In payroll-tax debate, both parties rush to abandon principles
The debate in Washington about extending the payroll tax holiday has been remarkable. It has managed to put Republicans and Democrats alike in opposition to things they support, and in support of things they oppose. All at little actual benefit to them — or the rest of us.
OK, let’s make that “remarkably bad.”
Here are the basic facts: Last December, as part of a broader deal, the president and the Congress agreed to a one-year reduction of 2 percentage points in employees’ portion of payroll taxes, which are supposed to fund Social Security and Medicare. Leaders of both parties propose extending the holiday through next year. Both have tacked onto their proposal an unrelated extension of unemployment benefits. They have competing plans to offset the extension, which is projected to reduce revenues by $120 billion.
After that, there’s little agreement about anything.
Republicans don’t share President Obama’s obsession with raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” (no matter what the problem is, he says taxing “the rich” is part of the answer). Thus, he charged last week, the GOP will “barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million Americans who really need the help.”
And what qualifies as “barely lift[ing] a finger”? Why, proposing to do exactly what was done last year and exactly what Senate Democrats now propose, but with different offsets.
When Obama finally acknowledged Senate Republicans had proposed extending the tax holiday, he said he wouldn’t agree to a plan whose offsets — spending cuts — “hurt the economy.” Which requires him to ignore the fact that the tax cuts come today but, as usual, the spending cuts don’t kick in until a few years have passed, if ever.
This is the standard pattern by which Washington kicks the can down the road, in another of the president’s favorite tsk-tsk phrases.
But what’s really odd is how the debate has put Republicans and Democrats in one another’s shoes. Suddenly, Democrats profess belief that tax cuts create jobs.
Meanwhile, it’s left to Republicans to argue that lowering the payroll tax will destabilize Social Security. You know, the program the GOP supposedly wants to gut, right before pushing your wheelchair-bound grandma off a cliff.
To their credit, there are some Democrats who recognize that cutting the link between payroll taxes and Social Security only further weakens the notion that working Americans pay for the benefits they eventually receive. In fact, working Americans pay for current retirees, with nothing but a promise from Congress that future generations will do likewise decades hence.
Similarly, there are principled Republicans willing to make the case, an unpopular one in this instance, that not all tax cuts are created equal. A temporary tax cut with unpredictable effects on demand for business owners will have far less economic impact than a tax cut that is long-term and produces clear incentives.
Yet, for the most part, this debate features Democrats acting to weaken a cornerstone of the New Deal, while Republicans thumb their noses at a key underpinning of supply-side economics.
A lack of bipartisanship sets hands a-wringing, but at least partisan gridlock usually has the benefit of contrasting coherent, divergent philosophies. Voters then face a clear distinction and can opt for whichever viewpoint seems to fit the nation’s contemporary problems best.
I find it much more worrying for the parties to forsake those coherent, divergent philosophies in favor of political pandering.
That’s hardly an unprecedented occurrence, and the parties still will present stark contrasts next year in their visions for the size, scope and role of the federal government, as Obama observed in an interview broadcast Sunday on “60 Minutes.”
Yet, few contemporary problems are more pressing, more in need of clear choices for voters to evaluate, than the big three federal expenses of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and how we pay for them. Fail to offer that choice, and it’ll cost the average person a lot more than $20 a week in his paycheck.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
209 comments Add your comment
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
11:51 am
Get ready to bend over, ONCE AGAIN, middle class…..The Koch Brothers NEED that tax cut so they can hoard money and not create jobs…..
Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party….THEY DON’T MEAN NOTHING…This IS an “all in” bet by the GOP on tax cuts for the rich….Damn well better work…
Jefferson
December 15th, 2011
11:54 am
The tax should be reinstated and changed to be collected on 100% of income, along with an additional .5 %. Bills have to be paid.
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
11:54 am
You Republicans are costing yourselves and all of us $1000 so you can coddle millionares and billionares……Do you understand how stupid that looks..!?!?! I guess if that’s what you believe in…Worked in 1980…Did not work at all from 2001-2008…!!!! If you don’t want your payroll tax cut, then don’t take it….Don’t cost us all…I want mine..!!!!
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
11:54 am
JDW….read dude, just read if you can. Go back and look at the earlier posts.
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
11:56 am
Redneck….We are not wanting to tax the upper class more because we feel they have paid enough. Also if you want them to create jobs and stimulate the economy, increasing their tax burden is not the way to do it.
I am all for raising taxes but it should be a general increase throughout ALL income levels.
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
11:59 am
Didn’t realize you Republicans LIKED giving money to the government…Don’t get that….
