While you were ringing in the new year, the U.S. Senate was sticking it to you.

All you need to know about the fiscal cliff deal approved by the Senate 89–8 and the House of Representatives 257–167 is that, while it adds $3.9 trillion to the deficit, for every $1 in reduced spending, there will be $41 in increased taxes.

Along with this (from the Associated Press):

Despite grumbling from liberals that Obama had given way too much in the bargaining, only two [Senate] Democrats opposed the measure.

Which means that Democrats got, and Republicans gave up, way too much in the bargaining.

The eight senators who (correctly) voted against this steaming pile of crap included Sen. Mario Rubio (R–Florida), Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), and supposed RINO Sen. Charles Grassley (R–Iowa). Reports Newsmax:

Late Monday, Sen. Rubio tweeted: “How can @BarackObama call his proposal a #deficit reduction package if it uses #taxincrease to fund more spending & it increases the #debt.”

Rubio told reporters he “just couldn’t vote for” the compromise.

“I ran for office because I wanted to be a part of solving these big problems, and time and again we’re faced with options here that don’t really do that,” he said.

“The real fiscal cliff is the one that awaits us, and nothing happened tonight to avoid that.”

Sen. Lee, had a similar take, tweeting: “Even the best #fiscalcliff deal will leave 99% of a dysfunctional system intact.”

Grassley said Obama had reneged on campaign promises. He tweeted that “cliff negotiation to now show Obama proposes 600B increased spending paid for by tax wealthy NOT to reduce deficit like election promise.”

One of the Senate eight was not Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wisconsin). I am unclear how Johnson can (correctly) say this (from PJ Media)  …

“It’s an alternate universe. No, this — this place is a joke. I mean, bottom line, this is an absurd process,” Johnson said on CNBC. “It certainly proves the genius of our founding fathers that government should be limited. I mean, the fact that we have this place having such an enormous effect on our economy, on people’s livelihood, is wrong. It’s simply wrong.”

“So, I’m the manufacturer. I’m always looking for the cause of problems. The cause of the problem is that government is far too large. It’s far too intrusive into our lives. It exerts way too much control over our economy, but that’s where we’re at. And, you know, I have no — I don’t know too many people that really think government’s effective or efficient. Why would they think the governing body of that government would be particularly effective or efficient as well?” he continued. “This is a mere symptom of the overall problem in a system of government that has become too large and too intrusive in our lives.” …

The senator also decried the shady negotiations. “We’re here at the end of the year, a couple of elected officials with their unelected staffs, are doing these deals behind closed doors,” he said. “I don’t know what’s happening behind there. Am I all of a sudden going to get a product sometime in the middle of the day and say, ‘you’ve got to vote on it right away’? I mean, that is an absurd process.”

“We’ve turned the Senate from a legislating body into a deal-making body, and that’s just wrong.”

… and then vote for this trainwreck. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel repeats his answer:

“Although I strongly prefer extension of current tax rates for all Americans, I supported the compromise bill that protects 99% of Wisconsinites from an income tax increase, limits the death tax, and prevents a dramatic increase in milk prices. It is by no means a perfect piece of legislation.

“The revenue raised by this legislation will equal approximately 7% of projected deficits. It is now time for President Obama and his Democrat colleagues to show the American public their plan to close the other 93% of the deficit.

“Our nation’s debt now stands at $16.4 trillion, and has reached its statutory limit. We blew through the $2.1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling granted in August 2011 in only 17 months. This is clearly unsustainable, and President Obama must begin to work with Congress to reduce the size, scope, and cost of government.

“We are mortgaging our children’s future. This is immoral and it must stop.”

Well, this is not how to stop the immoral mortgaging of our children’s future.

The New York Times’ David Brooks is the Times’ idea of a conservative columnist, not necessarily anyone else’s, but he’s more right than wrong here:

By 2025, entitlement spending and debt payments are projected to suck up all federal revenue. Obligations to the elderly are already squeezing programs for the young and the needy. Those obligations will lead to gigantic living standard declines for future generations. According to the International Monetary Fund, meeting America’s long-term obligations will require an immediate and permanent 35 percent increase in all taxes and a 35 percent cut in all benefits.

