« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GOP Should Launch Offensive in Payroll Tax Fight

“in typical Democrat asinine fashion, they are promulgating a defacto permanent tax cut by telegraphing to the public that it is only temporary, thereby minimizing the pro-growth effect of the tax cut.”

After decades of monstrous lies about Social Security, Democrats have finally blown the cover off their stratagem.  They have always proclaimed that our payroll taxes were held securely in a trust fund in order to purvey retirement checks for each pay roll tax contributor.  Moreover, they emphatically promised that as much as $2.6 trillion in unspent tax revenue had accrued in the trust fund.  Now, with their push for a defacto permanent payroll tax cut, they are shedding all effort to conceal their Social Security mendacity.

The fact that Democrats are attempting to permanently cut the employee’s share of the payroll tax by 50% is a clear repudiation of their first premise.  And let’s face it; the cut will be permanent, as any subsequent relapse would be deemed a tax increase.  Nonetheless, in typical Democrat asinine fashion, they are promulgating a defacto permanent tax cut by telegraphing to the public that it is only temporary, thereby minimizing the pro-growth effect of the tax cut.

Additionally, the fact that their bill calls for $185 billion in general fund transfers to Social Security helps depose the myth that there is anything left in the trust fund.  It is clear that not only is there no existing money in the trust fund, but even the revenue from the current year (which would already come up $50 billion short, even without the tax cut) is insufficient to cover Social Security costs.  In plain English, we would call that a Ponzi scheme, not a pay-as-you-go system.

Sadly, instead of using this as an opportunity to own up to their 70-year old lie, Democrats are doubling down on it.  They are insisting that, due to their tax increases and faux spending cuts, all is fine and dandy with Social Security.  “The legislation would not affect the Social Security Trust Fund by one penny, because it requires that the Social Security Trust Fund be made whole through transfers from the General Fund,” wrote Bob Casey.

The only problem is that the math doesn’t add up.  Their plan would offset a $185 billion deficit in 2012 with tax increases over 10 years.  Yes, they will also adopt the GOP plan to cut anomalous food stamp and unemployment benefits for millionaires – reforms that won’t even save $100 million over 10 years.  In 2009, during the worst year of the recession, the IRS reported that 2,362 millionaires collected a total of $20.8 million in UI, according to Senator Coburn.  On the other hand, a 50% payroll tax, which, for better or worse, will unlikely be repealed – will cost well over $2 trillion over the next 10 years.  Consequently, it is incontrovertibly clear that Social Security will not “be made whole” without accelerating our crushing debt towards the Greece-like day of reckoning.

Now that Democrats have checkmated themselves on Social Security, it’s time for them to grow up and discuss entitlement reform so we can rectify their 70-year monstrous lie.  They have no legitimate rationale to oppose private retirement accounts anymore.  Which accusation will they hurl at us?  Will they accuse us of bankrupting Social Security?  They have already been quite auspicious in attaining that goal.

As for Republicans, they have two viable options; call out Democrats on their Social Security duplicity – and impel entitlement reform, or outflank them by proposing a permanent tax cut.  Either way, they should abandon their current inscrutable strategy of supporting the temporary cut, albeit less enthusiastically, and with the promise of spending offsets – ones they have no intention of fighting for.  They will gain nothing politically from playing follow the leader on the payroll tax cut.  From a policy perspective, they will fail to offset the cost of the cut at the time it is incurred anyway.  Besides, we all know that they will ultimately jettison the spending cuts from the deal (Democrats will never agree to more cuts in the federal workforce).  Accordingly, why look like a fool for demanding something they have no intention of enforcing?

Furthermore, and most important, every spending offset proposal thus far includes extension of super-long unemployment benefits as part of the deal.  These two issues should not be bundled in an effort to force conservatives to vote for a massive entitlement expansion along with tax cuts.  We are now on pace to blow a massive hole in the deficit, and permanently enshrine unemployment as an entitlement, all for a temporary tax cut that will not engender much growth, as witnessed by this past year.

If Republicans want to make Social Security the issue, they should push for something like the Jeff Landry plan.  Rep. Landry, along with Reps. Mulvaney and McClintock, have proposed a bill (HR 3551) which turns the payroll tax holiday into an opt-in system, allowing each worker to annually decide if he or she wants to continue receiving the holiday, in exchange for delaying retirement another month.  This will force Democrats to stop avoiding entitlement reform.

