« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The GOP Payroll Tax Cut/UI Extension Proposal

“will they finally hold the line on their own promises this time, or will they pass all the extensions without the reforms, riders, and spending offsets? This package must be the final offer.”

Earlier today, House Republican leaders unveiled their package deal to extend the payroll tax and unemployment benefits for another year and to continue Medicare ‘doc fix’ for another two years.

While bipartisan passage of the payroll tax cut and doc fix were a forgone conclusion, the real issues for conservatives were the UI extension and the spending cuts.  Unfortunately, they are acquiescing to another extension, albeit with some reforms.

The major reforms include allowing states to set mandatory drug testing and participation in reemployment services as a condition for receiving benefits.  In addition, long-term benefits would be immediately reduced to 79 weeks from 99, and would be further reduced to 59 weeks by mid-2012.  Also, states would be authorized to use some of the funds for job training programs.  The UI component of the bill falls short of transformational reform, but at least it precludes 99 weeks from becoming the standard duration of payments.

In order to ameliorate yet another welfare extension for conservative members, two more sweeteners were added: 1) A law to force Obama’s hand on the Keystone Pipeline 2) A provision that would keep illegal immigrants from receiving the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit, by requiring that recipients provide a valid SSN.  This would save $10 billion over 10 years, according the GOP sources [more background on that issue here].  The bill also has a provision to reduce Clean Air Act regulations for industrial boilers.

The proposal, which includes the aforementioned three extensions, will cost about $200 billion.  Republicans say they will pay for it with the following reforms, many of which were adopted from the Senate Republican proposal:

  •  Extend the current two-year freeze on federal employees’ salaries from 2013 through 2015 and expand it to apply to employees of the legislative branch, including members of Congress.
  • Reduce the number of federal employees by 10% through attrition.  This would follow the framework of the Simpson-Bowles proposal to only allow the hiring of one new employee for every three who leave the federal workforce.  These reforms would be achieved by lowering discretionary spending caps another $3-4 billion per year, from 2013-2021.  This would save about $26 billion in discretionary spending over and beyond the savings achieved from the spending caps in the Budget Control Act.
  • Cut some benefits to those individuals with an adjusted gross income over $1 million.  They take some ideas from Senator Coburn’s report, such as cutting unemployment benefits for millionaires, and charging them higher premiums for Medicare part B and D (the parts that are not funded through payroll taxes).  The Medicare savings would total $31 billion over ten years.  They also propose closing an anomalous loophole that allows certain rich people to collect food stamps.  These latter proposals will save very little.
  • GOP leaders are pledging to eliminate some unspecified Obamacare spending, which, along with the aforementioned healthcare reforms, would pay for the $39 billion price-tag of the two-year doc fix.

Some other provisions include the following (from the Speaker’s website)

  • Changes the co-pay structure for civilian federal retirees (saves $36 billion).
  • Raises Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) guarantee fees to better price the risks GSEs cover and reduce their unfair advantages over the private sector (saves $38 billion).
  • Includes spectrum auctions and other reforms to bring in significant revenues for taxpayers by making more efficient and effective use of the public’s airwaves (saves $16 billion).
  • Reforms the National Flood Insurance Program by eliminating the pre­mium subsidy for certain properties (saves $4 billion).

While all these ideas are meritorious, I would point out that most of the $200 billion shortfall from the extension package (roughly $120 from the payroll tax cut, $35 from UI [that number is probably low], and the rest from doc fix and small business tax expensing) will be incurred next year (or over two years, in the case of doc fix), while the overwhelming majority of the savings ($173 billion, according to CBO) will occur during subsequent years.  If Republicans fail to conjure up some more mettle over the next few years, it is likely that these measures will continue to be extended at a cost of well over $2 trillion. Moreover, I’m a bit skeptical of optimistic predictions of reduction in federal employees, and by extension, deficit reduction, when those predictions are born out of random hiring freezes, as opposed to actual elimination of programs or agencies.  As long as the program or agency exists, it will somehow find a way perpetuate a need to retain its employees.

Let’s face it; this is not the type of thinking that will bend the trajectory on our unsustainable mandatory spending and our $15 trillion debt.

Nevertheless, I would totally support this package.  When judged together with the sweeteners, the UI reforms, and some of the cuts, this is a reasonable compromise.  As conservatives we would have rather they fight against another UI extension.  We would have also preferred an authentic one-year offset, at least for UI and doc fix, but at least we got a legitimate compromise, not just a capitulation.

However, we still need to answer the million dollar question.  When Democrats inevitably refuse to pass the GOP package, will they finally hold the line on their own promises this time, or will they pass all the extensions without the reforms, riders, and spending offsets?  We’ve been down this road before, where leadership entices conservatives into supporting a watered-down, but satisfactory plan, only to pocket the support and completely cave to the Democrats.  They haven’t been willing to go to the brink on spending bills when it came time to defund Obamacare and EPA rules.  Will this time be different?

Before conservatives lend their support to this extension package, they should secure a guarantee from leadership that they will hold the line on most of the riders and reforms.  This package must be the final offer.

