The payroll tax expiration fight thread.

[Larry]

I wanted to post the news story about the GOP attempt to link the tax cuts to approval of an oil pipeline, but

a) I have multiple sources for the story,

And I suspect that this could become a month-long thread dealing with all of the fighting that's no doubt going to happen, on this issue.

Vancouver Sun: Republicans push Keystone pipeline, pinning decision to payroll-tax bill

WASHINGTON — The Keystone XL pipeline on Thursday became the key pawn in a holiday-season game of political brinkmanship between congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama, with the GOP linking construction of the oilsands project to approval of White House-backed legislation extending jobless benefits and tax cuts for middle-class Americans.

House Speaker John Boehner said he would introduce a bill that would force the Obama administration to make a final decision on Keystone XL within one month, instead of waiting until early 2013 to complete a new environmental review.

Against Obama's wishes, Republicans will attach the Keystone XL provisions to a broader economic stimulus bill that would maintain a $1,000-a-year reduction in payroll tax reductions and provide continued aid for unemployed workers.

Other articles:

Guardian: Obama rules out trading Keystone pipeline for payroll tax cut

The Guardian has more info about the pipeline (I confess, it's the first I'd heard of it). And says:

Senate Republicans have introduced a bill that would require the administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest.

CNN: House Republicans to offer payroll tax plan

Has information about what's going on in the Senate:

Washington (CNN) -- Setting up a showdown with the White House and Senate Democrats, House Republican leaders Thursday proceeded with plans to vote next week on a proposal to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits while easing the path for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Meanwhile, the Senate blocked competing Democratic and Republican proposals to extend the payroll tax cut from proceeding Thursday, with both failing to get the 60 votes necessary.

Senate Republicans halted the Democratic proposal on a 50-48 vote. It included a surtax on income over $1 million to help pay for the lower payroll tax rate. Republicans seeking to shrink the size of government oppose such a tax increase.

Opposition from both parties blocked the Republican measure on a 76-22 vote. It would have been paid for by freezing federal pay as well as reducing the federal workforce by 10%, provisions rejected by President Barack Obama and Democrats.

[twa]

GOP proposes way to pay for tax cuts,Obama threatens veto

I'm here all week.

[Larry]

GOP proposes way to pay for tax cuts,Obama threatens veto

Didn't read a single one of the articles, not even the parts I quoted?

Or just didn't care whether what you said was remotely close to the truth?

[RedskinsFan44]

I thought tax cuts were not equal to spending and therefore do not have to be paid for.

[Larry]

I thought tax cuts were not equal to spending and therefore do not have to be paid for.

Yeah, that thought did occur to me.

But the pipeline thing doesn't have anything to do with paying for anything. It's simply a case of "gimme something I want".

----------

That said, though, I wouldn't mind getting more information about this pipeline project. (From somebody who actually has some integrity.)

I certainly don't know enough about it for me to oppose the thing. (I might oppose it once I know something, but right now I don't.)

The little bit I've seen, in the last few minutes, makes it look like it's kind-of tied to that oil sands project. So if we're talking about environmental reviews, then we're talking about two, linked, environmental impacts.

Me, I'm not really sure I have a problem with the idea of a pipeline, in and of itself. We already have pipelines all over the place. And I assume that they're environmental risks. But I'm not aware of any reason why this one would be any more of a risk.

In short, what I'm seeing so far, is the Republicans holding something that the nation needs, hostage, to try to get something that I might well not object to.

[twa]

read both and a few more,but the title calls for a fight.

just trying to be helpful

add

you really don't know anything about Keystone pipeline?

http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Keystone-pipeline-delay-is-the-wrong-call-2264965.php

[ACW]

Allow Keystone, keep my taxes low.

[Larry]

Been reading Wiki about Keystone. Apparently, it's an existing pipeline, delivering oil from oil sands in Canada, to Oklahoma. Apparently, there's supposedly now a glut of oil in Oklahoma. What they want to do is:

a) Build a pipeline from Oklahoma to Houston. "Phase 3"

Run a second pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma, to double capacity. "Phase 4" (This second one is supposedly the one that people are complaining about the most.)

There's elements of this that make me scratch my head. We're already shipping oil all the way from Canada to Oklahoma. Once it's in Oklahoma, we apparently can't distribute it around the US. But if we could just ship it to Houston, then we could ship it around the US?

