Who voted how on “fiscal cliff” & Update

McCain and Kyl vote with Democrats in support of Obama scheme

If you’ve been wondering which U.S. Senators voted this morning in favor of allowing income taxes to rise sharply for the first time in two decades — fulfilling Barack Obama’s class warfare/redistribution pledge to raise taxes on American achievers and job creators — you can see their names and votes here.

The bill, HR 8, previously known as the Tax Relief Extension Act, should more aptly be called the Tax Relief Extortion Act, since it included $600 billion in tax hikes. It now carries the far more politically correct title: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

This scheme will add $3.9 trillion to the deficit, with a mere $1 in spending cuts for every $41 in tax increases. That translates to $15 billion in spending cuts while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts

As an unrestrained Obama continues to spend at breakneck speed, this deal brokered by VP Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), passed 89 to 8. It now heads to the House, where leaders have not guaranteed passage, but top officials believe it could win passage in the next few days.

In the House, political realities have repercussions at the ballot box in less than two years.   Senators are safe for six long years. They are counting on American memories getting clogged with football and lulled into submission by their favorite Hollywood celebrities, who coincidently are mostly high-dollar donors to liberal causes and candidates.


House GOP surrender to tax increases and spending increases; AZ Republican contingent stays the course

Republicans in the House of Representatives abandoned any semblance of leadership to add spending cuts to the farcical “fiscal cliff” bill and agreed last night to a undemanding yes-or-no vote on the bill that passed the Senate earlier yesterday.

The bill’s passage on a 257-167 vote in the House of Representatives, a chamber controlled by Republicans, bestows a major victory on Obama, who crafted a class warfare scenario to win re-election — campaigning on higher taxes on what he termed “the wealthiest Americans” or those who needed to “pay their fair share.”  After all, they “didn’t build that.”

Arizona’s resolute Republican Congressional contingent voted against the monstrosity which is the first Republican vote in favor of increased taxes in two decades. AZ Dems voted in support. The final House vote can be seen here.

Among myriad other spending, the bill extends unemployment benefits at a cost of $30.1 billion for two million Americans — who have already received 99 weeks of payments. It insured a raise of the death-tax paid on inheritances from 35% to 40%, and also extends a liberal favorite: stimulus-era tax breaks.

A report released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office Tuesday indicates that the Senate-passed vote would add nearly $4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.

The clear lack of leadership evidenced by capitulating to this pork-laden behemoth, should signal the defeat of Republican House Speaker John Boehner as he faces reelection after the new House is seated on Thursday. Nancy Pelosi called it “a happy start to a new year.” That probably tells you all you need to know.

This two-month stop-gap is just the tip of the rushing-headlong-into-becoming-Greece iceberg. The debt ceiling looms.

And Obama?  He’s off to resume his Hawaiian vacation. Never one to let serious business get in the way of his good times, Obama signed the bill using an autopen, a mechanical device that copies his signature.


33 Responses to Who voted how on “fiscal cliff” & Update

  1. Velcro says:

    As I understand it, the Bush-era payroll tax break is gone either way. Fiscal cliff or HR8, we’re screwed both ways.

  2. Doug Johnson says:

    As I scroll down through the vote page to how the senators from each state voted, what to my wondering eyes should appear but a little old *!%#*! and the nearly gone elitist goon from Arizona. Not much of a surprise that they would vote with the democrats on something of this magnitude, where Republicans give and give and democrats get and get.

  3. State Committeeman says:

    Very disappointing. I understand that there is this overwhelming fear that Republicans will be blamed for the fiscal disaster, but why don’t they craft their argument better to avoid this blame? With Obama in office, we will be blamed for anything that bombs. First and foremost, John Boehner needs to be replaced. Then let’s get some people who can actually talk and make sense, telling the truth about this issue and the raw politics surrounding it. Is it any wonder Americans are storing food, water, guns, ammo, gold and silver?

    • Westnash says:

      I agree that the Republican argument needs to be improved. Same is very much true in Arizona.

      We will become a reliable Democrat state if things do not improve.

      • GOP PC says:

        From what I’ve read of your comments and gather as representing your mindset, a blue Arizona should please you greatly. You, Westnash, are surely no conservative. If you are actually registered as a Republican, it must be in a special category labeled “squish.”

