Can Republicans Steal Obama’s Thunder on Payroll Tax Cut?
EmailPresident Obama has spent the past few weeks trying to shame Republicans for their reluctance to embrace a payroll tax cut extension for workers. Now Republicans are trying to turn the tables.
Conceding that the tax break will ultimately pass the Congress with bipartisan support – last night’s Senate votes notwithstanding — GOP leaders have shifted focus of the debate to Obama’s plan to pay for it. And in doing so they’re hoping to make the president eat his own words.
Obama wants to offset an extension and expansion of the existing payroll tax cut with a new 3.25 percent surtax on all millionaires and billionaires — a plan Republicans say will go nowhere. Instead, they’re offering a menu of spending cuts that they say Obama will find difficult to refuse.
The president’s Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission, which concluded work one year ago, called for deficit reduction through, among other things, a pay freeze for federal workers, a reduction in the size of the work force by 10 percent through attrition, and means-testing benefits paid through Medicare, unemployment insurance and food stamps.
All are components of the Republican plan, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would reduce the deficit by $111 billion while extending current payroll tax cuts for one year.
In the past, Republicans also point out, Obama voiced support for several of those measures.
”The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require broad sacrifice. And that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government,” Obama said in November 2010 upon proposing a two-year pay freeze for all civilian federal workers.
As for asking wealthier Americans to pay their “fair share,” Obama said in July: ”I’ve said that means-testing on Medicare, meaning people like myself … you can envision a situation where, for somebody in my position, me having to pay a little bit more on premiums or co-pays or things like that would be appropriate. … That could make a difference.”
The president said in any negotiation “we should make sure that current beneficiaries, as much as possible, are not affected, but we should look at what can we do in the out years so that, over time, some of these programs are more sustainable.”
So does the Republican plan steal Obama’s thunder? The White House says no way.
“It’s sort of a little — pick your metaphor, window dressing or gorilla dust,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday of the means-testing proposal to pay for the extension. “It’s a fraction, as they admit, of what their pay-fors are.”
Carney said “the foundation of [Republicans'] pay-for is basically a violation of the very agreement they made just a few short months ago” — during the debt ceiling debate – because the plan they put forward requires a reduction in the spending caps agreed to in the Budget Control Act.
“That’s the kind of stuff that drives Americans crazy about Washington, where you sign a deal, you have an agreement, bipartisan agreement, then you change your mind a few months later,” he said.
Moreover, while administration officials have praised as “progress” the Republicans’ willingness to enact a payroll tax cut extension, they say their focus on the pay-fors misses a fundamental point: that Republicans don’t want to expand the payroll tax cut for workers or impose a new cut for businesses.
Unlike the Democrats’ proposal, the White House says, the GOP plan “provides one-third less tax relief for America’s workers, does not help America’s small businesses and is paid for by unbalanced cuts that would break a bipartisan deal achieved in August and would undermine the nation’s ability to invest in areas that are key to America’s future, to maintain core government functions, and to defend the United States,” according to a statement of administration Policy.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
Can Obama find SOME areas in which to CUT SPENDING? Answer no. Leadership is not his strong point.
Posted by: Logicsgood5 | December 2, 2011, 7:06 am 7:06 am
In my life I have never seen such unbridled, shameless greed like we have these days among the wealthy and the wealthy Republicans especially, of course this includes all of the Republicans in the Congress and Senate. There are hard working Americans, good hard working honest people who built America on their sweat blood and tears and they are being called lazy, stupid, looking for hand outs, the GOP should be ashamed! instead? the wealthiest Republicans demand more money and sacrifice from the middle and lower class and refuse to contribute one dime to helping their fellow Americans out of poverty. In fact they are making every effort to push them further into poverty and keep them there, even while people are literally getting sicker and sicker and literally dying. They do NOT care about you, your family, your situation, America or the state of out economy. ALL they care about is lining their own pockets. VOTE THEM OUT.
Posted by: GOP GREED | December 2, 2011, 7:13 am 7:13 am
Since the top 5% take in 40% of the nation’s income yet only contribute 15% of the nation’s consumer spending, taxing those making over $1M won’t affect the economy as much as cutting the number of Middle Class Federal workers, most of whose money get’s spent. The GOP is being disingenuous, just as they were when they first said the payroll tax cut didn’t help the economy, because the money they’re supplying to be spent in the economy is being taken away with the Federal job cuts!
