Well, it looks like the ship already sailed on extension of
the payroll tax cut. Republicans
introduced their own legislation to continue the current payroll tax cut from
6.2% to 4.2% for another year. This
proposal, which would cost
$119.6 billion in revenue for the remainder of FY 2012 and the first few
months of FY 2013, does not include the Democrat provisions to cut the
employer’s share of the payroll tax.
Yesterday, I detailed
some of my concerns from a public policy standpoint, but from a personal
standpoint I’m not complaining. Who
knows if we will receive our Social Security money? We as may as well keep the money now.
So how will they pay for the deficits that will result from
the $119 billion (additional) transfer from general revenues to Social
Security? Senator Dean Heller introduced
the following plan:
- Extend the current two-year freeze on federal employees’ salaries from 2013 through 2015 and expand it to apply to employees of the legislative branch, including members of Congress.
- Reduce the number of federal employees by 10% through attrition. This would follow the framework of the Simpson-Bowles proposal to only allow the hiring of one new employee for every three who leave the federal workforce.
- Insert a line on every tax return for the Republican version of the “Buffet Rule,” in which rich liberals can volunteer to pay more taxes.
- Cut some benefits to those individuals with an adjusted gross income over $1 million. They take some ideas from Senator Coburn’s report, such as cutting unemployment benefits for millionaires, and charging them higher premiums for Medicare part B and D (the parts that are not funded through payroll taxes). They also propose closing an anomalous loophole that allows certain rich people to collect food stamps. These latter proposals will save very little.
Senators Heller and McConnell say that their proposal saves
$230 billion over 10 years, leaving an extra $111 billion for deficit
reduction. I would point out that the
$119 billion shortfall from the payroll tax cut will be incurred next year,
while the overwhelming majority of the savings will occur during subsequent
years. Moreover, I’m a bit skeptical of
optimistic predictions of reduction in federal employees, and by extension, deficit
reduction, when those predictions are born out of random hiring freezes, as
opposed to actual elimination of programs or agencies. As long as the program or agency exists, it
will somehow find a way perpetuate a need to retain its employees.
We must also remember that there will be an additional fight
over yet another unprecedented extension of unemployment benefits. There is little sign of any
appetite on the part of Republicans to fight the extension. Will these offset cover the extra $60 billion
in unemployment spending, or will they propose other “cuts?” Again, those expenditures will be incurred
immediately.
Nevertheless, I would totally support this package. In fact, if we want to expose Social Security
as a Ponzi scheme, why not agree to a permanent cut for employers as well? At least that will engender pro-growth
stimulus. However, the million dollar
question is if Republican leaders will support their own proposal. We all know that such reductions, in lieu of
major tax increases, are dead-on-arrival with Democrats. Now that Republicans have boxed themselves
into supporting the premise of the payroll tax, they must pass it even without
the spending offsets. Will they finally
hold the line on their own promises this time?
2 comments:
I think you will like today's editorial in The Washington Examiner:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/12/tea-party-should-target-old-bulls-house-gop/1966491
It'll be interesting to see what the "compromise" plan the Democrats are coming out with is.
Post a Comment