President Obama is refusing to take yes for an answer. House Republicans have rightly acceded to his demand that they keep payroll taxes from rising at the start of the new year. He is nonetheless threatening to veto the bill because it includes other provisions he dislikes.
The Democratic plan to extend a temporary payroll-tax cut pays for it by raising taxes on high earners. The Republican version, just passed by the House, cuts spending instead. The spending cuts include some modest entitlement reforms and a gradual reduction in the maximum term of unemployment benefits from 99 to 59 weeks. The bill also reforms the unemployment-benefit system so that states have more flexibility to control costs and put people back to work. Most notably, the bill pares down onerous EPA regulations, further starves Obamacare of implementation funds, and forces the president into a decision over the stalled Keystone XL pipeline.
Advertisement
That last provision has put Democrats in a bind. Keystone is a fabled “shovel-ready” infrastructure project, a job creator, and a step on the path to greater energy independence, all of which the president claims are priorities. Obama is delaying a decision in order to court environmentalists. Republicans, by giving the issue greater publicity, are raising the political cost of this pandering — and forcing him to explain why it is more important to delay the pipeline than to approve the tax cut he has been urging in speeches around the country.
The Democrats know that their political position is weak, which is why they are now scrambling to downplay the pipeline issue and attack the unemployment-benefit reforms instead. But there, too, they face a challenge, since the administration says it also supports reducing the maximum term of unemployment benefits, even if it would reduce the maximum term less than the Republicans want.
In the context of the massive and manifold problems facing the country, H.R. 3630 is a small bill. But its components are worthwhile and the package is politically clever. Senate Democrats seem likely to kill the bill. While they have been saying for weeks that they want to cut taxes for hard-working Americans, they evidently consider it less important than stopping a pipeline that will create jobs for those hard-working Americans. We hope they change their minds. If they do not, the Republicans can add another campaign issue to their arsenal.
Oh, and by the way, the clock is ticking on the disgusting, unable/unwilling to pass a budget "democratic" senate as well. They'd better get their corrupt, anti-American licks in damaging the U.S. while the gettin' is good.
In reality, the Republicans have given Obama a path out of the untenable corner he has painted himself into. He could reverse his senseless course on the pipeline and sign the legislation claiming that his biggest priority was the payroll tax extension. He gets his "cause du jour" and then gets the added bonus of all the jobs being added to the economy just as the campaign gets into full swing. If he holds fast to his veto threat he's more incompetent than even I give him credit for.
I would love it if Transcanada would announce that they were abandoning the pipeline in favor of one going to the Canadian west coast for shipment to China because America is no longer a friendly environment for business. The MSM would have to report that story – maybe.
Don't forget that this pipeline project will create only temporary jobs. Of course temporary work is better than no work at all. Once completed, the jobs will go away. Again, this project is a temporary fix. It will also bring some money in for those who support the workers through food and lodging along the way.
The initial construction jobs would be temporary, that is true. But after the initial construction comes the necessary maintenance and inspection jobs, the jobs refining the oil and transporting it, etc. That, of course, is only the simplest of analyses.
Beyond that is the impact of an inexpensive, reliable source of oil from a friendly nation. How much money will we save if we can respond to a closing of the Straits of Hormuz with a big "So what?" How safe will our jobs be if fuel costs remain stable or even go down? Not to mention how many jobs will be created by the freeing of money in family budgets for spending on things other than fuel.
That's interesting. I'm a "troll" because I express an opinion contrary to your own. I think you have reading comprehension problems. Read my article again and then figure out exactly what I said. Use your brain before you insult and attack me for my opinion.
If anything, this will cost jobs, not create them. Diverting oil from the Midwest refineries to the coast will cause oil prices to go up, not down. Any spills that occur will further cost jobs and public money and by further investing in this dirty energy, any hope for job creation in green energy and green energy investment will be thwarted.
Let's also understand that the monies spent exploring for, producing, transporting and refining the crude oil will NOT BE USED TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS with which to kill us all !!!!!!! Without oil revenues, Iran/Libya/Venezuela/Saudi Arabia/etc CANNOT afford to buy conventional or nuclear weapons. RESULT: A much more peaceful Middle East.
I'd rather send my oil $$$ to Canada than the above 3rd World cesspools.
glenny
The construction jobs will be temporary as all jobs in that field are by definition. But the pipeline will need to be maintained and upgraded continuously. Also, a new source of oil will lead to hiring at refineries and decrease the cost of fuel. The added bonus is that the oil will be coming from a stable North American ally rather than the madness of the middle east. Proper exploitation of our own energy reserves will only serve to marginalize the middle east and lower its significance on the world stage. The pipeline is a win all around for everyone. That Obama continues to balk is purely political with no other basis.
