Sooo...did the GOP just admit to being useless?

[Borgholio]

From CNN - House Speaker John Boehner says his fiscal cliff plan won't come to a vote because "it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass. Now it is up to the president to work with Sen. (Harry) Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff."

To paraphrase "We couldn't agree on a fiscal plan, so now it's up to the President to come up with a plan."

I'm not sure what to think. Do Republicans WANT to lose the next several elections? I mean it's one thing for some idiot hack senator to say something stupid about rape, but to have the de-facto leader of the Republican party say "We're dysfunctional and useless, so we're giving up and making the president do all the work?"

I'm certain anything Obama comes up with will be denied by the GOP, and they'll blame him for it...as usual.

[Flagg]

Boehner is going to lose his job. Expect House Speaker Cantor for the next congress. FUN TIMES AHEAD!

[Surlethe]

It looks like the moderate GOP leadership just admitted to being useless.

[Simon_Jester]

I keep hoping that the Republicans will just split over this, because I find it hard to get into the headspace of someone willing to fiddle while Rome burns.

I can understand a true fanatic thinking that way... but not everyone over there can be a fanatic.

[Mr Bean]

It looks like the moderate GOP leadership just admitted to being useless.

Moderate? The Moderate Republican is Harry Reid. No twenty years ago, not ten years ago but eight years ago.

Speaking of here's Huffpo's reaction
Reaction link

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) failed to muscle a controversial fiscal cliff fallback through the House Thursday night, suddenly pulling the bill after spending almost week on a plan that Democrats called a waste of time.

The failure to bring the measure to a vote kills Boehner's "Plan B" and moves the nation one large step closer to the so-called fiscal cliff looming on Jan. 1, when a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts are set to start kicking in. It also marks a major setback for Boehner, who was unable to marshal enough of his fractious, Tea Party-inspired members, even after he and other leaders had pledged earlier in the day that they would succeed.

"The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass," Boehner said in a statement. "Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff. The House has already passed legislation to stop all of the January 1 tax rate increases and replace the sequester with responsible spending cuts that will begin to address our nation's crippling debt. The Senate must now act."

"Merry Christmas," said Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) "There is a lump of coal in the president's box."

"Our leadership team did the very best they could and it was just too big a hill to climb," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who was among those who said he would have opposed the speaker's bill.

Boehner adjourned the House until after Christmas, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared earlier Thursday that the Senate will recess Friday until two days after the holiday.

Republicans leaving the caucus meeting said they were told they would get back to work after Christmas, but they didn't know whether that meant next week or next year.

"We’re ready to go anytime," Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said. "But just talking to ourselves up here, meeting as we did, with the president saying whatever you send us -- I mean Harry Reid’s already said if you pass the bill tonight he’s not going to take it up, and the president would veto it anyway. What’s the point, folks?"

Fleming described the mood in the caucus room as fatigue and frustration. Most members walked tight-lipped through a hallway in the Capitol basement, ignoring reporters as they left the meeting.

The sudden collapse -- reminiscent of two previous Boehner failures on high-stakes legislation over the debt ceiling and the payroll tax cuts last year -- means that when both chambers of Congress come back to work, there will be less than five full days to find a way around the cliff, which Congress itself created by mandating in last year's debt-ceiling agreement some $1 trillion in budget cuts. Congress also has mandated that all of the Bush-era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 expire in the new year.

“It is now clear that to protect the middle class from the fiscal cliff, Speaker Boehner must allow a bill to pass with a combination of Democratic and Republican votes," Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Reid, said in an email to HuffPost. "Speaker Boehner’s partisan approach wasted an entire week and pushed middle-class families closer to the edge. The only way to avoid the cliff altogether is for Speaker Boehner to return to negotiations, and work with President Obama and the Senate to forge a bipartisan deal.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement that Obama's priority remains "to ensure that taxes don’t go up on 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses in just a few short days.

"The president will work with Congress to get this done and we are hopeful that we will be able to find a bipartisan solution quickly that protects the middle class and our economy," Carney said.

Boehner's bill aimed to keep all the tax cuts for those earning less than $1 million a year -- a scheme similar to what Democrats had backed two years ago, when they were unable to get the GOP to budge on taxes.