On the other hand, if Republicans want to stay on message as supporting tax cuts, they should make the payroll tax permanent.  What they shouldn’t do is play second fiddle to the Democrats on a non-offset temporary cut, while gaining nothing politically or policy-wise.

Why grant the Democrats multiple political victories for the price of one?

COMMENTS

  • chrysostom15

    It is a cut in the taxes to support social security. There is no reason to pay for it with any on-budget money. No reason to raise general taxes for it. No reason to cut non-social security spending for it.

    It should be paid for by changing the way social security benefit increases are paid (using a different cost-of-living calculation method).

    The GOP should use the normal budget process to cut spending — we do control the House. Simply pass a lower budget…very easy.

    I suggest going back to 1992 budget levels + inflation.

    • snowshooze

      We have no qualms about chipping in to SS.
      We have qualms about them raiding the money.
      Yes, the problem is we have the fox in charge of watching the chickens…

      • adair

        and identify it as Your Social Security Contribution … the money that will pay Social Security benefits now and in the future. Get the gray-haired VOTING BLOC going on it!

        Our 40-something-year-old kids don’t expect to receive any SS benefits; but by gosh their parents … WE DO!

        Talk about it as ” … the FICA tax. The so-called Payroll Tax. You know, the money that goes to pay Social Security benefits …”

  • APA Guy

    Best way to give working class taxpayers tax freedom is to take off the shackles of the Social Security tax entirely. Let us save for our own retirement, thank you very much. My quarter says we don’t go $15 trillion in the whole when WE are planning our own retirements WITH OUR OWN MONEY.

    • APA Guy

      Best way to give working class taxpayers tax freedom is to take off the shackles of the Social Security tax entirely. Let us save for our own retirement, thank you very much. My quarter says we don’t go $15 trillion in the whole when WE are planning our own retirements WITH OUR OWN MONEY.

      • DerKrieger

        What I like about an opt-in provision is that it will expose the Democrats’ lie about the popularity of the system. I’m 45 and I would opt out immediately. I suspect almost everyone younger than me would do so as well. People would abandon Social Security as quickly as they have unions in WI when compulsory union dues are no longer allowed.

        • DerKrieger

          They just want their money back.

          • red_oakster

            It’s a Reagan or Paul Ryan who are the exceptions.

          • duanej

            I’m not a senior and I don’t collect social security. Is my money less valuable or important to me than yours is to you? Hardly. The problem is seniors are going to get at least SOME of their money back. If things stay the way they are, folks my age will get NONE of theirs back or if they get any back it will have been so ravaged by inflation as to be worthless.

            I have, in the past, supported the idea of funding current obligations with a 2% payroll tax that allows me to place the other 13% under my control. I still support that idea. I have no wish to deprive seniors of their subsistance. But allow me the opportunity to FEED MYSELF AFTER YOU ARE DEAD IF YOU DON’T MIND!

        • donald_24

          If I did opt out, where would I put my money? MF Global?

          • romeg

            is prima facie evidence of their class warfare on full frontal display. Give the the poor working stiff only what you can pilfer from those awful, repulsive really, really rich people. By Golly That ‘ll teach ‘em to be successful.

            Divide and conquer strategery from the most divisive person ever to hold the office of POTUS.

          • donald_24

            But what about Newt’s comments about poor kids cleaning toilets and having no work ethic? Is that not class warfare too? If the GOP nominates Newt, then the whole “class warfare” argument goes out the window.

          • conservativeparrothead

            in America opts out. California Teachers do not pay Social Security. They have their own retirement system, they pay 8%, the district they work for I think puts in 8.5 and the state puts in 1.5%.

          • conservativeparrothead

            in America opts out. California Teachers do not pay Social Security. They have their own retirement system, they pay 8%, the district they work for I think puts in 8.5 and the state puts in 1.5%.

          • duanej

            You are free to opt in or out under the plan. And if I understand correctly, you can change your mind year after year. That’s choice. That’s freedom.

            Because you would not opt out is no reason for me not to. And I would in a heartbeat. I have no desire to continue funding a ponzi scheme.

            MF Global / Social Security. What’s the difference?

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I assume someday the party leadership will get out in front of these types of issues and actually articulate a simple, understandable response. It’s really not that hard guys.

    Instead we have the President out spouting outright mendacity and divisive half-truths about the issue.

