It wasn't easy, and there were times yesterday when the deal was in doubt, but shortly after midnight, as Tricia noted earlier, bipartisan talks produced an agreement on extending the payroll tax break through the end of the year.
Members of a House-Senate committee charged with writing a measure to extend a payroll tax reduction said Wednesday that their work was done, just shy of an hour before their deadline to get a bill ready for a Friday vote.
After fighting until the very final hour over how to pay for parts of a $150 billion plan that would also extend unemployment benefits and prevent a pay cut for doctors who accept Medicare, leaders of both parties put together a bill that the majority of the committee could support.
Though passage is not assured -- in this Congress, nothing is ever assured -- officials in both parties expressed optimism about the outcome. Because the package will be approved by a conference committee, the deal will reach the floor of both chambers without amendments or changes, which should expedite the process.
The agreement, which many believe will be the last significant legislative achievement of 2012, represents a win for the White House -- this was a key element of President Obama's American Jobs Act -- and serves as the only real example of this Congress reaching a major bipartisan compromise.
So, what's in it?
* Payroll tax cut: The deal will extend a 2% cut to the Social Security payroll tax, at a cost of about $100 billion, giving the typical American worker roughly $1,000 more in take-home pay this year. How will this be paid for? It won't be -- GOP leaders, in a concession that made the larger deal possible, agreed this week that the cost of the cut need not be offset at all. (An equivalent to the amount that would have been received from the payroll tax will be transferred into the Social Security trust fund from the general fund.)
* UI and the "doc fix": The other two major elements of the larger package were also approved, including an extension of unemployment benefits. As part of the compromise, however, Republicans were able to reduce maximum eligibility from 99 weeks to 73 weeks.
* Financing: To pay for the non-payroll provisions, lawmakers agreed to sell radio spectrum licenses, as well as forcing new federal workers to pay more into their government pensions. Dems gave up on the millionaire/billionaire surtax fairly early in the process.
* Extraneous measures: Republicans wanted new education requirements for beneficiaries, but didn't get them. The GOP is not leaving completely empty-handed, though -- states will be allowed to conduct drug tests on those who lost their jobs for failing a drug test (states can already do this) and must prevent welfare aid from being spent at casinos, liquor stores, or strip clubs (states have already done this).
Cutting through the clutter, the bottom line is pretty straightforward: Democrats and economists didn't want the economy to take a hit from an expiring payroll break, and once Republicans caved on the key point, a deal came together. If approved, the agreement will bring a sigh of relief to many concerned about 2012 economic growth.
A House vote should come tomorrow. While the Senate has not yet scheduled its vote, members are poised to be out next week, suggesting the deal should reach the floor no later than Saturday.





Also "sighing in relief"- perhaps sotto voce-are Republicans running for re-election in districts controlled by sane voters.
Unlike Tea Party critters who will now be seen as being corrupted by Washington.
"Also "sighing in relief"- perhaps sotto voce-are Republicans running for re-election in districts controlled by sane voters."
If there really were "sane voters" in those districts - those GOP members wouldn't have the seats to begin with!!
After this past, very exhausting year, I'd hope voters would exercise better judgment regarding their Congressional critter vote this next November! To reelect or elect candidates who are openly running on a war on government makes no sense in a nation that has a government for the people!
It's time to end the oxymoronic dynamic Republican Reps. have brought to our legislative process. Let's hope the American electorate is smart enough to vote the Rascals out in Nov. 2012! -Kevo
"Let's hope the American electorate is smart enough..."
If the American "electorate" were "smart" - lil Ricky wouldn't be high in the polls, and we wouldn't have the Congress that we do!
But hey, let's keep hope alive! :>)
There's one part of this that particularly bothers me. The financing is done partly through "forcing new federal workers to pay more into their government pensions." This framing is pernicious and false. Contributions to government pensions are part of the compensation package, whether or not they are filtered first through the employee's paycheck. Forcing a worker to "contribute more" to his pension simply means cutting his pay. Full stop.
Agreed. That this is considered a legislative "achievement" shows how far our government has sunk the past few decades.
Another Obama term will produce more of the same unless we can change Congress with a huge turnout this November.
A huge turnout would be nice but I have a suspicion the voting will be rigged. Just look at the republican primary. Voter ID, gerrymandering and so forth show us what the right thinks about democracy add in their constant use of republic sans the representative qualifier and well ...
Government pensions used to mean something under the CSRS but now civil service employees are under a 401 type system. I gotta wonder about this crap. Since most Civil Servants that actuall have a CSRS pension plan are retired now just what is it that will be boosted?
Of course the switch to the "thrift savings plan" was made in order to allow congress to grab some of the old pension funds. This they illegaly did under GHW calling it a loan -like all the SSI funds they borrowed and don't want to repay.
An equivalent to the amount that would have been received from the payroll tax will be transferred into the Social Security trust fund from the general fund.)
Wow - that is comforting. The $100 billion will be replaced in SS by a transfer from the general fund - which we all know has a giant surplus :-). What a joke. The general fund already owes Trillions to the SS fund and we are supposed to believe that in this case they will put actual $$ back into SS? Sadly a lot of the public (at least the part of the public that even remotely pays attention) will believe it. Does anyone here believe this?? To me the statment above means "we are not going to pay for this". And again to cut off any comparisons to the Bush tax cuts or the unfunded wars - yes they were not paid for either. That does not mean we can keep doing unfunded things.
Agreed. We are just short-changing our own future benefits by under-funding the SS trust fund.
I'll admit I expected a bit more whining and false posturing from Eric Cantor, and in some ways that's a tad disappointing. After the thoroughly humiliating and richly deserved spanking the GOP received in December, though, this isn't all that surprising. They may be greedy and hateful, but apparently not completely stupid, and THAT'S a surprise.
The reduction in UI benefit eligibility is frustrating and wrong-headed. UI benefits are the most stimulative expenditure a government can make. People without income who receive money spend all of that money. The Payroll tax cut is nice, but I would rather give up the approximate $100 a month extra income if we could have unconditional UI benefit extension and not have another gaping hole blown in the SS trust fund.
The provision restricting the use of welfare aid in liquor stores, casinos, etc. seems like pointless micromanagement. Not sure this bill really moves anything forward. At least there was some sort of agreement and the "debate" didn't drag out to the absolute last minute.