Posted by: The_Mick | December 2, 2011, 7:28 am 7:28 am
I agree with the republican plan to fund these tax cuts as the most responsible way to pay for it. Having government employees bite the same bullet the rest of us are eating is not too much to ask and who among us doesn’t want a smaller government.
Posted by: Indymind | December 2, 2011, 7:28 am 7:28 am
The Republicans want us to PAY our way. Geeze! That’ not fair, huh. Makes me so angry that Dems want to keep spending our money without any repercusions at all! Can you do this at home? Bet you can’t and America can no longer do it, either. Grow up, Dems. We have got to pay our way from now on or we are in REAL TROUBLE!!
Posted by: Mary Smith | December 2, 2011, 7:31 am 7:31 am
Lets start with a pay freeze and reduction of benefits for Congress
and the Senate. Since a majority of these clowns are millionaires
and are government employees, this is a no brainer.
Posted by: michael | December 2, 2011, 7:44 am 7:44 am
What most of you dont understand is Obama is just talking out of the side of his mouth again. He doesnt really want to extend the Bush tax cuts a 2nd time. He wants to villianize Republicans and blame the congress (which already has a dismally low approval rating of 9%) for it not passing. Democrats raise taxes. Democrats dont cut taxes. Even if the Republicans agree to everything the democrats want Harry Reid and democrats in congress will vote against extending the tax cuts and run down the clock on congress like some kind of perverse basketball game until the cuts can no longer be passed. Obama will claim he tried to help the average American and blame our congress for the failure. Even though his intention was never to really pass these cuts. Are you tired of this kind of political gamesmanship? Dont re-elect anyone come November 2012 its that simple.
Posted by: Paulie | December 2, 2011, 7:45 am 7:45 am
It’s simple. Just watch out for yourself. Wall Street and the government cooperated to rape the whole country with the meltdown and the bailout. They don’t care. They’re happy as clams today thanks to lobbyists and the utter corruption of the legislative branch. If the middle class does not like getting raped, it’s time to pillage some rich folks. Try it. You’ll like it. They can take their pledges and stuff them into Gordon Nyquist’s big mouth. Or keep them. It won’t do much good if most of them are voted out. If they signed the pledge, vote them out. To heck with the philosophical stuff. Just vote them out.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 7:50 am 7:50 am
GOP Greed – You need to go back to the turn of the previous century (late 1800s, early 1900s) to find such unbridled greed of the robber-barons and politicians. It took the power of Teddy Roosevelt (hmmm…a Republican) to “bust the trusts”. Unfortunately today, the GOP would disown someone like Roosevelt as being a Progressive. Imagine, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt disavowing the actions of these great Presidents.
Posted by: Bob | December 2, 2011, 7:54 am 7:54 am
Someone is lying here. As a fed employee, I can handle my pay being frozen for two years (even though my utilities, groceries and other necessities will climb). I’ve been through this before — serve long enough and you’ll have a dem president who targets civil servants. Not everyone is a tax break recipient. Mine went up last year. I’m actually in the hole. I’d favor grabbing x% tax on those who make $1M or more to keep taxes down if gov’t wouldn’t squander so much $$ already.
Posted by: wildblue | December 2, 2011, 8:00 am 8:00 am
How about rolling Congressional pay to 2005 levels and making them pay a portion of their medical care and change their pension to be like what they advocate for the rest of us…privitize it and let it be a 401K that comes out of their pay? Not much perhaps, but it would show that Congress is willing to sacrafice right along with their constituents. Since the tax structure and laws passed by Congress seem to favor the wealthy, I see no problem in them paying a little more. I think the Republicans are fearful that a raise in taxes on the very wealthy might cut into the contributions the very wealthy make to their political campaigns. In other words, they are being self-serving at the expense of the nation.
Posted by: Catherine | December 2, 2011, 8:31 am 8:31 am
“Since the top 5% take in 40% of the nation’s income yet only contribute 15% of the nation’s consumer spending.”
Posted by: The_Mick | December 2, 2011, 7:28 am 7:28 am
The top 5% is responsible for 40% of all consumer spending. The top 10% is responsible for 50% of all consumer spending (Source: Moody’s Analytics). If you hurt them, you hurt the millions of lower and middle income people who provide them with goods and services.