Democrats opposed Boehner's plan because it did not include many provisions that were included in their version. They argued that the Plan B bill would end some tax cuts for the middle class -- worth on average about $1,000 a year -- while it actually preserved some tax breaks for millionaires worth approximately $50,000. On top that, Democrats campaigned -- and won -- on keeping taxes lower for those with incomes of less than $250,000.

The House did pass one part of Boehner's fallback -- a bill to cut spending by $200 billion, mostly by slashing domestic programs, including favorite GOP targets such as health care and food stamps. That measure now appears doomed.

Democratic leaders said the whole effort was a futile display that drew the nation closer to the fiscal cliff. They argued that Boehner should work more closely with Obama on a real solution.

"The reason we're here is because our Republican colleagues refuse to compromise," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "We are wasting the people's time."

Boehner stood by his strategy as recently as Thursday afternoon, insisting that the Senate would have to give his bill a vote.

If Boehner's bill had passed, it would have marked a shift in the GOP's absolute opposition of all tax hikes, and offered a ray of hope that the two sides could come together. With time running out, however, it would be difficult for Democrats and Republicans to agree on a plan that Boehner could get his stalwart Tea Party members to sign.

Still, the attempt was strongly opposed by Democrats, and Republicans can tell their anti-tax base that holding the purist line on taxes is impossible because of the utter rejection of Plan B by the other party.

"We're showing that we don't have a partner in the White House and we don't have a partner in this body," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

Republicans have admitted that the whole equation changes after Jan. 1, when tax rates default back to the Clinton era. The debate then would no longer be about raising taxes, but about lowering them, and the GOP would have few options to stop Democrats from passing their middle class tax break. Then, cutting a deal on taxes -- if not spending -- becomes relatively easy, and likely would be accomplished quickly.

"If we go over the fiscal cliff, the president just comes back and says, 'Ok, we're going to give tax cuts to everybody under 250,000.' Who's going to vote against that? Everybody'll vote for that. Everybody," Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said shortly before the votes. "It will be just a fait accompli. You won't be voting on whether you're going to do away with a tax cut, you're going to be reimposing tax cuts for everybody under 250,000. So the Republicans are in an untenable situation."

Ryan Grim contributed.

UPDATE: This article has been updated to include comments from members of Congress, from the White House press secretary and from a spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid.

The best parts are the quotes, this one is my favorite

"We’re ready to go anytime," Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said. "But just talking to ourselves up here, meeting as we did, with the president saying whatever you send us -- I mean Harry Reid’s already said if you pass the bill tonight he’s not going to take it up, and the president would veto it anyway. What’s the point, folks?"

This is the same body who voted to overturn Heathcare reform not one time, not five times, not ten times but they voted over thirty times to overturn that law.

So why has Reid promising not to take it up NOW suddenly become an issue. It did not stop you the last thirty three times.

[Surlethe]

Moderate? The Moderate Republican is Harry Reid. No twenty years ago, not ten years ago but eight years ago.

I'm referring to the position of the GOP leadership relative to the current center of American politics, which is a bit left of where Boehner stands.

[Guardsman Bass]

It means that Boehner has no control over his caucus on the issue, at least not with some pretty huge concessions on the Democrats' part. Unless they want to fold and give in to the Republicans' refusal to budge on tax rises, they might as well ride through the Fiscal Cliff and try again.

That's actually worked before. The giant $700 billion bailout package that then-Secretary of the Treasury Paulson was pushing for in 2008 got nixed in Congress the first time through, because Boehner's Republicans revolted. Once the situation quickly became much worse, though, they caved in and passed it.

[The Kernel]

The GOP leadership is not useless, they are simply unwilling to take the drastic step that this forces them into: compromise. See I don't fault Boehner for being dealt a shitty hand in this negotiation and I don't fault him for not being able to rein in the TEA Party as they are clearly insane.

However, his fatal mistake is that he would rather go down with the ship over the alternative. Turns out that you don't NEED the TEA Party caucus if you are willing to cut a deal with the other side and there are hundreds of perfectly good votes to win from the Democrats. Yes you will have to give some things up but that's just the way this works. If Boehner sticks with his pride and doesn't come back begging for a deal after this THEN he is terminally stupid.

[Lord Zentei]

Indeed. Here's the view from the other side:

UPDATE: Boehner told the Capitol Hill press, "The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass. Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff... The House has already passed legislation to stop all of the January 1 tax rate increases and replace the sequester with responsible spending cuts that will begin to address our nation's crippling debt. The Senate must now act."

