“We must focus on cutting spending. If the conversation is starting with revenues, we’re having the wrong conversation.”

Those are the words of GOP Representative (and soon to be Senator) Tim Scott from South Carolina. He Twittered them last night, as the House GOP leadership abandoned plans to vote on “Plan B,” a proposal for avoiding the fiscal cliff. The plan, sponsored by Speaker of the House John Boehner and GOP leadership, didn’t have enough GOP support. So, late last night, the speaker gave up on trying to get it passed.

By all accounts, it was a glorious mess. Last night the speaker called the House GOP caucus together, in one last-ditch effort to muster enough votes in his caucus to save his plan. It failed, and everyone dispersed into the night.

Rest assured, Democrats and the Mainstream Media (yes, I repeat myself) will have a field day with this one. We’re bound to hear lots about how the speaker doesn’t have control of his caucus, even though elected representatives of the people aren’t dogs to be led around on a leash. We’ll also hear that the House GOP is too beholden to millionaires, even though President Obama won eight of the ten wealthiest counties in the U.S. I freely admit—from a PR standpoint, last night was a mixed bag for the GOP when it comes to image-making.

It was, however, an opportunity to refocus on the real fiscal problems facing us.

Why did “Plan B” founder? It didn’t do enough to curb runaway federal spending.

House GOP members have ZERO faith that Democrats in the White House and Capitol Hill are serious about cutting spending. (Except on defense, that is). They promise to cut spending, some day in the future, but never do. And never will, unless compelled to.

George Will notes that, in November, the American people chose to keep the House of Representatives in GOP hands. Moreover, 219 Republican representatives—a clear majority of the 435-seat chamber—were reelected with margins of victory higher than President Obama’s.

If American voters really wanted more federal spending, then why didn’t they give the House of Representatives back to the Democrats? Democrats are very very good at spending. Even if they—or, to be more accurate, we—don’t have the money.

Last night, the Tea Party asserted itself. Yes, those racists walked into the Capitol with their white hoods, Confederate flags, submachine guns and flamethrowers and reminded everyone that the “Tea” in Tea Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already.”

Speaker Boehner now has an opportunity, which I hope he uses. He isn’t a dictator, or a wizard who controls his caucus through mind control. No, he’s a leader of a group of people sent to Washington to represent We The People. And, many Americans want Washington to get serious about spending and entitlement reform NOW. Enough of kicking the can down the road, for our kids to deal with. They showed that last month, by keeping the House in GOP hands.

Yes, last night was embarrassing, but the speaker can shake it off and move forward. He can now point to last night’s results and inform the Democrats that, if the president wants the speaker to deliver the House GOP caucus on a “fiscal cliff” deal, the administration will have to get serious about spending reductions and entitlement reform. The House GOP caucus is serious about it, and so is our nation. Otherwise, Nancy Pelosi would be speaker again.

If the House GOP caucus is willing to hold the line against their own party’s leader, then they’re certainly willing to hold the line against the free-spenders on the other side of the aisle.

Let’s see if the president, Democrats and MSM are serious about getting America’s house in fiscal order.

Update: I like Jeffrey Carter’s take on last night’s clusterfark, from his “Points And Figures” blog: (Emphasis added)

The Democrats don’t understand how Boehner couldn’t get things through his caucus because Democrats operate differently. They are a centrally planned bureaucracy. It’s top down, monolithic decision making. The head speaks and the party machine enforces discipline so everyone follows the same line.

That works great for winning elections, winning policy debates in the liberal press, but it’s not very good for coming up with imaginative public policy for constituents.

On the other hand, the Republicans currently look like they are in disarray. They are. That’s good. The don’t have a centrally planned caucus. It’s more like herding cats. Different groups form to come up with different ideas. There are some core principles that Republicans flock to, like low taxes and a strong defense. But when it comes to small, limited government and other ideas there is no monolithic force of nature.

