Last night the Senate rejected an attempt to repeal the health care reform law. However, what they did repeal – and more important, how they paid for it – provides a signal for how the deficit debate will go on Capitol Hill. And it’s not a particularly good signal.
All Democrats voting held together against the full repeal, and all Republicans voted for repeal. Joe Lieberman and Mark Warner missed the vote. As I predicted, the Senate needed 60 votes to pass repeal because of a Budget Act point of order; repeal would have increased the deficit by $230 billion in the first 10 years.
However, Republicans were successful on repealing one element of the law yesterday:
Just before the vote on the budgetary point of order, the Senate did vote to repeal an unpopular part of the healthcare law that requires businesses to report annual purchases of goods and services of more than $600 to each vendor.
The Senate voted 81-17 to eliminate the 1099 reporting requirement, with 17 Democrats voting against the measure.
Here’s the roll call. Now, love the 1099 requirement or hate it, the idea behind it was to increase tax collection. The IRS would get all these 1099s and be able to see who owed tax on these transactions. CBO estimated that it would add $19 billion to the federal Treasury over 10 years.
The amendment replaces that revenue. How? Through the “rescission of unspent funds to offset the loss in revenue”, according to the amendment’s language. It requires the Office of Management and Budget to determine and identify the amounts of the “unobligated funds” to rescind from each part of the budget. Only the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration cannot be touched by OMB.
This is exactly the pay-for that Mike Johanns (R-NE) used the last time he authored an amendment to repeal the 1099 requirement; the only difference is the exemption of those three departments. It’s a cowardly way to cut spending, as it puts the burden on OMB, actually delegating the power of the purse to the executive branch. But it does cut spending, by $19 billion over 10 years. So what we end up with is a revenue increase, which basically derives from the closing of a tax loophole that enables cheating, replaced by spending cuts. Democrats tried a separate amendment to pay for 1099 reporting repeal with ending tax subsidies for Big Oil, and only got 44 votes. So they went with the Republican pay-for.
This trajectory will be a familiar one come the showdowns on the budget. Democrats are perfectly willing to cut taxes and trim spending – that’s basically what this amendment does, and it got 81 votes, with 34 Democrats in favor.




15 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
yay about the 1099s
Corruption R’Us
Glad to see the 1099 requirement is dead. It was a huge paperwork hassle for small businesses and their suppliers for a pretty marginal gain in tax collection. I suspect the imposed compliance costs across the economy would have been more than the predicted revenue gain; that made it very bad tax policy.
While the spokes of government decide whether or not Americans should be entitled to health care, we’re going to have to look for ways to stretch our health care dollars. Hopefully, it doesn’t come down to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDCFzCgvhw
Lieberman missed the vote because he is on the Canadian border looking for Islamists. He just figured out we have many miles of wilderness that is not protected.
It’s good to see the 1099 requirement go–but the really sad part of that is that the CBO estimate that it would have brought in $19 billion is almost certainly bogus. It should never have been passed in the first place.
Think about it: Was the IRS really going to set up the computerized tracking system to sift through literally billions of business purchase 1099s to see which suggested that taxes would not be paid or would be underpaid? And then deal with all the appeals that such (imprecise) tracking would generate? No: Such a program would itself cost billions to set up and operate.
Such reporting requirements are brought up from time to time, both at the federal and state levels, and are usually, as in this case, simply a way to add a line item and a requirement that sponsors can then magically attribute billions of dollars to, based on unrealistic assumptions.
As a small businessperson, that 1099 requirement was sheer stupidity. It already was necessary to do for(unincorporated)sub-contractors, and sending them to Staples and Amazon is unlikely to garner much added revenue. Do the people who inaugurated this legislation think that business expenditures are largely at church craft fairs and gun shows?
Agreed. It needed to go. It was going to be a nightmare.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying the 1099 requirement was good tax policy. I’m saying that, at the root, tax revenue was replaced with spending cuts. And unidentified spending cuts, outsourced to OMB, at that. That has implications for future debates.
This is just another example of why seating the responsibility for health care in the employers is absurd and will never really work well. It completely ignores the reality of how many people work for extremely small businesses and simply individuals.
The government requirements designed for mega corporations imposed on these small businesses is a big factor in their support of the mantra of the GOP and the Tea Party.
The Democrats have never done well at distinguishing between the plight of these people and the Corporations..
Next up is reduction in the corporate tax rate via “loophole reduction” – like “loophole reduction is not possible just because it is the right thing to do. A good write up on this topic is http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper – but he deals with “total taxes paid – and we are talking about only a part of that number – just the Federal Income Tax.
Our co’s get away with an average 17% rate (32% per the above article when you include all taxes) and we feel we must reward them by reducing the 35% rate- its not possible to return the percent of budget paid by co’s to Clinton levels as long as we have a president Obama.
Agreed. It would be interesting to see some examples of “unobligated funds”–is this simply a synonym for the discretionary spending part of the budget.
Why is the 700 billion dollar DOD budget exempt? That was the price that republicans asked? And the Dems asked that the VA and SSA be added (ironic considering that is the republican voter base)?
This is the new compromise.
I own a tiny business. Just me and my federally and state unrecognized same-sex wife. If we had to send 1099s to every single place from which we bought more than $600 worth of business-related items, it would be an utter nightmare.
Buy a plane ticket for a business trip, to whom do we send the form? Expedia? Or the airline? We buy over $600 worth of office supplies, in small amounts across the entire year — another 1099 form?
Hell, I don’t care if we get audited, because we have receipts for everything. (Well, I’d rather not be audited, but you get the idea.) How this stupid 1099 measure was actually supposed to raise revenues, I have no idea.
Just read that Brazil is providing FREE diabetes and blood pressure meds to ALL their citizens.
What is wrong with this country? It’s this segragation of you qualify and you don’t that results in so much hate. Everyone in the same boat – and everyone benefits – one day down the line.
Please get this out so people know that even 3rd world countries can do this but the richest country in the world is too busy providing billions for everyone else but their own.
See article from BBC –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12361366
3 February 2011 Last updated at 14:34 ET
Share this page
Free diabetes and blood pressure drugs for Brazilians
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, 3 February 2011 President Rousseff says public health is one of her top priorities
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
* Rousseff becomes Brazil president
* Brazil’s Aids policy ‘remarkable’
Brazil is to provide free medicines for everyone suffering from high blood pressure or diabetes.
The drugs will be distributed through a nationwide network of budget pharmacies, where many medicines are already heavily subsidised.
President Dilma Rousseff said the measure was part of her campaign to end extreme poverty in Brazil.
About 33 million Brazilians have high blood pressure, and more than seven million have diabetes.
The free medicines will be available to all Brazilians who have a doctor’s prescription, but the authorities say they expect the offer to be taken up mainly by poorer people who use the public health system.
They will be distributed through 15,000 chemist shops that belong to the “Popular Pharmacies” network, where many drugs are already sold at a 90% discount.
Brazil’s Health Minister, Alexandre Padilha, said high blood pressure and diabetes caused 34% of deaths in Brazil in 2009.
President Rousseff added that the poorest sectors of Brazilian society spent an estimated 12% of their incomes on medicines.
Since 1996 Brazil has provided free anti-retroviral drugs to patients with HIV/Aids, an approach that has been widely praised.
President Rousseff, who took office on 1 January, has promised to increase investment in Brazil’s public health system.