    No small wonder why a tongue-tied, seemingly lost and superficial leadership does not get the support of party members. This is just one example.

    We want someone who fights on principle. Not a bunch of calculating, too-smart-for-themselves backroom dealers.

  • donald_24

    Letting the payroll tax expire will be a hrorrible politiical move for the GOP and willl cost them the election. The Dems will be able to say that the GOP only cares about cutting taxes for rich people.

  • adamcarralejo

    “… call out Democrats on their Social Security duplicity …”
    Republican congressmen HAVE called liberals out, it just isn’t really resonating. We can argue all day as to why that is, but they have tried this and this isn’t deterring liberals or helping RINOs or changing public opinion … so now what?

    “…or outflank them by proposing a permanent tax cut.”
    Are you really willing to let Obama call your bluff? If he says yes, what next? Can you claim to be worried about SS funding, while also offering a permanent tax cut?

    “They have no legitimate rationale to oppose private retirement accounts anymore.”
    I think the liberal alternative to payroll tax funding of SS is pretty obvious: millionaire surtax. Put more simply, fundamentally many liberals want SS paid for the same way every other entitlement program is paid for, by raising marginal income/corporate tax rates and cutting ‘loopholes.’

    The big problem for Republicans making your argument, is that (rightly or wrongly) the public perceives Republicans as being “against” entitlements/welfare/SS. So the whole, “but what about SS, we need to protect SS” argument kinda falls flat. There’s some cognitive dissonance between “we’re philosophically opposed to old age welfare” and “we want to preserve SS.” I think it can be resolved, but not in a way that the public can easily digest.

    This is just the liberal opposite of “starve the beast” approach. Cut/eliminate the payroll tax (b/c its regressive according to democrats) and when the SS trust fund can’t pay beneficiaries, Republicans will have no choice but to raise taxes on business and high income earners to cover the gap.

    • conservativeparrothead

      If social security is so great, then why do one of your biggest consituants choose not to participate in it? Does it get much more liberal than California teachers?

      And as for the debt…my argument would be twofold:

      1. If you cared about what middle America is going through, you would use every inch of potential oil that we have, start opening up refineries and get gas down to a level that doesnt pinch the middle class? Start doing the Math on what they pay in gasoline costs and the increase since election night 2008

      2. So with that theory, you would rather try and save $1000 in the “average American” wallet by further increasing the debt, which is a National Security RISK to have the debt we do, especially to China than cutting it by increasing supply of Oil which would also put money into American pockets and IMPROVE our security by not being dependent on countries who hate our guts.

      Seems so simple a 2nd grader could figure it out…

      • pcscipio

        A lot of government pension plans are waaaay better than SS.

    • conservativeparrothead

      If social security is so great, then why do one of your biggest consituants choose not to participate in it? Does it get much more liberal than California teachers?

      And as for the debt…my argument would be twofold:

      1. If you cared about what middle America is going through, you would use every inch of potential oil that we have, start opening up refineries and get gas down to a level that doesnt pinch the middle class? Start doing the Math on what they pay in gasoline costs and the increase since election night 2008

      2. So with that theory, you would rather try and save $1000 in the “average American” wallet by further increasing the debt, which is a National Security RISK to have the debt we do, especially to China than cutting it by increasing supply of Oil which would also put money into American pockets and IMPROVE our security by not being dependent on countries who hate our guts.

      Seems so simple a 2nd grader could figure it out…

  • redpenny

    and cutting the payroll tax to begin with was stupid.”SS” is already broke and needs more funding rather than less.Pxxs poor leadership on the part of the repubs has placed them out on a big limb which is about to be sawed off right under them.As I said in the beginning–stupid is as stupid does.

  • DerKrieger

    …loss of the ability to redistribute, and an increase in individual liberty? The Democrats will never go for it.

  • pcscipio

    Tapping the SS fund has been a bipartisan endeavor. And anyone who doesn’t know the SS fund is/has been filled with U.S. Treasuries really hasn’t been paying attention. C’mon, guys, Republicans are supposed to be smarter than Democrats!

  • davesinsanantonio

    nt

  • rolandday

    The so-called social security “trust fund” was already forecast to go broke in the not too distant future. Has anyone calculated when it will go broke now that the taxes that support it are being cut?

    Inquiring minds and the elderly would like to know.