Republican House still Party of No

by: Hopeful

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:36:39 PM EST

The new $15 billion jobs bill needs to be just a one step of many aiming to improve employment. Democrats recognize that it is true, but it is a positive step. Seventy Senators supported the new jobs bill, because it mainly consists of tax cuts, but that does make it a broadly bipartisan bill.

House Republicans, though, went strongly against it, including every single Republican from New Jersey. Extremist Scott Garrett voted no. Self-styles moderates like Frank LoBiondo voted no. The whole bill is "fully paid for" so it does not increase the deficit (by cracking down on overseas tax havens and by stopping a tax break that would help multinational corporations send jobs overseas go into effect.) This is what they voted against:

A payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers, to create some 300,000 jobs and an income tax credit of $1,000 for businesses that retain these employees
Tax cuts to spur new investment by small businesses to help them expand and hire more workers
Extension of the Highway Trust Fund allowing for tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment
Provisions -- modeled after the Build America Bonds program - to make it easier for states to borrow for infrastructure projects, such as school construction and energy projects

Frankly, I think it is disgrace that our Republicans have not supported one idea for fighting the recession. You can't even get them to vote for a tax cut to businesses. It's truly the "Party of No" and damn the consequences.

Hopeful :: Republican House still Party of No

Tags: Party of No, unemployment, featured, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Republican House still Party of No | 4 comments

It's being reported that this bill is also partly (0.00 / 0)

paid for by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund...

The jobs bill contains two major provisions. First, it would exempt businesses hiring the unemployed from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax through December and give them an additional $1,000 credit if new workers stay on the job a full year. The Social Security trust fund would be reimbursed for the lost revenue.

http://www.google.com/hostedne...

I'd be a bit doubtful that the general revenue fund is going to ever repay the SS Fund. And John, didn't 30+ Democrats also vote against this bill in the House??

by: Reality Jax @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 05:25:47 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

at 217-201 (0.00 / 0)

I agree that some House Dems voted no and others dodged the vote.

I think it's obvious that with the government running a deficit that if you exempt businesses from paying Social Security payroll taxes, you are borrowing from SS. But how else could you give the businesses a tax break? I'd bet that lots of businesses are not making big profits.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

by: Hopeful @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 18:09:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]