Let’s not get played like fools once again.

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    Reasonable compromise is a really good way to put it…and it takes this potentially dangerous low-hanging fruit off the vine. This way, we can hammer Dems on the weakness of their federal budget positions and debt accumulation and shut them up on their tax cuts for working families jibber-jabber in one quick swoop.

    • YnotNOW

      And so yes, this might be the best we can get.
      It would be much better if we could get all of the spending “cuts” and none of the spending “increases” (in scare quotes because I don’t trust the actual numbers CBO projects). But not only would this never pass the Senate, it would also be demogoged (spelling?) to death in the media, and play into the Democrat election strategy of class warfare.

      That is, of course, if we can even hold the line with this much “compromise.”

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      It’s the money that was used to show that Obamacare reduces the deficit (according to the CBO) that everyone knew would always be replaced some other way.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        :)

        • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

          Your right, I should have explained it more.

          Basically, like any other government market-distorter, the trustees of Medicare must determine how much they are willing to pay doctors for services (this mainly applies to Medicare Party B). They have concuted all different formulas, but some time in the ’90s, they created the Sustainable Growth Rate, or SGR. This formula was meant to reign in out of control growth in Medicare payments.

          As we all know, the problem is that as long as major third-part market distorters, such as Medicare, Medicaid,and SCHIP exist, all healthcare costs will grow out of control. Obamacare will be the motherload of all market-distorters. So healthcare costs keep spiriling out of control, yet the SGR formula doesn’t keep up with the payments of private insurance. As such, many doctors would not except Medicare patients. Therefore, every year (beginning in 2003, I think) congress passes doc fix, which reimburses doctors for those lost payments that they incur from treating Medicare payments.

          They don’t want to permanently change the SGR because they want to pretend that they are controlling costs. So they pass doc fix every year under a temporary extension, but keep doing it every year.

          Bottom line: As the system is currently constituted (without free-market reforms), the cost of healthcare will remain high, thereby requiring congress to make this fix.

          • acat

            reimburses doctors to make sure Medicare acceptance rates stay high, i.e. doctors stay willing to accept it.

            Seems like a D.C. SNAFU to this cat.

            Mew

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            entire Medicare system, as it is currently constituted, is a self-perpetuating counterintuitive mess pf market-distortions and rationing.

          • acat

            interpreted as arguing with you, as that was not my intent.

            This cat would dearly love to privatize the whole enchilada – but it would certainly give the medical and insurance industries heartburn.

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I’ve been hearing ‘doc fix’ thrown around by insiders since the original Obamacare fight, and nobody’s ever explained it that I saw. :)

          • actuarius

            As a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Social Security Act was modified the formula for determining the amount to pay physicians. This was when SGR was introduced. It’s intent was to keep expenditures on physician services from growing faster than GDP. From the beginning, it was obvious that the SGR would reduce payments so severely that physicians would accelerate dropping Medicare patients. Each year, Congress exempts that year from the workings of the SGR so that does not happen (as much). The cumulative SGR is -21%, meaning that if it were to kick in now, the reimbursement amount would be 21% lower than they are getting.

            Physicians have been screaming to fix it permanently, but Congress has demurred. I agree with you that they can continue to pretend the SGR is in effect for things like asking CBO for a scoring. And they can do that since it, technically, is still in effect in the law.

  • Kyle-MI

    1. Will the Senate Dems allow it to pass?
    2. Will Obama then make good on his veto threat?
    3. Will the GOP then pummel Obama for his unwillingness to stand in the way of cheaper energy to the point of hurting the unemployed and raising taxes on working stiffs?

    If Obama were competent, he would sign the bill all the while complaining about the GOP and fossil fuels. I am guessing he will put tremendous pressure on the Senate Dems to scuttle the bill and then complain about the GOP’s unwillingness to compromise.

    The best outcome for the GOP would be an Obama veto. It would pit Obama against some Senate Dems and show him to be against lower energy prices as well as insincere about unemployment and tax cuts. And it would keep the Keystone pipeline issue alive until the election.

    • renl57

      “If Obama were competent, he would sign the bill all the while complaining about the GOP and fossil fuels.”

      Too late.

      Obama made a deal with the environmentalists to shoot down the Keystone XL pipeline (their top priority this year) in exchange for their support in 2012. They were considering dumping Obama until he gave them that.

      Plus, environmentalism is more important to the liberal foo-foos of DailyKOS and Moveon.org than lunch-pail issues like jobs and wages. If Obama loses environmentalists, he’ll lose DailyKOS and Moveon.org too.

      Without them and their Internet-based network of donors and organizers, Obama can’t win.

      • miconservative

        then it is all on Obama. No tax cut for middle America. No Doc fix and millions of medicare recipients losing their doctor. No extended unemployment benefits for the unemployed. All to placate extreme environmentalists. Go for it.

