E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSHouse Republican leaders said Monday that they will ready legislation to extend the payroll tax cut without offsetting its cost through the end of 2012 as a backstop in case lawmakers' efforts to authorize a comprehensive extension of that and unemployment benefits fail.
House Speaker John Boehner (OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (CA) announced the alternative route amid signs that the formal conference committee in charge of crafting a compromise bill on the expiring unemployment insurance and tax cuts has stalled.
"Because the president and Senate Democratic leaders have not allowed their conferees to support a responsible bipartisan agreement, today House Republicans will introduce a backup plan that would simply extend the payroll tax holiday for the remainder of the year while the conference negotiations continue regarding offsets, unemployment insurance, and the ‘doc fix,'" the trio said in a statement. "If Democrats continue to refuse to negotiate in good faith, Republicans may schedule this measure for House consideration later this week pending a conversation with our members."
Congress extended the expiring benefits at the end of December, shortly before each had been scheduled to lapse after Dec. 31. That agreement wasn't reached, however, until House Republicans relented on their demand that the programs be extended for all of calendar year 2012, along with having their costs fully offset.
Republicans agreed to the short-term extension only in exchange for the formal "conference" process intended to resolve differences between House and Senate legislation. But that reversal only came after a number of Republicans accused their House colleagues of politically damaging intransigence.
But with just a few weeks left to go until the Feb. 28 deadline, the conference committee appears mired in stalemate, with disagreement falling along familiar fault lines. Democrats wish to impose new revenue-raising measures on the wealthiest Americans to finance the tax cuts and benefit extensions, while Republicans decry such efforts as tax hikes, and wish to find savings instead through budget cuts.
The GOP's maneuver on Monday is a bid to put Democrats on their heels, and push back against the narrative that President Obama has used to great effect, casting Republicans as having obstructed middle-class tax relief by playing politics. If Congress were to authorize the tax cut extension without offsets -- something for which Democrats have pushed -- Republicans would conceivably be able to deny responsibility for the failure of negotiations.
Pelosi herself has told reporters repeatedly that she does not believe the payroll tax cut should be paid for as it is an "emergency" program implemented during a down economy. Boehner admits in his statement that "this is not our first choice," which reflects the fact that many in the Republican conference, especially conservative members, believe that this tax cut, if it's done at all, should have its cost offset. The total cost of the 10-month extension is around $100 billion.
Because of that conservative opposition, the bill would likely need to rely on Democratic support to pass, putting Democrats in the tough position of being forced to vote for a tax cut they have been pushing Republicans to pass.
Leave a Comment:
Obama/Hiden 2012
I'm not convinced the Republicans are going to pass the other pieces without paying for them.
Their position is going to be we passed the tax cut which would have the most blow-back if not passed.
A lot of people on both sides of the spectrum feel 99 weeks of unemployment is way to much.
The long term unemployed won't garner as much sympathy.
Even the middle class working man feels that the person sitting home collecting for 99 week is taking way to much advantage even if may aren't.
There won't be as much hard feelings on that one nor will there be for the doc fix as all Dr's are rich in the eyes of the public. The only ones that will be upset over the doc fix beside the Dr's are their lobbyists.
Depending on what happens the Republicans may win more here than the Democrats.
Medicare patients will be unhappy as well! If a 30% fee reduction does become reality, large numbers of physicians will no longer see Medicare patients. It will lead to a larger shortage of physicians than has been projected. There are already areas in the country where it is difficult for a Medicare patient to find a primary care physician.