I don't find this objectionable. The president wants the payroll tax holiday extended. The House wants the pipeline. Their bill says to him, You can have both (by signing) or you can have neither (by vetoing), but you can't have what you want if you won't give us something in return.
Obama's position on the pipeline is entirely the product of political calculation and has nothing to do with what's best for the country. He doesn't want to anger his union supporters by killing it, but he doesn't want to anger his environmentalist supporters by approving it, so he's decided to stall until after election day, even if that means the Canadians head west with the pipeline and we lose jobs as well as a valuable source of energy from a reliable ally.
It would appear conservatives should give the Speaker and his Whip some credit because this House bill exposes the Democrats' hypocracy in so many areas.
1) Oops, turns out that allowing a temporary tax cut to expire IS the same thing as a tax hike, as most conservatives and Republicans have long pointed out but which the Democrats only recently recognized with their supposed interest in another temporary extension of the payroll tax cut.
2) As it turns out, middle class tax cuts are not NEARLY as important as raising taxes on "the rich", or what many of us call class warfare.
3) Private funding providing viable (bad) energy cannot be permitted to be juxtaposed against government funding of wealthy donors to recycle campaign donations under the guise of providing non-existent (good) energy.
4) Programs emanating from anywhere other than the Central Planning Politburo of our current administration cannot be permitted to proceed lest the proletariat be reminded that Big Government doesn't always know best.
5) Notwithstanding the fact that there is ALREADY a keystone pipeline from Canada to the US, this enhancement to that existing infrastructure must be killed using environmental concerns meant to suggest it is a brand new program of destruction of our natural resources.
6) It now appears quite obvious Al Gore was lying about that Social Security lockbox after all and that Democrats have no concern whatsoever about the long term viability of that program if it can be used politically against Republicans.
7) I haven't checked exactly what EPA regulations are weakened or rolled back but I would venture to guess they were chosen to permit the Democrats the opportunity to embarrass themselves by defending them. Same goes for Obamacare implementation.
That's not a bad day at the office for the House majority. In fact, the only thing that would have made it better would have been if they'd decided to raise the ante by making the tax cut permanent and offer optional personal retirement savings accounts in lieu of participation in Social Security within this bill. In fairness, that's probably too much for a bill that already achieves so much as it is.
And it even more effectively exposes Republican hypocrisy.
What conditions would Republicans require to support an extension of the Bush tax cuts? They wouldn't require it be paid for. They wouldn't require anything else.
In fact, it would be possible to extract concessions FROM Republicans in exchange for such tax cuts.
The fact that getting Republican votes for payroll tax cuts for the middle class is like pulling teeth is very revealing. What it shows is exactly who Republicans really represent. And it isn't the middle class.
Do you mean the once middle class who are now on Social Security and depend on it for their necessities? Not only was the Social Security funds removed from the lock box, but it now helps fuel the general economy.
The Republicans would be happy to pay for the Bush tax cuts but we cannot defund the Cowboy Poets or any other silly program Congress has hoisted on us. I know there are a few more Solyndra's using our money so goodness, we wouldn't want to stop that gravy train either.
The premise that tax cuts need to be "paid for" is a faulty one that presupposes all of our money belongs to the government. Tax cuts should be "offset" by equal reductions in spending, not by a different tax hike. AND, to equate the current payroll tax legislation with the "Bush Tax Cuts" is akin to apples and oranges. But by your logic, isnt Democratic opposition to extending the Bush cuts while in favor of the payroll cuts also Hypocrisy??
The Senate will not pass this bill. And if the Senate does pass it, the President should follow through on his threat and veto it.
The public isn't impressed with Republicans trying to use coercion to get whatever they want. This pattern started with Republicans holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage in order to extract spending cuts and now Republicans are holding an extension of payroll tax cuts hostage in order to extract yet more concessions.
If Republicans really support payroll tax cuts, they should support a clean bill without conditions.
Let me ask you this. What conditions would Republicans put on tax cuts that went primarily to the wealthy? What conditions would they put on an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Answer: No conditions.
The blatantly inconsistent behavior of Republicans when it comes to tax cuts for the middle class leaves them very politically vulnerable. Ultimately, Republican politicians, despite their elitist inclinations, depend on middle class support.
It is amazing that Republicans are demanding CONCESSIONS for tax cuts. Isn't the Republican Party the party of tax cuts? Apparently not.
If it takes a little delay in getting a payroll tax cut bill passed in order for Republicans to come to their senses, then that is what will have to happen.
