Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Bipartisan??????
Topic Started: Feb 11 2010, 06:49 PM (286 Views)
kbp

Quote:
 
Reid Scales Back Jobs Bill, Eliminates Key Bipartisan Elements

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid abruptly announced Thursday that he had drastically slimmed down the bill from $85 billion to just $15 billion, tossing out key priorities of both Republicans and Democrats.


Faced with criticism that the Democratic-sponsored jobs bill would not primarily create new jobs, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid abruptly announced Thursday that he had drastically slimmed down the bill from $85 billion to just $15 billion, tossing out key priorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

"We are going to move a smaller package than talked about in the press," the Nevada Democrat said. "Republicans are going to have to make a choice. We have a bipartisan bill that will create jobs, according to the CBO, immediately."

But it is far from clear if that package really will be "bipartisan."

Reid made the decision Thursday morning, according to sources, and Republicans are far from happy. The smaller package jettisons some key provisions, namely a popular package of tax extenders that Republicans are keen to renew.

"We have four provisions that should under any circumstance enjoy broad bipartisan support," said a senior Senate Democratic leadership aide, adding, "It shouldn't be much of a gamble at all."

The $15 billion bill includes a $13 billion payroll tax break for employers who hire new workers; $35 million for small business depreciation; $2 billion for "Build America Bonds" for infrastructure; and a one-year extension of the highway bill, which a senior aide told Fox News would have "no revenue effect."

The extenders that were removed include billions of dollars for research and development and a GOP priority to trim down the estate tax -- which is set at zero now but will jump to a whopping 55 percent in 2011 on estates worth $1 million or more.

"We'll deal with those other provisions soon and throughout the year," the aide said.

The estate tax fix is of primary importance to one conservative Democrat, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who is in an enormously difficult fight for re-election this year in her farm-heavy state.

And Democrats also saw some of their own priorities axed from this first bill in their party's "jobs agenda." Reid removed an extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA benefits for the unemployed, as well as a one-year extension of the Patriot Act and flood insurance.

It was a surprise move by the Reid. It had seemed as early as Thursday morning that a larger bill, with critical bipartisan support from Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, was on something of a glidepath to passage in the next few weeks.

Sen Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who co-sponsored a key part of the initial $85 billion bill to offer a $5,000 payroll tax break to employers who hire new employees, also spoke favorably of the bill.

On Wednesday, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said that he thought the bill would easily pass.

But now, that prospect is somewhat in doubt.



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

I'm all for spending less, but I can only laugh at how small this makes Zero's job bill look!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

I just want these fools out of office and November's election can't come soon enough. It is as if everything is just funny money to them.

Speaking of jobs!

A new White House economic forecast showed Thursday the US economy is set to start producing job growth this year at a rate of 95,000 per month, but that the unemployment rate will remain high.

President Barack Obama's annual economic report to Congress said the economy is on the verge of pulling out of a period of steep job losses stemming from the worst recession in decades.

But the report also said that the unemployment rate may not come down much from the current level of 9.7 percent, and may even rise because of labor market growth and the return of more discouraged workers to the labor force.

The White House forecast, most of which was previously released with budget documents, calls for growth in gross domestic product of around 3.0 percent in 2010 and an average unemployment rate of 10.0 percent.

"Because projected GDP growth is only slightly stronger than potential growth, relatively little decline is projected in the unemployment rate during 2010," the report prepared by the president's Council of Economic Advisors said.

"Indeed, it is possible that the rate will rise for a while as some discouraged workers return to the labor force, before starting to generally decline. Consistent with this, employment growth is projected to be roughly equal to normal trend growth of about 100,000 per month." ...snipped

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b9bb6178bc5eae7ff36450b1f5a7fffd.2a1&show_article=1


So let's get this right. Unemployment will rise despite adding more jobs because people who are not working don't count as unemployed so as they get hopeful and start looking they will count as unemployed.

So they don't have a job now, but they are not considered unemployed?

That DC for you.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carolyn says
Member Avatar


55% estate tax in 2011?

