Today was supposed to be the final day of the Congressional session, as the House would return to finish off the payroll tax deal negotiated and passed through the Senate. But that blew up over the weekend. We now have a regular business day in the House, with votes in the afternoon. But it’s not clear exactly what they’ll do with the Senate’s payroll tax deal.
Well, for one thing, reports are that the exact nature of the vote the House will take today—and possibly others they’ll take today and/or tomorrow—has not yet been determined. But one possibility is that they’ll vote on a motion to concur, just to reject it. Another would be to concur in the amendment with an amendment of their own, which might well be to change it right back to the way it was before the Senate got it the first time.
Another option would be voting on a motion to disagree with the Senate’s amendment and request a conference. But the Senate apparently has no plans to return prior to January 23rd, so anything that puts the House in disagreement with the Senate amendment essentially means that all the programs extended by the bill (payroll tax cuts, unemployment insurance, the “doc fix,” etc.) will expire at year’s end, and nearly a month will pass before the Senate returns to even consider what the House may try to cook up this week. Essentially it’s a big game of chicken. Again. And all the stuff that used to make Democrats blink—like being accused of “defunding the troops,” or getting blamed for a government shutdown or a tax increase—doesn’t now and never has really meant anything to the Republicans who used to do the accusing.
Mitch McConnell is backing up his House counterparts for the time being. In a statement, McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said “The House and the president both want a full-year extension. The best way to resolve the difference between the two-month extension and the full-year bill, and provide certainty for job creators, employees and the long-term unemployed, is through regular order, as the speaker suggested.”
That’s the conference option. But Reid has made clear that he will only agree to negotiation after the two-month stopgap passes.
Democrats are trying to paint this as Boehner losing control of his caucus, and there’s a fair argument for it. Chuck Schumer today likened negotiating with Boehner to “nailing Jello to the wall.” It’s clear that he is not empowered to make decisions for his caucus. He agreed to let Reid and McConnell negotiate a deal and then pass it. When his caucus soured on the deal, he backed out of it.
Whether House Republicans didn’t want to take this payroll tax issue up again in the new year because they were getting pummeled by it in their home districts, or whether they genuinely oppose doing anything that aids the economy, the end result is broadly similar. But I cannot see how House Republicans would believe that it’s more advantageous for them to allow a big tax increase now, which is how this will be spun, than to deal with the issue in February. If the motivation is to tank the economy, you take the hit over the holidays and hope the President gets tagged for the poor economic performance in the elections.
We will see some action on this today, so stay tuned.



33 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I’ve seen on a few sites, like Buzzflash which I find myself visiting less and less, that the editors are making it seem like a bad thing that the GOP is holding up an extension of the payroll tax cut, making it appear that this is truly a middle class tax cut.
Any action that intentionally lessens the amount of revenue that is earmarked for Social Security and Medicare is not a benefit for the middle class. It is an attack on Social Security and a backdoor way for the system to have less funds than are needed to support the system.
I firmly believe that Barry will be getting a second term so that he can ensure that Social Security is truly dead before he leaves office, his original goal and the only reason he was chosen to become the mouthpiece for the 1%.
This is still chickenshit! A stimulus needs to be big to get us out of a recession/DEPRESSION. TVA, WPA, and more. 1% want this payroll tax holiday that’s why it passed in the first place.
In last years payroll tax cut SS revenue was fully earmarked from the General Fund. I assume it will be so this time too. If so, SS will not have less funds as a result of this.
That is correct however then SS becomes part of the deficit debate which is the end game. IMHO
I couldn’t agree with you more. It would be funny if it wasn’t so fucking sad.
Not only is it the Democratic Party that is leading this backdoor de-funding of Social Security, the Republicans are making sure that rank and file Democrats and so-called liberals actually BEG for it.
Pathetic….
If we find what Pete Peterson has requested, we will find out what will happen in the vote – esp. if what Pete requested is the same as what the Koch Brothers requested.
I found it interesting the Pete Peterson funding of at least some of the activities of “National Academy” Medical group think tank that HHS leaned on to decide that essential benefits for ACA were fewer than in Medicaid, but were best not a national standard like in Medicare, but better a state controlled but not for budget reasons like in Medicaid, concept.
True but it is not increasing revenue in any significant way and is taking away general funds. This is as bad or worse than Bush’s $600
early tax refund BS.
True – but the change to General Fund funding means on budget like a welfare “entitlement” rather than a benefit that is paid for via a dedicated tax.
If this keeps up the word “entitlement” with its negatives relative to “paid for benefit” may just fit.
Ditto. It is pathethic and obama is the one who put it on the table.
Boehner = Cantor’s Sock Puppet.
What a bunch of hacks, fools, two-bit gangsters and sociopaths.
True.
Also for #7 & #8 et.al.
Just trying to correct the de-funding canard.
You left out feckless thugs. :)
mattcarmody:
“I firmly believe that Barry will be getting a second term so that he can ensure that Social Security is truly dead before he leaves office, his original goal and the only reason he was chosen to become the mouthpiece for the 1%.”
Exactly, matt. At least, the PTB intend him to have a second term, and he’s indicated his intent as well, by suggesting a nonsensical two month extension – what on earth does that do for us? All it does is hold onto the phony perception even David keeps hammering on, that this will be a tax increase on the middle class if it sunsets.
Baloney! It erodes the social fabric and it’s what Bush apparently promised to do once he was shoehorned in for his second term. He tried; we defeated him. Privatization is right around the corner on these shellgames and I’m very sure the PTB will do their best to get Obama back in because he’s singing their song. And he doesn’t even care if we know it!
The energy which went into electing Obama must now go into defeating him. We did it then; we can do it this time!
Yes, we can!
I couldn’t agree with you less.
Totally wrong, alan, as far as designation is concerned, but you keep on singing. It would be sad not to hear that jingle.
See the text of the law at #14. Or provide your own link, but not your BS opinion.
And don’t forget that Obama, upon seeing that most “supporters” of Social Security accepted his raid on the dedicated funding of SS chose to not only increase the amount of plundering of the employee side contribution but to expand it to the employer side contribution as well.
This would have exposed a full 50% of once dedicated funding to “negotiation” at the hands of Obama and his Republican/DINO partners.
And the majority of Democrats cheer.
How much further down the rabbit hole?
You can see my favorite part of the gutting law highlighted. I love the way they get that “to the extent possible” in there.
I’m kinda hoping you’re not under the impression that I don’t understand the funds are supposedly being replaced from the general fund. See references to “backdoor de-funding”
Democrats have already adopted Republican language of increasing the withholding to the previous rate as a “tax increase”.
How many months/years do you suppose the lower rate can continue before increasing it to the nominal rate is politically impossible? I would argue it’s already to late. Do you really believe the funds will be replaced from the general fund in perpetuity? But you go ahead and keep cheering the gutting.
I will continue to do appropriate financial planning to replace a benefit I once believed I would receive when I retired…
Yes.
It’s my opinion, that “to the extent possible” refers to the preceeding words “at such times and in such manner”, not to the ammounts.
Anyway, I agree that a payroll tax cut is not what is required, but rather a payroll tax increase in order to make SS stronger.
I just don’t think people should be saying “de-funding” as if it’s fact, at most it’s only a negative opinion.
Point is they have us “squabbling for the scraps at Longshanks table”
when we could all have an elegant sufficiency. This is not a resource problem it is an allocation problem.
Also, I think this is wise.
In fact, it’s what Congress tried to do years ago. Let Americans invest some of their SS funds on their own. Looks like it’s not that bad of an idea. Invest that 2% of your income wisely.
Agreed but from my reading of the law there is a way to not transfer funds to SS. I would have to go back and find the law. Someone else did that can’t remember who. Sigh!
Perfect example of how our congress is totally worthless. I hope and pray that a significant number of incumbents are defeated. I don’t see any way to send these bastards a real message.
Yes, only invest in AAA rated bonds cuz they are safe and odor free.
Not sure I understand, but speeking of allocation, think of it this way.
Everyone (even low wage earners) pays payroll taxes on the first dollar of thier income up to about $110,000.
Only about 1/2 the US population pays federal income taxes into the General Fund (not the poor half).
So maybe it’s not a bad thing to allow everyone to keep 2% of their payroll taxes, provided it’s made up from the General Fund, financed by the other half.
Yes, the law text is at #14, and the negative opinion “concern” is at #18.
I’d prefer to wait for something factual before I let my panites get knotted.
As long as the banksters control wall street and wall street keeps using the Federal Government to bail it out when they make bad investments I want SS the way it was intended with no changes. Wall Street has become the casino for the uber wealthy who never want to lose even when they are wrong. Social programs in a civilized society benefit everyone even paranoid narcissistic bullshit artist like the Koch family.
Heh, no, you really don’t.
As originally intended,
As originally intended not written. Check your original Constitution. Intent to do good and correct wrongs and keep the people at the top from abusing their power and influence.
After much soul-searching, and your excellent analysis, I think an extension of the taxcut is a good thing. I’d spend the money on a new fence, and my fence builder would spend it and so on, and so on, and so on.
Now, why can’t our damn, despicable, useless legislaturds agree on this. A tweo month extension is CRAP!!! I can’t believe I’m on the same side of an argument with John Boehner. Stupid senate…..look what you’ve done.
What page is that on???????
Good intentions can’t be found on a page they are the pavement on the road to hell.
:-)
The Constitution? White males, no women, no minorities (not even considered fully human), no hint of social security, in fact the SS laws had to be changed in the 30′s because taking peoples money for social insurance would have been deemed unconstitutional – as originally intended. Thus the payroll “tax”, rather than payroll “insurance”.
As part of the 1939 Amendments, the taxing provisions were taken out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code and renamed the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).