As the Republicans have so eloquently put it you cant have it if you don't pay for it.One more gift from the Republican Primates
GOP are playing games with millions of American Lives.They will lose out big time this year and that will be a good thing
Boehner often looks embaraseed when he has to say this ridiculous nonsense. The people that will not negotiate in faith are the Republicans they have vowed to destroy Obama and it doesn't appear they care that they are destroying America. I hope a lot of people are watching the deliberations and fact checking these turkeys. It is ridiculos all the distortions, false accusations, often just outright lies. On unemployment benefits The Republicans want to require you to get a diploma or GED to qualify to get unemployment and other ridiculous requirements that have nothing to do with the fact that you have worked and paid taxes and due to no fault of your own you lost you job unemployment insurance is to help you while you look for another job. That is not negotiating in good faith to EXTEND the existing benefits. It is a sideshow of obstruction. They say Democrats wont negotiate actually there is nothing in this part that needs negotiating, just how to pay for it, instead the Republicans obstruct and distort. They say it is the Democrats fault and get fox news to distort it even more and repeat it over and over to see how many people they can get to believe their nonsense. The Republicans seemed to be ready to approve this bill if we would risk the welfare of our country to enrich the oil companies, one of their corporate masters, but at a time when the oil companies are gouging us for billions of dollars every month it's kinda hard to get behind that. I want everyone to watch the live hearings; I get them on Cspan. The aforementioned tactics should be obvious to anyone. Remember this is suppose to be a hearing on how to pay for this extension. It may also help if you remember these are the same Republican Party that tried to scare you and tell you death panels would come take your Granny you know that was a lie. They told you the Affordable Healthcare Act was a government takeover of the healthcare system that was a lie. I catagorize a lie as knowingly misstating a fact. Ties to Al Queda, oil shortages I have seen and heard this scheme of distortion and lies coming from the Republicans nonstop for years.
Any bill Obama sends to the house faces the same tactics. Corruption doesn't know party lines neither does integrity or the lack thereof. I have never been a Democrat or Republican. I have been able to observe with out predjudice since politics came back into my life in the late Clinton years and by the time Bush/Cheney went into the whitehouse I was watching them. I had paid politics no attention since I became aware that financial gain trumped all else in determing what comes out of Washington. By the time B/C had started 2 wars, gas had gone from $1 to $4 and our economy was falling apart they had my attention.
No negotiations until the Norquist Pledges have been burned on the steps of the Capitol and their oaths to the U.S. Constitution have been publicly reaffirmed.
Stone6-Great Post!! That would be a lovely day in our country!
Do the Republicans actually want this fight in an election year? I agree with the comment about the Norquist pledges and the Democrats need to make sure where ever there is an elected representative that his constituency knows about his abdication of his responsibility to those he/she represents.
I believe it was Republicans who reminded us all of the seriousness of the national debt and equated it to a national security issue, as serious as war.
I consider those who have pledged never to raise taxes, even in times of danger to the country, to be the equivalent of "conscientious objectors."
I will respect their position on what I assume to be their moral and philosophical beliefs, but seeking the advice of a conscientious objector on how to fight the war is, for me, a step too far.
Maybe they can flee to Canada. I understand the Canadians are looking for some people to build a pipeline across the Rockies to Vancouver.
Typical election year politicking. Well here we go again!! Another year of congress doing nothing.
Don't want to piss out those wealthy donors do we by asking them to pay their fair share.?
What"ll be their excuse.
" iWell..."blame it on Obama" is getting real old. Why not be honest and say "well it's an election year and we were too busy doing other things. You don't expect us to do our job all the time do you?
97% of all federal income taxes are paid for by the top 10% of earners. What's not fair? 51% of all earners don't pay any federal income tax and 30% get more than they pay in. Is that "fair"?
Bill - it's a progressive tax code. There have been few significant changes to it over the last ten years. If the rich are paying more and more of total taxes, it is because they are making more money, while the rest are either standing still or losing.
Every time you use that argument...you cut your own throat.
I see you need a bit of education. The "progressive" tax code refers to the rate structure and has nothing to do with why the top essentially pay for all the taxes in this country. If the tax structure were all that mattered then you would see the top pay approximately 25% of all taxes. The top 10% of earners do not earn 97% of the earning in this country. The middle class makes nearly 67% of all the earning in this country. why aren't they paying 67% of the taxes? The reason is that the Congress has exempted so much of the taxes in the country from taxation that the only income that is taxes is that of the middle class and higher. The rest of the tax comes from capital gains which is taxes at a lower 15% rate to encourage people to risk their savings and invest in companies. A truly fair tax would be flat or slightly graduated tax with no deductions. when you stop driking the kool aid I'd be glad to chat more about taxation....
