« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The House Must Act Now

Well, we really stuck it to the rich at 1:39 in the morning.  Whew, now we can breathe a sigh of relief.  The 40 Republicans who voted for Obama’s stimulus bill had to swallow hard voting for over $100 billion in new spending just in 2013, but at least those of us who are not super rich won’t see our taxes increase this year.

Oh wait.

The payroll tax rate will revert back to $6.2% for every worker.

Oh wait, the five Obamacare tax hikes, including the 2.3% tax on every medical device under the sun will go into effect.

So Republicans agreed to sell their souls to the devil for what?  It is being widely reported that they traded $41 in tax hikes for every dollar of spending cuts.  But it’s even worse than that.  This ratio comes from the CBO, which scores H.R. 8 as a $620 billion tax hike and a $15 billion spending cut.  Keep in mind that the CBO works with a ten-year budget frame.  So if Congress agrees to spend $100 billion in one day, yet offsets the cost over 10 years of projected savings, they would score it as deficit neutral.

To that end, this bill is a spending increase/stimulus bill with absolutely no spending cuts in 2013, the only year that counts.  Just the increased spending from doc fix, absurdly long UI benefits, and the two-month cancellation of the sequester will cost $84 billion….in 2013 alone!  Now throw in the refundable portion of green energy tax credits and low-income credits, and you are easily over $100 billion.  Remember that refundable tax credits, which provide filers with a “negative” income tax liability, should be scored as expenditures.  The same thing applies to impotent wind energy companies that don’t produce enough revenue to pay taxes, yet enjoy refundable tax credits.

Overall, the new spending in 2013 will probably double the projected revenue from the new tax hikes, even using the puerile static analysis, which fails to account for economic modifications as a result of the taxes.  This is a very important point because it illustrates the absurdity of the balanced approach.  We’ve been arguing over $60 billion in annual tax hikes for months now, yet in a matter of a few hours, the statists tossed in over $100 billion in new spending – just in a matter of a few hours.  And that is considered the oblique portion of the deal!

Overall, CBO scores this bill as a $330.3 billion spending increase over 10 years, with only $2 billion in offsets for 2013.  Some of those offsets come from money that was never going to be spent anyway.

Ultimately, we know that doc fix and UI will be extend every year and the sequester will continue to be delayed indefinitely.  So even the partial spending offsets will be rendered moot.

Additionally, the House is teeing up an emergency spending bill that will ultimately match the Senate’s $60 billion price tag.  Hence, any hard fought, economy-destroying tax revenues can and will be wiped out any day of the year with a single bill.

House Republicans must remember that nothing matters until January 15 when the first payroll checks go out.  Even after that date, any final deal will be enacted retroactively.  It is unacceptable to vitiate regular order and the 72 hour posting rule specifically for the most consequential pieces of legislation.  At this point, there is no reason to impetuously support bad legislation without amending it.  They must amend H.R. 8 to include a full extension of the tax rates along with a permanent extension of the 4.2% payroll tax rate.  They should also throw in a repeal of the 5 Obamacare tax hikes, some of which are opposed by a number of liberal Democrats.  That way, this would be the only bill on the table that ensures nobody’s taxes go up.

Let Reid and Obama oppose the payroll tax cut in order to spite the rich.  That is one thing everyone will see on January 15.

Finally, they should strip out the spending, or at the very least, offset the cost with real on-year spending cuts.

COMMENTS

  • Viet71

    Dave_A,

    Yes we should.

    The best thing to say about the payroll tax is that it’s regressives.

  • AceInTX

    Don’t Worry Daniel, Lindsey Graham says we’ll really stick to our guns in the debt ceiling increase*

    pftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpftpft

    Never mind this is what they said during the last budget fight just before the last debt ceiling increase….just before the created the whole fiscal cliff fiasco in the first place…

    So, don’t worry, The checks in the mail, I’ll respect you in the morning…and the Republicans RALLY mean it this time!!

  • veritaseequitas

    They did not sell their souls to the devil, they simply handed their souls over to the devil in the WH and got nothing in return.

    Now is the time for the House to put up or shut up. What do they have to lose at this point? The American people are already pissed off. Doing the right thing won’t piss them off any more than they already are. The press is going to spin whatever happens anyway they think will put a halo on Obama’s head, so that shouldn’t matter.

    It is time to fix what is wrong with the country and what the GOP has been preaching about since Obama was elected in 2008.
    Man up and reject this crap.

  • veritaseequitas

    Really…move AWAY from the bill.

  • clearasday

    The payroll tax increase of the 80′s was a terrible injustice. The Idea that money collected in excess of what was needed to pay each years benefits was sitting in some account collecting interest, the “lock box,” was totally untrue. As such, it represented a huge overtax on workers which was then, by law, lent to the government to increase general spending. The poor Boomers who have now spent their whole working lives paying this excessive tax will now get the privilege of paying it again in order that the Feds pay back the “trust fund.” And if you have any savings or assets at all, when SS collapses in the near future you will be means- tested out of any benefits. Welcome to Ponzimerika.

    Ironically, now is not the time to reduce the tax with the Boomers beginning to retire. But the Democrats don’t care. It’s all about buying votes. If they get their way, there will be no payroll tax to fund SS and Medicare. Those lucky rich folks will get the bill.

  • commonsenseobserver

    It can’t be regressive because they get the money back in the end, and nobody I’ve met who would complain about the payroll tax being regressive wants to abolish Social Security itself either.

    Of course, we could always raise the cap to make it more progressive, but that should only be in exchange for real benefit and other structural reforms, and both should kick in gradually.

  • Rich

    This is all just posturing and noise – a Bill that passes the Senate by such a massive bipartisan majority gets passed by the House. Period.

  • scientificmethod

    SO .. instead of for every $41 of tax, $1 of savings, the new simplification is for every $1 raised, this bill wants to SPEND a further $0.53.

    Balance, anyone?

  • quill67

    We won the debate on requiring work for welfare so Congress simply created a lot of welfare programs that are not called welfare.
    I simply suggest that whatever Congress calls it, if you are getting aid from the government, you should be required to work for it.

  • commonsenseobserver

    And I agree with you, but I believe that we should integrate these overlapping aid programs first, and abolish some, instead of simply administering separate layers of bureaucracy and regulation for each program, each with its own work conditions and other eligibility requirements and rules and all. We need fundamental reform on both the tax and welfare sides, and we can’t solve anything just by adding a work requirement for tax refunds, which by definition already require some work in the first place. We need to make the tax and welfare systems work better together, and clear up the mess of tax handouts to where they belong, not have new red tape on each side just to preserve the continuing existence of complicated refundable tax expenditures.

    Now, of course, we can’t expect people to work for disability insurance…

  • norris

    Here’s a plan congress gets money from the government ,make them work for it. They have gone so far over on spending small percentage cuts won’t do it. We must combine and eliminate some government departments and agencies .

  • marymargaret

    I’m curious – you think a job that offers a pension is a bad idea? BTW the $60,000 per pension you use for your example is way, way more than the typical federal worker would earn. While some federal workers may be at the pay scale you use, they are a minority.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Not that hard to understand Mary especially if you do not get hung up on the number.

    Pensions by themselves are not the problem, it is who ends up paying for them and the enormous burden they bring to the poor smucks toiling away for 40 years.

    As TBone pointed out, how much money in the bank would it take to receive a (put number in here) at 5% interest. The answer is a huge amount. Does not matter if you put $30,000, $40,000, etc in the place of the (), it is unfunded and paid for on the backs on the private sector employee. The amount contributed to the funds by the government employee can never justify the eventual payment. No way they contribute enough to be rewarded with the sum they receive even with some amazing investments and interest which do not occur. What happens is that we end up footing the bill for the promised pensions and lifetime insurance guarantees and that is what is fundamentally wrong with the pension and it does not take a genius to see that. It is obvious the democrats and you as well believe in the money fairy, but she does not exist and the belief is breaking our backs and the country’s back.