    • CD9 says:

      State, I do not care what the Republican’s do they will still be blamed and demonized. The news media covered up Benghazi, the news media worships BHO and they condem any and all Republicans. While the Republican’s fear the electorat but not the Republican’s for their jobs most of us are getting fired. To them that is all in a days work, too bad the Republican’s are now in on it too especially since Boehner has been speaker. Bring back Newt as speaker.

  4. patriotmom says:

    And now the House GOP caved and the whole mess with essentially no cuts and loads of goodies for Dem supporters is going to Nobamas desk so he can gloat-again. Meanwhile, despite all the protests to the contrary, middle class people like me will have smaller paychecks and higher bills for almost everything else.

    The Dems are flush with power and it will be no time at all that they come after more tax increases. The only ones that won’t be taxed will be Nobamas adoring 47% that get everything free and sit on their butts. So, don’t expect to see the recession over anytime soon.

  5. eubykdisop says:

    The economic warfare being waged on The United States is bipartisan. What explains that?

    Those who support the “New World Order” are in both political parties and share common objectives; the elimination of American sovereignty, the elimination of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights and liberties and the governance of The United States by world bodies like the U. N.. The fastest way to get there is to cut Samson’s hair; financially destroy America. How is that?

    The wealth generating capabilities of Capitalism are at the root of all of America’s strengths. Our wealth enables us to maintain a strong defense. It enables us to do research which creates cutting edge technology. It enables us to educate our children. It enables us to quickly recover from disasters. It enables us to be well fed and healthy. Destroy Capitalism and you destroy our national wealth which is the underpinning of everything which has made America great and secure in it’s freedoms.

    I would urge Conservatives to scope back and try to take in the biggest possible picture of what is going on economically. Otherwise we will focus on individual economic outrages while failing to penetrate to the heart of the beast.

    If we are to attack, we need to know what to attack and where to attack. It does little good to shoot a charging bear in the foot. He’ll end up spitting out your wristwatch.

    Instead of speaking in terms of Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives we need to be talking in terms of the “New World Order” versus Americans. That is what is at the core of the war in which we find ourselves.

    Let us not confuse the effects with the cause. Behind the entire ball of wax, the Obama economic policies, the betrayals by so called “Republicans”, is the push for the “New World Order”. Let us attack that, by name, and let us confront our politicians with where they stand on that agenda!

    • Westnash says:


      Instead of a far rightest agenda…..let us concentrate on spending.

      • eubykdisop says:


        The term “far right” was created by leftist liberals for the purpose of making Conservatives appear to be extreme. Your use of that term tells us precisely where you are on the political spectrum.

        Furthermore, we see that, at that same time, you seek to direct us away from the “New World Order” and toward a focus on the smallest possible economic picture. That fits with your leftist, liberal agenda. You would have us shoot the charging bear in the foot, an ineffective intervention.

        “Spending” is a symptom. The economic war on America, for the purpose of bringing about the “New World Order”, is the causative disease.

        Let us not concentrate just on “spending” but rather on the driving force behind that spending and it’s intended purpose. Only then can we act in a logical and effective manner to counteract the forces seeking to destroy Capitalism, our national wealth and the strengths and freedoms which spring from our national wealth.

    • Westnash says:

      Instead of a march of the brownshirts here is the type of thing you should oppose:


      Your electric bill goes up because of a donation to the Super Bowl.

      • eubykdisop says:


        Attempting to characterize me as opposing “a march of the brownshirts” is an example of the classic smear tactics, distortions and misrepresentations employed by the liberal left in their ongoing efforts to discredit Conservatives. Yet once again, you clearly reveal where you are on the political spectrum.

        Let us ask ourselves why it is that Westnash, one who clearly holds leftist views, has seen fit to make two posts attempting to discredit me and seeking to direct attention away from the “New World Order”? What is the potent motivation behind his actions?

        At the same time, we see that Westnash, in perfect alignment with the Liberal left, attacks U. S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, a decorated combat veteran and stuanch anti-communist.

        We see also that Westnash has called for closing more military bases, cutting military spending, stopping aid to Israel, cutting military pay and describes Republicans as being fools for “wailing” about cuts in military spending. He refers to our military as “your precious military”.

        Clearly, the Conservative views being expressed at SRAZ have Liberal leftists like Westnash in a tizzy. The active presence of Liberals here is a tribute to the effectiveness SRAZ in combating their agenda. If SRAZ wasn’t a thorn in the side of the Liberals, they would simply ignore SRAZ.

        In the ongoing attacks on Conservatives and Conservatism by Liberals like Westnash, we see how desperate is the Liberal left in seeking to suppress truth. Conservative ideas are dangerous. They could lead to the preservation of our constitutional democracy and we can’t have that sort of impediment to the “progressive”, “New World Order” agenda.

  6. Hunter says:

    The country would be better off going off the fiscal cliff than taking this deal. Even though taxes would go up, more people would be paying income tax. The Bush tax cuts reduced the number of people paying any income tax. This will make those people start to feel the consequences of more government spending. Plus, there will be payroll tax and Obamacare tax increases anyway, so more income tax increases is just one more economy killing measure of many that will take effect.

    Ideally, we would keep the Bush tax cuts and make them permanent. Since that’s not going to happen, it’s not worth increasing government spending to keep temporary tax cuts.

    The sequester with tax hikes is a more balanced approach than what was passed by the Senate. It was a bad deal when it was made, but it is better than what has been negotiated now.

    • Hunter says:

      It looks like the Bush income tax cuts for everyone making less than $400K ($450K for joint filers) have been made permanent which is a small victory compared to what I thought we would get.

      Overall, though, it’s still a bad deal because there very few, if any, spending cuts.

  7. LouiseAnn says:

    Be direct – McCain and Kyl voted For this bill. $1 in spending cuts for $41 in tax increases. Apparently, they believe that we can “tax our way out” (to put a spin on O’s phrase) of the mess they have created. Good luck with that. Shall we take bets on Flake’s position when he is in the Senate?

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      We regret not making that point clearer, LouiseAnn. Thank you for the nudge. Will correct that oversight. And Flake? He voted with the AZ Republicans in this, his final final House vote, but we don’t expect to see much more of that from him as a senator.

      • LouiseAnn says:

        Yes, I appreciate his house vote. My concern is that we still (seemingly) will not have a counterbalance to McCain. We need a Conservative senator.

  8. Sally Forth says:

    Fiscal cliff? I can think of a whole crew of people who ought to be pushed off of it, with Obama leading the way!

  9. 1776 says:

    I would like to offer a positive note to the discussion. I believe that the Republicans have finally done what no one before could accomplish. They have taken away from the French the reputation for most likely to offfer abject surrender.

  10. Saguaro Sam says:

    Take a look at Michelle Malkin’s website. See the corporations which will be given special dispensation by BHO. Note that COSTCO is high on the list, as the co-founder is being repaid for all the the high dollar fund raisers he held for Obama. With your money.
    Think about that the next time you think you need a ten pound jar of olives.


  11. eubykdisop says:

    When Conservatives see an action by government which is contrary to all logic and reason and which does serious harm to the U. S., it is important to question how it is that action came to pass and why it came to pass. This is especially true when we see that such an action has bipartisan support. Bipartisanship on harmful legislation suggests that there is a hidden agenda uniting both sides of the aisle. What is that hidden agenda? What is it which both the majority of Democrat and Republican members of Congress support which unites them in passing legislation harmful to The United States of America?

    In 1992, then U. S. Senator Joe Biden gave a series of speeches before the Senate which are part of the Congressional Record. Here are some excerpts from those speeches:

    “Senate – June 29, 1992 —
    Congressional Record [Pages: S9098 – S9102]:
    The Threshold of the New World Order: The Wilsonian Vision
    and American Foreign Policy in the 1990’s and Beyond”

    “. . . I shall urge that we revive the concept of a new world order, rescue the phrase from cynicism, and invest in it a vision that should become the organizing principle of American foreign policy in the 1990’s and into the next century.”

    “. . . the moment is upon us to define a compelling concept of a new world order to commit ourselves to it, and to lead the world in its realization.”

    “Our challenge demands that we conceive a new world order that encompasses, and builds upon, the concept of collective security that Woodrow Wilson first advanced to a nation and a world not yet ready to comprehend its necessity.”

    “Senate – June 30, 1992
    Congressional Record [Pages S9173 – S9179]:
    American Agenda for the New World Order:
    A. Cementing the Democratic Foundation;
    B. Forging A New Strategy of Containment”

    “The call for cooperation is precisely that, a call for intensified, global cooperation: in scientific research and education; in the establishment of agreed standards, incentives, and procedures relating to the preservation of animals, plants, and vital resources; in treaties to control dangerous arms…”

    “The joining of the second world to the first would complete the new order’s foundation: Bringing the world’s major nations into a concert of cooperating democracies.”

    In response to Biden’s speech, Senator Kerry had this to say:

    [Page: S9179]

    “Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I begin by congratulating my friend and colleague, the Senator from Delaware and colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, for his very thoughtful analysis of a real new world order. The Senator has been leading the effort really to analyze the START agreement, and in his role as chairman of one of our subcommittees has long been watching and interested in the issue of an appropriate arms balance and a distribution of forces.”

    That was 1992. Today, Biden is Vice President and Kerry has been chosen to be Secretary of State.

    Psychologists tell us that all human behavior is purposeful. There is a purpose behind the enactment of “fiscal cliff” legislation. What is it?

    If we understand that the “New World Order” people are not concerned with the well being of America as we have known it, that they are not concerned with the well being of Americans, that their only concern is for bringing about the “New World Order”, then we can make sense of bipartisan support for legislation which harms America but promotes the “New World Order”.

    • Westnash says:

      As meaningless as Black Helicopters, Euby!

      • eubykdisop says:

        ROFL! You’ve reached a new low, Westnash, attempting to dismiss statements by Biden and Kerry which are part of the Congressional Record. Then again, you want to get your boys off the hook, LOL! We understand, Westnash, it’s difficult being a far left Liberal.

        Isn’t it interesting how Westnash, of the Liberal persuasion, is so adamant in seeking to dismiss anything about the “New World Order”? Wonder why that is? Hmmmm?

  12. Hunter says:

    Probably the most fundamental problem we have with government today is that people who have no stake in the future of their communities and no understanding of how how government is supposed to operate are allowed to vote.

    If voting was restricted to property owners who have passed the equivalent of a citizenship test that immigrants must pass to become citizens (and retake it every 10 or 20 years to prove they still know the information) and do not receive government benefits or salaries, we would have an electorate that is more interested in the long term health of the country and their communities. Without those restrictions, you get too many people just trying to squeeze as much wealth from taxpayers as possible while paying as little as possible.

    Imagine how Phoenix city elections or School District election would go if only property owners able to pass a citizenship test who are NOT government employees or government payment recipients were allowed to vote. Unions would not have such a disproportionate impact on the elections and the people voting would make decisions more in line with what is best for their community.

    People who vote to wreck their communities can easily move on to others to wreck. For example, Californians moving to Arizona after they voted to wreck California who then try to make Arizona more like California are a big problem for Arizonans who value limited, responsible government.

    If we had more sensible restrictions on who could vote, we would have better government. The horrible government we have today is simply a reflection of the electorate: self serving and/or ignorant.

    • eubykdisop says:

      While I don’t agree with your position, Hunter, you seek to make a coherent argument for your point of view. That at least permits us to have a meaningful discussion of the issues you raise.

      My perspective is that our primary focus regarding elections should be on the integrity of the process, meaning that things are carried out in accordance with the law. There is a plethora of evidence, going back for many decades, that integrity in the elections process is lacking. Perhaps the most famous and high profile case is that of Lyndon Johnson and Ballot Box 13. See the link:

      “A Look at the Infamous Ballot Box 13 Documents”


      Most recently, Allen West was denied a recount and review of questionable ballots in his race. Those in charge simply let the clock run out.

      So first I think that we need to work toward elections integrity. Next, we can, as Conservative legislators and organizations have tried to do, focus on better elections laws. That primarily means seeing to it that only those who are eligible to vote are permitted to vote.

      The problem with restrictions on voting is where do we stop? We have to remember that once we begin creating voting restrictions that the legal rationale for those restrictions constitute a double edged sword which could very easily be turned against us. Liberals would love to find a means of disenfranchising Conservative voters!

      As regards Californians, do you have evidence that those who have moved to Arizona are those who ruined California or are those who have moved here those who oppose the Liberal agenda and seek to escape it by moving to a more Conservative environment? I don’t know. I haven’t researched it. It’s just a question which comes to mind based on your statement.

      • Hunter says:

        While making sure the process is honest and run according to the law, the sad fact is that there are a lot of people eligible to vote who are getting financial benefits from the government and have no long term stake in the success of their communities like property owners (who have their property values on the line with respect to how well the government is functioning). As long as people collecting government money and people with no financial stake in their communities are allowed to vote, they will be a voting block that will not properly evaluate costs and benefits because they will be getting the benefits without bearing the costs. As the government gets bigger, so does this block of voters. Even with an honestly, legally run election process, the takers will outvote the makers if government gets too big.