Bill
CPA
Here's some fact for you. The top 25% pay the lion's share of taxes with another 25% rounding that out right now. But that doesn't mean those at the bottom of the economic ladder aren't invested.
Any CPA should know the 97% is an absolute lie.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
The entire article is interesting but, this particularly interesting...
Some 70 percent of people who owe no federal income tax in a given year are low-income working households. These people do pay payroll taxes, as well as federal excise taxes (and, as noted, state and local taxes). Most of these working households also pay federal income tax in other years, when their incomes are higher — which can be seen by looking at the low-income working households that receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (see next bullet).
It's a progressive tax principle...if you can't acknowledge that, I wouldn't want to hire you as a CPA.
The "principle" is that higher incomes are taxed more...didn't they teach you that in Accounting 101?
If those in the low or zero income categories are not taxed at all, it is because Congress has decided to exempt them because they don't make enough money to be taxed. If, as in Earned Income Credit, they actually get money back, then Congress has decided to use the tax system as a welfare/redistribution tool, for lower earned incomes to encourage SOME work.
The principle behind a progressive tax is that those who make more income have profited, in some way, more from the benefits of the system than those with lower incomes.
The lower capital gains tax rewards those who have profited more and reinvested in the economy, more than those who used their additional disposable income to buy a Ferrari or yacht.
If you are able to do that a lot, then you make big bucks, while paying relatively low taxes...i.e. ex-investment banker Romney.
Flat taxes tend to be regressive. If you start exempting categories, then you return to basically a progressive tax.
When you grasp how it all works...get back to me.
When you make millions and billions of dollars you should pay more taxes. Unfortunately that is not the case with the tax loop holes and all the other advantages that have been packed into our tax system by the wealthiest law makers driven by special interests and their own greed and agenda for those with the most. The right wing is 100 percent behind the wealthy never paying more taxes even in the most dire circumstances of two wars and a recession. They have the middle class and working poor believing that they are not paying plenty of taxes themselves and would rather that we in the middle class pay even more. I support the Buffet rule that everyone making over a million dollars pays a certain percentage without any tricky steps or tactics.
Vicki If a Buffett rule applies there should also be one for everyone else!! Everyone pays some, no loopholes, "tricky steps or tactics"!!!
I'm all for raising taxes on everyone. Over 50% of taxpayers don't pay any federal income tax. Let's start making everyone pay something if they are making more than twice the federal poverty level. Let's do away with give aways like the child tax credit and stop letting special groups deduct expenses and then let's see how much we need to cut. It will still be alot but it should be a step in the right direction. Right now no one really wants to raise taxes not even the Dems and no one really wants to cut not even the Repubs!
A CPA should also know the 50% who don't pay taxes is a temporary issue related to the poor economy and how many people have been out of work and underemployed.
Raising taxes on those hurt most by the things they had no control over is insanity.
I realize you're a CPA but the top "earners" are paying taxes at the rate they were in the 1950s while the working class pay upwards of 35% and you want to raise taxes on everyone? uhm.
Also, these top earners are corporate CEOs trying tomaximize profits. So, they're profits go up their taxes don't. However, when my earnings go up I get bumped into another tax bracket and I have to pay more and maybe get the same amount of money to show for it. How is that fair?
TCLucas The "working class" people pay nowhere near 35%! You will see from the IRS tables that the top 1% pay, on average, 24% and each income group below this pays less. Even if you are in the 35% bracket, you pay 35% only on the income over $379,000 (hardly working class)!
If Obama's Budget is such a wonderful thing,WHY WONT HARRY REID BRING IT UP FOR A SENATE VOTE??
Washington (CNN) -- A piece of advice: If you're worried about President Barack Obama's budget, find something else to fret over. The president's blueprint has about as much chance of becoming law as yours. It's all about election year 2012, not fiscal year 2013.