So except for a few rabid debt-deniers, almost everybody agrees we have to do something fundamental to preserve these programs. The problem is that politicians have never found a politically possible way to begin. Every time they tried to reduce debt, they ended up borrowing more and making everything worse. …

But the proposal is not a balance of taxes and spending cuts. It doesn’t involve a single hard decision. It does little to control spending. It abandons all of the entitlement reform ideas that have been thrown around. It locks in low tax rates on families making less than around $450,000; it is simply impossible to avert catastrophe unless tax increases go below that line.

Far from laying the groundwork for future cooperation, it sentences the country to another few years of budget trench warfare. There will be a fight over drastic spending cuts known as sequestration, then over the debt limit and on and on. …

Ultimately, we should blame the American voters. The average Medicare couple pays $109,000 into the program and gets $343,000 in benefits out, according to the Urban Institute. This is $234,000 in free money. Many voters have decided they like spending a lot on themselves and pushing costs onto their children and grandchildren. They have decided they like borrowing up to $1 trillion a year for tax credits, disability payments, defense contracts and the rest. They have found that the original Keynesian rationale for these deficits provides a perfect cover for permanent deficit-living. They have made it clear that they will destroy any politician who tries to stop them from cost-shifting in this way.

Most members of Congress are responding efficiently to the popular will. A large number of reactionary Democrats reject any measure to touch Medicare or other entitlement programs. A large number of impotent Republicans talk about reducing the debt, but are incapable of forging a deal that balances tax increases with spending cuts.

The events of the past few weeks demonstrate that these political pressures overwhelm the few realists looking for a more ambitious bargain. The country either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the burdens we are placing on our children. No coalition of leaders has successfully confronted the voters, and made them heedful of the ruin they are bringing upon the nation.

I really cannot understand how Grover Norquist, creator of the no-tax-increase pledge, can say this (from Newsmax):

Grover Norquist, the influential president of Americans for Tax Reform, said he would support a plan, negotiated by Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, to resolve the fiscal cliff drama.

“This is progress in terms of making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent,” Norquist told CNN. “Is it enough? No. Does it do anything on spending? No. But that’s what the next four years are going to be.

“The next four years will be about clawing back the overspending of the Obama years — and now we need to get the spending down,” he added. “The problem is too much spending, not too little taxes, and now we turn our attention to spending cuts.” …

“Two years ago, Obama and the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate extended all the Bush tax cuts for two years,” he began. “The president did it because he said it would hurt the economy not to.

“Now that he is safely in his job, that doesn’t seem to be keeping him up at night — that other people may lose their jobs because of these tax hikes.”

Still, Norquist said he would advise GOP members of the House to also back the Biden-McConnell agreement while looking ahead to the real battle: spending cuts.

“This is not the end of the game. This is the beginning of the game,” he told CNN. “Take the 84 percent of your winnings off the table — we spent 12 years getting the Democrats to cede those tax cuts to the American people — take them off the table.

“Then we go back and argue about making the tax cuts permanent for everyone, and we engage in a four-year, three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust fight to cut spending every day,” he added.

Apparently Norquist started his New Year’s party early. Where exactly has the Senate shown the least interest in spending cuts? What Democrat supports any tax cuts at all? (Certainly not Wisconsin’s newest Senate communist in Washington, Tammy Baldwin.)

My estimation of Johnson has dropped considerably in the past 48 hours. Had he real guts, he would have filibustered this disaster or put a hold on it (which any senator can do) until it died. A no vote would have had no political consequence, since 86 other idiots voted for it.

I eagerly await the explanation of Rep. Paul Ryan (R–Janesville) why he voted for it too. At least Rep. Sean Duffy (R–Ashland) voted correctly.

The fact is that the economy is headed into recession this year thanks to the end of the payroll tax cut, regardless of whether the fiscal cliff was avoided or not. Taking money out of everyone’s pockets is not a recipe for economic growth. I could not care less what the stock market does today in reaction; for one thing, investors in the market should be in the market for the long term, not based on what happens in one day, or week, or even year.

The other thing is that tax increases instead of spending cuts is what a majority of voters voted for Nov. 6. It is intellectually dishonest to advocate for tax increases that don’t affect you. And so those who voted for tax increasers should have to live with the consequences of their votes by having their own taxes increased.

Too bad the country won’t drive off the fiscal cliff. Wrecking the economy through tax increases is what people voted for by voting for Barack Obama and other bad incumbents Nov. 6.