Today the Senate approved a $33 billion bill to extend unemployment benefits, extend the payroll tax cut, and avoid pay cuts for doctors who accept Medicare. The bill, which was passed in the Senate 89 to 10, is said to be necessary to keep the economy in check because without it, the payroll tax would rise from 4.2% to 6.2% of wages by January (about $1,000 tax increase for every $50,000 income family).
But the bill only lasts for two months.
Some politicians are criticizing the Senate's inability to approve a year long bill saying it is a "failure for the American people." The House of Representatives will begin debating the legislation next week but the passage of it is questionable because the Republicans in the House have been trying to use the payroll tax cut as a way to pass construction for Keystone XL. Obama has threatened to veto the bill if those provisions are included.
Do you believe that the bipartisan approval of the bill in the Senate, even if it only extends for a brief period of time, is a success?
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Wasn't this a bipartisan approval if it passed 89-10 in a nearly even Senate?
I believe that this is a partial success. It wont solve anything long-term and covers only a short period of time, but it will at least it will lead to another discussion on unemployment benefits upon its expiration. I am not in favor of having this go on indefinitely, but maybe next time, Congress will have a plan like economist Bruce Yandle suggested in a previously posted article: "Give the jobless extended benefits, but make sure there is a firm cut-off date. Also, have their payments diminish over that period."
I think that the bipartisan approval in the Senate was a small success. It's nice to see that Democrats and Republicans can mostly agree on one thing, but in the long run, I don't feel like it is that big of an achievement. The bill still needs to be passed by the House, which consists of many Republicans who do not approve of it. Extending the time for this tax cut will also be difficult, partly because of the coinciding Republican primaries and presidential campaigns.
Normally, I'd say that this is to success as procrastination is to doing homework. But the fact is that the decision was pushed into the heat of elections, and congress is going to be reluctant to raise taxes at a time when it could hurt their chance of reelection.
What I think is a bigger deal though is the tying of the tax cuts to Keystone XL. For one thing, Obama has threatened to veto the combined bill, but I seriously doubt he'll do so when the elections are coming up, so he's basically letting those that combined them get away with such shenanigans.
Forgot the second thing. -__-
It was probably dumb anyway.
I agree that a two month long bill might not be a overt success as the previous commentators have stated; however, it does set a recent precedent for bipartisanship which is always nice when bills have to be passed - moderately successful. Also, I agree with Brain (err ... Brian) that most parties would not want to be seen as the group that votes for an increase in taxes as elections approach because most Americans want the effects of tax money without paying taxes. Thus, this bill may actually live longer than 2 months.
Post a Comment