21 Republicans didn’t vote for the plan that was passed. Why? Because it didn’t go far enough. They wanted even more budget cutting. You might call them fringe, or whatever-but I think they are starting to gain strength in the electorate-and why they are being demonized in the press.

The medial and liberals love Republicans when they are Bob Michael Republicans. Fight a little, compromise on spending, keep a few goodies for their home states and just smile and get a long. They hate Republicans when they are like Reagan or Gingrich, or Speaker Boehner today.

Another Update: Unlike Democrats and our Mainstream Media (yes, I repeat myself), lots of Americans are serious about cutting spending

Many House Republicans refused to vote for Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) Plan B bill because they were “gun shy” about drawing primary challengers in the 2014, according to several lawmakers.

A number of members involved in the intense whipping operation that took place over the past two days told The Hill that entrenched no votes were more concerned with perception than principle.

“I think that there were members that are so gun shy about primaries that they weren’t willing to take a risk … some members told me that it was just too hard to explain how it wasn’t a tax increase,” Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) said shortly following Thursday night’s abrupt conference meeting where Boehner told his colleagues they wouldn’t vote on the bill.

Notice the subtle bias in Molly Hooper’s word choices: “entrenched no votes were more concerned with perception than principle.” I.e., the “No” voters were unconcerned with principle.

It wouldn’t surprise me if, in Mainstream Media Molly’s eyes, the No voters WERE unconcerned with principle—the liberal principle that higher taxes are per se good and high earners are per se bad. (Warren Buffet and crew excepted). Granted, some of Speaker Boehner’s supporters unfortunately shared her apparent view.

IMO the No voters were standing on their own principles—enough is enough! No more enabling reckless spending. A majority of House Republicans were sent to Congress in 2010, and then sent BACK in 2012, to put the brakes on deficit spending. Those No voters know what their constituents want, and they voted accordingly.

Those No votres also know that they’re going to lose the PR battle anyway. They’re Neanderthals in the eyes of Ivy-League-loving MSMers, and always will be—so why try to win a PR battle that you won’t be allowed to win anyway.

Suffice it to say, the gang at Fort Buckley is beaucoup bummed about last night. The entire garrison, unanimously, thinks America made a bad decision last night.

I don’t see our economy reviving, under our current leadership in Washington. The regulators are about to be unleashed. Expect businesses to cringe, shelter their assets and not expand. Soon we will feel the full effects of Obamacare. How much more of our children’s and grandchildren’s money are we going to spend on stimulus spending? There aren’t enough rich people who are willing to stand by and be taxed outrageously, in order to pay for everything the Democrats want.

Nevertheless, the electorate has spoken. Loudly. Now, we will see what the Democrats do with the next four years. They have won power; with that comes responsibility. Let’s see what path the administration wants America to travel. (Its next budget should tell us a lot, because budgets force you to make tough decisions and set priorities).

Congratulations to President Obama for waging a tough-but-effective campaign. Politics is a contact sport; both the Democrats and the GOP dished out tough stuff. Such is the nature of American politics. As a people we debate meaningful things, which affect all of us. Moreover, we are a nation whose people hold many different, and often diametrically-opposed, viewpoints. That’s a recipe for turmoil. But, consider the alternative. Would you want to live in a country where the people have no voice? As Winston Churchill said, democracy is a terrible form of government, except for all the other alternative forms.

Today, we conservatives move into the opposition. I am thankful that the House of Representatives stayed in GOP hands. That ensures a vigorous debate over the next few years, as to the extent that government should intrude into our everyday lives. I am looking forward to seeing LOTS of Paul Ryan, doing the math that shows the folly of sustained deficit spending.

Now, there are wounds to lick, and lots and lots of work to do. The sun came up this morning, just like it does everday.

Congressman Jim Kolbe

For more than two decades, Jim Kolbe served Tucson and southeastern Arizona in Congress. Despite Tucson’s Democrat-leanings, Kolbe was elected 11 times to represent it, and southeastern Arizona, on Capitol Hill. He was a subcommittee chairman on one of the House of Representative’s most powerful committees, the Appropriations Committee.