Disagreement Over Payroll Tax Cut’s Impact on Social Security – New York Times | financialsurvivalnews.com
December 15th, 2011
11:59 am
[...] Tax in DisputeTIMESenate leaders signal progress toward avoiding tax hikeCNNCBS News -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 3,648 news [...]
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:00 pm
redneck….is the government supposed to be a profitable organization?
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
12:03 pm
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
11:56 am
———————————–
They are NOT creating jobs…They are hoarding cash…They are hurting the economy…!!!!! Your economic theory no longer works…This is not 1980….Bill Clinton did fine with his tax rates….GW Bush…not so much….Give me the tax cut…I’ll create the jobs..!!! I’ll stimulate the economy..!!! Just because they’re rich doesn’t mean they have any ideas…!!!! That’s kind of lazy to throw the wealthy some money and hope something good happens….
The US has to pull the world out of the recession…Europe can’t do it….The wealthy haven’t shown they can do it…..I CAN DO IT…..YES WE CAN..!!!!!
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
12:03 pm
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:00 pm
——————————-
You’re the one wanting to give them $1000…!!!!!
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
12:05 pm
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
11:56 am
——————————–
If you want to let the Bush tax cuts expire right now….I’ll get my checkbook out….
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:05 pm
redneck….Here is another question for you…..
Is it a corporations primary goal to create jobs?
OH you want to discuss the Clinton economy? Hmmmmm lets see who was more responsible for that situation? Bill Clinton or Newt?
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:05 pm
Redneck….you can write a check at anytime to the federal government. You do not have to wait for the tax cuts to expire.
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
12:10 pm
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:05 pm
——————————–
Unfortunately, I have a small business……I wish I ran a corporation so I could get you to bend over and apply lotion and oil to my bare feet….They’re kind of dry and irritated….
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
12:11 pm
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:05 pm
—————————
I’ll get my checkbook out when the Koch’s get their out….and Exxon Mobil and BP come off of some of those subsidies…
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:13 pm
redneck….I have three small businesses. And your point? Other than your homo erotic feelings?
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:14 pm
redneck….but in your earlier post you didnt say a word about what other people are doing. You just said that you were willing to pay more in taxes. Are you flip flopping now?
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:14 pm
Redneck….I will actually agree with you on the subsidies for oil companies. That needs to go.
The Snark
December 15th, 2011
12:28 pm
Kyle, I respect you a lot, but I’m shaking my head at your comment that “the parties … present stark contrasts … in their visions for the size, scope and role of the federal government.” Dude, how many times are you going to run to kick that football and let the Republican Party pull it away from you? The Republicans have exactly the same “vision for the size, scope and role of the federal government” that the Democrats have — namely, if it helps put them in office, they’re for it. (See, e.g., Medicare prescription coverage.) The only difference is that Republicans TALK a lot about reducing government.
Will
December 15th, 2011
12:28 pm
As a republican newspaper writer, I would be interested in your answer to my question regarding the governing ability of the republican who most likely will be elected President in 2012.
Center-right democrats in the Senate will most likely lose in 2012, thereby creating a republican majority of around 52-53 votes. The remaining 47-48 democrat minority will be more partisan and more left leaning than the current democrat majority.
So…..my question. What would make you believe that the republican who will be elected President in 2012 will be any more successful than President Obama in getting any meaningful legislation adopted by Congress?
In addition to having the votes to block any legislation, the 2012 democrat senate minority will be more partisan than the current democrat senate majority and will certainly be ready for “payback” for all the lack of cooperation from republican legislators throughout President Obama’s term.
If I know this, then certainly any republican running for president knows this. Therefore, any republican candidate running for president can promise literally anything relating to legislation (knowing that the democrat senate minority will block the legislation)and then blame the democrats when the republican president experiences the same legislative deadlock that has tied President Obama throughout his term.
Maybe you could ask these candidates this question – what makes you think you will be any more successful in breaking the legislative deadlock of partisan politics that President Obama has dealt with? When the candidates respond with something foolish like, “because my legislative program will be more “mainstream” than President Obama’s program, remind the candidate that he/she will not be dealing with a “more mainstream” democrat minority in the senate but the exact opposite as the “more mainstream” democrat senators are going to lose in 2012. When they then tell you that senate democrats who oppose the republican president’s legislation program, voters will take care of them in the 2014 mid-term election, remind them that the remaining democrats would more likely lose for supporting, not opposing a republican legislation program. When the candidate tells you hs/she will be more successful because he/she “has faith” in the fairness and/or desire of legislators to “do what’s right” regardless of politics, ask them what they have mixed with the kool aid this morning!!