Don't take my word for it. Take Harry Reid's. The Senate majority leader -- the Democrat most responsible for moving Obama's agenda through Congress -- said Friday that there's no need to bring the budget to a vote this year.
"It's done. We don't need to do it," Reid said, citing spending outlines agreed to in August's debt ceiling agreement.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/politics/budget-politics-analysis/index.html
It's a shame that we are mortgaging our kids futures. How much is it really worth when we have to borrow 60% of every program the feds run from China?
I challenge anyone here to use imperical data to prove that somehow the top 10% of earners aren't paying a fair share? How do you calculate fair? How much the individual tax payer receives in benefits from the feds vs how much they pay? In that case I'd say the bottom 75% are not paying a fair share.
"Fair" is determined by your elected representatives and a majority vote, which becomes tax law.
The the current system is totally fair?
stone6
Then why haven't the Democrats RAISED taxes on the rich?? They could have done that any time they wanted from 2007-2010.
Excellent point.
That's your answer to everything. You expected Obama to fix all the world's problems in 2 years.
The real question is why would you expect nothing to be accomplished after that first 2 years unless you knew your folks would oppose everything.
Slodon - No...no...no. The original Bush 2001 tax cuts passed by a single vote...Dick Cheney's tie-breaker, exercised in his role as President of the Senate. Even then, the Administration needed to make them temporary, for ten years, to get the votes. The expectations were for ten years of surpluses, based on the last years of the Clinton Administration. The surpluses were to be used for the tax cuts, transition funding for a partially privatized social security system, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and miscellaneous items, including the pay-down of the national debt.
[Read the "Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by Ron Suskind, and based on extensive interviews with O'Neill.]
Point is that under Bush, January 2007 to January 2009, Democrats didn't have the votes to overcome a Presidential veto...and it is tough to vote against deficit spending with troops in the field and at war - although today's Congressional Republicans appear to have no problem with this. The first year of Obama's election (basically 2009) was spent under a Bush budget, that dated back to October 2008...based on the government's fiscal year. In January 2010, Democrats lost their filibuster proof majority in the Senate and thereafter became subject to a Republican minority.
Republicans blocked the Democratic attempt to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the upper incomes, by threatening to prevent an extension of unemployment benefits, the payroll tax holiday, and on-going middle class tax cuts, IF Democrats did not agree to the extension for the upper brackets as well.
In November of 2010, largely because of the bank bailouts and Obamacare, democrats lost control of the House and have been unable to pass anything of significance, without Republican Senate votes since then.
@ Bill-3995581
I think the "fair" aspect comes down not to the tax rate per se but the proportion of taxes-paid against disposable income.
Also, one needs to take taxes as a whole, not just simply federal income tax and apply that to the taxpayer's total earnings.
While the bottom brackets do not pay all that much (if anything) in federal income taxes, they are disproportionately effected by payroll, state and sales taxes, which take a much greater dent out of their total earnings as a percentage than those in the top brackets.
When you take into account that costs are lumpy and there are various soft-boundaries (i.e. barriers to entry) between certain earning-levels and the costs to reach them, you can then get a better idea of what many people are upset about, but maybe lack the sophistication to quantify it.
Things like rising gasoline prices, stagnant wages, eroding purchasing power against a rising CPI, non-existent interest on savings and market volatility that favors those with sufficient discretionary income and time to part with it to capitalize effectively at a reasonable beta.
For example: Maintaining over a 10% YoY-return with well under a 3-beta is decent and rare...but it's still only really worth it to you when you can invest at least 100K in that portfolio...10K at that rate is miniscule and most people who can only afford to invest 10K usually lack the sophistication or the ability to afford a portfolio manager that could provide them such a rate (and the loading/maintenance costs of mutual funds decimate long-term gains).
Hahahaha...or, put another way, it takes real money to make real money.
Very good.
If you want an above-average return on a below-average about of money, you can always do what I do and put your money in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway "Class B" shares.
