Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Halfway home: Senate sends tax-rate bill to House

Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:13 PM EST
business, politics, us, cuts, tax-cuts
Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 9 photos
<p>President Barack Obama makes a statement to reporters in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, across from the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 15, 2010. (AP Photo)</p>

President Barack Obama makes a statement to reporters in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, across from the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 15, 2010. (AP Photo)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — In a reach across party lines, the Senate overwhelmingly passed sweeping legislation Wednesday to prevent a Jan. 1 income tax increase for millions and renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

The 81-19 roll call cleared the way for a suspenseful vote in the House on Thursday, where rebellious liberals announced plans to try and stiffen an estate tax provision they oppose as too generous to the rich.

President Barack Obama quickly told reporters he wants the bill passed unchanged, so it can reach his desk quickly for a signature. And Senate Republicans have warned any modification could doom the bill's prospects for passage in time to head off the tax hikes.

"I know there are different aspects of this plan to which members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, object," Obama said. "That's the nature of compromise. But we worked hard to negotiate an agreement that's a win for middle-class families and a win for our economy. And we can't afford to let it fall victim to either delay or defeat."

But House Democrats argued their proposed change would shave $23 billion off the cost of the bill and ease the impact on deficits. "It doesn't create jobs, it adds to the deficit," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said of the more generous estate tax included in the bill. "Is that the message this Congress wants to send at a time of high deficits?"

At its core, the legislation provides a two-year extension of the tax cuts at all income levels that Congress approved while George W. Bush was president. Without action, they will expire on Dec. 31.

The bill also would cut 2011 Social Security taxes for all wage earners, a reduction that will mean an extra $1,000 in take home pay for an individual earning $50,000.

In addition, the legislation renews a program of jobless benefits for millions who were laid off more than six months ago. Officials said that without the bill, government checks will be cut off for two million Americans over the holidays, and millions more over the next year.

Energy tax provisions, including extension of a government subsidy for ethanol and breaks for producers of other alternatives to oil, were added in recent days to strengthen lawmakers' support for the measure.

The legislation amounted to the first fruits of a new era of divided government, a deal sealed little more than a week ago by Obama, who is nursing a fragile economic recovery midway through his term, and Republicans whose position was greatly strengthened in last month's elections.

Concessions made by the president sparked criticism from liberals who were angered at tax cuts for the wealthy that he had long criticized. Some provisions agreed to by Republican leaders brought objections from conservatives unhappy that the cost of the jobless benefits would swell the federal budget deficit.

And in the hours before final passage, lawmakers on both sides maneuvered for political gain, a sign of renewed struggle in 2011.

A Democratic attempt to ease the paperwork burden imposed by this year's big health care bill was blocked by Republicans. Democrats countered by vetoing a GOP alternative that would have included offsetting spending cuts.

In the end, though, the tax bill drew support from 44 Democrats and 37 Republicans, testament to the appeal of lower taxes and renewal of a program of aid for victims of the recession at a time of 9.8 percent unemployment. Fourteen Democrats and five Republicans voted against the bill.

Obama's call for the House to accept the Senate-passed measure continued a postelection season of contentiousness between the president and Democrats distressed that they lost their majority in November.

For Democratic House leaders, the dilemma was evident — trying to keep faith with members of the rank and file who want to change the legislation, yet avoid at all costs having Democrats saddled with blame if taxes increase on Jan. 1.

That's what the Senate Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, warned might happen if the bill was changed.

"This agreement is not subject to being reopened," he said on Tuesday. "In other words, we have an understanding."

However, McConnell's insistence didn't extend to a series of Republican attempts to make modifications in the moments before Senate passage.

He and other Republicans sided with a failed attempt by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. to make the tax cuts permanent, and again when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., unsuccessfully proposed spending cuts to cover the cost of the unemployment benefits.

In the House, Obama's liberal critics were outspoken.

A closed-door meeting of the rank and file ended inconclusively Tuesday night, and afterward Rep. David Wu, accused the president of showing weakness in the face of an emboldened Republican Party.

"He has no street cred," the Oregon Democrat told reporters. "This tax bill is a thin part of the problem. They're going to get eaten alive by the Republicans in this chamber," he added, referring to White House officials.

By far the most controversial element of the bill concerned the estate tax. Under the measure, individual estates as large as $5 million would pass to heirs tax free — an amount that would reach $10 million for couples — with the balance taxed at a rate of 35 percent.

Under the Bush-era tax cuts, the estate tax was repealed for 2010, but scheduled to return on Jan. 1 with a top rate of 55 percent on the portion of estates above $1 million — $2 million for couples.

Unhappy with the more generous approach that Obama agreed to, House Democrats voted in a closed-door meeting last week they would not permit the legislation to reach the floor without changes.

They have since retreated from their ultimatum, and now hope they can change the measure on the floor to restore the tax to levels in effect in 2009. At the time, individuals could pass $3.5 million to their heirs, tax-free. Couples could pass $7 million, with a little tax planning, and the balance was taxed at a top rate of 45 percent.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Associated Press's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (18)
demmywemmy

"That's the nature of compromise..."