Posted by: Chuck | December 2, 2011, 8:33 am 8:33 am
Obama wants to offset an extension and expansion of the existing payroll tax cut with a new 3.25 percent surtax on all millionaires and billionaires ———absolutely absurd. The millionaires and billionaires paid 70% tax rate in the 60s. 90% tax rate after WWII and held steady at the rate until the 1960s. They now pay 15%. To raise their INCOME tax rate, which still keep capital gains, which is how they make the bulk of their money, FROM 32%, where it is now, to 35% is just absurdly ineffective. They need to go BACK UP to where they were when this country was great. They owe EVERYTHING to every road that is paved inthis nation, to our power grid, to our military, to our stabile society. How much would Sam Walton make if there were no roads paved or cargo entering ports for his cheap Chinese imports to get to all his walmart stores????? what if our ports shut down, our interstate highways could nto support his trucks, the power grid did not allow his walmarts to function, the satelites did not transfer his data on inventory ,etc. who pays for that? The middle class???? reallly???????????? they dont benefit it from it to the tune of billions like you do, Sam! PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!!! When you make MILLIONS and BILLIONS off of this being ripe for making THAT much money, you owe the stability and infrastructure and military and education of this society enormously. If were all just small towns without these services, we’d go back to making our own clothes, and Walmart would be out of business! And republicans think they shouldn’t be raised 3%?????????ABSURD! Republicans are SO WRONG on this issue. They are off by a mile.
Posted by: GrannyNosBest | December 2, 2011, 8:48 am 8:48 am
The top 5% is responsible for 40% of all consumer spending. The top 10% is responsible for 50% of all consumer spending (Source: Moody’s Analytics). If you hurt them—HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! First off, LINK to where they are responsible for 40% of consumer spending. FICTION!!!! The middle class and lower class are responsible for consumer spending. And their spending has NOTHING to do with their tax rate! That has been PROVEN over an dover and over! They pay LESS THAN HALF of the tax they paid in the 60s and they have NOT hired more, or spent more! NOT EVEN CLOSE! They layoff to increase their personal wealth. They invest in china to increase their personal wealth. Their whole purpose in life to increase their personal wealth and they cannot come anywhere NEAR the other 99% needing to buy cars, food, clothes, etc. NOT EVEN CLOSE! NO WAY they come anywhere even being responsible for 30% of consumer spending. No way. If you think so, prove it.
Posted by: GrannyNosBest | December 2, 2011, 8:52 am 8:52 am
Chuck, and if you DON’T “hurt them”, they hurt the millions of lower and middle income people who provide them with goods and services, anyway! Case in point: the meltdown. So what have you got to lose, except higher taxes? Go ahead, “hurt them” as you say. They’ll never get hurt like we’ve been hurt out here in the rest of the country. They don’t hold us hostage with their wealth. We hold ourselves hostage with their wealth when we con ourselves into believing such claptrap.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 8:55 am 8:55 am
I’d favor grabbing x% tax on those who make $1M or more to keep taxes down if gov’t wouldn’t squander so much $$ already.
——-that’s a false dichotomy. Dont tell me you’re not going to raise the taxes on the wealthy because you want government to be cut. It is getting cut, and it will continue to be. But the wealthy do not pay enough taxes commesurate whith how much benefit they receive from the stability and infrastructure of this nation. If we didn’t have the roads, communication, electricity, etc, across this contitent, Walmart would be bye bye. Sam Walton would lose all his money. The rich used to pave those roads, pay for our satelites, all those things they use to make BILLIONS. Now thye’re just slackers who pay less relative taxes as a percentage of thier income than the middle class does.
Posted by: GrannyNosBest | December 2, 2011, 9:03 am 9:03 am
In the 60s, the rich paid 70% tax. In the past ten years their wealth has increased by 400%. Has yours? how can you possible “hurt” someone who has 400% MORE MONEY NOW than they had in 10 years by raising their tax rate by 3%. They will still be up 397% compared to where they were 10 years ago. If you’re wealth was ‘only’ 397% higher today, than it was 10 years ago, would you describe yourself as ‘hurting’?
Posted by: GrannynosBest | December 2, 2011, 9:09 am 9:09 am
IN the 1960s the rich paid 70% tax. We put a man on the moon. now they pay 32% on income from hourly work, and 15% on capital gains (which since most of them dont work, this is their actual tax rate). NASA had to shut down the shuttle program. Engineers are being laid off with no place to go. You think this is good for our society?
Posted by: GrannyNosBest | December 2, 2011, 9:11 am 9:11 am
Can Obama find SOME areas in which to CUT SPENDING? Answer no.
Posted by: Logicsgood5 |
I have been saying since January that Barry would NEVER agree to spending cuts that take place before Nov 2012. Never.
