Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted Tuesday night to approve a Senate bill to avert a feared fiscal cliff.
The measure that sought to maintain tax cuts for most Americans but increase rates on the wealthy passed the Democratic-led Senate overwhelmingly early in the day.
There was discussion about amending the Senate bill by adding spending cuts, but in the end, House lawmakers voted on the bill as written -- a so-called up or down vote.
The legislation would raise roughly $600 billion in new revenues over 10 years, according to various estimates.
"I'd say let's take the Senate deal, fight another day," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, told CNN before the House vote. He predicted the House would pass the bill with a "pretty strong bipartisan majority."
"I'm a very reluctant yes," said Rep. Nan Hayworth, an outgoing Republican representative from New York.
"This is the best we can do given the Senate and the White House sentiment at this point in time, and it is at least a partial victory for the American people," she said. "I'll take that at this point."
The timing of the vote was crucial, as a new Congress is set to be sworn in Thursday.
The legislation averted much of the fiscal cliff's negative near-term economic impact by extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the majority of Americans. It also extends long-term unemployment benefits that were set to expire.
Had the House not acted, and the tax cuts enacted last decade expired fully, broad tax increases would have kicked in, as would $110 billion in automatic cuts to domestic and military spending.
Hmm. I think House republicans are realizing that public opinion is not on their side, so they're looking to take credit. Also at the source is a breakdown of 'five things to know about the fiscal cliff' that's a good read.
No 'fiscal cliff' or 'kick the can' tags?
The measure that sought to maintain tax cuts for most Americans but increase rates on the wealthy passed the Democratic-led Senate overwhelmingly early in the day.
There was discussion about amending the Senate bill by adding spending cuts, but in the end, House lawmakers voted on the bill as written -- a so-called up or down vote.
The legislation would raise roughly $600 billion in new revenues over 10 years, according to various estimates.
"I'd say let's take the Senate deal, fight another day," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, told CNN before the House vote. He predicted the House would pass the bill with a "pretty strong bipartisan majority."
"I'm a very reluctant yes," said Rep. Nan Hayworth, an outgoing Republican representative from New York.
"This is the best we can do given the Senate and the White House sentiment at this point in time, and it is at least a partial victory for the American people," she said. "I'll take that at this point."
The timing of the vote was crucial, as a new Congress is set to be sworn in Thursday.
The legislation averted much of the fiscal cliff's negative near-term economic impact by extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the majority of Americans. It also extends long-term unemployment benefits that were set to expire.
Had the House not acted, and the tax cuts enacted last decade expired fully, broad tax increases would have kicked in, as would $110 billion in automatic cuts to domestic and military spending.
Hmm. I think House republicans are realizing that public opinion is not on their side, so they're looking to take credit. Also at the source is a breakdown of 'five things to know about the fiscal cliff' that's a good read.
No 'fiscal cliff' or 'kick the can' tags?
I was really stressed over this, and I'm not even american.
and gdi republicans, can u stop pretending like you care about people?
Jeez. I am more than perfectly okay with paying a bit more in taxes; what's wrong with going back to the tax rates of the 90's?
That's a legitimate question, btw, cause I am woefully uneducated when it comes to all this mess...
Like I said, though, if we made marginally more we'd have no problem paying more taxes! Sure, we'd pay more, but it would also mean we have more income to work with and live on, and less of a daily struggle. The wealthy can definitely afford to pay a little more!
By keeping taxes low for most people but raising taxes on the wealthy, they're basically making it so that middle class and working class people (er, as well as some well-off people making $250k-$400k/year) can continue to buy stuff, pay down personal debt, etc. all while the government generates additional revenue from rich people who honestly weren't doing much with that extra cash anyway. If taxes were to raise on everyone everywhere, there'd be a whole mess of middle class and working class people trimming their budgets, spending less, which would slow down economic growth overall.
Hell a full on Federal Budget hasn't been passed since 1997. We've just had a bunch of Continuing Resolutions and some Omnibus bills thrown together to feed money to the beast.
Congress needs to do their job. Not just the Democrats. Not just the Republicans. Congress as a whole. Pass a goddamn budget. Raise taxes. Cut spending. Get the economy in order. AND THEN after you do that, maybe you can worry about passing bills that take away our right to unlawful search and seizure, which is what you were doing instead. Oh, and Akins was trying to backdoor the DADT repeal. Good job, guy. Way to use the National Defense Authorization Act to further your bullshit agenda.
Sources:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20
http://prospect.org/article/does-congre
http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/sta
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/todd_ak
Edited at 2013-01-02 06:52 am (UTC)
Probably because this incremental adjusting keeps the House (which is Republican controlled only due to years of gerrymandering) in a position to literally cock-block to the entire government, giving them disproportionate power.
http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.h
It tells me that the member of the GOP in the Senate are more prepared to do the right thing for the country than their buddies in the other chamber. It also tells me that John Boehner doesn't carry much weight with his caucus which would be hysterical if he wasn't the most powerful Republican in the US government.
What do "payroll taxes" go toward anyway? Social Security? Medicare?
TBH, the payroll tax cut was a stupid idea to begin with, so I'm glad it's gone.