Oh thank you Professor Obama we didn't know what compromise was. And neither do you- you got took.

    Reply#1 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:52 PM EST
    Bob-970091

    You have shown you don't know, but with this bill, you have been educated.

    • 2 votes
    #1.1 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:13 PM EST
    Reply
    Legal Texanlegal

    This thief and his cohorts took the will of the people in the November elections, they wiped their butts with our wishes, and promptly gave us a so-called compromise that has thousands of "earmarks" that are bankrupting our country! If you were walking on an American street and some guy pulls a gun and demands your money , you call the police! Why is it legal(which it ain't) for government to forcibly steal your money, skim off part of it, and then spread it around in "earmarks" and "pork barrel projects"! Wake up America, if you don't resist the "unamerican federal government" you will live to see the end of American greatness and your lives of freedoms!

    • 1 vote
    Reply#2 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:14 PM EST
    Andrew_

    "Why is it legal(which it ain't) for government to forcibly steal your money, skim off part of it, and then spread it around in "earmarks" and "pork barrel projects"! "

    The the US constitution allows for the government to levy taxes. Your dislike of taxes does not make it illegal.

    Of course since you are blaming our woes exclusively on Democrats, you are ignoring the policies and earmarks that Republicans contribute to bankrupt our country.

      #2.1 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:56 PM EST
      vol fan in chatt, tn

      Legal, you are talking about the omnibus spending bill. This is a separate issue, but I agree with you on the wasteful spending.

      Andrew, none of us have a problem with levying taxes, but when is enough, enough? We should not have to spend our hard earned dollars paying for their wanton reckless wasteful spending and for subsidies for the other nearly 50% who pay nothing in federal income tax. NOTHING. I think everybody but the infirm and aged ought to pay something - after all, they use our streets, fire, schools (if you can call it that), libraries, etc., too. Maybe a flat tax is the way to go - fair for everybody and get rid of these loopholes and such.

      • 1 vote
      #2.2 - Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:41 AM EST
      OomYaaqub

      Actually, most of those things are paid for primarily at the local level, and you rarely escape state and local taxes. You never escape sales taxes--even street bums pay them when they buy a cheap bottle of wine. Have you ever heard of "fully refundable tax credits" like the EITC and Additional Child Tax Credit? They actually amount to getting free money from the IRS--it's disguised as a refund, but the money was never actually withheld. I'll bet that has your blood BOILING, but it's actually a good program because it encourages lower income people with children to work, thus setting a good example for the kids.

        #2.3 - Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:53 AM EST
        Andrew_

        "Andrew, none of us have a problem with levying taxes, but when is enough, enough?"

        When? Although I am not recommending increased taxes (I would much prefer lower spending, which no politician cares to do), in historical terms we have very low taxes.

          #2.4 - Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:06 AM EST
          Reply
          OomYaaqub

          They had to do SOMETHING and they had to do it fast. Obama's right, this IS the nature of compromise.

            Reply#3 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:17 PM EST
            pastor giftsDeleted
            James M Nunes

            If tax rates are being reduced for the wealthiest Americans and the unemployed are not paying any taxes and part time workers and the people that are working for less money are paying less taxes into the system, where is the money going to come from to reduce the deficit? The figures just don't add-up. I think these so called educated people in Washington have had a lobotomy.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#5 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:30 PM EST
            lmln64tDeleted
            Max 3PO

            It's the same old bureaucratic BS, nothing is going to move forward. The only way this system can work is for the wealthy to reinvest in the country. They can't keep sucking it dry with tax cuts and accomplish anything. The only vision the wealthy have are seeing their bank accounts grow. What happened to the visionaries that used to build things and supply jobs ? I guess Gates investing 40 mil. in mosquito nets for Africa lets him sleep better.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#7 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:51 PM EST
            vol fan in chatt, tn

            wanna know how much of your hard earned tax money went to offshore jobs in the stimulus bill? It was a bunch. Oh and the bailout for the auto companies - yeah, GM hasn't paid it all back but they are starting to build a new plant...IN MEXICO. You cool with that? How about the billions that went to China for green jobs?

            • 1 vote
            #7.1 - Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:44 AM EST
            Lampell

            GM hasn't paid it all back but they are starting to build a new plant...IN MEXICO. You cool with that? How about the billions that went to China for green jobs?

            And GM will never pay the money back, here is why: When a company goes bankrupt, much of their debt is written off and at the same time their tax losses are wiped off. In the case of GM, in order for the IPO to be successful the friendly IRS (with no influence from the administration:) allowed GM to keep 45 BILLION dollars of tax loss credits essentially insuring GM will pay no taxes for quite some time.

              #7.2 - Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:29 AM EST
              Reply
              One-Eyed Undertaker

              I mean . . . Obama's compromise is really just saying "I reached a negotiated agreement with the Republicans. Let's analyze this "negotiated agreement".