Steve
December 15th, 2011
12:38 pm
The GOP have truly exposed themselves as Bi$%^es for the Rich. OWS is a manifestation of the public outrage. I can’t wait for the slaughter in 2012 when we vote these plutocratic thieves out of office.
td
December 15th, 2011
12:51 pm
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
11:54 am
You Republicans are costing yourselves and all of us $1000 so you can coddle millionares and billionares……Do you understand how stupid that looks..!?!?! I guess if that’s what you believe in…Worked in 1980…Did not work at all from 2001-2008…!!!! If you don’t want your payroll tax cut, then don’t take it….Don’t cost us all…I want mine..!!!!
So you do not believe you should be paying your insurance premium to get benefits in the future? Who is then going to pay for those SS benefits you receive? Maybe we can keep the cut now and take your share out of the benefits you receive when you get older?
Carol
December 15th, 2011
12:55 pm
John Galt
Can anyone honestly say that people are not not more dependent on government more today than they were four years ago? Fifty years ago? 100 years ago?
++++++
Are you serious? Has our country not changed in 100 years to better meet the needs of it’s citizens? Do we still us a horse and carriage to get around? Do most Americans have indoor plumbing? Everything has changed.
When you say dependent on government exactly what do you mean? What are the examples of the dependency? Or is this just keeping in line with the false idea that this is a “welfare” president with skewed evidence?
td
December 15th, 2011
12:57 pm
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
12:05 pm
The original Bush tax cuts (now they are the Obama tax cuts) are not just cuts on the top 1%. I am way middle class and the tax cuts dropped my taxes by 5% plus a tax credit for dependant child care. If you eliminate all of them then everyone will get a tax increase and guess what the budget still will not be balanced.
Tell you what. If you agree to go back to the spending levels under Clinton then I will agree to repeal with the tax cuts?
td
December 15th, 2011
1:00 pm
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
12:11 pm
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
12:05 pm
—————————
I’ll get my checkbook out when the Koch’s get their out….and Exxon Mobil and BP come off of some of those subsidies…
I am sure the Koch bothers pay more in taxes in a month then you will pay in your entire life. I am sure they pay a higher % in taxes then you pay. Is this what you call “fair share”?
Steve
December 15th, 2011
1:06 pm
Congress just passed 600 plus billion in defense spending. How is THAT not big government?
Jefferson
December 15th, 2011
1:06 pm
If you kiss your money it will grow.
Carol
December 15th, 2011
1:08 pm
td
I am sure the Koch bothers pay more in taxes in a month then you will pay in your entire life. I am sure they pay a higher % in taxes then you pay. Is this what you call “fair share”?
+++++++
And I’m sure that if GE figured out a way not to pay any taxes that the Koch Brothers have figured out how to get around paying as much as they otherwise would.
td
December 15th, 2011
1:22 pm
Steve
December 15th, 2011
1:06 pm
Congress just passed 600 plus billion in defense spending. How is THAT not big government?
Providing for the national defense is one of the few Constitutional duties of the Federal government. The rest of these programs have NO Constitutional grounds for existence.
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
1:22 pm
Steve
December 15th, 2011
1:06 pm
——————————–
And Boehner and Cantor were right there doing the cheerleading…
They were willing to default the US government to cut entitlements and are about to shut the government down for the same…Got to keep funding that military industrial complex….
They want to cut out Medicare for my Mamaw, who has worked hard all her life, so Mitt Romey (who got rich cutting jobs, not creating them) can get a tax cut….and all those government contractors won’t abandon that Neocon ship….
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 15th, 2011
1:23 pm
The Lack and Absence of Moral Principles by the Republicans: And you are a genuine FAKE blogger planted on the blog to SPEW…racism…against Ob[ozo].
——-
For example?
Didn’t think so.
Liar.
JV
December 15th, 2011
1:23 pm
Taken from The Daily Ticker December 15, 2011
What creates the job is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company’s customers. A company’s customers buy the company’s products, which, in turn, creates the need for the employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If those customers go broke, the demand for the company’s products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneur does. Ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of customers’ ability and willingness to pay for the company’s products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital.
It’s time we stopped mouthing the fiction that “rich people create the jobs.” Rich people don’t create the jobs. Our economy creates jobs. We’re all in this together. And until we return to more reasonable tax policies that help the 99% instead of just the 1%, our economy is going to go nowhere.
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
1:24 pm
td
December 15th, 2011
12:57 pm
——————————-
Just like I told Mark Richt’s buddy earlier….I’ll break out my checkbook when the Kochs break out theirs……
td
December 15th, 2011
1:24 pm
Carol
December 15th, 2011
1:08 pm
“And I’m sure that if GE figured out a way not to pay any taxes that the Koch Brothers have figured out how to get around paying as much as they otherwise would.”
Yes, GE had the Obama administration put in the loopholes specifically for their corporation that allowed them to not pay any taxes. Do you really believe Obama would do the same for the Koch brothers?
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
1:26 pm
JV
December 15th, 2011
1:23 pm
——————————–
WRONG..!!! What creates jobs is when CEO’s, CIO’s, CFO’s, and COO’s start coming up with some ideas for products and services that people are willing to pay for……They make the big bucks…it would be nice to see them come up with an idea..!!!! Besides cutting jobs, hoarding cash, and whining and complaining about “all these big government regulations..!!”…
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
1:27 pm
JV
December 15th, 2011
1:23 pm
————————————
Sorry about the confrontational tone…I didn’t read your entire post….Sounds like we’re heading down the same trail…THAT DOESN’T MAKE US SOCIALISTS…In fact, I’m quite conservative…Pro-growth in fact….
td
December 15th, 2011
1:28 pm
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
1:22 pm
“They want to cut out Medicare for my Mamaw, who has worked hard all her life, ”
That is one big fat lie and I suspect you know it. Show me any Republican bill that would end Medicare? Show me any Republican bill that would change the benefit structure for any current Medicare recipients? You can not because you are not being truthful or honest.
HDB
December 15th, 2011
1:28 pm
td…..Remember you asked me about millionaires NOT paying income taxes…….
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/pf/taxes/millionaires_income_tax/index.htm
John Galt
December 15th, 2011
1:32 pm
It’s a great diversion MarkV.
You do not refute anything that I have stated. Instead you attack the one that states it.
We are not talking about Christianity here.
We are talking about a system of government that systematically strips the individualism away and turns that individual over to the state.
And to refute it until the system has the power to force it on all is SOP.
getalife
December 15th, 2011
1:40 pm
Our President compromised to drop taxing the wealthy to get the payroll tax and extend ui.
He also compromised on the detention bill to exempt Americans.
HDB
December 15th, 2011
1:40 pm
td
December 15th, 2011
1:28 pm
“Show me any Republican bill that would end Medicare? Show me any Republican bill that would change the benefit structure for any current Medicare recipients”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/the-reviews-are-in—-gops-plans-for-medicare-medicaid-get-an-f-from-advocates-and-experts.php
HDB
December 15th, 2011
1:40 pm
or if that’s too partisan……
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/republican-plan-end-social-security-medicare-and-medicaid
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
1:42 pm
Wow it got busy in here.
td
December 15th, 2011
1:42 pm
HDB
December 15th, 2011
1:28 pm
So the older people learned how to put their money in municipal bonds (paying for government projects) to earn interest and that interest is tax exempt from Federal taxes. Could this be the only way state and local governments can raise enough money for projects? Where did the original $1 million come from to invest? Was it taxed? Why should a person be taxed on the money they earn and then again on the money when they invest the money? Have you ever heard of a Roth IRA? Is this not the same principal when you pay the tax on the money up front and they do not pay any taxes when you with draw the money at retirement? The article also talks about Capital losses and Charitable contributions. If people are being taxed on their gains should they also not be able to write off the losses?
The article is disingenuous at best.
MarkV
December 15th, 2011
1:47 pm
John Galt @1:32 pm
If I do not refute what you have stated, then it is because there is nothing in what you stated that can be discussed. If you believe that we have “a system of government that systematically strips the individualism away and turns that individual over to the state,” then I have no time for such a right wing fantasy. And it is not Marxism or communism either.
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
1:47 pm
What a slippery slope we are on!
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/opinion/alford-phone-driving/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
UGA 1999
December 15th, 2011
1:50 pm
MarkV….please define Marxism.
redneckbluedog
December 15th, 2011
1:50 pm
td
December 15th, 2011
1:24 pm
——————————–
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov
ragnar danneskjold
December 15th, 2011
1:51 pm
The temporary payroll tax cut is a drop puled from the ocean – not enough to do anything useful to make the economy go. If you really want to stimulate the economy, abolish the EPA’s power to levy a fine or prohibit any activity – make it an advisory service, of experts, for benefit of states. If you really want to stimulate the economy, abolish OSHA and Department of Agriculture, return full control – both funding and management – to the states. If you want to stimulate the economy, repeal ObamaCare, so companies will believe they can hire people without incurring stiff future tax obligations. If you want to stimulate the economy, repeal Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley and even the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, all of which are only useful for punishing the innocent and locking the barn door after the horses escape.
Nobody really wants a free economy – too much individual thinking required. So we will continue to muddle through with poor growth and thin prospects for improvement.
The Lack and Absence of Moral Principles by the Republicans
December 15th, 2011
1:52 pm
@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward) December 15th, 2011 1:23 pm
For example? Didn’t think so. Liar.
__________________________________
You DID NOT DENY being a FAKE BLOGGER EITHER!
Liar? It takes one to know one!