More republicans vs. the middle class

[suzzer99]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45526332

US House Republicans Divided over Payroll Tax Cut
Published: Friday, 2 Dec 2011 | 1:58 PM ET

Republican leaders in the U.S. House pushed ahead Friday to extend a popular payroll tax cut for another year despite opposition within their own ranks.

Following a 90-minute closed-door meeting, many Republicans said there was strong opposition but that House Speaker John Boehner planned to work to renew President Barack Obama's tax cut, which is set to expire on Dec. 31.

Republicans have been lukewarm about extending this particular tax cut, saying it has failed to stimulate the economy and will weaken the Social Security [cnbc explains] retirement program over the long run.

But with fears of a political backlash in the run-up to November's presidential and congressional elections, their leaders have decided to also seek an extension.

If Republicans blocked the tax cut, "They (Democrats) are going to say, 'There they go, Republicans raising taxes,"' said Republican Representative Charles Boustany.

And so as Congress tries to wind down for the year, some Republicans, who rose to power opposing tax hikes, found themselves in the rare position of trying to block a tax cut financial markets think is vital to the economy.

Obama sought to ratchet up the pressure on Republicans to pass the extension, telling lawmakers they must not leave for their holiday break this month without taking action.

"We need to get this done. And I expect that it's going to get done before Congress leaves. Otherwise, Congress may not be leaving and we can all spend Christmas here together."

Late on Thursday, the Senate defeated competing versions of payroll tax cut extension bills, with most Republicans in that chamber bucking their own leadership's proposal — a rare occurrence. Senate and House leaders are now expected to begin negotiating a compromise.

"There was a lot of push back" during the private meeting of House Republicans, Representative Jeff Flake told reporters as he left the room.

Flake, a conservative who has devoted his House career to controlling government spending, complained that it will take 10 years for the government to recoup the approximately $110 billion in lost revenues stemming from a continuance of the tax cut through 2012.

"I think unless we have the courage right now to address entitlement reform, we shouldn't be extending the payroll tax holiday. But we don't have the courage right now to do that," Flake said.


Workers and employers pay the tax and the revenues are deposited into a Social Security retirement fund. The money returns to workers after they retire from the work force.

Obama and his fellow Democrats won passage a year ago of a one-year payroll tax cut to 4.2 percent, down from 6.2 percent.

The idea was that it would put more money, nearly $1,000 per family, in workers' hands to spend and thus help stimulate the economy. The White House has warned that letting the tax cut expire would significantly hurt the economy as it is struggling to grow.

Senate Republicans defeated a Democratic plan to offset the revenues that would be lost with a surtax on the wealthy.

Like their Senate counterparts, House Republican leaders have proposed paying for the tax cut extension in part by freezing federal employee wages through 2015, said Representative Steven LaTourette.

He said there was a long list of other savings, including some changes to Medicare [cnbc explains] healthcare programs and raising fees investors pay for mortgage transactions involving government sponsored agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

All of these ideas have been discussed by Democrats and Republicans during budget talks earlier this year, he said.

The Republican plan, LaTourette said, would also extend unemployment insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed, but with some reforms.

LaTourette said some of his fellow Republicans proposed a "tradeoff" for extending the payroll tax cut.

"Some people think ... if you are going to give someone $900, that perhaps there should be a tradeoff: you have to delay your (Social Security) retirement for a month. That wasn't very popular" in the meeting, he said.

Gee Mr. Flake, What about the supposedly temporary Bush tax cuts? Why are you willing to ruin our global credit rating to keep extending those forever? How does letting the Bush tax cuts expire violate the Norquist pledge but letting the payroll tax holiday run out does not?

If you have to pay up to $3k next year in taxes (If repups let it go back to 6% - Obama has proposed dropping it from the current 4% to 3%), at least you know whom to blame. (Although I have a feeling most of you will still find some way to blame Obama anyway.)


