Congressional Republicans used to be enthusiastic supporters of the payroll tax break. But as we've seen with an individual health care mandate, cap-and-trade plans, the DREAM Act, and a host of other issues, GOP support evaporated once Democrats said they agreed with the idea.
What's harder to understand is why, exactly, so many Republicans are now opposed to an idea they used to like. One of the more common talking points is kind of amusing, but wrong.
"We need to stop bowing to political pressure and do the right thing and make sure we don't bankrupt Social Security even further," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told POLITICO. [...]
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who is leading efforts to win a Senate GOP majority in November, has criticized the payroll tax break, saying it harms the Social Security trust fund with little economic boost to show for it. [...]
Added Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.): "This weakens Social Security ... and it is a dangerous trend."
Rush Limbaugh and the House Republican leadership have gotten in on the same game, attacking the proposed cut out of alleged concern for Social Security.
It's quite a transition, isn't it? Just a few months ago, all kinds of leading GOP voices were comfortable condemning Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme." Now, however, Republicans say they are prepared to stick the middle class with a tax hike in an election year because of their deep and abiding love for this "Ponzi scheme."
For the record, even if we put the conservatives' dubious sincerity aside, these critics are wrong on the substance. If the payroll break is extended, Social Security wouldn't be "bankrupted" or "weakened." In fact, the system wouldn't lose so much as a dime. Either these Republicans don't understand the policy debate, or they do, and they're hoping the public won't know the difference.
Either way, some of Washington's biggest foes of Social Security are doing their very best to pretend they're Social Security's biggest champions. It's a shameless, inane con.
Leave a Comment:
Republicans are waking up to the fact that it will actually hurt them with the voters. Its pure opportunism. They've been pursuing policies that are so rank in the nose of even Republican, nevermind swing or liberal, voters that they had to roll back somewhere.
This is them backing off of an unjustified electoral leap of faith.
GO for man! Don't weeny out! You might fly! The billionaires will be there to catch you!
I hope the president will take on the two-faced hypocrites in the GOP in a speech at a Florida retirement center. While it is well-and-good that Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders does so on Rachel's show or Ed's, to put a stop to this Mr. Obama needs to stand up before a group of 65-plus folks and call out Republicans on Social Security and Medicare.
"Either these Republicans don't understand the policy debate, or they do, and they're hoping the public won't know the difference."
Actually it's the "bait & switch" - last time they were "against it" because they said it "added to the deficit", now that that's been proven to be a lie, they say that they're "concerned about depleting it" - so that once "their base" see them as "concerned" and move over to their side, these gangsta politicians will be in a better position to "gut it"!!
You kind of have to give the GOP some credit their "ability to stay on message", the mendacity, obfuscations, conflagration of faux & real, divide & conquer, the manipulation of fear - they've got these tactics down pat!! The democrats on the other hand should have been taking notes all this time - they might be in a better position to talk simply about "the real issues" and back those GOP slytherin toads into the corner where they shouldn't be heard from again!!
of course thier concerned about depleting it - how else will they pay for all the wars they want to have? Remember, Bush and Co. dipped into it to help pay for Iraq and part of Afganistan. Now with Iran and Israel rattling swords I'm sure the Repubs are eyeing SS as a sustainable war chest.
Their message isn't resonating with the voters, who are realizing that the Republicans favor the rich over the interests of everyone else. They were the original proponents of the payroll tax cut. Now the latest polls show the people want higher taxes on the rich, and social security and medicare not touched. For years they let Grover Norquist make all of them sign a no tax pledge and now they are in a corner. Voters want deficit reduction but not with cuts alone, and especially not SS cuts. This has been a case of letting the tail wag the dog following Grover and Rush
"... It's a shameless, inane con."
The GOP you mean? I agree.
speaking of Ponzi schemes.
ECONOMY
Lawsuit Demands Koch Industries Return Profits From Madoff Ponzi Scheme Investments
By Josh Israel posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Feb 14, 2012 at 10:15 am
Someone is surprised that Republicans will "say anything"??? Given the attention span of the American public, which rivals that of a flea, of course they will since no one will ever call them on it. That they are doing this is a demonstration that they essentially have nothing to say: if they tell the truth about what they do want, they go down to massive defeat, but they have to say something so they say anything that they can pull out of their ass at that moment.
Boxed in by their own rhetoric the republicans must now bounce from wall to wall in an all out effort to defeat Obama, uh but withour defeating themselves. Facts and figures lie they claim.What is the truth but that which we accept as such they state.Like rats in a maze with no exit they retrace thier steps thinking this time...
Steve you explain above:
If the payroll break is extended, Social Security wouldn't be "bankrupted" or "weakened." In fact, the system wouldn't lose so much as a dime.
Please explain that statement if the payroll tax in not funded. In a piece you had up here yesterday you did mention that it should be passed without "paying for it". Just wondering what the difference is and if it isn't funded (paid for) how SS would not lose a dime. Does the SS trust fund make up the $100 billion in interest or are you impying the money would come out of another "bucket" like the general funds? I do know Rep. Boehner mentioned that they would go along with letting the $100 Billion go on the debt balance. Just honestly curious in these two differing statements.
Oh, and yes I do understand that this helps the middle and lower income groups and is a lot cheaper than the Bush tax cuts. I am not arguing about the merits of the cut and how it will only be a small item deficit wise compared to the Bush cuts - just how SS would not lose ANY $ if it is not funded. Just covering my @ss since I got some reponses yesterday about this angle:-).
Yeah Skip - there does seem to be a mathematical disconnect when it comes to "robbing Peter to pay Paul." On an everyday level, this maxim is understood - that at some point one must reimburse Peter. But on the Federal big scale level, this understanding seems to go out the window. Personally, I think it is because there is a Federal Reserve that can just print money to reimburse Peter - or maybe the thought is that the Fed is Peter. Either way it is frustrating that simple mathematics gets glossed over for party political points.
amen. We need to point out there are no free lunches. As Dirkson said, to paraphrase, a million here, a million there, we'll be talking big bucks soon
Skip,
The way this was set up is that any decrease in funding to SS through the payroll tax cut will be made up from the general fund. This way SS "won't lose so much as a dime." The general fund will lose the money. That's why there was a big deal about "paygo". The problem the Reps. have is they have said for, like forever, that you don't have to pay for tax cuts. They will pay for themselves.
So the real question is: Which is it? Do tax cuts pay for themselves or not?
Right, just keep adding to the deficit and debt