        I think it is possible to have objective criteria for setting voting standards. For example, sole (or joint with a spouse) ownership of real property having working plumbing or a lot of at least one half acre. This takes care of people in condos as well as those with substantial undeveloped lots. As for the citizenship test, that process is already developed and reliable – it is used to test people applying for citizenship. The tests could be given like written driver tests are given today at state testing facilities. Of course, the tests should be given only in English. Government wages and salaries (except for officials directly elected by voters) as well as transfer payments should automatically disqualify someone from voting. Also, anyone working for a company getting one year or longer government contracts or contracts without winning them through a competitive bidding process should be treated as a government employee for purposes of voting. There would have to be a waiting period, say 6 months, before eligibility to vote was restored to make sure people don’t quit for just election day and then go back to their old job or entitlement program.

        I don’t expect that changing voter eligibility will happen anytime soon (and probably not ever), but I think it is the root cause of most of our problems with government. If we don’t keep the root causes in mind, the solutions being considered might only address symptoms rather than the actual problems.

        Regarding Californians moving to Arizona, that is based on anecdotes and is not supported by any solid evidence I am aware of. I have noticed, though, that many people from Midwest cities as well as from many urban areas of California tend to bring their liberal values and politics with them. They lack the awareness that Arizona is better than where they left largely because of the liberal policies of their previous homes.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Well, property ownership was a requirement early in our country’s history but it was shot down by each state individually over time. So I don’t think it’s likely to come back.

        One hazard is that people like Soros, Bloomberg and a host of other wealthy Liberals could buy property to keep people from owning it, thereby reducing the number of eligible voters. That could be done selectively in Republican areas. Those are the sort of “unintended consequences” we need to be aware of.

  13. eubykdisop says:

    “Pressure builds to nix gift of tanks, F-16s to Egypt”

    “Published January 02, 2013”

    “Later this month, the new government in Egypt is scheduled to begin taking delivery of 10 F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abrams tanks – courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.”

    “The $213 million deal is part of a foreign aid package signed when American ally Hosni Mubarak was president, but a growing chorus of critics say the Obama administration should pull the plug. They cite Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood government’s mixed signals to the U.S. and Israel, as well as America’s fiscal problems, as reasons for rescinding the deal.”

    “Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan, who recently called for ending foreign aid to Egypt altogether, told FoxNews.com last month the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Morsi government has been sending increasingly troubling signals to Washington, and giving it state-of-the-art fighter jets is a dangerous idea.”

    “American tax dollars must not be used to aid and abet any dictatorial regime that stands with terrorists,” Buchanan said.


    How do we make sense of a deal GIVING Egypt tanks and fighter jets at U. S. taxpayer expense at a time when we are in fiscal crisis, especially when the Muslim Brotherhood is the power behind the throne in Egypt?

  14. Fed Up says:

    Every single Republican — House or Senate — who voted for this sham, should be removed from their exaulted position and replaced with freedom loving Constitutionalists. Remember them come the next election!! They don’t deserve our votes. Do you hear that John McCain?

  15. Hagar says:

    Should McCain or McKyl dare to show their faces at the Maricopa County or Sate Republican Meetings coming up later this month, I hope they are roundly booed.

    • State Committeeman says:

      How right you are, Hagar!

      But McCain has NEVER attended a state meeting in all of the years I’ve been a state committeeman, and Kyl isn’t even a precinct committeeman. They have gotten what they want from us…cushy jobs, prestige, excellent salaries, benefits we could only dream of and perks galore. Otherwise, they hold us in contempt. They use us to get elected but consider us dirt beneath their feet. Now try to pry their like-thinking clone Jeff The Flake out of that senate seat they just shoe-horned him into. Six year terms make them impervious to us. I’m as conservative as you’ll find, but I did not vote for Flake. The reason? I know him.

      • State Committeeman says:


        I forgot to mention that McCain didn’t even bother to show up at the GOP state meeting when his name was place in nomination as the Republican presidential candidate from his home state!! The rumor circulating around the hall at the time was that he was concerned about being booed and didn’t want to risk the negative national press. We should have booed the mere mention of his name, with or without his presence.

  16. Night Owl says:

    Since Obama used an autopen to replicate his signature, maybe he could just put a lifesized cardboard cutout of himself in the Oval Office. It wouldn’t be nearly as bad as the real thing.