              In any negotiation, it is pivotal to know two things:

              (1) Your ideal outcome is and

              (2) Your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). That is, it's pivotal to know what happens if you just say "the hell with it" and walk out.

              A "compromise", otherwise known as a negotiated agreement, should be somewhere in between (1) and (2) above. If your negotiated agreement ends up being worse than your BATNA (number (2)), then you've been had.

              Here, Obama's stated ideal outcome was to let the cuts expire solely on the wealthy. This would increase government revenue.

              His BATNA was to walk away and let all tax cuts expire. This would increase government revenue even more--but at the expense of taking some money away from consumers.

              He could have tried to force his own legislation through congress, but it would have been stalled in the Senate by the Reps . . . resulting in the same BATNA (i.e., tax cuts expire).

              Let's see . . . from my perspective, I'd say he got screwed. He didn't get what he wanted (tax cuts expiring on the wealthy). He didn't even get his BATNA (tax cuts expire on all and government revenue jumps). He merely got a piddling 80 billion dollar concession for a limited number of consumers (i.e., the long-term unemployed) coupled with univeral tax cut extension--which depletes his revenues even further and requires him to spend more money in entitlements.

              I'd say he's been had.

                Reply#8 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:57 PM EST
                Bob-970091

                UI extensions were toast. He made a good deal, which extends them for 13 months.

                  #8.1 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:16 PM EST
                  One-Eyed Undertaker

                  1 trillion saved for government vs. 80 billion spent on several million does not equal "good deal" for anyone other than (1) the rich who saved 1 trillion and (ii) the several million whose unemployment benefits were extended.

                  The people in between (i) and (ii) (i.e., about 290 million Americans) "got took".

                    #8.2 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:34 PM EST
                    Bob-970091

                    Every one saved, ALL tax brackets avoided the most massive tax hikes in decades. The first $8k taxable was $400 saved, than around 3% for the subsequent brackets, plus the child credit would have been halved.

                    Rich cut was less than 1/5 of the deal, FICA cut was larger in dollars.
                    $120 billion for FICa alone!

                    Good compromise.

                    Typical family grossing 75k saved 3-4k in 2011.

                    • 2 votes
                    #8.3 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:43 PM EST
                    One-Eyed Undertaker

                    Every one saved, ALL tax brackets avoided the most massive tax hikes in decades.

                    I understand your point. Thanks for the facts. But, your argument includes three assumptions that I take issue with:

                    (1) It ignores the fact that the cut for 99% of Americans was never a point of contention. No one argued that the cut shouldn't apply to the 99%. As such, they never "gained anything" from Obama's negotiating. Both parties agreed that the 99% should get a cut. The issue was whether the remaining 1% should get a cut.

                    (2) It assumes the BATNA I discussed above wouldn't have been recitifed immediately as a result of political pressure. That is, If Obama had walked away from the negotiations and the cuts had expired on their terms (or been about to expire), your scenario assumes that the public outcry (of the 99% whose benefit was not a point of contention) would not have prevented the Republicans from filibustering a Democrat-proposed bill.

                    If their bluff had been called, would the Republicans really have stopped a bill that saves money for 99% of Americans because 1% didn't benefit?

                    (3) It fails to take into account the "who will be paying for this concession" issue. Namely, the middle 99% will bear a disproportionate burden of paying for (i) the tax cut to the rich and (ii) the added beenfits for the unemployed.

                    They gained nothing they wouldn't have otherwise gained, but now have a new liability ($1 trillion dollars). They got no "benefit" from the bargain.

                    Obama caved because, even thought the Republicans didn't want the cuts to expire for anyone, they threatened to let them expire on the "bottom" 99% if the top 1% didn't get the cut too. This is not a compromise.

                    Being that neither party disputed the fact that the cut should apply to 99% of americans, 95% of Americans (i.e., the 99% minus the 4% who beenfitted from the unemployment extension) got nothing they wouldn't have otherwise gotten from the "compromise".

                    • 1 vote
                    #8.4 - Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:04 PM EST
                    Reply
                    vol fan in chatt, tn

                    Obama's stated ideal outcome was to let the cuts expire solely on the wealthy. This would increase government revenue.

                    They never see it that way...NO, no, no - that's more money they think they can Spend! Wahoo!! (But not having the money has never stopped them (3 trillion in two years under Obama and the dems).

                      Reply#9 - Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:48 AM EST
                      eedd797Deleted
                      sadftsdtgvfdDeleted
                      Leave a Comment:
                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                      FUN STUFF:
                      • Leaderboard |
                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                      • Top of the Vine |
                      • Newsvine Live |
                      • Newsvine Archives |
                      • The Greenhouse
                      COMPANY STUFF:
                      • Code of Honor |
                      • Company Info |
                      • Contact Us |
                      • Jobs |
                      • User Agreement |
                      • Privacy Policy |
                      • About our ads
                      LEGAL STUFF:
                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com