Every
blessed once in a great while, all artifice is stripped away, rhetoric
collapses under the weight of its own absurdity, and we get to see
things as they really are. Such will be the case later this week when
the Senate tries to vote on extending the payroll-tax holiday. The
Republicans will oppose it—that is to say, the Republicans will support a
tax increase on working Americans. And why? Because the Democrats want
to pay for it with a small surtax on the very top earners.
So the choice couldn’t be more direct: which is more important, giving
the middle class a tax cut or protecting those who make more than $1 million a year? Republicans are making it clear. This vote alone should destroy them.
The facts: The Social
Security payroll tax comes to 12.4 percent of an employee’s
salary—employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent. The money goes into
the Social Security Trust Fund and finances benefits. At the end of
last year, the Obama administration, in exchange for temporarily
extending the Bush tax rates on all income levels, got Congress to agree
to a one-year 2 percent payroll-tax holiday for employees, down to 4.2
percent. For a $50,000 earner, that meant paying $1,000 a year less in
payroll taxes. It was agreed in that law that the holiday would cost the
Social Security Trust Fund nothing—the depleted revenue would be
replaced out of the general treasury. So the holiday adds to the general
deficit but does not affect the trust fund.
The cut proved popular, or is
presumed to be popular, so now, as many people predicted last year,
Congress wants to extend it. Republicans of course say (as they say of
everything) that it hasn’t done any good. But economists attest to its
stimulative value. Two economists at the Economic Policy Institute say
ending the holiday would reduce GDP by $128 billion and cost 972,000
jobs in 2012. The EPI is a liberal outfit, but Mark Zandi of Moody’s,
who advised John McCain in 2008, agrees that raising the payroll tax
back to where it was could cause another recession.
And besides those macroeconomic
concerns, there is the simple question of money in people’s pockets as
they try to tough out the economy. A thousand dollars to a $50,000
earner, or $1,500 to a $75,000 earner, isn’t nothing.
What the Senate Democrats want to
do now is this. They want to increase the employee’s reduction from 2
percent to 3.1 percent (that is, to cut it in half from the normal 6.2
percent rate). And they now want, for the first time, to extend the
holiday to employers as well. This is important, and it probably won’t
be well explained in very many places. But the Democrats would have
employers pay 3.1 percent (rather than the 6.2 percent they now pay) on
the first $5 million of their payroll. Also, if employers add to their
payrolls, they would pay no payroll tax on new hires. So the new bill is
specifically aimed at helping the job creators. The total cost is $255
billion.
The Democrats want to pay for it
with a 3.5 percent surtax on dollars earned over $1 million per year. In
other words, if someone earns $1.3 million a year, she will pay the
extra 3.5 percent only on the last $300,000 in earnings; that is, an
extra $10,500 a year (bear in mind that this person takes home, after
taxes, around $30,000 every two weeks). So it certainly raises the taxes
of the very wealthiest. But it gives more money back to middle-class
people, and it stimulates the economy, perhaps to the tune of 50,000
jobs a month, maybe even more.
Mitch McConnell unsurprisingly
announced his opposition to it Monday. And yes, this is the same Mitch
McConnell who said in January 2009 that a two-year suspension of the
payroll tax “would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses
and in the hands of individuals,” and that “Republicans, generally
speaking, from Maine to Mississippi, like tax relief.”
Well,
that was then. Now three things have changed. One, the idea was a
Republican one back then; now it’s a Kenyan one. That alone is enough to
make it poison to them. Two, extending the holiday will help the
economy at a moment when Republicans are now very clearly trying to hurt
the economy. This is not even a controversial thing to say anymore,
it’s so obvious. And three, now there’s a price tag on it; it has to be
paid for in some way, and that way is a surtax on super-high incomes.
And this above all is what the GOP cannot accept. These are the makers,
not the takers, in Paul Ryan’s obscene formulation.
It’s sickening to watch them lie about this one. Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl hit two major talking points on TV over the weekend:
The
problem here is that the payroll tax doesn’t go into general revenue,
it supports Social Security. And you can’t keep extending the
payroll-tax holiday and have a secure Social Security. That’s the first
problem ...
By taxing the people who provide the jobs,
you put off the day we have economic recovery and job creation in this
country. And that’s precisely what the Democratic plan would do. It
would hit those people, the small businesses who we all acknowledge are
the ones who create the jobs coming out of economic difficulty.
Both statements are lies. The first is another one of those not-intended-to-be-factual statements
for which he is renowned. The Social Security Trust Fund is not
affected by the new proposal any more than it was for the original
one-year holiday last year. The second statement is the usual GOP
talking point on this—we’re protecting small businesses—but it’s
especially lame in the context of this proposal. Don’t most small
businesses have payrolls under $5 million? Of course they do. Those
employers will directly benefit from this law. And businesses large or
small will pay nothing on new hires.
How a party can so nakedly represent only the top 1 percent while at the same time trying to stop anything that will help the economy, and survive while doing it, is beyond me.
So the bill
will cut taxes on middle-income people and on small employers. And it
won’t get a single Republican vote. Maybe one—Scott Brown might have to
back it. But they will block this. They will hope instead that Harry
Reid eventually (before the end of the year) permits a one-year
extension at the current 2 percent rate that is paid for out of the
general treasury. In which case the GOP will be voting to increase the
deficit! Yep, the deficit-hawk party would sooner add a couple of
hundred billion to the deficit than impose a surtax on people who make
more than $1 million a year. It just never ends with these people.
This is the
most rancid display yet on the GOP’s part. And I think you’ll agree
there is no lack of competition for that mantle. Having the stones to
campaign against Obama’s “Medicare cuts” in 2010 when all they want to
do is cut Medicare was up there, but this is even worse. How a party can
so nakedly represent only the top 1 percent while at the same time try
to stop anything that will help the economy, and survive while doing it,
is just beyond me. Obama should give an Oval Office speech Wednesday
night and say: “If you are an employee and make less than $1 million, or
if you are an employer of any size, I am trying to give you a tax cut.
If you are an employee who makes more than $1 million a year, you should
write and thank your Republican senator, because the Republicans are
blocking me and helping you.”
It really is that simple.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and
follow us on Twitter for updates all day
long.
Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment