President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 20, 2011 09:51 PM UTC

Boehner, Republicans Roll Dice on Middle Finger to Middle Class

  • 60 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Republicans in the House today rejected a Senate-approved payroll tax deal. As Politico reports:

With a tax hike looming for 160 million Americans on New Year’s Day, House Republicans rejected a Senate plan to extend the payroll tax holiday for two months and instead called for a conference committee to hammer out the differences between the House and Senate.

The 229-193 partisan vote capped a wild few days of legislating and sends a message that Congress has chosen partisan stalemate over finding a quick solution before taxes go up and unemployment benefits go away for millions.

House Republicans, who were taken aback by the overwhelmingly bipartisan 89-10 Senate vote on the two-month extension, are trying to force the Senate to convene an old fashioned conference committee and somehow forge agreement on a full one-year extension of the payroll tax cut. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he will not negotiate until the House passes a two-month extension.

Democrats quickly cried foul over the House rejection of the proposal. Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter issued the following statement:

“Once again, Tea Party Republicans are playing games with Americans because they want to block the President’s agenda.  Because of their irresponsible actions, 160 million Americans face a tea party tax increase in the New Year, and 48 million senior citizens may lose access to their doctors.  This is no way to run a business, a family and certainly not our nation.  Every day Republicans engage in these kinds of games is a lost opportunity to create jobs.”

Yesterday our friends at “The Fix” questioned the political logic of House Speaker John Boehner on an issue that is very popular with middle class voters — and we don’t disagree:

What House Republicans are doing amounts to a political high wire act without a net. In a recent Associated Press-GfK national poll, nearly six in ten Americans said they wanted the payroll tax cut extended including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans.

“As sloppy as things look so far, House Republicans believe their arguments about job creation will win out over Democratic talking points on process and Reid’s refusal to even negotiate,” said Eric Ueland, former chief of staff to then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

Owning that failure, however, could be a devastating blow for a party who is still adjusting to its new majority in the House – and hoping to take control of the Senate and the White House next November.

Already, the public seems inclined to blame Republicans for the lack of major accomplishments by this Congress. In a recent Pew poll, 50 percent of people said this Congress has accomplished less than previous ones; of that group 40 percent said Republican leaders were more to blame while 23 percent blamed Democratic leaders more.

It seems to us that House Republicans are badly overplaying any hand that they think they have here. They can argue about the logic of a two-month reprieve over a longer-term proposal, but those are details that will be lost to the average voter. The message that will be received is that House Republicans blocked a Senate plan to cut taxes for the middle class. Slice that up any way you like — there’s no version where it comes out looking good for the GOP.

Comments

60 thoughts on “Boehner, Republicans Roll Dice on Middle Finger to Middle Class

  1. Republican logic: Expiration of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy = tax hike = over our dead body.  Expiration of payroll tax holiday for workers = so what (can we get a pipeline for Canadian tar sands?).

    1. I don’t even like using the words Tepublicans and logic in the same sentence, but it does create a bit of a messaging problem for the good guys — how is the expiration of the SS tax holiday a “tax increase” when the scheduled expiration of the Bush handouts to the wealthy aren’t?

      Bigger and better minds than mine will be needed to sort that out.  

      1. Dems have not been shy about admitting that ending the tax break for the rich means they would be paying more and the public is on board with that. They aren’t saying one wouldn’t be an increase and the other would.  I don’t think the message could be any clearer that the difference is who is asked to sacrifice and who isn’t. It’s the GOP with the messaging problem.  

        They’ve spent years claiming there should be NO tax increases and that ANY lost cut or break IS a tax increase. They’re the ones who have been claiming these cuts don’t have to be paid for because they create jobs, create revenue and more than pay for themselves.

        Now they are saying forget all that.  Cuts for workers don’t increase revenue and do have to be paid for.  They are saying let workers’ cuts lapse because the we can’t afford them but keep the cuts for the wealthy because those don’t cost anything. They are the ones who are caught in a bind here, not making much sense, not Dems .  

