Pelosi backs Obama’s tax-cut plan despite strong opposition in her caucus (The Hill)

[chill_wind]

Pelosi backs Obama’s tax-cut plan despite strong opposition in her caucus
By Mike Lillis - 09/09/11 11:58 AM ET

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday backed President Obama’s plan to extend and expand a payroll-tax holiday, despite liberals’ concerns that the move will damage Social Security.

Pelosi said said that, despite the opposition from many in her caucus, “there’s a comfort level as to what will achieve.”

“We’ve pretty much gotten to a place where there’s general acceptance that that’s going to be part of the initiative,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “This is, again, a compromise. The president feels very committed to it. … It fits comfortably in what he is proposing.”

A long list of liberal Democrats have hammered Obama’s plan to extend the 2011 payroll-tax holiday for another year, through 2012. The lawmakers warned that such a move steals from Social Security funding and threatens future senior benefits

more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/180597-pelosi-backs-obamas-tax-cut-plan-despite-opposition-of-many-in-her-caucus

[fascisthunter]

1. lol..maybe she'll make a great speech!

useless elite

[Autumn]

2. All roads lead to Rome

or another way to put it is both parties desire the same fucking thing.

[DURHAM D]

3. Once again Obama has put the House and Senate Dems in -

an ugly box. If they don't go along with his Social Security killing plans they will end up looking like they are anti-jobs. gheez

[Taverner]

4. Meh - it is what it is

There will be no great leap forward

There will be no five year plan

There will only be a die-off postponed

And as a parent, I welcome that

[glowing]

5. Something tangible and feel good would be to hand out actual

checks to the American people. $5.00 to $10.00 in someone's paycheck is ok, but really isn't all that tangible when you know its only damaging Social Security and making it rocky for the future. Just write everyone a $5,000.00 check for the next two yrs.. $10,000.00 all together. It would go a long way in helping out a family. Shoot it would pay for most people's car insurance or make a down payment for a new car. They should also fund another Cash for Clunkers program. That was extremely effective in pushing car inventory and getting vehicles with lower mpg off the road.

Why not do something that people can feel as in a lump sum of cash; especially before the holidays. And an effective buy back program of vehicles for new vehicles. It would help keep the Big 3 continue moving inventory. This time, however, the trade in should only be for American made vehicles. Why hand over our money to foreign countries like that? My family is looking to get rid of the Ford mustang and get a small sedan with good mpg.. If a cash for clunkers was re-initiated, we would buy a Ford Focus over say a Hyundai Elantra. If they have no incentive, I would have to go with a cheaper option with a better warranty package.

It doesn't make sense that they don't do programs that will help people out a bit. And they don't have to give it to everyone. They could say individuals making less than $100,000 and families making less than $150,000 would receive these checks. We don't have to pay out tax money to those who are doing much better than most.

[thereismore]

6. I agree, but it would look too much like "spending", you know. nt

[glowing]

7. President Obama was willing to give a substantial tax cut to companies

who hire a person who has been out of work 6mos or more, why not hand it directly to people as well. We know how to spend and where we need to spend it. People loved Bush for handing them money. Eventually it would end up at the banks anyway. Money always trickles up a lot faster than it ever trickles down. At the top, they tend to hoard. At the bottom, we are spread so thin, we have no option but to spend it.

[chill_wind]

8. Dean Baker:

(intro snipped- ) explains why it might not otherwise not be bad except for THIS:

Obviously the Republicans want to reduce Social Security's revenues so that they can turn the fictional Social Security crisis into a reality. If the program were to permanently lose the revenue from 2 percentage points of the payroll tax then Social Security would first face a shortfall in a bit more than a decade, rather than the quarter century of full solvency currently projected by the Trustees. And the size of the projected shortfall would be instantly doubled.

This scenario would not be a problem if President Obama had demonstrated a firm commitment to Social Security and indicated his willingness to go to the mat to protect the program. But he has done just the opposite. He has told the world that he is such a reasonable guy he is prepared to make major cuts to Social Security.

For this reason there should be no deal on a stimulus that involves a payroll tax cut. If the Republicans are attached to giving an amount equal to 2 percent of wages to workers then this could be done under another name. We can call it a refundable income tax rebate or anything else that people like. The only reason to call it a payroll tax cut is if the intention is to use this as a foot in the door for attacking Social Security.

The economy desperately needs stimulus and we should find every possible way to boost employment. It is not fair that millions of workers are unemployed or underemployed because of the incompetence of people who make economic policy. But risking the future of Social Security to temporarily bring about a modest reduction in the unemployment rate is not good policy.

The Payroll Tax Cut: A Stimulus That Progressives Should Oppose

Dean Baker
July 25, 2011

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-payroll-tax-cut-a-stimulus-that-progressives-should-oppose

DeFazio and Deutch and others appear to share the same view of it as bad policy, in the Hill OP.

A number of those lawmakers said Thursday that they’d continue to fight the extension, particularly because Obama is proposing to expand it to include employers as well as workers — a benefit not currently in place.

[gateley]

9. We have to do SOMETHING that can actually get passed, and fast.

Anybody have any better ideas? Seriously -- something that could pass the House and Senate. Nothing will make everybody happy, we all won't get our ponies, but something that SOMEWHAT palatable? I honestly don't know what we can do. :(

It's all fucking Bush's fault. And Reagan's. And then there's NAFTA. It's all coming home to roost now. What a mess.

[chill_wind]

10. ..