And, if we take the oil that we're delivering to Oklahoma, now, and ship it to Texas, and then ship the same amount we're shipping now, to Oklahoma, then we won't have the same inability to distribute it?

----------

The Wiki makes it at least look like a lot of the opposition to this pipeline is simply from people who don't want the US to have the ability to use more oil. Which, to me, isn't a really good reason. But then, I'm taking a Wiki article, and then trying to read between the lines, on top of that.

----------

The other part of the objection to the proposed to Phase 4 (the part to run a second pipeline to connect the two places that the first pipeline already goes, to increase capacity) concerns the routing of Phase 4, which takes a different route from the now-existing pipeline.

(The existing pipeline travels East, just above the Canadian border, till it gets near Winnipeg, and then goes South, from there. The proposed route for Phase 4 is a straight line from Canada to Oklahoma. Supposedly this route, when it travels through Nebraska, passes over a really large aquifer.)

Seems to me that if the problem is simply the pipeline's route, then they could simply follow the route of the existing pipeline. I assume that, since the "East, then South" routing if around 40% further than a straight line, that this routing would cost about 40% more. But it obviously isn't an insurmountable problem, since the existing pipeline already does it.

----------

In short, I still don't see any real reason to oppose the idea.

[88Comrade2000]

I say let the payroll tax cuts expire.

[Larry]

I say let the payroll tax cuts expire.

Because . . . ?

(I'm not sure I disagree with you. Just asking for some more information.)

[88Comrade2000]

Because . . . ?

(I'm not sure I disagree with you. Just asking for some more information.)

They should've never had them in the first place. Those payroll tax cuts aren't really doing anything except taking away from social security.

All it was, a political gimmick to buy some votes and nothing more. If Obama and Dems had balls; they should've just let the Bush tax cuts expire when they had the majority and they didn't.

We all know nothing and I mean nothing is going to improve until after the results of the 2012 election. Then people will have certainty of what to expect and will make decisions accordingly.

We couldn't afford those tax cuts and I do find it curious Republicans are now saying pay for it; when they didn't under Bush.

[chipwhich]

They should've never had them in the first place. Those payroll tax cuts aren't really doing anything except taking away from social security.

All it was, a political gimmick to buy some votes and nothing more. If Obama and Dems had balls; they should've just let the Bush tax cuts expire when they had the majority and they didn't.

We all know nothing and I mean nothing is going to improve until after the results of the 2012 election. Then people will have certainty of what to expect and will make decisions accordingly.

We couldn't afford those tax cuts and I do find it curious Republicans are now saying pay for it; when they didn't under Bush.

Nice post.

[Larry]

I can at least respect the consistency of arguing in favor of letting all tax cuts expire.

My problem is that I think it will hurt the economy, right now. We're talking a 2% pay cut for pretty much every person in America who has a job.

I'm not certain that it would have a major ijmpact on the economy. But it might.

Right now, our economy seems to depend on consumers.

I'm not certain that that's a good thing. I thought you measured a country's economy based on what that country

made

, not on what it

bought

. But, whether I like it or not, it seems to be a fact.

And, like it or not, consumer spending not only depends on how much money consumers have, it depends on how they feel. (In that respect, it's kind of like the stock market.)

And I could certainly see the possibility that if every worker in the country gets hit with a 2% pay cut on Jan 1st, that might not only reduce their money, it might well affect their mood, too.

----------

My opinion is that it might not have a big effect.

[SkinsHokieFan]

An extra 100 dollars a month in taxes? No way.

No to raising the payroll taxes

[ACW]

No indeed. Social Security's a fraud anyway.

[isle-hawg]

I know this is a radical idea but how 'bout let all the tax cuts expire and let's go back to the horror of a budget surplus which is what we had before we had them? This would also require some fiscal discipline in DC - not holding my breath on either.

These tax breaks with big spending is not a free present. They are putting this all on a credit card for us, our children and grandchildren to pay back with interest. How does this make sense to anyone (not having a balanced budget every year)?

[Fergasun]

I like the idea of letting taxpayers choose. If you get the payroll tax cut for another year you add a month on your social security eligibility. Therefore by delaying social security you are effectively paying for it.

