Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., right, the Republican Conference Chair, arrive at the House of Representatives for the final vote on emergency legislation to avoid a national "fiscal cliff" at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Editor's note
This is the recent Daily News series of stories looking at potential local effects of the fiscal cliff.
■ RELATED STORY: Fiscal cliff: A Q&A to understand the basics, the effects if not resolved
■ RELATED STORY: Wealthy Naples investors begin financial adjustments with looming fiscal cliff
■ RELATED STORY: Fiscal cliff: Employers, Naples defense contractors anxious for deal
■ RELATED STORY: Fiscal cliff: Most of Florida's federal politicians want to avoid tax increases
■ RELATED STORY: Fiscal cliff: Southwest Florida charities believe donations won't fall off
■ RELATED STORY: Fiscal cliff: Some analysts say Collier's real estate recovery could be in trouble
■ RELATED STORY: Fiscal cliff: Florida officials urge Congress to avoid cuts to law enforcement grants
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republicans in Congress who took the politically risky step of voting to raise taxes now find themselves trying to fend off potential primary challenges next year from angry conservatives.
These lawmakers wasted little time in attempting to deliver an explanation that would be acceptable to the tea party and the GOP's right flank, and, perhaps, insulate themselves from a re-election battle against a fellow Republican. They've started defending last week's vote as one that preserves tax cuts for most Americans, while also promising to fight for spending cuts in upcoming debates over raising the nation's borrowing limit.
"In the end, he ensured that over 99 percent of Kentuckians will not pay higher income taxes," Mitch McConnell's campaign wrote in an email message to Kentucky voters the day after the Senate Republican leader supported the measure.
It was the first time in two decades that a significant number of Republicans voted for a tax increase: 33 senators and 85 representatives, who broke with the House GOP majority to support the bill that averted the "fiscal cliff" but raised taxes on upper incomes.
"The ones that voted for it, I think they will rue the day," Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby said after opposing the bill.
Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, put it this way: "It's not too early to be looking at 2014. I think there are going to be a lot of primary challenges. People are fed up."
Most if not all of these Republicans who voted to raise taxes are likely mindful of their party's recent history of nasty primary battles that have pitted incumbents against tea party-backed insurgents. None of them is likely to be immune to the scrutiny — rising stars, powerful committee chairmen and Republicans in reliably Republican seats — expected to confront them when they return to their districts to stand for re-election in November 2014.
The vote was a dilemma for Republicans, who have pledged for decades not to raise taxes, but faced being blamed with raising taxes on all Americans, had Congress and the White House not reached a deal. The party got some cover from Grover Norquist, a leading anti-tax figure who described the bill, which preserved a series of tax cuts for most incomes, as "clearly a tax cut."
"It's a really tough vote. And it's a really tough vote to explain to Republicans," Michigan Republican consultant Stu Sandler said.
Lawmakers who could be vulnerable to a challenge include Michigan Rep. Dan Benishek and South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem, who bucked her tea party base and backed the bill, calling it "damage control."
"This makes her vulnerable and there will be discussion that she should have a primary challenge," said Joel Rosenthal, a former South Dakota Republican chairman. "Whether it materializes depends on votes down the road."
Some Democrats who opposed the deal also might be called to account by their own liberal bases for voting for spurning President Barack Obama and refusing to go along with his election-year pledge to raise taxes on America's top earners.
Among those who voted "no" were liberals such as Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin. He criticized the bill as overly generous to wealthy Americans, and had supported Obama's original proposal to raise taxes on people earning at least $250,000 a year.
Harkin has not ruled out seeking a sixth term in 2014. His vote probably would prevent a primary challenge, but it could be tricky for him in a general election.
While House Republican delegations, such as New York's and Pennsylvania's voted for the bill, they did so likely with impunity because the GOP bases in their states aren't nearly as ideologically conservative as those in other parts of the country.
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, also voted for the measure. It won't likely be an obstacle to his re-election in his swing-voting district, but it could cause him trouble with conservative primary voters should he run for president in 2016.
