http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Payroll-Tax-Cut-Debate-by-John-Retherford-111222-278.html Of the riders that are still being fought over, the sweeping reforms to unemployment insurance are the most unsettling for Democrats. Many of these reforms would effectively gut the unemployment insurance system by making it more difficult to enroll to collect benefits, by making it easier for employers to deny benefits by terminating employees rather than laying them off, and by slashing the period of eligibility from 99 weeks to 59 weeks. A particularly contentious change would require all recipients of unemployment insurance who don't have a high school diploma or GED to enroll to get one. This seems sensible on the surface, except that the bill does not provide any funding to pay for this education mandate. Since cash strapped States are already struggling to provide financial aid, this unfunded mandate would prevent the population most desperately in need of unemployment benefits from collecting them. Another highly controversial provision would allow States to mandate drug testing for beneficiaries. This is a major invasion of privacy by the Federal Government (one that the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional when passed by state governments). It is also a huge giveaway to big corporations. This reform would shift the multi-million dollar cost of pre-employment drug testing from corporate ledgers onto the public ledger. Given that you seem ignorant about what was actually in the bill, this brings up the question of if you are just spouting talking points without actually knowing anything about the actual issue being discussed.
You don't think limiting unemployment benefits to people who are in educational programs they can't afford because they are unemployed is junk, if the goal of the bill is help people who are unemployed? Again, the House knew these things were not going anywhere. So passing a bill with poison pills and expecting everyone to eat it is not a particularly responsible course of action - especially given that the Senate GOP wasn't on board with it either.
indefinite benefits aren't helpful Again, the Senate knew the same thing about their bill. Harry Reid packed up and left without an agreement. Obama went on vacation to Hawaii. The House stayed in session. I disagree with the poison pill characterization. You could just as easily argue extending unemployment benefits unconditionally is a poison pill. These Lucy-and-the-football stunts Obama likes to engage in might help with short term perception and may even get him reelected. But they don't change economic reality (the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits extended in perpetuity have not improved economic growth or unemployment), and they poison the well such that he can't govern. It's nothing but these razzle dazzle sideshow distractions. Compare that to Clinton and Gingrich, ideological opponents that managed to balance the budget, pass welfare reform, NAFTA. Or Reagan and Tip O'Neil. Obama is just an ass engaging in community organizing Alinsky-style agitation and demagoguery. The Senate has not passed a budget in 900 days! Obama's economic policy consists of nickel and dime cash payouts, public construction projects, and venture socialism boondoggles in green energy using borrowed money. Pathetic.
These aren't indefinite. Not true - the Senate negotiated their bill with the blessing of the House GOP. Boehner and McConnell coordinated on it. It wasn't until several days later that the House changed their mind. Except that was what the two parties had agreed to - it's hard for that to be a poison pill when that is the intent.
One thing not commented on much is that the passage is really not a total defeat for the GOP. The longer they can withhold social security taxes from the trust fund the more they can eventually weaken it and accomplish their goal of eliminating the social security system-- a long term goal that they share with the libertarians and Ron Paul.
Now see Texxx? This is what is known as caving! The GOP’s Big Cave Why The GOP’s Payroll Tax Cut Cave Is An Even Bigger Deal Than You Think The GOP’s accession to reality on the payroll tax cut is being cast as a key victory for Democrats and President Obama. Republicans caved, the payroll tax will almost certainly be renewed, and the economy won’t take a tough hit just as the recovery’s beginning to accelerate. But it also reveals a flaw — a potentially huge flaw — in the conservative movement’s generational strategy to roll back the federal safety net. These might sound like two wildly disparate issues, but they’re actually variations on a years-long theme. And the outcome of the payroll tax debacle bodes poorly for the GOP on the rest of their long-run goals. Here’s why. For years and years, conservative elites have rested their hopes of shrinking the federal government, including its most popular programs, on the theory that if they just “starve the beast” — keep taxes low until the budget comes under enough strain that those programs have to be slashed — then Democrats will ultimately fold, rather than touch off a fiscal crisis. Republicans have scrimmaged with this strategy over the past year. The debt limit fight was premised on the Republicans’ threat that they’d put the country’s creditworthiness at risk to force Democrats to agree to spending cuts. And Democrats basically caved. Fast forward to the end of 2011, Republicans used the looming expiration of the payroll tax cut to demand further cuts to government services. “There’s no debate about whether these extensions ought to be paid for,” House Speaker John Boehner said in November. But of course Republicans ruled out financing the payroll cut with a small tax on millionaires, and demanded they be paid for with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. When Democrats resisted, that strategy blew up in his face, the payroll tax cut nearly lapsed, and Republicans took a beating with the public. So with the payroll tax cut set to lapse once again, the entire GOP leadership has backed off the demand that the policy be offset. Democrats weren’t going to let the GOP set the ground rules for that fight. And instead of entertaining the idea of even a small, temporary tax increase on wealthy people, Republican leaders have agreed to finance the payroll tax cut with yet more debt — over the strong objections of their own members. Tax cuts, and benefit programs are different beasts, and that’s why Republicans have agreed to isolate the payroll holiday from other expiring provisions. But the key is that when Republicans recognized that the public was wise to them — that their tactics were putting a popular policy in jeopardy — they backed off. The same dynamics govern the longer fight over programs like Medicare and Social Security. At some point in the months and years ahead, when policymakers are forced to weigh cuts and big reforms to those programs against higher taxes on the wealthy, Republicans will stand to own the consequences, if they push revenues off the table. What Democrats have to do is remember how they won the fight over the payroll tax cut, and stick to the same playbook.
So we have a deal then? http://news.yahoo.com/negotiators-reach-tentative-payroll-tax-cut-pact-000507483.html I love the comments at the bottom of the article. Reduce taxes, raise taxes, doesn't matter people are just miserable.
I was just listening to an interview with Michelle Bachmann explaining why she is going to vote against extending the payroll tax cut. She said that she opposes it because it isn't paid for and is taking money out of funding Social Security. When asked what she thinks of the part of the proposal that said Social security shortfall would be made up with general revenue she said she didn't like that because that money still needed be paid for. While that is fiscally sound reasoning I am wondering why she never applied that reasoning when she pushed to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Still a partial win for the GOP. No payroll taxes into the SS system. The longer the better for tje GOP as then they can jump up and down about it going broke. Hopefully Obama does not have this as a secondary plan. Probably not, but after his bogus SS commission led by two opponents of socials security one has to wonder. It was probably just another stupid attempt to please Republicans along with golfing outtings with Jeb Bush and Boehner. I sort of think he has finally realized he did not get much out of the golfing.