Here's more fun reading: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,597985.story

"The depth of the resistance also was on display in the Senate this week, where a majority of Republicans rejected not only a Democratic proposal to pay for the payroll tax break by raising taxes on people who make more than $1 million a year, but also the GOP's plan to fund it with other spending reductions.

The dissent has put Republicans in the unusual position of fighting a tax break — a rarity that Democrats are highlighting given that the GOP historically has made low taxes a hallmark of its platform."

I don't understand how a mere 3 months ago in the debt ceiling debate they were ready to shut down the country rather than let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Yet now they won't even vote to extend the payroll tax holiday on the middle class. Why does that not apply to the Grover Norquist pledge? Why is that not "class warfare" on the middle class?

I seriously don't understand how they're getting away with this. Help me understand the cognitive dissonance here o bastion of conservative thought that is the DC forum.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Call me when SS is dead broke because we allowed politics to enter the program and reposition it as a tax increase. We are screwed.

Again, it all comes in to/goes out of - the general fund.

When republicans go to the mat to keep the Bush tax cuts from expiring on the wealthy (while not demanding the tax cuts be covered by commensurate spending cuts) - it comes out of the general fund.

When republicans all of a sudden cool to the idea of keeping the payroll tax cut from expiring on the middle class (while claiming "'we're broke", and demanding it must be funded with matching spending cuts) - it comes out of the general fund.

Were we less broke 3 months ago during the debt ceiling battles? Why all of sudden do the republicans care about matching funds for their tax cuts? Maybe because they know no matter what they do to the middle class, or how much they give away to the rich - guys like HonestChieffan and Patteu will always go to bat for them. Must be nice. Their rich backers however, aren't so gullible. They actually expect action to match the hollow rhetoric - or no more $$.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The public didn't overpay payroll taxes for decades. The fact that what they did pay was funneled out the back door into other government programs doesn't change that.



Please. That's not hypocrisy for people who believe we should flatten our tax rate structure.

Originally Posted by patteeu

The system is supposed to take in more than it pays out when you have reason to expect a rapidly growing ratio of retirees to workers in the future.

Carry that water. If you're not rich I hope they're at least paying you for being such a good soldier on the interwebz.

[Royal Fanatic]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The public didn't overpay payroll taxes for decades. The fact that what they did pay was funneled out the back door into other government programs doesn't change that.

I honestly don't understand your reasoning here.

If the excess had been saved for a rainy day, it would be available now. It wasn't saved. It was spent on other things. Since the extra funds generated by the payroll tax were used to pay for things other than Social Security, I don't know how else to describe that other than overpayment. Well, perhaps embezzlement would be a better word, I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by patteeu

The system is supposed to take in more than it pays out when you have reason to expect a rapidly growing ratio of retirees to workers in the future.

That would be absolutely true if Social Security were a trust fund.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Royal Fanatic

I honestly don't understand your reasoning here.

If the excess had been saved for a rainy day, it would be available now. It wasn't saved. It was spent on other things. Since the payroll tax was used to pay for things other than what it was designed to pay for, I don't know how else to describe that other than overpayment. Well, perhaps embezzlement would be a better word, I'll give you that.

That would be absolutely true if Social Security were a trust fund.[/quote]

It's true anyway. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[Royal Fanatic]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's true anyway. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Fair enough. I agree with you on most things.

[trndobrd]

...and a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate vote fore a deal that extends and makes permanent 98% of the horrible Bush era tax cuts, and ends the Social Security payroll tax holiday, effectively raising taxes on the middle class.

Can we get little outrage from the left?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by trndobrd

...and a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate vote fore a deal that extends and makes permanent 98% of the horrible Bush era tax cuts, and ends the Social Security payroll tax holiday, effectively raising taxes on the middle class.

Can we get little outrage from the left?

I'm in the middle, but I imagine the left knows the meaning of "holiday," which results in the lack of outrage.