Oh my God! We're becoming like England. Utterly destroying inheritances for your children by giving it all to the government. This is unbelievable. This HAS to have been created in Obama's administration because I assure you that there is no way that Bush would have allowed this to go through. (It's also got to be Obama's doing because of the fact that this whopper of a raise takes place after the elections this fall.)



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Carolyn says
Feb 11 2010, 08:20 PM
55% estate tax in 2011?

Oh my God! We're becoming like England. Utterly destroying inheritances for your children by giving it all to the government. This is unbelievable. This HAS to have been created in Obama's administration because I assure you that there is no way that Bush would have allowed this to go through. (It's also got to be Obama's doing because of the fact that this whopper of a raise takes place after the elections this fall.)



I'd have to re-read it, but I am fairly certain it was at 55% on the balance greater than $1 million when it went to -0- tax in Bush's administration. I recall following it long ago when it jumped from $600,000 as the starting point.

I am definately open to being corrected here.
Edited by kbp, Feb 11 2010, 08:59 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

I think you are right, kbp.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Congress ensured that the law sunsets in 2011. That is, on January 1st, 2011, the estate tax rate will return to its pre-Bush levels. Practically speaking, this means the difference between dying on December 31, 2010 and January 1, 2011 can mean 55 percent of your estate if you are person of means!
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/estatetax/f/estatetaxrate.htm

It goes back to the levels when Clinton was President. In general I agree with sunsetting laws. Congress just needs to reapproved them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carolyn says
Member Avatar

Baldo
Feb 11 2010, 09:06 PM
Congress ensured that the law sunsets in 2011. That is, on January 1st, 2011, the estate tax rate will return to its pre-Bush levels. Practically speaking, this means the difference between dying on December 31, 2010 and January 1, 2011 can mean 55 percent of your estate if you are person of means!
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/estatetax/f/estatetaxrate.htm

It goes back to the levels when Clinton was President. In general I agree with sunsetting laws. Congress just needs to reapproved them.
"In 2010, the estate tax rate drops to zero percent; if you die in that year, your heirs would not pay taxes, even if you passed on $20 billion!"

Pardon me, but my gruesome little mind can just see a whole bunch of heirs standing at granddaddy's dying bedside on December 31st, 2010 and as the clock moves closer to midnight, one of those kids pulls out a Colt .45.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Pardon me, but my gruesome little mind can just see a whole bunch of heirs standing at granddaddy's dying bedside on December 31st, 2010 and as the clock moves closer to midnight, one of those kids pulls out a Colt .45.


Not unless old Granddaddy spends all of 2010 looking for a loophole and finds it by Dec. 31.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
Senators Strike Bipartisan Deal on Job Creation
February 12, 2010

By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — Key Democrats and Republicans in the Senate reached a rare bipartisan agreement on Thursday on steps to spur job creation. But Democratic leaders said they would move ahead on only some elements as the two parties maneuvered to address both the struggling economy and voter unrest over gridlock in Washington.

Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, said he would take four core job-creating initiatives from the bipartisan proposal — including tax breaks for businesses that hire unemployed workers and increased public works spending — and seek to move those rapidly through the Senate.

“We feel that the American people need a message,” Mr. Reid said. “The message that they need is that we’re doing something about jobs.”

Yet his decision to embrace only portions of the bipartisan plan developed by Senators Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, caught some lawmakers by surprise and threatened to undermine Republican support for the proposal even as members of Congress and the White House sought ways of working together across party lines after months of deep partisan division.

The White House projected Thursday that unemployment would fall this year by only a little, if at all, and would remain well over 6 percent until 2015.

While Mr. Reid stripped out of the bipartisan bill some tax breaks and other provisions intended to win Republican support, as well as special-interest provisions to win the backing of specific senators, the scaled-back package retained a combination of tax cuts and spending with the potential to win support from both parties.

The centerpiece is a payroll tax holiday that would waive the 6.2 percent Social Security tax for any employer who hires a worker who has been out of a job for at least 60 days. In addition, the bill would provide a $1,000 income tax credit for every new employee retained for at least 52 weeks.

It would also extend a tax break that would allow businesses to write off up to $250,000 in capital investments in 2010 rather than depreciating the costs over time, and reauthorize spending on road and transit programs through the end of the year. And it would allow state and local governments to receive a federal subsidy for a portion of the interest paid on bonds that finance public works projects.

The cost of the package laid out by Mr. Reid would be at least $15 billion over the next decade.

Hours before Mr. Reid’s announcement, Mr. Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, and Mr. Grassley, the senior Republican on the panel, had unveiled a broader, $85 billion agreement that also included an array of other provisions intended to generate support. They included extended unemployment benefits and health care for the unemployed as well as the renewal of an array of tax breaks that are due to expire.

That proposal had drawn backing from top Republicans and Democrats as well as the White House. Some of the authors of its provisions, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said they were left perplexed by Mr. Reid’s decision to scale it back and were now unsure they could support any bill.

“Needless to say, Senator Hatch is deeply disappointed that the majority leader has abandoned a genuine bipartisan compromise only hours after it was unveiled in favor of business-as-usual, partisan gamesmanship,” said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Hatch, who helped write a provision suspending the payroll tax for companies that hire out-of-work people.

Democrats said Mr. Reid’s hand was forced by objections from rank-and-file Democrats that the measure was not focused tightly enough on job creation and included too many corporate tax breaks they viewed as concessions to Republicans.

At the same time, they said, Republican leaders had made no firm commitment to support the measure and they feared they could face conservative attacks for extraneous provisions like disaster aid for Arkansas and Mississippi.

“I would prefer a jobs bill that simply focuses on some specific job-creating initiatives,” said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota.

The dust-up over the jobs bill reflects the difficulties the parties are finding in working together even as lawmakers from both sides realize that voters want to see more cooperation and less confrontation. And both sides are making overtures.

Also on Thursday, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee, and Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said they would cooperate in trying to overhaul regulation of the financial services industry after earlier bipartisan talks seemed to falter.

The administration also continues to work to find Republican support for Mr. Obama’s plan to create a bipartisan commission to rein in the budget deficit. In an interview with Bloomberg Business Week published Thursday, the president said he would set no preconditions on steps the commission might propose to bring the budget back toward balance, even if it meant consideration of tax increases on the middle class — a step Mr. Obama vowed during the 2008 presidential campaign not to support.

At the White House, Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, encouraged lawmakers to find a way to work together.

“The American people want to see Washington put aside partisan differences and make progress on jobs,” Mr. Gibbs said.

Republicans were more receptive to the bipartisan jobs proposal than they have been to Democratic initiatives this year, but the leadership had not pledged its backing on the floor. On Thursday, before Mr. Reid pared back the bill, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, called it a work in progress.

The hesitation by top Republicans and the prospect that they would want to propose politically charged amendments made Democrats question whether the opposition was serious about cooperating and reminded them of Republican overtures on health care that later fell through.

Some Democrats noted that Mr. Baucus had spent months negotiating with Mr. Grassley on health care legislation only to come away empty-handed, ultimately costing the Senate valuable time on the issue.

Mr. Reid said he still hoped to win some Republican backing for the trimmed-down jobs measure since they had professed to support the individual provisions.

“Republicans are going to have to make a choice,” he said.

But Republicans said that it was Mr. Reid who had made a choice, the wrong one.

“The majority leader pulled the rug out from work to build broad-based support for tax relief and other efforts to help the private sector recover from the economic crisis,” said Jill Kozeny, a spokeswoman for Mr. Grassley.



I'm sensing this was a set up by the Dem's to muddy the Rep's on the bipartisan issue. There was no doubt what the Rep's wanted with the bill, as was agreed too a couple hours before Reid tried to make it look like he's the rule maker in the Senate.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Regarding the so-called Estate Tax. Call it what it is - a tax on dying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Death & taxes...
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply