I thought the Grover Norquist theory stated that allowing tax cuts to expire was the same as voting for a tax increase. Thus, the Norquist Republicans would not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010. If this is correct, how can the Norquist Republicans vote against extending the Obama payroll tax cuts in 2011? What am I missing? Are they not violating their pledge?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Taxes
(19 posts)-
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 16:57 #
-
Braveheart my ass! I saw this turkey and he was referring to Mel Gibson and not William Wallace, who incidentally lost. These ignorant fools are so wrapped up in their ideaology that they will do anything to be opposite of the President. Boehner is the most ineffectual leader in memory, and Kanter can't wait to grab his job. Norquist is a diquehead and he and his cronies will ruin this country. We used to have a bond that transcended class and color and age, but that's all gone now. What the hell does this have to do with Health Care or the Environment or the plethora of other junk amendments they tacked on. Boehner cut a deal and was all for this a week ago, but he can't deliver and won't keep his word.
US House votes down payroll-tax extension plan (From the BBC)
"House Republicans said they wanted negotiations with the Senate
The House of Representatives has rejected a bipartisan plan for a short-term payroll tax break, as Congress ends the year in yet another deadlock.
Republicans demanded immediate negotiations with the Senate on a year-long extension of the measure.
Without an agreement, payroll taxes will rise for 160 million workers from next month.
Unlike other budget battles this year on Capitol Hill, the latest one has exposed Republican divisions.
In the Senate, 39 Republicans voted for the two-month extension rejected by the House on Tuesday and several have disagreed publicly with their counterparts.
The dispute caps a year of partisan confrontations that sent the US to the brink of a first-ever default, prompted a historic credit-rating downgrade, and risked partial shutdowns of the federal government.
In a surprise appearance at a White House press briefing, President Barack Obama told reporters he was calling on Republican representatives to pass the Senate bill.
The president characterised the two-month extension as the only way to prevent a tax rise on 1 January.
"This is not poker, this is not a game, this shouldn't be politics as usual," he said.
In a press conference on Tuesday, Mr Boehner, with almost the entirety of the House Republican conference behind him, said the House had "done its job".
"All we need to do now is resolve our differences," he said.
'Dead on arrival'
The House's vote on Tuesday means the bill will be moved to a conference, designed to bridge differences between House and Senate versions of legislation.2011: A year of disputes in Congress
April: 11th-hour deal averts government shutdown
July: US avoids debt default by raising debt ceiling after weeks of brinkmanship
September: Republican demands to offset aid for victims of natural disasters threaten another shutdown
November: Super-committee fails to agree on new spending cuts. Automatic cuts now required by debt ceiling deal
December: Amid the payroll tax dispute, another government shutdown avoided
Mr Boehner announced eight Republican House members who would serve as negotiators, and said House Republican leadership would be also be available.
The plan voted down by the House on Tuesday was passed 89-10 by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate over the weekend.
The Senate version extended the payroll tax cut and extended benefits to the long-term unemployed for two months, as well as averting deep cuts in Medicare fees for doctors.
The cost of the bill - $33bn (£21bn) - would have been offset by a 0.1% increase on home loan guarantee fees from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The House version of the bill, passed on 13 December, would have funded the tax-cut extension a different way.
It included tighter rules for unemployment benefits, blocked certain air pollution rules, and cut more than $20bn in spending under Mr Obama's new health care law.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called the House version "dead on arrival in the Senate", where the Democrats hold a slim majority.
Both bills included a provision requiring the president to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline in 60 days.
A decision on the planned pipeline, designed to bring oil from tar sands in Alberta, Canada to Texas refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, had been pushed back, probably until after the 2012 election.
White House spokesman Jay Carney called the Senate bill "insurance" against a swift tax rise, giving Congress time to work out a full-year extension after the holiday recess.
