President Obama wanted a one-year payroll tax extension. Instead, he got something even better – a Senate-approved two-month extension bill. The legislation immediately sent House Republicans into a revolt, and they’re now fighting for exactly the useless, one-year extension Obama initially called for. They’re also hurting themselves politically in the process.
If the way House Republicans are handling the payroll tax issue is aggravating to conservatives, you can imagine how independent voters are viewing it. Which is why it’s hard to disagree with the Wall Street Journal’s advice to the House GOP: cut your losses, pass the extension, and go home.
At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly. Then go home and return in January with a united House-Senate strategy that forces Democrats to make specific policy choices that highlight the differences between the parties on spending, taxes and regulation. Wisconsin freshman Senator Ron Johnson has been floating a useful agenda for such a strategy. The alternative is more chaotic retreat and the return of all-Democratic rule.
House Republicans have bungled this miserably. The WSJ is right that the best strategy is probably to stop digging. But from a political standpoint, maybe the House GOP had the right instincts in opposing a two-month extension. The two-month timeline approved by the Senate would ensure that this battle flares up again at an extremely opportune time for Obama: right around his State of the Union address and the introduction of his FY2013 budget.
After the reception Obama’s budget received last year, wouldn’t he rather have media focus on congressional squabbling over the payroll tax cut extension – or, as Democrats refer to it, “middle class tax cuts”? Plus, a brawl over payroll taxes would be a great backdrop for the class warfare, do-nothing Congress rhetoric in his State of the Union.
At this point, House Republicans may have to accept a more temporary extension than they’d like. They may be better off saving their energy for the battles down the road.
I'm not sure howmany people are really paying attention to this right now. They definitely will after the new year, but if GOPers cave before Christmas, it will largely be lost in the noise of the holiday. And, make no mistake, they are going to cave.
Just saw Cantor on Fox babbling nonsensical excuses for this pointless excercise, trying to pretend he's looking for a "bipartisan compromise" when 89 Senators voted for exactly that. It was clever to link the pipeline to the extended tax holiday. It put Obama and Reid back on their heels and forced them to forge a compromise. n nNow, Boehner and Cantor refuse to accept thaf compromise and insist they are just looking for a compromise. Do they think voters are that stupid? n nThese guys are either brain dead or crazy. One fit of ludicrous pique by backbenchers is handing Obama the tax issue. Boehner needs to show some leadership, knock some heads. If need be, he should pass a bill with Democrat votes. Republican voters won't blame him. We are as amazed by this demonstration of irresponsibility as anyone.
I disagree with the WSJ article, and this one as well. GOP must move now to sink some teeth into this 'run and hide president' and his suited zombies (D). The GOP looses nothing–absolutely nothing on this tax cut with the American People or independents (Yours truly) because they know they (R) will be good for it later. Playing tax-cut extension ping pong every two months, or even a year right up to the election is an Obama. n n@billcubin–sure hope
I think the long game means the House GOP takes the short term hit. Make the Dems submit a full budget if they want their goodies restored.
The WSJ and Ms. Goodman have it exactly backward. The Republicans have an excellent chance, if they would only take it, to reveal this sham for what it is. Are the payroll deductions supposed to be deposited in the Social Security fund for the depositors' retirement, in which case extending the payroll holiday by two months or a year is only depleting the SS fund, something the Dems always have accused Republicans of attempting for decades. If the deductions are indeed a tax, the Dems have a lot of explaining to do about how SS designated funds end up in general revenue. n nAdditionally, the Reps should hit the lunacy of setting tax policy for two months that the WSJ and others previously noted. This is as loopy as the idea of kicking the debt ceiling debate down the road 60 or 90 days. Obama wouldn't hear of that, so why the switch. Really, the Reps need to take advantage of an opportunity to play offense.
All the projections for the future of Social Security center around the strain the baby boom generation is to put on the viability of the program. Reducing the tax rate is completely irresponsible and has always been dismissed as such when these kinds of proposals have been put forth in the past. A temporary reduction whether for two months or twelve months ensures that any short-term economic benefit will be artificial and unsustainable. After three years it isn't a surprise that the President would promote such a plan. It is extremely disappointing to see Congressional Republicans being similarly shortsighted.