Time to go to a graduate flat tax. No child tax credit, no deduction for second mortgage. Just a graduate flat tax with maybe only the mortgage interest deduction for the first house and make that on houses with limits of 750k and below. Lower the tax rates for everyone and make the top pay a "fair" amount and the bottom pay something too.
I've never known a CPA who wants to eliminate his own job which even a progressive flat tax would do.
Have you figured out that your we know your CPA line is BS.
Bill, I don't even mind your idea, Until you get Make the poor pay too...Do you think even 10.00 a week would impact a poor family? Milk in my area is 3.50 bread is about 1.30 for crappy bread...That is about 5.00 of the 10 maybe we should look at toothpaste or TP or soap...you get the drift right, sometimes we who have a little more or easier time juggling should really try not to save a dime on the backs of those who are in need...
People will always want something to be paid for by others unless they realize that they're "the others". Lots of the people I know in accountancy are for a fairer, simpler tax code. There's lots to accounting besides taxes (cost accounting, for example) and there are millions of man-hours being spent in fulfilling arcane requirements of various revenue codes which yield less actual revenue than the value of the time being spent to comply with them, which could then be redirected to more productive pursuits.
Neither the Dems or Repubs want to raise taxes or cut spending. Our kids and going to pay for our excesses!
I think that Nancy Pelosi should go over to Boehners and Cantors tanning tub and beat the c- -p out of both of them.This is without doubt the worst managed house of representatives ever. The two top dogs are absolutely the most incompetent members to hold those posts. America needs to find out what these two wooses do all day while in session. Hopefully they will not get reelected and for sure they will again become the minority.
This woman who gave us the a law that we'll have to pass it to know what's in it? Yea, there's the perfect model of an adult leader!
She has been replaced by a man who can pass nothing so that we never have to know what's in it.
Raise taxes on everyone, get rid of the child tax credit and other such scams and cut spending now!
This is an excellent example of how the Democrats reach bipartisan agreements. Essentially the Republicans caved in on the funding of the 2% tax reduction.. what was Chris Van Holland/Nancy Pelosi's response.. They cannot in all good blah blah blah leave the unemployed behind.
For all you liberals out there: where was the quid pro quo from the Democrats? What did they concede in getting this deal? What are they willing to forgo in for the unemployment extension? I know, I know they are right and they don't need to concede anything.. just borrow some more money from China.
Well, it is all unsecured debt. It's not like China can repossess South Carolina. The Chinese are holding nothing other than "the bag". It should make for more world peace, though. Who's going to attack their savings account with nuclear weapons?
Here we are discussing something that if we had followed the House proposal from late last year would have been taken care of through all of this year. Yup the bad House only wanted a year extension, not the two month one that was voted on, and passed. Ever wonder why that wasn't taken up ? Why eliminate an election year issue that can be politicized till the cows come home. As concerns their present proposal it is just an acceptance of reality that tying the proposal to like dollar amount cuts found elsewhere is not going to happen with a Democratic Senate. Trying it only allows the Dems to broadside the Right with accusations of wanting to destroy the poor, and working class. Better to let it pass, and pick your battles where the demagoguery won't be so overt.
Wrong again Larry. The House didn't want to extend the payroll tax cuts because they were supposed to oppose anything Obama proposed.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/president-urges-house-to-pass-2-month-extension-of-payroll-tax-cut/
@ Larry D.-1460372
Where would you be fine with spending cuts? Give specifics and show the offsetting dollar amount against the extension and we'll talk.
Last I checked, the Republicans fought bitterly to stop a move to reduce oil and agricultural subsidies...isn't it socialism for government to directly aid a company's profitability?
How about defense cuts? Aside from Ron Paul, I really don't see almost anyone in the GOP that isn't all for pushing new contracts endlessly.
Are you fine with the degrading infrastructure and companies that pay almost nothing in taxes in the US yet declare monumental profits as they outsource more jobs overseas? Did you know that the GOP struck down a measure to remove many of the items that support outsourcing and offshoring measures and stifle domestic hiring?