Posted by: foggy | December 2, 2011, 9:28 am 9:28 am
Foggy, remember the Obama/Boehner “big package” on deficit reduction that Boehner agreed to until the Kohn-heads yanked him back hard like a bad puppy? That had billions in cuts and taxes. Obama agreed to spending cuts. Boehner agreed to taxes. They would certainly agree to a similar package today if not for the pledges. Stuff all the pledges into Nyquist’s big mouth. We don’t need those stinking pledges.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 10:02 am 10:02 am
“Can Obama find SOME areas in which to CUT SPENDING? Answer no”
Can the Republicans find any courage at all to raise revenues? Answer No, because they’ve been completely browbeaten by the likes of Grover Norquist.
Posted by: numbers | December 2, 2011, 10:06 am 10:06 am
“If you hurt them, you hurt the millions of lower and middle income people who provide them with goods and services.”
Insignificant compared with how the Republicans plan to hurt the middle and lower income people by severe spending cuts and austerity measures. All this right-wing fake concern for the plight of the middle and lower classes is a fabricated scam.
Posted by: numbers | December 2, 2011, 10:10 am 10:10 am
@sameagain
Obama is happy to have you invent excuses for his ongoing failures.
Posted by: foggy | December 2, 2011, 10:15 am 10:15 am
@numbers
You are using weasel words.
How much of our money do your people want?
You keep using that word, “asuterity”. I do not think it means what you think. Our govt borrows 40% of what it spends. If we cut borrowing to 30% of what we spend would that be too “austere” for you?
Posted by: foggy | December 2, 2011, 10:26 am 10:26 am
“How much of our money do your people want?”
When you owe it, its not yours..one of the fundamental concepts in capitalism which the opportunistic ignore when convenient. . And the public is well within its legal rights to decide how much you owe, and may set tax policy according to what they think is fair. so you can spare us all the fake self righteousness.
Posted by: numbers | December 2, 2011, 10:36 am 10:36 am
Sam Walton would lose all his money.
Posted by: GrannyNosBest | December 2, 2011, 9:03 am 9:03 am
You do know Sam Walton is dead, don’t you?
Has Obama volunteered to give more of his money back? No? Why not lead by example? Hint: He and the Dems only want this a a talking point to demonize the Republicans.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | December 2, 2011, 10:42 am 10:42 am
Foggy…you said Obama would never agree to tax cuts since January. I showed you he did agree to tax cuts. I’m not offering excuses. I’m saying you are wrong in making a false statement.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 10:58 am 10:58 am
@numbers
The public does NOT have the right to take your stuff as you describe. I seriously doubt you know why.
Again, how much of our money do your people want?
Posted by: foggy | December 2, 2011, 11:02 am 11:02 am
OOps. Not tax cuts. Meant to say SPENDING cuts. My bad.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 11:05 am 11:05 am
@sameagain
I know what the spin was. I don’t know why you swallow it.
You are arguing that one of these does not belong…
- close gitmo
- if you like your plan you can keep your plan
- end bush tax cuts
- cut spending
Posted by: foggy | December 2, 2011, 11:08 am 11:08 am
Foggy…you’re spinning. Simple facts you can’t dispute. You keep bringing up other stuff. The deal was on the table. Big spending cuts. Cantor and tea party kicked the table over because of Nyquist and “the pledge”. Institutionalized corruption rampant in DC on both sides, but cuts were on the table and agreed to by Obama. At least face that one simple fact.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 11:31 am 11:31 am
“The public does NOT have the right to take your stuff as you describe”
Well if you really think it’s yours then don’t pay it….the IRS will explain it to you.
Posted by: numbers | December 2, 2011, 11:39 am 11:39 am
but cuts were on the table and agreed to by Obama. At least face that one simple fact.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 11:31 am 11:31 am
Really? What were they? Did we ever see them? Or was is just more spin from Obama, all the while demonizing the Republicans?
Posted by: wheresmymoney | December 2, 2011, 11:51 am 11:51 am
@sameagain
You believe he wants to close Gitmo.
You believe if you like your plan you can keep your plan.
You believe Obama is tough on the fat cat bankers.
You believe Barry wants to end the bush tax cuts.
You believe Barry wants to cut spending.
etc. etc. etc.
The reality is that Gitmo is open, your plan already changed, Democrats are the party of the fat cat banker, Barry extended the bush tax cuts and ain’t no spending cuts.
I’m detecting a pattern.
Posted by: foggy | December 2, 2011, 11:58 am 11:58 am
wheresmymoney…”The two sides made progress over seven weeks of talks, identifying more than $1 trillion in savings, largely through cuts in agricultural subsidies, federal employee benefits and domestic programs.” Copy and paste in google, you’ll get the LA Times article from June 25, 2011.