Rep. Steve Womack, in just his second term representing heavily conservative northwest Arkansas, could be forced to answer to tea party concerns over his "yes" vote if he seeks a third term. He will almost certainly face questions about it should he run for Senate or governor, the subject of GOP speculation on which Womack has been silent.
Michigan Rep. Fred Upton's backing of the measure might rile up conservatives enough in his right-leaning district in the western part of the state that he could face a challenger. But his stature may be enough to prevent a serious one: He easily has fought off recent primary opponents and, as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would likely have the fundraising edge.
Upton's Michigan colleague, Benishek, also voted for the bill and could have a bigger concern. He eked out re-election to a second term in November, carrying less than 50 percent of the vote in his northern district, and spurning tea party activists there could invite a threat from an opponent.
Among Senate Republicans, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia backed the measure and may have further agitated conservatives who were already cranky with him over his participation last year in the "Gang of Six," a bipartisan group that discussed fiscal plans including tax increases and changes to entitlement programs.
After the vote, Chambliss pointed quickly to the next phase of the fiscal fight as the place for redemption for what he called a flawed but necessary measure.
Chambliss and others say they will press for tying dramatically lower spending to support for raising the nation's debt limit.
"This is just the first step in a major, major fight," Chambliss' senior adviser Tom Perdue said.
The swift defense from those who backed the increases is a response to GOP primary challenges from conservatives last year that proved costly to Republican members seen as dealmakers. Six-term Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar lost his primary to tea party favorite Richard Mourdock, and House Republicans Jeanne Schmidt of Ohio and John Sullivan of Oklahoma lost in primaries last year, attacked in part for voting to raise the debt ceiling.
Flynt Sexy Gifts
Dining Out: The Local
Catch of the Day: May 23, 2013
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 38
staghorn writes:
HURRY 2014 so America can put that republican 'party of NO' to sleep forever!
RIP FOP!
staghorn writes:
RIP "GOP" FOREVER!!
ed34145 writes:
Keep it up Tea Party and you will destroy the Republican Party.
big_peach_e writes:
Go you TP loonies, Go. Drive those Repubs hard right. More Akins, please. More witches, more Angles, more Borthers, more 9-9-9'ers. Go TP, Go.
Davidh239 writes:
The Tea Party may get some elected and some defeated but they have hijacked the Republican Party and will never be a force that gets anything done. To the contrary , they, in their present form, will continue to be the determining factor in our slide towards Socialism.
They are on a fools mission and will keep the big social spenders in power.
FiredUp writes:
The Taliban and the Tea Party are both conservative, right-wing extremists.
CONSTIPATED_CONSERVATIVE writes:
How does Obama and the liberals keep out smarting we conservatives...????? I just can not understand why the majority of Americans support this sort of thing....... Surely we t-potts are not out of touch, are we......??????
CoolridenJoe (Inactive) writes:
https://www.teapartycommunity.com/
Captian_Cataracts writes:
These clowns need to be indicted for violating their oath of office.
MrsCalcium writes:
Ronald Reagan supported tax hikes for "millionaires" (his words). Why not you?
savethewhalz writes:
Dems are surely laughing. Now the Republicans fight themselves. Insane, but sorta like cats or old women.
CONSTIPATED_CONSERVATIVE writes:
I take issue with your silly comment...... As a founding member of the t-potty, I strongly disagree with your comparison......Remember T-pottys can eat all the pork they want........The t-pottys, the NRA and the KKK made this country what is today............
theataman writes:
Republican “zombies” affiliated with 'The Something for Nothing & Nothing for Everyone Else Tea Party' movement scored big in the last nerve-racking debt-ceiling debacle by “winning ugly,” but the victory left enough hard feelings to feed the GOP’s ultimate defeat in the presidential election.
With the nation's credit rating in the balance, mean-spirited and unreasonable ultra-conservatives will once again try to seize the normally routine matter of raising the nation's debt ceiling that it held hostage last time, gangsta-style, “Cut government spending our way,” they reasoned, “and nobody gets hurt.”
Gun-nuts will do their part too by “shooting themselves” in the foot, while Tea Party nut-cases will insure that Democratic “lawmakers” soon have a majority once again in both the House and Senate.
Yes, please run and win Republican primaries!!