Did you know that of all of the areas where employment is shrinking, it's in the government and not the private sector?
They've got you fooled. While you're singularly focused on Obama and whether to vote for Romney, Romney or Romney...all of the politicians in office and their handlers are capitalizing off of the opportunity to take even more or at least keeping their gravy-train rolling.
Our dear "conservative" farmers are liberals, as far as I can tell, in two areas:
1) Immigration, where they want the ability to hire people at harvest time who will work hard for low wages, which Americans won't do for the most part
2) Crop subsidies
To start with I would look at the military for some. We certainly could cut our presence back in Europe, as well as in Japan. There are subsidies I would cut back on as well, and oil very well may be one place to start, along with subsidies for various farmers, planned parenthood, and any number of other extraneous programs. Additionally I would take a good look at cutting back financial assistance to government spin offs like Freddie and Fannie, and cut back on the continual increases we provide to the depts of Education and Energy which have shown a remarkable ability to grow their budgets annually with virtually little success to show over the decades they have been in existence.
My main concern is that neither side appears to recognize the terrible place we have put our selves in via our debt. George Bush was a big spender as well as a doofus concerning our economic well being, and unfortunately his promises aside so is President Obama as he continues to put forth budgets which just have no fiscal connection to what is looming on our horizon. What scares me is to many Americans appear to not be very concerned at all with our debt crisis, and probably will only begin to pay attention when we start sliding into a Greece like state of disarray. At that time it will be to late to avert the calamity that will inevitably befall us.
Bear down - Baloney !!!! Do some home work.
it's just so irresponsible to extend payroll tax without paying for it. why do you even propose such a bill? so, just raid SS fund without shame now?
both parties are insane on this!
stop payroll tax cut extension, and save SS fund!
The logic is that social security isn't immediately threatened, although we need to do something over the next few years to protect the drain caused by BOTH the baby-boomers and politicians (starting with LBJ) who raided the trust for general revenue and put IOU's into the "lock box."
More important, at the moment, is to continue to "feed demand," by getting as much money as possible into the hands of consumers...who will either pay-down their own indebtedness (improving their personal financial position and helping to restore their credit) or spending it through purchases that support employment.
I wonder if that new credit card spending over Christmas was any part of that 2% savings that should of been going to your social security?
Do you think people would of charged so much without it? I don't.
Extend it one more month because tax is based on four quarters of the year and accounting for a "sixth" is too horrible to imagine. Then scrap it. Any "economic stimulus" it is providing ($32.00/wk here at our house) is more than offset by the further mortgaging of our future.
Reading the Republican Leadership's statement: It makes me sick to my stomach to read such blatant political B.S. Does it never end? How stupid do they think we are? I'm actually starting to question democracy itself. politics=bs=$=politics=bs=$ etc, etc, etc. Sick of it!
Likewise! I've come to the point that I see all of this bickering back and forth as nothing more than a puppet show being staged for our entertainment and diversion.
Follow the money...it's as simple as that!
Look at how hard it is to get transparent campaign finance and how easy it is for the well connected to spread misinformation and spam the airwaves with their tailored propaganda to mute effective opposition.
I'm doubly amazed at the lack of accountability
Gotta hand it to these Republicans. They've been less than entusiastic to Obama's idea of extending these cuts so now they're trying to frame this legislation in a way that makes it sound like it's been their idea all along. Slippery, shrewd and clever thinkers these bozos can be.
Go ahead, Republicans!! Keep siding with the wealthy and big business. Since you cant beat Obama, you might as well complete the job and be completely repudiated, that means a GOP-proof Senate too! Do you REALLY think Americans are going to stgand for this bull@!$%#????
Let's see, the Republicans said the payroll tax was nothing before, now they are promoting it & now they are introducing the Paying a Fair Share Act, to tax the rich. Talk about flip flopping! Looks like they are finally listening to the 99%.
Oh wow heres the can dems kicked down the road 56 days ago.