So, if you want to know what it takes to be an effective member of the House of Representatives—someone who can get things done, someone who’s voice will be heard on Capitol Hill instead of ignored—Jim Kolbe is a good person to ask.

I asked; here is Jim Kolbe’s reply: (The emphasis is his comments below is mine).

It is important to have representatives in the majority in Congress, but unquestionably the most important attributes for a member of Congress are a clear set of values and principles to guide the Member, an understanding of how the process works, and an ability to work across party lines to accomplish things for the good of the state and community, as well as for the nation as a whole. Voters need to consider how well a candidate stacks up on all of these attributes: does the candidate share my values about the role of government and is he or she committed to fiscal discipline? How effective will the person be working in Congress, and does he/she appreciate the value of working with others in both parties to achieve legislative objectives?

If a candidate passes those fundamental tests, it is then important to consider the individual’s political party affiliation, and whether that matches the affiliation of the majority party. There is little doubt that the Republicans will control the House of Representatives in the next Congress. Consequently, a new Republican representative starts his or her term with a distinct and important advantage. The new representative is likely to get better committee assignments and more of them. He or she will have a say in the internal party caucuses that decide on the shape of legislation and whether or not it moves forward. They will get to manage legislation on the floor of the House when it is being voted on. They will participate in the conferences that iron out the differences in House and Senate versions of the legislation. Their requests for provisions in a bill, especially a spending bill, are more likely to receive favorable consideration.

None of this should be surprising to anyone who has even a basic understanding of the legislative process. Decisions are made by a majority vote, and the majority party necessarily controls the process. All else being equal, there is a distinct advantage of having a representative in Congress who is part of the party that forms the majority.

Your member of the House of Representatives is your, and your region’s, advocate in Congress. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, each looking out for the interests of their constituents. The Senate is more nationally-and-globally focused. It’s the Senate that approves ambassadors, treaties and Supreme Court justices. By contrast, the House is more locally-focused. According to the Constitution, all revenue bills originate in the House, because it’s the branch of the federal government that’s closest to the actual citizens who will pay those bills.

I think it’s safe to say that, in the House of Representatives, you want your region to have the loudest voice possible. After all, your representative has to make him/herself heard over four hundred-plus other Congressmen-and-women.

Metro Phoenix has a very loud voice in Congress. Both of Arizona’s Senators are currently from the Phoenix area; I don’t expect that to change on Tuesday. There’s also a strong contingent of GOP Congressmen from the Phoenix area. When the Phoenix area speaks in the next Congress, you can be sure that Speaker of the House John Boehner and the majority leadership will hear it. Tucson also needs a voice that can have an impact in the next Congress.

The federal government faces some monumental decisions over the next four years. Our looming entitlement burden has to be addressed. Many government programs that we’ve grown up with will need to be modified, modernized, curtailed or done away with altogether. Another round of military base closings is probably right around the corner. Metro Phoenix has a loud, coordinated Republican voice on Capitol Hill that will speak up for Luke Air Force Base. Shouldn’t Davis-Monthan have a voice that the Congressional leadership will listen to as well?

On Tuesday, give the Old Pueblo the potent, meaningful voice on Capitol Hill that it deserves. Vote for:

• Jonathan Paton (District 1)
• Martha McSally (District 2)
• Gabriela Saucedo Mercer (District 3)

Update: (9AM) Politico now joins the Washington Post, in projecting that the GOP will keep, and perhaps even extend, its House majority. (Hat tip to “Hot Air”).

In 2010, lots of GOP freshmen were elected to Congress. Freshmen (i.e., Congressmen and women who are serving their very first term in Congress) are most vulnerable when they FIRST run for re-election. If they win their first re-election, they’re much more likely to stay in Congress for a long, long time.

So…if the GOP is going to do as well in the elections as Politico thinks, it’s even MORE likely that the GOP will keep control of the House of Representatives for years into the future. Even MORE of a reason to get some Tucson-area Republicans into the House of Representatives.