Klaatu writes:
Quick somebody send "winterhaven" some tin foil.
I think his hat fell off !!!!
QueBonita writes:
France's socialist administration wants to raise taxes on citizens earning more than 1 million euros ($1.3 million) annually to 75%. The Russian Federation has a flat income tax rate of 13%, RIA Novosti reported.
676 writes:
So QueBonita, you'd rather live in Moscow than Paris?
676 writes:
I'd love to see a 18% flat tax on all making above poverty level, to include federal and state taxes. Will never happen, would eliminate most pork barrel spending.
lb5361 writes:
Egg-ax-ly!
Colorado (Inactive) writes:
You really are incredably ignorant, aren't you.
nosebreather writes:
House, Senate and Obama just agreed to take 2% of your income as additional Social Security tax. So, if you're making just $10,000 a year, God forbid, BEFORE taxes, they think you should pay another $200 a year for their pet projects. They feel they need that money more than you.
volochine writes:
My former party of republicans is filled with regressives, rascists, and reactionaries. The new RRR.
Korrect me if I am klearly kaput on this opinion.
BillyBob1 writes:
Well Stated. I agree.
BillyBob1 writes:
Funny how that works isn't it. The KKK used to be hand in hand with the democrat party and then they changed thier advertising to attract the same folks they had been swinging on ropes just a few years before. It is amazing just how stupid some people can be. Kind of like the jews electing Hitler to man of the year and then president.
BillyBob1 writes:
The really sad part of your comment is that you think raising the debt is "routine". Your attitude is definately the reason the next three or four generations are going to suffer because of your lack of restraint or responsibility.
Beachglow writes:
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
And who is ignorant?
Beachglow writes:
Obama also tacked a multi-million dollar package onto the deal to pay back his Hollywood supporters for giving him millions to campaign.
That's the kind of stuff he doesn't want you to know about.
S-U-C-K-E-R Democrats voters. That will cost you, too. This is so sad it's funny.
Davidh239 writes:
You're correct, it's only an opinion , the same as others, to which everyone is entitled.
I also love the USA . As for checks and balances, it would be nice if the government wrote a check from a balanced checkbook and not 1 that is overdrawn.
When worthless spending bills can be attached to legislation that holds legitimate business hostage, that's not balance. Neither is the oft used Executive Powers that allow Presidents to circumvent the constitution, manipulation by elected officials to block legislation, pay raises when much of the rest of the country is struggling. and on and on.
It is still the greatest country in the world but we sure need a good housecleaning.
And you ?
Beachglow writes:
Debt ceiling going up again? Doubtful but your taxes and fees and food and gas and clothing and telephones and energy and water and insurance and borrowing amounts will.
Have fun all you people who voted for this joker, especially those who are on fixed incomes. Your expenses for Medicare, et cetera, will go up and already have once and your freebies will be cut. Here comes the fun!
angrytxpyr writes:
Lets not forget that both parties brokered and passed the supposed "fiscal cliff" legislation a couple years ago and Barry O signed it into law. The country has been in a shallow dive of insolvency for a number of years. Clinton and the Republican Congress pulled us out somewhat but then the Numb-nut Bush plunged us right back into that dive.
Barry O and the big spender Dumbo-Craps and Repugnacraps have just increased the angle of the dive.
America is addicted to big spending and maxing out the credit card, its a hard habit to break when citizens demand more (free) stuff from their representatives who in turn use that to buy elections.
Greed and seeking political power is not confined to one or the other political [party nor is the Tea Party immune to it.
Here is a start for some new Federal guidelines for elected officials.
Strict term limits
Law makers get no special privilege or benefit not allowed to the average citizen.
Cut Congressional pay and benefit package to meet the average American private sector(non union) wage and benefit package.
Pass a balanced budget every year or no paycheck a and suspended benefits until that's done.
Its time TAXPAYERS took the Country back from our elected officials.
Havnfun writes:
The other major items you're forgetting and should add to your list, that are the cause of most of the economic problems, are the "earmarks" and "exemptions" that representatives add on to bills to buy their votes for legitimate House business. Make them illegal by adding an amendment to the constitution and the reps won't fear not getting reelected so that real business can get done properly. Reps of BOTH parties are responsible and to blame for this out of control spending so GOP members can't claim they're trying to reduce spending without cancelling all these earmarks and exemptions. ALL earmarks and exemptions have to go first so the pain is shared by all members of Congress and then the economy will be on a sounder footing.
just_sayin writes:
It’s easy to be the King when you have media immunity.
Magic81 writes:
Just a response to the old term limits topic-
-first, I think it would be far better to focus on stopping all the money that is donated to candidates (both sides)--maybe even tax those contributions as an expenditure to reduce the debt--just do something to stop the madness and let these law makers be more independent--and somehow include both "hard" and "soft" money and PACS
second, anyone familiar with the method of amending the U.S. Constitution will know how impossible it would be to accomplish this--unless done by conventions in the states--don't hold your breath
woods311 writes:
My fellow Americans,
It is time to quit expecting the
"Problem" to solve the "Problem"
The time has come for "I.L.A.C.".
Let the people go to the voting booth armed with the awareness of "I.L.A.C."
It is doable, simple, and inexpensive to put a place on our ballot, so that we can vote "none of the above", "I.L.A.C.".
"I.L.A.C." is not a third party, it is a different choice that says "I lack" confidence in the promises of these candidates, "none of the above".
I would like to see "I.L.A.C." on every ballot in the country.
"I.L.A.C." works within the system provided by our founding fathers, to change our government when needed, at the "The ballot box."
I believe that there is a super majority out there that can stop the insanity.
If a "super majority" vote "I.L.A.C." on any candidates, in any race, no matter their party affiliation.
It means , to quote a Trumpisim, "You are Fired.", or "TERM" limits.
"I.L.A.C." works within the two party system, and says to the "Democratic Party" and the "Republican Party", the "party" is over.
Thanks to the power of the internet the idea of "I.L.A.C.", can be spread about this different choice, and the corrupt, self serving politicians can't stop it.
I believe, that just the awareness that people are considering " I.L.A.C." will cause the politicians to be more careful when making campaign promises.
If not, we will keep sending them home until someone "GETS IT"
We are hiring people for the most important jobs in the world here.
Thank you politician for spending all that money and supporting the economy. "NEXT".
A peaceful revolution is possible, local, state and federal, "I.L.A.C.",
If we keep doing what we have always been doing, we will keep getting what we have always been getting.
pmz writes:
Nice to see Republicans dining on their own. If there was every chance for the return of the GOP to relevance it's now.
Dump the conservatives.
Magic81 writes:
House and Senate "just agreed"---can't fault people for not liking the RETURN to what the Soc. Sec. tax rate was until 2011--which was the rate that I paid for many, many years. But The House Senate and President didn't "just agree" to do anything. It was an automatic return to the earlier levels after a TEMPORARY break to help people get by for a while. This temporary reduction does, of course, take away from a Soc. Security fund which needs the income--sorry!! Demographics--Baby Boomers will be coming through for a while--and we all paid this higher rate.
Boy I wish that the President would take the time to explain this on National TV--People should maybe pay more attention to the news and they would have known about this, and should realize that it IS NOT part of any INCOME TAX votes.
In the meantime, people should add up how much they SAVED while the reduction was in place. Take 2% of your incomes for 2011 and 2012, add them together, and be thankful for the lower rate that YOU got that I never did.
But people just take the cuts for granted.
Read up and stay informed
http://taxes.about.com/b/2013/01/03/s...
Magic81 writes:
P.S. If the vote was to PERMANENTLY lower Social Security tax to 4.2% , does anyone think that it would have passed???? It would get the Tea Party votes because they could care less about a decades old promise to fund Social Security--
MrsCalcium writes:
My family likes Trey Radel. Does yours?
Magic81 writes:
ina word NO--I am trying to match 2 headlines about him "angry conservatives..." and "...working together..." It sure didn't look like angry conservatives working with even the leader of their own party on the fiscal cliff votes. People express anger at the President for going on vacation to Hawaii when it was that vote on the Boehner Plan B that ended with their announcement that they were going home for Christmas well before the President left on his.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.