'Braveheart' Republicans
Mr Reid is rejecting calls for talks from Republicans, who were initially reluctant to extend the tax break, saying the Senate will not return before January."We were elected for a reason... That was because the American people were tired of business as usual”
Renee Ellmers
Representative from North Carolina
"I have been trying to negotiate a year-long extension with Republicans for weeks, and I am happy to continue doing so as soon as the House of Representatives passes the bipartisan compromise to protect middle-class families, but not before then," he said on Tuesday.Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had earlier expressed optimism that the House would approve the deal.
But in closed-door meetings on Monday night, conservative Republicans reportedly rallied against signing on to the Senate compromise.
The lawmakers likened themselves to the rebel Scots in the movie Braveheart, according to the Washington Post.
"We were elected for a reason," freshman Representative Renee Ellmers from North Carolina said on Monday night. "That was because the American people were tired of business as usual."
Mr Obama told reporters on Tuesday that the payroll tax extension had been held up by a "faction" of House Republicans.
Soon after, Mr Boehner called on the president to bring Senate Democrats back to the negotiating table.
If nothing changes by 31 December 2011, annual taxes would go up by about $1,000 (£643) for the average worker."
These jerks got elected because the Bush era recession was slow in coming back. They have no mandate from anyone except the crazies to do this kind of thing. Their careers will be a lot shorter than they imagined.
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 17:38 # -
The answer...
"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama made a surprise appearance at Tuesday's White House briefing to send a message directly to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio): Quit the politicking and vote on the Senate-passed payroll tax cut. Now.
"I'm calling on the Speaker and the House Republican leadership to bring up the Senate bill for a vote," Obama said during brief remarks. "This is not poker, this is not a game," he continued. "We have more important things to worry about than saving face, or figuring out internal caucus politics."
The president's comments came just after House Republicans rejected a Senate package that would have extended a soon-to-expire payroll tax cut for another two months, with GOP leaders calling for a year-long extension or no extension at all. Other provisions in the Senate package -- an extension of unemployment insurance benefits and a stopgap measure to prevent automatic cuts to doctors' Medicare payments -- are also on track to expire on Jan. 1 without congressional action.
The White House and Senate Democrats have summarily rejected calls by House Republican leaders to go into conference and make changes to the Senate-passed bill. Instead, their strategy appears to be to put pressure on House GOP leaders to cave, bring up the Senate-passed bill for a straight up-or-down vote, and watch it pass. Tuesday's House vote wasn't a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate bill; instead, it was on a "motion to reject" the bill. A straight vote on the bill could expedite it directly to the president, and Democrats contend it would pass if House Republican leaders would let it come up.
Obama dismissed the House GOP argument that a two-month extension isn't long enough, since Democrats and the White House have said that they, too, agree on the need for a year-long extension. The problem, however, is that the parties can't agree on how to pay for it. The two-month extension is fully paid for and costs $33 billion; a year-long extension would come in at about $200 billion.
Obama called the two-month extension an "insurance policy" so the tax cut doesn't lapse as lawmakers take more time to sort out how to pay for the bigger package. What House Republicans are "really trying to do" by demanding changes to the Senate-passed package is "wring concessions from Democrats on issues that have nothing to do with the payroll tax cut -- issues where the parties fundamentally disagree," he said.
"Let's not play brinksmanship. The American people are weary of it; they're tired of it. They expect better," said the president, who abruptly left without taking questions."
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 17:42 # -
I was hoping for a more direct, non-partisan response. Surely someone in the Norqist camp has an explanation or at least a somewhat rational opinion. Why did the Norquist camp insist on extending the Bush tax cuts in 2010 and object to extending the Obama payroll tax cuts in 2011? And how are both postions defensible vis a vis their no tax increase pledge? Anyone? Anyone?
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 18:43 # -
Are you blind? This is their agenda. McConnell said repeatedly that his number one goal was to make Obama a one term President. They have done this again and again. Boehner, Reid and McConnel had an agrrement but the House zealots refused to go along. The Senate voted with 39 Republicans in favor of this extension, and the House Tea Party reps - goaded by Kanter - refused to bring the bill to a vote! Make no mistake, they refused to vote on this because they knew they would lose, that enough Republicans would join with the Democrats to pass this 60 day extension. Every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that should mean more than some promise they made to that imbecile Norquist. But alas, it doesn't.