  2. and that Majority leader McConnell would have been high fiving over it if he hadn’t had Boehner’s assurance that it would pass the House. Clearly they wanted it to pass with polls showing the public would most likely blame them the most for costing them their extra take home pay while protecting those who earn over a million.  Once again Boehner in particular and the GOP leadership in general are helpless, in the face of the Tea Party wing, to get anything done.  

    1. John Boehner praised the Senate two-month deal the night before he opposed it.  Here’s the scoop:

      A source on a private House GOP conference call said Boehner spoke approvingly of the Senate deal as a win for the GOP but that three other members of the leadership team – Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) – all criticized it. The source said that with the exception of Reps. Tom Cole (Okla.) and Walter Jones (N.C.), Boehner was the only person on the call to praise the deal.

      A Boehner aide said that on the conference call with House Republicans, the Speaker cited as a victory the inclusion of a provision forcing the Obama administration to expedite a decision on the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, which it had delayed until after the 2012 election. Boehner did not voice support for the Senate deal as a whole, the aide said.

      After Boehner said he opposed the Senate bill on Sunday, one Democratic aide on Capitol Hill said: “John Boehner doing a 180 from his position last night on the Senate payroll tax cut bill looks like another victory for the House Tea Party and Speaker-in-Waiting Eric Cantor.”

      1. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

      2. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

      3. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

      4. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

      5. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

      6. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

      7. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

      8. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

      9. Senators represent whole states and can’t afford to cater so exclusively to the fringe other than in very solidly red or very solidly blue states.  If more Reps had mixed districts they would be less able to cater to extremists without suffering any negative consequences. It’s all gain and no pain in so many safe districts.  

          1. BC — when I notice my screen locked up after I hit the Post button, I just wait it out.  I’m fairly sure that the software “remembers” but doesn’t provide any feedback to indicate when you hit the post button more than once.

            I also test the system’s response time by using the preview key’s behavior as a tip off of impending problems.

            Between the Google and other marketing analytics running, plus the usual ads, the response has really gotten bad recently.

            The Google Chrome browser helps somewhat.

            1. I actually know that and I do wait patiently when something like that happens   Something really strange happened this time.  I have no clue.  Another computer mystery.

                1. a “back to top of page” button at the bottom of some of these long threads.

                  I have a long history of overlooking obvious things…so be kind…please.

  3. CNN is going crazy trying to report tell viewers that Obama is right and the Congress must bypass the common use of a conference committee and accept the Senate version.

    What a show!

    1. as Congress is always known for its strict adherence to proper procedure above all else.  No games, no loopholes, no last minute deals. They’re downright sticklers – always have been.

      Bypass a conference committee ?  Call the capitol police !

    2. 1) The Senate can’t simply call a conference committee together on a dime.  It might take as much as nine days to form one, depending on how many procedural hurdles a single tea party Senator wants to throw up.  And then it takes multiple days to get a bill ripened for a vote in the Senate, assuming again one tea party (or progressive, for that matter) Senator objects.  There are only eleven days before these items expire – so there’s not even necessarily enough time to call a conference and a vote.

      2) As Rep. Jim McDermott points out…  what’s the difference between a supercommittee of 6 Rs and 6 Ds deciding on a budget, and a regular order committee of 6 Rs and 6 Ds deciding on a one-year extension to these items?  The supercommittee had six months to figure out that they couldn’t come to an agreement; this committee will only have a day or two to come to the same conclusion.

      3) Boehner has already indicated his choices for the committee – 5 of those 6 committee members have come out publicly against the payroll tax extension already.  Who do you think believes that Republicans on the committee even want an agreement?

      Boehner said he’d accept the Senate agreement, both before it was hammered out and the evening the deal was announced.  That he had to backpedal so far means he’s once again in danger of losing his speakership to the Norquist-or-bust caucus.

      Let the Senate bill come before the House for an up or down vote.  If it fails, then we can go to conference.

