no good.