Boehner and House Republicans to block Senate payroll tax plan
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, foreground, with House Republican colleagues. Behind him, from left, are Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California and Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam.
/ AP Photo/J. Scott ApplewhiteUPDATED 11:34 a.m. ET
Republicans in the House of Representatives are set to block a Senate proposal to extend a popular tax cut for working Americans for two months on Tuesday, setting up a showdown between House Speaker John Boehner and his own party in the Senate plus President Obama and the Democrats.
The move is a calculated political gamble for Boehner and the House Republicans, who are unhappy Senate Republicans agreed to Democratic plans to extend the popular tax cut and benefits for unemployed workers for just two months to allow more time to work out a larger compromise on a host of issues.
If the two sides are unable to strike a deal before the end of the year, millions of Americans will take home less money when the payroll tax reverts to the higher rate next year.
But the vote is a game of chicken, as Boehner scuttled an earlier plan for a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate proposal. The latest legislative maneuver is technically a move to "disagree" with the Senate plan and set up a committee of members from both parties from both the House and Senate to work out a new compromise on legislation.
Except most senators have already left Washington for the holidays and the Senate proposal was itself a compromise between Democrats and Republicans, who overwhelmingly supported the short-term legislative option to avoid the most contentious issues and pass the popular tax cut for two months. The Senate bill passed 89-10.
Boehner's plan allows many members of Boehner's caucus to block the payroll tax cut extension without formally voting the measure down. The effect is the same, however.
Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has been largely silent on Boehner's plan to call a formal conference of both chambers to work out a legislative compromise the week before Christmas.
In an interview with USA Today on Monday, Boehner said he was optimistic the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits would be extended.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has said she opposes the plan for a formal conference and called Boehner's plan a fig leaf to cover up the fact that Republicans are opposed to the payroll tax cut.
The payroll tax affects about 160 million Americans and it was cut a year ago in an effort to stimulate the economy with a little extra cash in people's pockets. Many conservative Republicans are skeptical of the macroeconomic benefits of the payroll tax cut.
Mark Zandi, an influential economist who served as an adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, has said the economy could fall back into recession if the payroll tax cut is not extended.
Popular in Politics
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 757 Comments
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Immigration bill would require fingerprinting at 30 airports
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Both parties vow to "get to the bottom" of IRS scandal
What was America growth rate again from most of Reagan's second term when he won how many states again? (49), and we only have 50 states, not 57 like President Obama believes.
The growth rate was minimal due to the recession that persisted for MOST of Reagan's term, and the inflation that accompanied the stagnant wages that he caused.
Great question, now go research how much "spending" has increased within our Federal Government from 2001 to the Present.
Also might want to look at the increase in spending starting in Jan. 2007 and the budget deficits that have continued since.
Also might want to educate yourself on what baseline budgeting is.
Again, it was a "Prediction" of future budgets, not actuals. There is a difference. All politicians make "predictions", 99% percent of them never come true.
YES, the Republican overspent, I couldn't agree more. From $5T to $10T deficit in 8 years. That is why they were thrown out of power and for good reason.
Then way have the Democrats overspent, from $10T to $15T in just 4 years.
Don't say it was someone elses fault, THEY WERE IN CONTROL. I blame it on the Republicans when they were in charge, now are you going to step up to the plate and be honest for a change?
Why am I going to go and look up how much spending increased from 2001 - present? There weren't any "spending bills" passed from April 2001 - August 2001, yet the surplus was eliminated. I KNOW that it was the Bush tax cuts that caused the deficit to explode, and NOT spending, (though the spending was out of control under the republicans watch).
And how are you going to blame the $5 TRILLION increase in the national debt on the democrats, when they haven't gotten ANY of their initiatives past the republicans? Are you also going to blame them for the $400 BILLION that we have to annually pay because of the Bush Tax Cuts and the $380 BILLION that we're paying for the 2005 Medicare overhaul that the republicans saddled us with?
It's the same thing as if I stole your credit card, charged $10,000 on it, gave it back to you and blamed YOU for the "spending" that occurred and said that the interest that accrues each month is "your fault".
You're deluded.
When Kennedy & Reagan cut taxes, the Federal Revenues doubled, because individuals (We The People) have more disposable income, they consumed more, creating an economy that grew, thereby creating more Federal Revenues.
Huh?!?!
We were in a near perpetual RECESSION for MOST of Reagan's term, and well into the 90's.
You're obviously too young to remember it.
Federal Revenues (your income) increased during the Bush Tax Cuts.
It did not decrease, meaning the Federal Government had more to spend, not less.
When Kennedy & Reagan cut taxes, the Federal Revenues doubled, because individuals (We The People) have more disposable income, they consumed more, creating an economy that grew, thereby creating more Federal Revenues.
federal government revenues INCREASED?
Then why was the budget SURPLUS replaced with a BUDGET DEFICIT in just FOUR MONTHS, and why did the national debt DOUBLE under the republicans in congress and the white house from 2001 - 2007?
The CBO predicted the Bush tax cuts were going to add $2-1/2 TRILLION to the national debt from 2001 - 2011. They were DEAD ON ACCURATE.
Go to this link, and copy and paste where it says ANYTHING about the 2002 budget:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=606
______________________
How much has been added to the national debt from 2001 to 2011 again? Only $2 1/2 Trillion? WOW, that's great, I thought it was allot more than that. Thank goodness.....lol
No dummy. Learn how to read.
Of ALL of the additions to the national debt from 2001 - 2010, $2-1/2 TRILLION of it was directly caused by the Bush Tax Cuts.
Now it's $400 BILLION - PER YEAR for the next ten years, because in addition to the budget shortfall that the Bush Tax Cuts are STILL CAUSING, we're paying interest on the $2-1/2 TRILLION that we had to borrow from 2001 - 2011 to cover the first ten years of the bush Tax Cuts.
In 2021, we're going to owe $6-1/2 TRILLION, we're going to be paying interest on THAT, and we'll be losing over $700 BILLION - PER YEAR - to the Bush Tax Cuts.
People like you "hate the government" and think taxes should be eliminated, but when your house is on fire you're the first one to demand an IMMEDIATE RESPONSE from the government.
Tool.
Revised August 28, 2001
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=606
Frist it was not a month later, it was 13 days later.
Second, just as your liked stated "it predicted a budget surplus"
A predicted surplus does not equal an actual surplus, it was a prediction that did not happen for fiscal year 2001.
It was a BUDGETARY PROJECTION that was ELIMINATED directly because of the Bush Tax Cuts.
If your home budget is based on a $50,000 yearly income and your bills are $45,000 annually, and your income is suddenly slashed down to $35,000, your budget is NOT going to hold up and your surplus is going to be eliminated and replaced with a deficit.
That's exactly what happened to the federal government - the amount of money coming in was slashed because of the Bush tax Cuts, so the deficit was turned into a debt.
That is where the deficit came from - NOT from "spending" as Mort contends.
Remember 9/11? Revenues went down because the attack on the US. Travel and other areas of the economy was impacted. The DOT.Com bubble burst. THAT is what happened.
So the reason that the $125 BILLION budget surplus in April 2001 was eliminated BY AUGUST 2001, is because of 9/11 which happened a MONTH LATER?
How did our economy time travel backwards and forwards?
I believe Texas also gained 3 or 4 congressional seats, while California and New York lost seats. I believe Michigan and Ohio also voted for President Obama and lost seats as well.
People have been voting with their feet.
yep - right across the border from Mexico to Texas.
Congratulations.
It is folly to try to educate Hungry. You can show him over and over that 2+2=4. and he will still insist that it is 5.
Mort, you can't even BEGIN to tell me that your point is right.
ALL of the links I've provided to you CLEARLY SHOW that there was a surplus - the CBO agrees that there was, the Clinton budget says that there was, EVEN THE BUSH REGIME ADMITS IN THEIR BUDGET PROCESS THAT THERE WAS A SURPLUS - and you, only you, and you alone disagree with EVERY GOVERNMENT AGENCY and budget analysis, to present your LONE DISSENTING ****OPINION**** that there was no projected budget surplus.
You're a loon and a crackpot, that intentionally keeps his head in the sand.