Congressmember Lois Capps blasted her Republican colleagues for engaging in “partisan posturing and brinksmanship” Tuesday after they effectively voted against a stop-gap bill that would provide extended unemployment benefits, increase Medicare payments to participating doctors, and maintain a payroll tax break now benefiting 160 million citizens. Without this bill, those 160 million (17 million of whom live in California) will see their tax bills increase by $1,000 the first pay period of the new year. According to Capps’s spokesperson, Ashley Schapitl, that translates to $21 billion a year in California alone. In addition, Schapitl said today’s vote means 350,000 unemployed Californians will see their unemployment benefits cut off.
Currently, the federal government underwrites unemployment payments between the 26th and 99th weeks of unemployment. With Tuesday’s vote, those supplemental payments by the federal government will cease and those out of work can count on payments only during the first 26 weeks, when the State of California picks up the tab. In addition, the vote will also allow a 27-percent cut to doctors contracting to provide medical services to Medicare recipients. Capps, throughout her career, has pushed to improve Medicare payment rates as Central Coast doctors, in ever increasing numbers, have concluded they can no longer afford to participate.
All but seven House Republicans voted in favor of the measure, which effectively rejected a Senate bill approved this Saturday by a vote of 89-10 to continue unemployment benefits and the payroll tax break for an additional two months. Despite strong support from Senate Republicans, House Republicans argued that two months was not long enough and insisted that any deal last at least one year. But the two-month package was embraced only after negotiations for a longer term deal broke down between Republicans and Democrats. The bill voted for by House Republicans calls on the Senate leadership to meet in conference committee to reconcile their differences in the 11 days remaining in the legislative calendar. Senate Democrats and Republicans have expressed impatience with this idea; Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid stated no such negotiations would commence without passage of the two-month measure.
For Democrats, the vote will help underscore their election-year theme that Republicans are hostile to the needs of working families but very attentive to the needs of the wealthy. During negotiations over the one-year version of the same bill, Republicans insisted that the costs of providing more than $200 billion worth of middle-class tax relief needed to be offset by cuts in other programs. “When the Bush tax cuts were extended last year, the Republicans never insisted that they be fully offset,” noted Schapitl. Democrats proposed increasing taxes on people earning more than $4.6 million a year by 1.7 percent. Republicans proposed cutting a host of environmental regulations and insisted that approval for the politically controversial Keystone oil pipeline be included. For Democrats, the pipeline language was a killer.
Capps has argued that the payroll tax break has acted as a powerful economic stimulus, providing working families an additional $50–$100 in spending money per paycheck. With this tax break eliminated, she cited economic studies estimating that 400,000 jobs could be lost.
After the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve the two-month bill, House Speaker John Boehner initially expressed support. But he quickly reversed himself when more conservative members of his party, led by the likes of Bakersfield’s Kevin McCarthy, voiced strenuous objections. Technically, Tuesday’s vote was not on the two-month tax-break extension itself, but whether a yes-or-no vote on that measure would be allowed or whether it should be referred to conference committee. By framing it this way, Republicans could effectively vote against extending the tax breaks while not actually voting against them. Capps said she was “deeply dismayed” that Republicans would not allow a straight up-or-down vote.
Tuesday’s vote is an appropriate punctuation for a legislative year defined by legislative gridlock. It also explains the results of the most recent Gallup Poll, which shows that only 11 percent of those surveyed rated Congress positively and 86 percent gave Congress negative marks. These results are the most negative where Congress is concerned since Gallup began tracking congressional approval rates in 1974.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
I almost wish a law could be passed called the "Anti-Day-To-Day Government Act." The act would forbid "continuing resolutions" that extend negotiations on issues like this for any timeframe of less than a year. That would either force compromise or put a squabbling party on the electoral hot-seat in spades.
This Republican stalemate in the House which even the Wall Street Journal recognizes as Republican reminds me of my divorce in one fundamental way. I was living in a community property and no fault divorce state. Even so, I was able to escape all responsibility for my ex's debts (3 times that of mine), had no spousal support order (child support wasn't an issue), and the judge even made the decree non-modifiable. Why?
I didn't have an especially brilliant attorney. But, he didn't have to be brilliant. My ex and her attorney infuriated the judge on 2 very important issues and several smaller issues - resulting in me winning every concession in the hearings. All my attorney and I had to do was sit back and "watch the show" as my ex's case self-destructed.
Congress has been on a "run" of continuing resolutions and last-minute deals. And this failure to reach any long-term compromise on fundamental issues is infuriating the electorate. If they continue in this fashion, I predict a 2nd term for Barack Obama. How could we possibly trust a Republican President to do the one thing even Speaker Boehner has been unable to do - unify the party? And, this infuriated electorate might also expand the Senate's Democrat control and give the House back to the Democrats.
Obama and the Democrats? They aren't especially brilliant. But, they don't have to be brilliant. All they have to do is sit back and "watch the show" as the GOP self-destructs.
AlecWest (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 3:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In January when you pay an extra federal income tax of $100 higher, thank the Teapublicans in the House of Representatives.
Occupy That!
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John_Adams:
It's not a tax on income, and to characterize it as a tax is incorrect. It's FICA, which is a contribution (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to the Social Security fund. It's also the only funding mechanism we have for Social Security, which is already underfunded. Not only would a payroll tax cut deplete the existing fund, but it reduces your contributions which lowers the amount of SS you are eligible to recieve.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Disturber-Please stop confusing the Progressive's with the facts since their philosophical minds are perpetually made up. Even liberal analysis have mostly concluded that the Repub's are correct on the facts on this one but wrong on the perception.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know, italiansurg, I know...it's just in my nature...
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Reps have played right into the Dems hands on this one. It is the Dems who are the problem - all they need to do is agree to a one year extension of the payroll tax holiday instead of 2 months, which is ludicrous.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Headline: "Capps Blasts GOP ‘Brinksmanship’"
Question: Ain't there an election coming up?
Request: Do the math.
Yeah, that's what I though :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hank-I'll wish you a Merry Christmas if you promise to stop chasing my up and down del Playa with that bottle of Fleet in your hand.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a Catch-22 with no long term win for the citizens.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Italiansurg: "hank-I'll wish you a Merry Christmas if you promise to stop chasing my up and down del Playa with that bottle of Fleet in your hand."
HAHAHAHA! If you're on DP you gotta let me know so I can get that bottle of Fleet to chase you w/! Merry Christmas bro! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right Locke , all they have to do is agree to a one year extension . Never mind the crap that is attached to the one year proposal , right? That pinhole is getting smaller and smaller.
geeber (anonymous profile)
December 24, 2011 at 4:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Both sides regularly attach crap to proposals - that's the (flawed) system.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2011 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There should be some "Rule of Relevance" when it comes to these attachments. If it's completely irrelevant to the original matter at hand, it has no place in the bill.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2011 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
KenV: "There should be some "Rule of Relevance" when it comes to these attachments. If it's completely irrelevant to the original matter at hand, it has no place in the bill."
That is true, but then what about the NDAA? The BIGGEST threat to freedoms in the US, somehow it got put in the budget, compliments of Hope & Change :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Read Nick Welsh's current Angry Poodle article about the Defense Authorization Act--THAT is scary.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 1, 2012 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)