AP/ December 1, 2011, 10:14 PM

Senate rejects payroll tax cut extension for now

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., center, accompanied by, from left, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks to reporters about extending the payroll tax cut, Dec. 1, 2011, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., center, accompanied by, from left, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks to reporters about extending the payroll tax cut, Dec. 1, 2011, on Capitol Hill in Washington. / AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday sidetracked rival plans to extend a Social Security payroll tax cut, in dueling votes that pave the way for negotiations on a compromise on a core component of President Barack Obama's jobs program.

First, Republicans defeated Obama's plan to extend the payroll tax cut through the end of next year while also making it more generous for workers.

Minutes later, in a vote that exposed rare divisions among Senate Republicans, more than two dozen of the GOP's 47 lawmakers also voted to kill an alternative plan backed by their powerful leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to renew an existing 2 percentage point payroll tax cut.

Many Republicans and even some Democrats say the payroll tax cut hasn't worked to boost jobs and is too costly with the federal deficit requiring the government to borrow 36 cents of every dollar it spends.

The defeat of the competing plans came as House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said for the first time that renewing the payroll tax cut would boost the lagging economy, a view many in his party don't share. Boehner also promised compromise on a renewal of long-term jobless benefits through the end of 2012.

The payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits are at the center of a costly, politically-charged year-end agenda in which Democrats seem poised to prevail in renewing a tax cut that many Republicans back only reluctantly. But Republicans are insisting — in a switch from last year — that the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits be paid for by cutting spending.

Video: Obama pushes for payroll tax extension
Republicans unveil plan to extend payroll tax cut
White House readies for payroll tax cut fight

Both parties are seeking the political high ground as next year's elections loom, with Democrats accusing Republicans of siding with the rich, and Republicans countering that Democrats were taxing small business owners who create jobs.

The first payroll tax plan to fall was a Democratic measure that was the centerpiece of Obama's jobs package announced in September. It would cut the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent next year and also extend the cut to employers, with its hefty $265 billion cost paid for by slapping a 3.25 percent surtax on income exceeding $1 million.

Republicans and a handful of Democrats combined to kill the measure on a 51-49 tally that fell well short of the 60 required under Senate rules. For the first time, a Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, voted to support the millionaires' surcharge.

The White House issued a statement by Obama that accused Republicans of voting to raise taxes on 160 million people because they "refused to ask a few hundred thousand millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share." The statement didn't mention the GOP alternative.

In a surprising result, Democrats and more than two dozen Republicans voted 78-20 to kill the $120 billion GOP alternative that would have simply extended the existing 2 percentage point payroll tax cut, financed by freezing federal workers' pay through 2015 and reducing the government bureaucracy.

"Wouldn't we be better off using the proceeds of these reductions in spending to reduce the debt and deficit," said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Republican opponents "insist on helping the very wealthy while turning their back on the middle class," while another member of the leadership, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Republicans were in full-blown retreat just days after Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said on "Fox News Sunday" that "the payroll tax holiday has not stimulated job creation. We don't think that is a good way to do it."

On Thursday, however, Boehner disagreed.

"I don't think there's any question that the payroll tax relief, in fact, helps the economy," Boehner said. "You're allowing more Americans, frankly, every working American, to keep more of their money in their pocket. Frankly, that's a good thing."

Meanwhile, House Republicans readied legislation of their own that aides said likely would include the tax cut extension as well as renewed benefits for long-term victims of the worst recession in decades and a painfully slow recovery.

Boehner made clear that all costs must be paid for, and said higher taxes were a non-starter.

Thursday's votes indicated there was lots of reluctance among Republicans to renew the costly payroll tax cut, which even some Democrats said hasn't much helped the economy.

"I can't find many people who even know that they're getting it, okay?" said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who opposed both plans. "So with that being said, we're going to double down on something that we thought should have worked that didn't work."

With unemployment hovering around 9 percent nationally, Obama urged Congress in September to renew and expand the Social Security payroll tax cut for workers that he signed a year ago, and called as well for an extension of benefits that can cover up to 99 weeks for the long-term jobless.

State unemployment insurance programs guarantees coverage for six months, but as in previous downturns, Congress approved additional benefits in 2008. Expiration of those payments would mean an average loss of $296 in weekly income for 1.8 million households in January, and a total of 6 million throughout 2012.

On the tax cut extension, Republicans prefer a simple one-year continuation of the existing law, jettisoning Obama's call to deepen the cut to 3.1 percentage points on workers' first $106,800 in earnings, while expanding it to cut in half employers' Social Security contributions for their $5 million in payroll.

To pay for the measure, Senate Republicans proposed freezing federal workers' pay through 2015 — extending a two-year-freeze recommended by Obama — and reducing the bureaucracy by 200,000 jobs through attrition.