You pledge-bots gotta get a grip on your pledges and stuff them in Nyquist’s big fat mouth.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
Foggy…if you’re seeing patterns, maybe it’s because you’re on drugs.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
My comment never appeared so i will try again. Federal employees salaries have been frozen for this year and next year. There is also a hiring slow down /freeze in many agencies and the budgets have been cut. They contribute to their pensions and health insurance and have seen expenses go up meaning they have seen a DECREASE in their take home like most other households in the country. MANYFederal employees are already in the same boat as the general population since their salaries are frozen and their spouses are in the private sector – possibly laid off- like mine- for years. The fact that millionaires and billionaires have seen their income increase by over 200% in the past 30 years while everyone else’s stagnated does not bother the Republicans. The fact that MOST small businesses do not pay their owners Billions or Millions does not bother the Republicans. The increase teh Democrats are asking for ONLY kicks in ABOVE $1million dollars and is very small relatively speaking.
Posted by: pksk531 | December 2, 2011, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
Obama wasn’t involved in those talks.
The story you cited on June 25,2011 continues:
Now, President Obama, Boehner and Senate leaders must resolve the standoff by striking a deal to raise the nation’s borrowing limit before a threatened government default in August.
That puts Obama and the top congressional leadership in the same position as in April, when they narrowly averted a government shutdown. The stakes this time are substantially higher. Failure to increase the $14.3-trillion debt limit by Aug. 2 could produce economic disruptions including a costly rise in interest rates and borrowing.”
What was Obama doing on June 25, 2011?
“Obama Out Golfing for 13th Weekend in a Row” Sidebar, Michelle was on African Safari.
Obamabots need to research what the man is ACTUALLY doing/not doing instead of believing everything you receive from your Talking Points Media employee emails.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | December 2, 2011, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
Nothing you state changes the fact that he agreed to a trillion in cuts. I couldn’t care less if he was golfing, clearing brush, reading a book, chopping wood or anything else. You’re rebuttal is very weak in light of the facts. The political state of affairs for the GOP these days is abysmal and very delusional. Send in the Newts. This will be fun to watch. Believe it or not I’m an independent. It’s just that I pay attention to facts. I know who is intransigent and who isn’t. Pledge-bots do not benefit me in any way and that is all I care about at this point.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
Nothing you state changes the fact that he agreed to a trillion in cuts.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
He wasn’t even in the TALKS. How can you possibly suggest HE agreed to cuts? Once again, WHAT DID HE AGREE TO CUT? You have nothing, because he did nothing. My rebuttal had FACTS. Yours only states your belief.
If you have FACTS, please post the proposal Obama had, with specific cuts he was willing to make.
I don’t believe you are an independent. Your comment to Foggy about being on drugs is a typical liberal tactic. If you have no intelligent rebuttal to a comment, attack the person. Juvenile.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | December 2, 2011, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
Nothing you state changes the fact that he agreed to a trillion in cuts.
Posted by: sameagain | December 2, 2011, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
He wasn’t even in the TALKS. How can you possibly suggest HE agreed to cuts? Once again, WHAT DID HE AGREE TO CUT? You have nothing, because he did nothing. My rebuttal had FACTS. Yours only states your belief.
If you have FACTS, please post the proposal Obama had, with specific cuts he was willing to make.
I don’t believe you are an independent. Your comment to Foggy about being on drugs is a typical liberal tactic. If you have no intelligent rebuttal to a comment, attack the person. Predictable.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | December 2, 2011, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
Sameagin, I responded twice and ABC has elected not to show the facts. Shorter version.
Obama didn’t agree to anything because he was never in the negotions. Those are the FACTS.
I don’t believe you are an independent because of your response to Foggy. It is typical liberal tactic. If you have no intelligent rebuttal attack the person. Classic.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | December 2, 2011, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
@ wheresmymoney … I recall seeing President Obama speaking to the country on live television saying that he thought it was time for the wealthier americans, including himself, to pay a little more if that is what it would take to help the country out of this situation. Were you sleeping? Or just sitting in a bar somewhere griping about what those “damn liberals” were doing to your country? The wealthiest americans pay the lowest tax rates in recent history, and we are going nowhere. Any freshman economics major can figure that out. Our politicians have too much palm-grease to lose by trying to raise taxes on their most influential campaign donors, though, so it probably won’t change.
Posted by: Eilene | December 2, 2011, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm