Streams

Congress Postpones Standoff Over Payroll Tax

Monday, December 19, 2011

Speaker of the House U.S. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) answers reporters' questions during a brief news conference on the payroll tax vote John Boehner answers questions on the payroll tax vote. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

Partisan to the core, Congress hit a speed bump in its standoff on legislation to prevent a Social Security payroll tax increase for 160 million workers on Jan. 1. The Republican-controlled House will wait until Tuesday to reject a Senate measure providing a two-month extension of Social Security payroll tax cuts due to expire on Dec. 31.

The announcement came Monday evening after a lengthy, closed-door meeting of the House GOP rank and file.

GOP lawmakers say they want a year-long extension instead and are calling for formal negotiations with the Senate.

"It's time to stop the nonsense. We can resolve these differences and we can do it in a way that provides certainty for job creators and others," said Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, earlier in the day. He said the House would reject a bipartisan two-month extension that cleared the Senate over the weekend and seek negotiations on a bill to renew the cuts through 2012.

In an acid response, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Boehner of risking a tax increase for millions "just because a few angry tea partyers raised their voices." The Nevada Democrat ruled out new negotiations until the two-month measure is enacted.

That left the two parties approaching Christmas-week gridlock over an effort to pass core elements of President Barack Obama's jobs program - renewal of the tax cuts and long-term unemployment benefits - that Republican and Democratic leaders alike said they favored.

It was the latest and likely the last such partisan confrontation in a year of divided government that brought the Treasury to the brink of a first-ever default last summer, and more than once pushed the vast federal establishment to the edge of a partial shutdown.

This time, unlike the others, Republican divisions were prominently on display.

The two-month measure that cleared the Senate, 89-10, on Saturday had the full support of the GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who also told reporters he was optimistic the House would sign on. Senate negotiators had tried to agree on a compromise to cover a full year, but were unable to come up with enough savings to offset the cost and prevent deficits from rising.

The two-month extension was a fallback, and officials say that when McConnell personally informed Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of the deal at a private meeting, they said they would check with their rank and file.

But on Saturday, restive House conservatives made clear during a telephone conference call that they were unhappy with the measure.

Not surprisingly, the White House weighed in on the side of Obama's Democratic allies.

Spokesman Jay Carney said Boehner was for the two-month stopgap bill "before he was against it" - a claim that the House speaker flatly denied.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Carney added, `'It is not our job to negotiate between him and Senate Republicans."

McConnell's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ironically, until the House rank and file revolted, it appeared that Republicans had outmaneuvered Obama on one point.

The two-month measure that cleared the Senate required him to decide within 60 days to allow construction on a proposed oil pipeline that promises thousands of construction jobs. Obama had threatened to veto legislation that included the requirement, then did an about face.

The president recently announced he was delaying a decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 elections, meaning that while seeking a new term, he would not have to choose between disappointing environmentalists who oppose the project and blue collar unions that support it.

The Senate-passed bill, as well as one that cleared the House last week, also would avert a threatened 27 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

There was no controversy on that provision, or much of one on anything but the duration of an extension.

Democrats gleefully distributed evidence of GOP disagreement, including comments from Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Richard Lugar of Indiana and others urging the House to approve the two-month measure.

But first-term House Republicans were unmoved.

"What they (the Senate) sent us over was an insult to the American people," said Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y.

"I don't care about political implications" of letting taxes go up Jan. 1 for 160 million Americans, said Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y. "We will stay here as long as it takes in order to do what's right for the American people. That means working on Christmas, New Year's and other days. It's time to get the job done."

Professing a lack of concern about higher taxes was not a widely held position inside the party leadership, though. For both parties, the political implications seemed to matter hugely.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced it was sending automated phone calls into households in 20 targeted GOP-held districts demanding that lawmakers support the two-month extension, lest taxes go up.

Not to be outdone, the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a statement headlined "Vacation, All House Dems Ever Wanted" and claiming that Democrats wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.

It was unclear how much attention the political maneuvering would draw in a nation where consumers were in the final shopping countdown toward Christmas and the next national election was nearly a year away.

Tags:

More in:

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [1]

Kicking Cans or Not Kicking Cans – Congress’ Idea of Strategies

You have to wonder just how stupid the American voters are. They elected the current collection of crackpots and kooks. And their opinion of Congress is that they don’t approve of their performance. And I don’t mean just a little bit don’t approve. The public doesn’t approve by an overwhelming majority so large that it is inconceivable that they could win a re-election if they were running against a brick or even unopposed. But as much as the public doesn’t approve of Congress, they will blame the failure, the stupidity, the incomprehensible ineptitude, and the disingenuous disregard for the nations’ interests on every other politician but their own. This of course is a reflection of the intellectual deficiency of the electorate. If Congress were seen as just slightly out of favored or regard then the odds would be perhaps good enough to let a large segment of the voters to be satisfied with their man/woman. However when the disaffection and dislike of Congress reaches the extremes of negativity that this Congress has achieved (never has the work ‘achieved’ been used in a context where its generally positive connotation is so inappropriate) there is such a small likelihood that their representative is not part of the tainting malodorous cancer on the legislative body that they have certainly elected from amongst their best and brightest; and that is absolutely a blight upon our nation.

This Congressional cesspool of closed-minded cretins has yet again managed to demonstrate their ineffectiveness in handling an issue that the majority of voters are clearly eager to have them support. The voters may or may not be right on the issue, but their politicians are fighting over the question of whether the issue should be addressed on a longer-term basis or just ‘kicked down the road’ a couple of months. The net result of their grand strategy is to ‘not kick the can at all’. Rather than vote for it or against it, they are voting to do nothing because they want to do it differently. Of course, they are not actually doing anything.

If Congress is satisfying only one in ten people then the voters should have a simple and obvious strategy that they should follow. Voters should tell pollsters, reporters, campaign supporters, candidates, and everyone that they can what they will do in the next election. If you want to get an effective and engaged Congress then you have to put people in office that are smart enough to take steps to address the nation’s problem. Voters cannot return representative who only engage in obstructionism for no better reason than that they are against the person or party that is proposing the legislative action.

The remainder of the comment is available from now4yourconsideration's blog

Dec. 20 2011 12:15 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Sponsored

Latest Newscast

 

 

Support

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public

Feeds

Supported by