And why? Because of just what is happening now in Iowa. If you oppose the wishes of the Super Pacs, they can pour millions in negative ads in against a candidate. And the election is over before you ever find out who gave the money for the Ads. For that you can thank the Scalia branch of the Supreme Court. In thius day and age, it is utterly absurd that we don't have online access to knowing about every single political contribution but since Citizens United, it's just a dark hole. Norquist just blackmails the members - go with me or I'll get my )unknown pals) to run ads against you the next time you run. That jughead was on 60 Minutes a month back and admitted it - that's how sure he is that the people he has bribed will not go after him.
We should have six regional primaries, completely funded by public and limited to 90 days, rotate the order in which they occur, and cut the influence of hidden money. I think Ratigan is attacking this problem partially, but it needs to happen. Otherwise, it's a sell out. People on the left understand this because they have seen it happen before. Now, when people of all classes are finding they have been screwed by the people behind the scenes that buy and control much of Congress they whine like babies. Forget that. You put Bush in, he catered to his pals, they deregulated everything so the pirates could do what they wanted, and now that your house isn't worth what you thought it was and your 401K is falling because of some failure somewhere you don't know what to do. Tough. I agree. But figure it out. Look at who got rich while you got screwed. Follow the money. While you lost your ass Gingrich and Romney and their ilk made dough and plenty of it. Plenty of Dems did too. The winning party is the one you can't see. And never will unless you stand up and fight.
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 19:29 # -
A non-partisan response to my question...anyone? anyone? anyone......
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 20:01 # -
Let me correct and clarify. I was actually hoping for a thoughtful response from someone who supports the "Norquist" pledge.
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 20:04 # -
Can't you understand what the Repub conservatives did? Obama asked for a twelve month extension of the tax break, and the Repubs loaded it with all kind of T-Party wish list crap that no one would pass. So the Dems put up a two month extension, to be revisited in January. Boehner agreed. Then the cuckoos revolted. Now if Boehner brought it to a vote they would vote against it, and he would have to ask the Repubs to vote for it, AGAINST their pledge to Norquist. The Repubs just jumped off the cliff. They always styled themselves as the party of lower taxes and strong defence. Now they are seen BY EVERYONE as the ones that were weak against Osama and by their inaction raising taxes on 160 million Americans. And insted of job creation they keep putting forward bills about abortion, gay rights, garbage social issues that they favor. I knew Boehner was a whiner and duplicitous, but I didn't believe he was this stupid. These people have ruined the GOP.
Here, let that jerk Norquist speak for himself.
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 21:18 # -
Contrast that BS from Norquist with a more cogent statement by Robert Reich:
"The defining political issue of 2012 won't be the government's size. It will be who government is for.
Americans have never much liked government. After all, the nation was conceived in a revolution against government.
But the surge of cynicism now engulfing America isn't about government's size. It's the growing perception that government isn't working for average people. It's for big business, Wall Street, and the very rich instead.
In a recent Pew Foundation poll, 77 percent of respondents said too much power is in the hands of a few rich people and corporations.
That's understandable. To take a few examples:
-- Wall Street got bailed out but homeowners caught in the fierce downdraft caused by the Street's excesses have got almost nothing.
-- Big agribusiness continues to rake in hundreds of billions in price supports and ethanol subsidies. Big pharma gets extended patent protection that drives up everyone's drug prices. Big oil gets its own federal subsidy. But small businesses on the Main Streets of America are barely making it.
-- American Airlines uses bankruptcy to ward off debtors and renegotiate labor contracts. Donald Trump's businesses go bankrupt without impinging on Trump's own personal fortune. But the law won't allow you to use personal bankruptcy to renegotiate your home mortgage.