This is a complicated issue:

1) Extending the payroll tax is wanted by GOP folks who are intent on "starving the beast"; we all know that the payroll tax isn't really specifically for social security, it's for funding the government.

2) Extending the payroll tax is wanted by GOP/Democrats who want to make sure money stay in folks pockets (for me, it's essentially a way to offset the rising cost of health care, last year it washed out, and I imagine this year it'll wash out too). They can keep us all happy because come January 1st our paycheck doesn't get smaller.

3) Not extending the payroll tax is wanted by Democrats who are trying "protect social security". I think they really may want to extend social security, but its hard to ignore the fact that this also funds our government.

I've seen GOP members on C-SPAN pick up the talking point on "we need to protect social security for our seniors".

I've not even touched the "offsets". It's patently foolish to "pay for" a 1 year spending program over 10 years. But that's what our politicians do. It seems equally foolish to think that our government is going to continue on this path for 10 years; but we've done so for the past 30 years.... what's 10 more years. The time for austerity was like 4 years ago. The problem is; no one wants to lose. No one wants to pay for the tax cuts, the government programs, the spending, they want and benefit from. We all want it with the least amount of pain. I don't know how our government got like this, how our Republican got like this, but it's like we are a part of some scam. Someone else has been writing "you can't avoid the depression, but delaying it will make it worse." I don't want to go through it.

---------- Post added December-8th-2011 at 06:02 PM ----------

I know this is a radical idea but how 'bout let all the tax cuts expire and let's go back to the horror of a budget surplus which is what we had before we had them? A little fiscal discipline in DC would be nice also but we know that is not happening....

I agree with that one. The problem is, they are going to do the "doc fix" and they are going to extend the payroll tax cut. They've always done it and don't have the stones to say "no!".

[PeterMP]

We can ship it around the country from OK. It just isn't very effecient and isn't around any major population centers. If you get to Houston, you can not only ship it around the country easily, your around larger population centers, and you have access to a port so you can ship OUT OF the US.

There are people out there that are protesting the building of the pipeline for larger environomental reasons (i.e. climage change). I'm not going to claim they aren't biased, but I believe there math is okay, and they give some informative links:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/keystone-xl-game-over/

There do appear to be real issues with the proposed route.

My guess is that it'll get built on a different route than the originally proposed route. The impact of it alone, if properly routed, isn't going to be that great for the EPA to reject, and the EPA isn't allowed to consider the larger picture (emissions further down stream). It can only look at points of emissions.

There's a greater chance it'll be killed in Canada.

[Teller]

I like forcing Obama to make decisions pre-election. Such a rarity these days.

[Hubbs]

There's a greater chance it'll be killed in Canada.

Why?

[Larry]

Why?

The Wiki mentioned that many Canadiens dislike the project, because they say it's a project that only helps America, at the cost of Canada's resources.

I don't know if hats what Peter is talking about.

[twa]

Why?

The Greens there,but they don't have much hope since it is bringing in serious cash

I'm not a fan of the pipeline(would rather see us develop our own sources) but it is a economic engine

as a side note ,I find the usual NIMBY attitude prevalent in opposing the pipeline or the option of a refining/distribution up North.

Importing oil in by tankers is much more risky

[Hubbs]

The Wiki mentioned that many Canadiens dislike the project, because they say it's a project that only helps America, at the cost of Canada's resources.

I don't know if hats what Peter is talking about.

At the cost of their resources? Huh? We're buying it from them. God, I wish we were a net "resource provider" when it comes to oil. I wish it so much that I'd be willing to suffer the indignity of having hundreds of billions more dollars to figure out what to do with.

[twa]

We could be Hubbs....except for the NIMBY's

[PeterMP]

Why?

The environmental movement there is stronger and for some reason wasn't very active in the beginning on this, but seems to have gotten energized. Some Native American groups have been fighting, but they seem to be upping the antie and the treaties that the Canadian government has signed have been held up better through the years then the ones signed by the US government.

http://londonminingnetwork.org/2011/11/canadian-first-nations-sue-shell-for-tar-sands-destruction/

http://dirtyoilsands.org/news/article/radical_british_lawyer_barred_from_alberta_oilsands_case

I expect they will "fold" for the right dollar amount, but that does affect the economics of it. You can't pay 10 different groups 10% of the profits. And the more money the get from leftist groups to fight it, the more they can demand from the oil companies to fold.