***

UPDATE: Tonight, the House GOP caucus rejected Plan B. Speaker Boehner will be releasing a statement shortly. The failure of Plan B within the GOP caucus means that any vote on the measure will at the very least be delayed, and poses a serious threat to Boehner's speakership overall. Radio host Mark Levin reports that the Boehner and his allies were threatening members who opposed Plan B with loss of leadership positions.

***

Amid rumors of a growing grassroots opposition in Congress to Speaker John Boehner’s Plan B proposal, which would allow taxes to rise for all earners above $1 million annually, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is speaking out against the bill. When asked by Breitbart News’ Kerry Picket whether she would back Plan B, Blackburn answered that she would not. Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) is also voting no on the bill.

Blackburn and Mulvaney join a number of Congressional Republicans who have expressed opposition to the bill, including Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). But House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) continues to maintain that he has the votes to back Boehner’s play. At the same time, conservative groups have been massing against the bill. Boehner’s speakership may well rest on the outcome of the Plan B vote.

The comment section is more interesting. The GOP leadership is not thought of highly due to their lack of principles. Both parties are not seen as being worth a "bucket of spit" and they want the "orange RINO" a.k.a. the "weeper of the House" to go. Also, someone pointed out that it was Pelosi who originally proposed Plan B.

[LaCroix]

Did I get this correct?

1.) The GOP isn't able to find a proposal that the GOP would vote on.
2.) At 1.1.2013, taxes will revert to the Clinton era level, automatically.
3.) The Democrats could immediately introduce a bill to give a tax-cut to everyone under 250k, and maybe a slight cut to another bracket.
4.) The GOP just couldn't vote no on this.

Sounds like due to the GOP policy of vetoing and current infighting, Democrats will finally get almost exactly what they wanted, all these years, right?

[Lord Zentei]

The Democrats don't want the fiscal cliff since it also includes tax hikes on the poor and massive spending cuts.

The Republicans want spending cuts, but no new taxes. They despise Bohener and would rather punish their leaders by making them responsible for a debacle than agree to the Democrat plan.

[Pelranius]

Given that Boehner probably has some inkling of how much the Tea Party Representatives hold him in contempt (nobody is that out of touch), why even bother bringing up Plan B? He's just humiliating himself at this point.

[Rogue 9]

The Democrats don't want the fiscal cliff since it also includes tax hikes on the poor and massive spending cuts.

Yes, but on 1/2/2013 they can introduce a bill cutting taxes for everyone making less than $250,000 per year, and if the Republicans vote against that they're sunk.

[Broomstick]

The Democrats don't want the fiscal cliff since it also includes tax hikes on the poor and massive spending cuts.

I paid taxes during the Clinton years. The rates were survivable. The spending cuts would suck, but as noted, the Democrats can turn around and immediately offer a tax cut to middle and lower class people and dare the Republicans to say no.

[StarSword]

Looks like the whole "party of NO" thing is finally biting the Republicans in their well-deserving asses. And frankly I'm not too worried about the cliff. From the analyses I heard after I dared turn NPR back on after the election*, it'll probably suck for the first year but we'll come out stronger than we are today after that.

As for a compromise? I'm not seeing it. The Democrats have little incentive to offer a compromise since they win either way (automatic tax hikes on the one hand or forcing the Republicans to give in on tax hikes on the other), and the Republicans haven't seemed to be willing to raise taxes since at least George Bush Sr.

* Turned it off because I decided I was going to vote straight-ticket Democrat well before the election and was sick to death of hearing about said election.

[Lord MJ]

I'm not sure what there is to negotiate regarding tax increases or why there is any negotiation. Probably due to incompetant phrasing and spin on the Democrats part.

From what I understand, they are not actually pushing to raise tax rates. The permanent tax rates are the Clinton era ones which are already in effect. On top of those statutory mandated tax rates which are already in effect there is the temporary bush era tax cuts that temporarily lowers taxes from the permanent rates. The only thing the Dems are pushing for is for those rates to be extended for incomes less than $250k. That's it. There is no vote to increase taxes on the wealthy since those rates are already mandated by law, and the temporary tax rates will expire.

So what the GOP is actually pushing for is a tax cut on the wealthy that will either extend the temporary rates, or replace the current Clinton era rates (the permanent rates.)

At least this was before the whole debt ceiling and fiscal cliff compromise that added new wrinkles to the mix.

Am I missing something?