      1. last night that a committee is where you send bills to die, when you don’t want your fingerprints on the murder weapon.

        Clearly, the House pubs are trying to get the Senate to take part of the blame. Not gonna work.

  4. I think they’ve moved beyond the only acceptable solution is getting everything they want. It now appears to be the only acceptable solution is one the Democrats won’t vote for.

    They seem incapable of accepting yes for an answer. And that’s going to destroy them.

  5. His speech/explanation wasn’t believable and he spoke like a man who knows he’s going to have a hard time spinning his way to public approval of the House’s actions.  The public has little understanding of the arcane procedural vote and could care less.  They just want the congress to take action so they don’t see a tax increase next year or if unemployed they continue to get their unemployment checks.

    Good luck with that. I do think Boehner has been around long enough to know this isn’t going to play well in Peoria.    

  6. makes perfect sense when you remember THEY view themselves as the party of the permanent majority.  In truth their views and actions are representative of only a minority of voters in the country.

  7. If it is good for the country and improves the economy then it is good for Obama’s re-election and it must be thwarted at all costs including destroying any credibility that they really believe in their most core positions.

      1. because from day one McConnell in particular and the GOP in general have clearly and repeatedly stated exactly what their goal is: To make Obama a one term president. That’s not just the most important thing to them but pretty much the only important thing besides transferring wealth from the 99% to the top tenth of one percent as fast and as irreversibly as they can.   And they will say anything and change any position to achieve that.  They will vote against  whatever they said 15 minutes ago if Obama says it’s a good idea. We’ve all seen them do just that.  

        The TPers may believe their nonsense and most are afraid of crossing them.  For the grown ups in leadership, it’s just politics.  They don’t believe in anything but staying on top.  That’s why they were ready to pass the payroll tax cut extension. High fives all round.

        Senators have to win whole states, not just safe districts, they read polls and Boehner must have told them he could deliver. They all figured that even though it might be good for Obama, being the Grinches that stole Christmas would be worse for them so a tactical retreat was in order.  The grownups obviously thought it was a done deal and obviously thought they were in charge.  oops.  

      2. They believe. Theirs is an entirely different world view than the great majority of Americans. They’ve already seceded from the America the rest of us inhabit. Until they’re removed from power–from county coroner on up to Congress–we’re in for trouble.

      3. That’s about the number of Tea Party Republicans in the house, right?

        Dave, they are zealots. They will sink the ship and drown with it to get to heaven. Sound familiar? The world is full of them. These just happen to be evangilistic Christians. The disaster capitalists threw in with these people because they believed that to be the winning course. That was short term thinking at its’ finest.

        They had no stomach for fighting them off when this whole Palin, Limbaugh, Fox News noise machine seemed to rouse the base. They killed us in 2010. But now, the dragon is out of the cave…and to the dragon, republican tastes the same as Democrat.

        They should have abandoned it when they had a chance. But they fed it money. The rest…well, you know.

  8. Because it would stimulate the economy, and boost Obama’s chances of winning. In other words, Republicans want to prevent economic stimulus for political reasons.

    The payroll tax break provides strong demand-side stimulus. It is directed at job creators, i.e. self-employed, small, medium & large businesses who actually hire people. This form of deficit spending, has a very large multiplier, meaning that working and middle class people spend their money. The economic multiplier for the wealthy class and investors has a very low multiplier.

    Let’s stick the perfect fork in the recession:

    – Tax break for the 99%.

    – Raise taxes on the 1%

  9. I sent an Email to Coffman, telling him I am outraged that he voted to raise my taxes (as a small employer, I have to match a portion of any increase) and that although I am a Democrat, if he wants to compete in a newly competitive district, he needs to start replying to the Dems who contact him.

    No reply.  Naturally.  I don’t care who runs against him, I am working for the Dem candidate in CD-06.  

    Coffman considers us (Dems) beneath contempt.

    1. When they dropped the employee contribution, they didn’t change the business contribution. So not increase to you as a business owner if it expires.

