E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThere is a glimmer of bipartisan agreement in a perpetually divided DC.
Today the Obama administration released two statements, saying the administration agrees with two (yes, two) of the bills Republicans are poised to bring to the House floor this week.
The first is a bill that repeals a 3% withholding on some payments that the government makes to private contractors. The 3% withholding rule, which was signed into law years ago, has been postponed multiple times.
Repealing this law is a part of the President’s American Jobs Act, and it’s listed as one of the points of agreement the House Republicans wrote about in a letter to the President back in September.
The second bill lays out how to pay for the first bill.
The issue of the 3% withholding has been a political football for the last few weeks, with the Senate voting down a repeal because Democrats didn’t agree with how the Senate Republicans wanted to pay for it. And last night, the speaker's communication’s office sent around an email basically daring the White House to oppose their version of the bill.
If the bills pass the House this week, the next narrative on this issue could be an odd one -- where the House and the White House are aligned against a Senate that may agree with the policy, but is notoriously slow to act.
Leave a Comment:
Like all 'righty' rats - they just couldn't resist the cheese! lol
You got to give em credit - they've NEVER met a tax cut they could pass up! ;o)
In all seriousness, it's good to see something getting done for a change!
This should be pretty easy.
Both sides agree that spending cuts are needed and necessary.
The disagreement comes from the dems call for more revenue.
So for right now, given the bi-partisan agreement on cuts, do the cuts.
Tax cuts, spending cuts. Go with the consensus.
"payments that the government makes to private contractors."
uhm......those private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater?..yup, gotta give them a tax break!
Does anyone know the precise purpose for the withholding of payments? That might make a difference in whether any jobs will actually be created by these bills. Or doesn't that matter to the conservatives out here?
Do the withheld payments eventually go out at some point in time, or is this some sort of weird rebate program, which would mean that every government contract is overbid by at least 3 percent, which then disappears into someone's slush fund?
Given how businesses have treated repatriated foreign profits in the past, I tend to agree with Chilled on this one. Unless there are some guarantees that jobs will actually be created, and if there is no other reason to hand over the money, then I wouldn't do it.
AM,
If it's anything like the business I am in, we demand a 5% "give back" from our suppliers based on the contract they were awarded after 1 year and prior to any future business being awarded.
The 5% is assumed to be a rebate on efficiencies that suppliers gain as they actually get into the full production of the program.
At the end of the day, all suppliers over bid some percentage because they just don't know everything involved until they get into full production.
Efficiencies don't mean less jobs, by the way. It means additional capacity for more programs resulting in additional jobs.
Standard procedure in the Auto Industry.
Sure, but they'd do that even without the 3 percent.
I presume that Congress duly allocates the contract price with the 3 percent in it. So where does the 3 percent go when we don't dish it back?
Anyone know?
I'm surprised this doesn't offend you, Bear Boy. This is YOUR money, after all.
So then, why are we removing the incentives to efficiencies by paying out more than "standard procedure" would suggest that we should?
Please help me out here. I'm not seeing how this works.
Ann, a portion of each draw is withheld each month. It is considered earned money. It is held in an account untill the contractor finishes his punch list items. When the entire job is done and signed off, the withheld funds are sent to the contractor. It creates incentive for the contractor to work hard on touch up work.
If a contractor has already got all the money he will not be as hard working on the touch ups.
For example, a contractor might have the physical work done, but not be done with presentation of warrantee certificates, occupancy permits, that sort of thing. A building may be unusable because of this, although to the eye look to be finished. I've seen contractors drag their feet over 30 minutes of work, but have enough time every day to try to get their hands on that 3% check.
Well Anna, I am absolutely sure that the 3% goes directly towards retiring our debt.
They wouldn't give it away to some failing "Green" car company would they?
The incentive remains for future business. The idea is always to grow your company through production.
The tricky part for a supplier is the next contract has to come in at the old contract -5%. Sooner or later if you don't have enough business you can't compete, especially if you are a small shop. So this only works for a short time.
It's one of the reasons I use to have a dozen suppliers now I only have a few. As an Industry we over played our hand.
Go figure/
Stop "f"ing around already. Damned republicans.
It is good they are finally agreeing to something.
However, note that the repeal of this withholding only makes permanant the current policy....which is to not withhold the 3%.
The provision, passed in 2006 before the recession, is not technically in effect right now. So, in short, this will only prevent the withholding from taking effect in 2013...or ever if it passes.
Some background reading:
http://blogs.cbh.com/govcon/?p=1312
We are in a jobs crisis of proportions not seen since the 1930's. Americans, this country, this economy...we need jobs. Real jobs. Jobs with good wages. Jobs created right here in the United States. what we do not need is a phony like John Boehner standing up to lecture all of us on "job creation" after he has presided over the worst eight months of any incoming Speaker of the House for economic growth. The actions of his House GOP have killed or stifled probably millions of jobs. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
You my friend are an idiot. The presidents Jobs bill is a temporary fix, 1 year at most. What does that really do to create jobs...NOTHING!
If I've been unemployed since the Great George W. Bush was President, I would gladly take a one year fix. Many of those who are unemployed feel the same way. To some extent, its called priming the pump.
Actuallly a better thing to do would be to raise the tax rates to the 1939 levels and have a real jobs program, $3.2 Trillion worth.
JFK2112 your the IDIOT. Do you think anyone who has been off work cares. A job at this time is a job. Your post shows your working and you have no experience at being unemployed.
"A hungry man is a angry man" Bob Marley
"There is a glimmer of bipartisan agreement" ...is he that dam stupid ? They have bent him over 4 times in a row ...SCREW THE GOP ... The President truly needs new handlers !
I must say, as a former contractor myself, a 3% retention rule to guarantee final performance doesn't seem onerous at all. In fact, some form of retention should be in place. But if giving in on this might move the dial on something else, O.K. However, I doubt it. Compromise has been a one-way street. And democracy (or even republican government) doesn't exist. It's all filibuster. Add in the likes of Ben Nelson, and it is as if the Dems are a definite minority in the national legislature. But liberals should not blame Obama for giving in on things like this. He is scrambling for leverage in any way he can. If he had shock troops backing him up in the Congress, it would be a different matter. Give money to Occupy Wallstreet! Stoke the fires of real change!
I suspect if you asked the "occupy" people they would say that they themselves are not inherently affiliated with the Democratic party.
No, what we need is neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties. They have shown their inability to act for the good of America.
Right now the Republican party is beating a retreat to the social, economic, and foreign policies of the early 1900's while the Democratic party is trying to bury its head in a repeat of the New Deal.
Neither party has answers that will address our present day issues, they simply want to relive the past decades that their party felt was the most glorious.
What we need is a new political system that does not involve the old powers of the Republican or Democratic parties.
Our legislative system is not what is defunct, it is our political system.
Obama sucks!
Why Bother you waste of a carbon copy worthless asswipes....I guess better late than never....terrorist.