      • Kyle-MI

        So question 2 is answered. Can the GOP force a yes on question 1? Can the press hide it if it gets killed in the Senate? The MSM has done a fairly good job of lying through their teeth on GOP initiatives that have died at the hands of Reid. Would the pipeline really be viewed as so bad by the majority of voters that they would give Obama and the Dems a pass? Can the inept GOP pound away on this issue relentlessly enough to keep Obama and the Dems down?

        IMO, I see all parts of the GOP proposal here as popularly supported by the voters. The only thing the Dems (and the press) can do is try to play the pipeline as a poison pill, but how poisonous is it if it has strong popular support.

  • miconservative

    We need all House Republicans to get behind this plan to put some steel in Senate Republicans spines to defeat any attempts to amend it and then force it down Dems throats. Let’s see Obama veto unemployment extension, payroll tax cut and Doc fix simply because he wants to appease environmental extremists and because it doesn’t tax the rich more. Repubilcans take political control of all of these issues if this gets a strong vote in the House. Not many Dems will come along because of the reforms of UI and the fact that tax increases aren’t in the pay fors.

  • Joe Cor

    This is much to wonky. They should keep it simple. Put riders on that force Obama’s hand on Keystone and fully –not partially– defund Obamacare. That is a message that they can sell, it puts Obama and the Democrats on the defensive and accomplishes tremendous good. Why only defund certain provisions of Obamacare? Go for the whole thing. If they want all these other wonky details in the bill, well and good, but they should be marketing Keystone and Obamacare. That’s how they can win the pr on this, and in politics, you have to worry about winning. The the only way the politcal landscape in this country will ever change is if Republicans strart trying to win.

  • darl444

    to continue increasing the number of voters that will constantly be dependent on the government, lowering SS premiums, to create a greater shortfall in the future, to justify confiscating wealth from those that succeed, to make up the short fall. It will be a continuous cycle. If Government programs are so good, why are they manditory? Does Government not trust the citizens to decide whether or not the Government program is for their best interest. Clearly every new Government program is one freedom lost!

  • mspector

    “When Democrats inevitably refuse to pass the GOP package, will they finally hold the line on their own promises this time, or will they pass all the extensions without the reforms, riders, and spending offsets?”

    Gee, let me think ….

  • carolynr

    First off…I am not happy with the Republicans. Why…because they are not good at getting their message out. The reason that this XL Pipeline is not being brought up is because of Democrats. Yet…here Obama goes on TV and says it is the Republicans…and the sheeples follow suit and will probably vote some of them out REPUBLICANS). Something…we cannot afford. Obamacare needs to go…pronto if not overturned by SCOTUS. Harry Reid refuses to bring any of this up in the Democratically held Senate…THAT IS WHY WE HAVE stagnation in the Congress…and Obama just bellows lies.

    Here is the in-step for Perry. Oh…if there were ever a time…it is now. Energy…the State of Florida and Nevada (Willard’s firewall).

    You know, it is not good for a candidate to give away the whole program…because, like with Clinton, the incumbent will claim it as his own. However, I wish that someone would say this. If the bill is on the XL Pipeline…then any other amendments, additions that do not pertain ARE NOT ALLOWED. Clean bill. Yes or No on the pipeline. No Medicare…no SS …. no doctor fix added …no payroll tax cut added. Clean bill. This will play perfectly into Perry’s charge of corruption in DC, i.e., earmarks, etc.

    I posted on another thread. He has to come up with the same idea as the 20% flat tax…simple to understand. So…energy first…he can address costs for heating, i.e., if you own a 2,000 sq. ft. house and have NG it now costs $X. If the pipeline and other implementations of NG were used…it will cost $X. You save $X.
    Same scenario for gasoline. That takes care of energy.

    It is imperative that solutions to Medicare over-payment, fraud be addressed. More importantly…if people on Medicare use preventative measures…they should be rewarded with a lesser premium…because they will not have to see the doctor as much. When they have more in their pocket…their behavior might change.
    SS…this is the way to win Florida and Nevada. South Florida is almost as bad a Chicago. It is all about dirty dealing. I do know this…people that live there care only about their SS. There is a large contingency of Democratic voters…BUT….they will sell out Obama for their SS checks…trust me…many of those people have never saved a dime…and if there is no solution to SS…they get very frightened. To tell seniors that are nearing SS entitlement and those on it that their months checks will not go away…will go miles to getting Perry elected.

    See…Newtie will explain this in a way that is too convoluted…as will wonkish WILLARD.

    As far as letting this be defeated…you all know that Obama will lie and say it was the Republicans fault for not letting it get passed and he has the bully pulpit and Boehner does not know HOW TO OPEN HIS MOUTH. Perry…GET AGGRESSIVE AND OPEN YOURS.

  • MF

    Obama telling Reid not to allow it to come up for a vote. Reid can pass the Senate’s own version of a bill, and then require reconcilliation with the House bill, which will then promptly remove all of the parts that we conservatives actually care about.

    It won’t matter at all whether the House votes with full unanimity of the Republicans and many Democrats passing a bill. The Senate will never even be put into a position of voting on something that Obama can’t live with.