Garrettspeak: Social Security edition

by: Adam L

Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:28:31 PM EST

Notwithstanding my views as someone who specializes in employment tax on the whole "payroll tax rate reduction" that was in effect for 2011 and is now back on the table for 2012, I want to offer up a perfect example of the noncommittal but hidden agenda of my representative, Scott Garrett. Over the five years I've lived in his District, I have been able to learn and master the understanding of "Garrettspeak" - which is essentially the clouding of issues, justification of votes or statements with reasons that may apply at one time (states' rights for most of his votes) but not for others (the recent vote about concealed carry laws or Terri Schiavo, for example) - and most importantly, the little nugget in most statements that show his true constituency - the upper echelon of the 1%.

Garrett was recently quoted in a NY Times post highlighting a "rift" in the Republican House caucus on the issue of the payroll tax cut. This relates to the reduction in the rate for the employee portion of social security tax from 6.2% (of the first $106,800 in 2011) to 4.2%.

In the article, Garrett's quote is as full of nothing as you can get in one quote:

Representative Scott Garrett, Republican of New Jersey, noted that the Senate on Thursday rejected two competing versions of a payroll tax cut. "If the Senate is able to do that, we could do it, too," he said.
"We should not be taking money from seniors to give to people who are fortunate enough to have a job," Mr. Garrett said.

Adam L :: Garrettspeak: Social Security edition

Of course, this is the first tax cut that Garrett hasn't fallen in love with - presumably because the social security tax is one of the most regressive taxes - and, while this cut is currently being paid for out of "general revenues" as opposed to depleting the social security fund itself, it does leave a ready made excuse to amplify the farcical "crisis" and cut benefits or raise the retirement age further (of course, neither this nor the cut itself will impact most of Garrett's true constituency anyway).

What Garrett doesn't say, of course, is whether he supports the payroll tax cut at all - as opposed to at the expense of however it is paid for (the versions voted down in the Senate included a surtax on the wealthy and another contained a freeze on federal worker pay and reducing the federal workforce - you can guess which party introduced which version). What Garrett also doesn't say is whether the middle class also deserves a bit of a break - or what he would use to pay for the continuation of a payroll tax cut.

I'll not even delude myself into thinking that Garrett is serious about "not taking money from seniors" because he hasn't spoken out in support of keeping the retirement age as is, not reducing benefits or supporting Senator Bernie Sanders' plan which would create a donut hole and reimpose the social security tax on levels above $250,000.

Typically, Garrett avoids all of the real substantive issues as it relates to the payroll tax cut and creates a false choice so he can appear "concerned" about both seniors and those who are working. In reality, this is just another empty statement that hides his true views and intentions.