The Democratic plan would give a worker earning $50,000 a more than $1,500 tax cut; the GOP plan would provide a $1,000 tax cut for such an earner. A two-income family making $200,000 would reap a $6,000 tax cut under the Democratic plan and a $4,000 tax cut under the GOP version.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
76 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bajajohn1 says:
This is another in a long list of budgetary items that have failed the Motion To Invoke Cloture..[on debate=filibuster-60 votes needed.] by Republicans. Americans must fully understand the Republicans are obstructing job creation in our country. How anybody can support Republicans defies all logic. The payroll tax extension would have helped millions of working Americans and small business.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
commonworkingman says:
Let me get this straight. The republicans want to extend the payroll tax and pay for it by laying off 200,000 employees. If raising taxes in a bad economy will make things worse, how will laying of 200,00 employees make things better ?
reply
snewsom2997 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
There isn't some bottomless pit of resources the government has, chose the tax cut or the layoffs.
fragilehabitat replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
AS you see the earlier reply to your comment, yea, lets keep feeding the Taliban and the warlords in Afganistan and Iraq, keep feeding all of the other countries who hate America, but screw our own people here, make them live under a bridge. Its pretty simple: Republicans: Only the wealthy know what to do. Cut all social programs, kill all the Muslims, keep us scared, only the Rich know how to make a business work.
See all 5 Replies
linkicon reporticon emailicon
boatdocster says:
"Many Republicans and even some Democrats say the payroll tax cut hasn't worked to boost jobs and is too costly with the federal deficit requiring the government to borrow 36 cents of every dollar it spends."

You could say the same about the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, yet we have put up with those for 10 years plus (ANDY THEY were supposed to be temporary)- none of it financed and not creating any jobs. Yet the GOP hangs on to those rich tax perks like life eternal!! "Pox of the average Joe - if their hungry, let them eat cake!!"

USA - keep taking from the average citizen and give it all to politicians, the rich, big business and defense contractors.
reply
snewsom2997 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
They are not tax perks they are keeping what you have earned.
democracy8 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
snewsom2997--so why not the same with the payroll tax? Huh?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sdemaggie says:
It's a victory for those of us who want the larger issue of deficit spending addressed. It's a victory for those of us that place national interest above personal greed. Enough of obama's class warfare. None of his economic policies worked. It's time to switch.
reply
retm-w replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Nor have the gop's taxbreaks worked.
snewsom2997 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Sure they work they let me keep more of the money I earn, and they let you keep more of the money you earn.
See all 4 Replies
linkicon reporticon emailicon
mozwv says:
I would like to see the Republican party and all of the rich rear end kissing politicians done away with and a new Independent party created which will help the average American and relate to their problems. It is sickening to listen about not taxing the rich "job creators" while people are sleeping in their cars and standing in soup lines. Send the GOP and everyone affiliated with it packing.
reply
democracy8 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I'm with you on that!
ReckonedTruth replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Yep Mozw.. its time to get RID of all of them , and I mean ALL of them.. an allegiance to apoliticalparty has NOTHING to do with it literally..other than what can you put in a politician's pocket.. this is what these GREED ass- old ass politicians are doing. Have they LOOKED around America lately, have they? There are entire generational families, Grand Ma, Grand Pa, Mommies, Daddies, Children on welfare living in motels around this nation...Tents cities in the middle of nowhere all over america.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
betterusa says:
SS payments are paid up to $106,800 on an individual's yearly salary. As an owner of a small business we pay taxes of 6.2 percent and the employee pays 4.2 percent of their paycheck. As a taxpayer and not a millionaire, to lower the payments per person to the suggested 3.1 percent and the employer contributions to 3.1 percent is beneficial to the vast majority of working Americans. Today's politicians are clueless. Extra dollars always help businesses to buy equipment, office supplies, furniture, and do upgrades that help stimulate the economy. The simple solution is to make contributions to SS up to a $500,000/year salary. This would increase Social Security revenue yet not greatly affect someone that is making an above average wage and it would help the middle class that carries most of the tax burden. It would also give the average worker more money to put back into our economy. Unfortunately, many of our politicians do not consider the logical, simple solution and helping Americans; they only want to point a finger at the other party. My solution is: next November I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ONE INCUMBENT!
reply
retm-w replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
And as a small business owner you pass that 4.2% tax on to your customers, the worker has nowhere to pass that tax.
betterusa replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
retm-w: apparently you do not comprehend. The 4.2 tax is what comes from our employees salary; we pay a matching 6.2 percent - total 10.4 percent of SS payments while the average worker did receive a modest raise from paying less in tax. If you reduce the portions to 3.1 for the employee and the business but increase the ceiling for paying into SS; our gov't would receive more money into SS; pay out the same to all persons collecting AND have more people and business contributing into the economy. If you actually believe we pass this onto the customer, then passing on 3.1 is better than 4.2, correct?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
no1blonde says:
Bottom line - no relief for the working stiffs, continued low costs for the 1%'ers.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
notyrants says:
"Wouldn't we be better off using the proceeds of these reductions in spending to reduce the debt and deficit," said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.
-------------------------------------------

Yeah, run it just like a business, close the doors down to prevent any further overhead. Or run it just like a household, cut the power, lock the doors and don't run water until all bills are paid.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
notyrants says:
Of course, the people out of work in cases and in others making below the magic number of 100k that protects their earnings above that number from social security deductions pay the highest tax in the land. The working middle class carries the burden while the so called job creators sit around the swimming pool waiting for their next dividend check generated from their preferred stocks and exclusive hedge funds.
reply
democracy8 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The cap on SS income means that those earning below that magic number pay SS on their FULL income, while those that earn above that number do not. Not to mention that hedge fund managers, who earn millions, are taxed at a rate of only 15%.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
notyrants says:
No more taxes, read my lips, no more taxes for the rich. Raise all taxes on the peasants. The kings do not pay taxes, only the peasantry.
reply
democracy8 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
America_is_Great: Then explain why they are adamantly against increasing taxes on the wealthy but are FOR increasing taxes on those who need their money the most.
See all 76 Comments