-- If you run a giant bank that defrauds millions of small investors of their life savings, the bank might pay a small fine but you won't go to prison. Not a single top Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for Wall Street's mega-fraud. But if you sell an ounce of marijuana you could be put away for a long time.
Not a day goes by without Republicans decrying the budget deficit. But the biggest single reason for the yawning deficit is big money's corruption of Washington. And it's not just corporate welfare.
One of the deficit's biggest drivers -- Medicare -- would be lower if Medicare could use its bargaining leverage to get drug companies to reduce their prices. Why hasn't it happened? Big Pharma won't allow it.
Medicare's administrative costs are only 3 percent, far below the 10 percent average administrative costs of private insurers. So why not tame rising healthcare costs for all Americans by allowing any family to opt in? That was the idea behind the "public option." Health insurers stopped it in its tracks.
The other big budgetary expense is national defense. America spends more on our military than do China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, and Germany combined. The basic defense budget (the portion unrelated to the costs of fighting wars) keeps growing, now about 25 percent higher than it was a decade ago, adjusted for inflation.
That's because defense contractors have cultivated sponsors on Capitol Hill and located their plants and facilities in politically important congressional districts.
So we keep spending billions on Cold War weapons systems like nuclear attack submarines, aircraft carriers, and manned combat fighters that pump up the bottom lines of Bechtel, Martin-Marietta, and their ilk, but have nothing to do with 21st-century combat.
Declining tax receipts are also driving the deficit. That's partly because most Americans have less income to tax these days.
Yet the richest Americans are taking home a bigger share of total income than at any time since the 1920s. Their tax payments are down because the Bush tax cuts reduced their top rates to the lowest level in more than half a century, and cut capital gains taxes to 15 percent.
Congress hasn't even closed a loophole that allows mutual-fund and private-equity managers to treat their incomes as capital gains.
So the 400 richest Americans, whose total wealth exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 150 million Americans put together, pay an average of 17 percent of their income in taxes. That's lower than the tax rates of most day laborers and child-care workers.
Meanwhile, Social Security payroll taxes continue to climb as a share of total tax revenues. Yet the payroll tax is regressive, applying only to yearly income under $106,800.
And the share of revenues coming from corporations has been dropping. The biggest, like GE, find ways to pay no federal taxes at all. Many shelter their income abroad, and every few years Congress grants them a tax amnesty to bring the money home.
**
Get it? "Big government" isn't the problem. The problem is big money is taking over government.
Government is doing less of the things most of us want it to do -- providing good public schools and affordable access to college, improving our roads and bridges and water systems, and maintaining safety nets to catch average people who fall -- and more of the things big corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy want it to do.
Some conservatives argue we wouldn't have to worry about big money taking over government if we had a smaller government to begin with.
Here's what Congressman Paul Ryan told me Sunday morning when we were debating all this on ABC's This Week:
If the power and money are going to be here in Washington, that's where the influence is going to go ... that's where the powerful are going to go to influence it.
Ryan has it upside down. A smaller government that's still dominated by money would continue to do the bidding of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, oil companies, big agribusiness, big insurance, military contractors, and rich individuals.
It just wouldn't do anything else.
If we want to get our democracy back we've got to get big money out of politics.
We need real campaign finance reform.
And a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court's bizarre rulings that under the First Amendment money is speech and corporations are people."
Get it?
Posted Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 22:10 # -
Still looking for a simple answer from someone who believes the Norquist pledge is a good thing for our country. How do those in Congress who signed the pledge justify allowing this 2011 payroll tax break to expire when they demanded the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 (based on "the pledge")? The Norquist pledge has been portrayed as an absolute. How can they negotiate around an absolute? If they allow the payroll tax break to expire, have they not broken their pledge? And will Mr. Norquist direct his considerable financial backing to defeat those Republicans who are allowing this tax break to expire?
Posted Wednesday Dec 21, 2011 09:46 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.