      However, depending on your business you could see revenue drop as the economy stays stuck in neutral or possible goes into a dive.

    2. I don’t buy into the theory that it’s hopeless to pester a representative who’s in the other party or who’s known to lean a different direction than you do. They need to know that not everybody in their kingdom thinks the same as the sicophants they surround themselves with.

      And they need to be reminded, over and over.

      (I like to use good old snail mail. It keeps their staff busy opening envelopes and out of mischief. Also supports the USPS.)

  10. There is no evidence that bill raises taxes on the middle class, the title of this article is contrived by a organization and a journalist who wants to smear Republicans. Please print the facts that make this claim true, Jason. And don’t comment about me being a Republican who wants to hate this article, I’m neither Republican or Democrat.white kitchen cabinets

    1. In about a week, I can tell you to the penny how much more in taxes my staff and I will be paying, you idiot, because as a small business owner, I have all the data at my fingertips.

      Go away.  Go very far away (ooh, and take ArapaGOPher with you).

          1. mainly because this account was created minutes before this, this user’s only comment, was posted.

            It’s probably a real person who is spamming us old school.

  11. is the one the computer systems are not set up for

    Many payroll systems may not be able to make all the needed changes in January, the NPRC believes. And some may even struggle to get the job done by February.

    We get along fine with a lot of software being a little bit buggy. But payroll processing is close to the category of nuclear power, healthcare, & flight software – you want it to be perfect. And that requires time to implement and test changes.

    There’s going to be a lot of adjusting after the fact and that’s going to cause problems for a lot of people.

    1. and not a crack about techies, although I’ve been ready to strangle my new bunch.

      How come my little CPA in Boulder of all the conservative places can handle the tax changes without a problem, but the big guys, with at least more expensive techies can’t?  

      1. The cap is the problem.  The Senate bill introduces a 2-month cap for the lower rate that is equivalent to the two-month tax amount that would be deducted for a person making exactly the SSI cap.  SSI taxes are taken out at the beginning of the year; if you exceed the yearly SSI tax cap, they stop taking SSI taxes out of your paycheck when you reach the cap, rather than prorating the tax over the entire year.  So to prevent high-income people from taking unfair advantage of the lower rate, should the extension expire after the two months, they put this weird cap in place.

        That’s easy for a CPA to handle by hand, but payroll systems aren’t set up to handle this kind of two-tier rate weirdness.

        1. Still not being snotty (or well, only a little bit) but I just don’t get it.  We can put a man on the moon, but we can’t change a computer program or cure a head cold?

          1. The testing cycle for software like this is generally 6 months. 3 months is really pushing it. And if you get anything wrong it can be really bad news for the responsible parties.

            This can be added and once it is everything is peachy because it all happens automatically. But adding it in so you know the code is correct – that takes time.

            1. … should not be a 3 month process.  I think most accounting software firms can get tax fixes out in a much shorter timeframe than 3 months – the company I used to work for turned the 2010 SSI reduction around in about 1 month.

                1. The matching employee/employer linkage was hard-coded into the program.  We had to code a solution to split the rates.  Still < 1 month turnaround – it is, after all, only one field, one calculation, one data store, and one printout to change.

              1. The automated software they have does all the work internally, with some assumptions – like the ability to write out new tax tables at various levels of government taxation.  One of those assumptions, though, has been the stability of the formulas for SSI; even if the overall percentage changed, it has always been a single rate (or, starting last year, two rates – one for employee, one for employer) with a single cap, front-loaded deduction.

                These are programs that automatically track complicated payroll tasks, e.g. construction pay rates for different jobs vs. seniority of the worker vs. the amount of time the worker works at each job during any given pay period.  Or they’re systems that track tens or hundreds of thousands of workers.  

                Your average CPA doesn’t deal with the volume or complexity of data that these programs do, and generally has access to a more user-intervention capable system that doesn’t have to deal with those kinds of problems.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

199 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!