“Nationwide, sequester cuts will cost more than 750,000 jobs… But Congress has the power to prevent these self-inflicted wounds.”

“Unfortunately, Republicans would rather let devastating cuts go into effect than close a single wasteful tax loophole.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today about Sequestration. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

The Senate has a great deal to accomplish this work period, including the long-delayed confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel to lead the Defense Department.

This week the Senate will also consider two plans to avert devastating, across-the-board cuts to military spending as well as domestic initiatives that keep American families and businesses strong. To give our economy a foundation for growth, Congress must replace these cuts – the so-called sequester – with a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

Senate Democrats would temporarily replace this harsh austerity with a combination of smart spending reductions and measures that close corporate tax loopholes, end wasteful subsidies and ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. And it would avoid harmful cuts that will hurt American families, harm military readiness and hinder our economic recovery.

Families and businesses in every state in the nation – in red states and blue states – are at risk because of these haphazard cuts. In the presiding officer’s home state, Virginia, 170 teachers who work with disabled children could lose their jobs, thousands of kids will go without life-saving vaccines and 90,000 Pentagon employees will be furloughed.

In Nevada, 120 teachers could lose their jobs, local law enforcement agencies will lose essential funding to prevent and prosecute crime and thousands of Defense Department employees will be furloughed – losing wages that support their families and our state’s economy.

Residents of the Republican Leader’s home state would also suffer. Kentucky will lose federal funding that helps police catch and punish domestic abusers, buys meals for needy seniors and keeps at-risk children in Head Start programs. And more than 11,000 Kentuckians who work for the Defense Department will be furloughed.

Nationwide, sequester cuts will cost more than 750,000 jobs. More than 70,000 little boys and girls will be kicked off Head Start. Meat inspectors, air traffic controllers, FBI officers and border patrol agents will be furloughed. Small businesses – which create two-thirds of all new jobs in this country – will lose access to crucial federal loans. Thousands of researchers working to cure cancer, diabetes and scores of other life-threatening diseases will lose their jobs.

Congress has the power to prevent these self-inflicted wounds. We have the power to turn off the sequester, protect American families and businesses and ensure our national defense.

In the House and in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats voted to impose these cuts. And it will take Republicans and Democrats working together to avert them. Twenty-eight Republicans in the Senate and 174 Republicans in the House voted to impose these painful cuts. If those same Republicans would work with Democrats to find a balanced way to reduce the deficit, Congress could avert the forced austerity of the sequester today – right away.

Unfortunately, Republicans would rather let devastating cuts go into effect than close a single wasteful tax loophole. They would rather cut Medicare, education and medical research than ask a single millionaire to pay a single dollar more in taxes.

The overwhelming majority of Americans want us to compromise before their neighbors, friends and family members get pink slips or furlough notices. The overwhelming majority of Americans – including 56 percent of Republicans – support Democrats’ balanced approach. Once again, the only Republicans rejecting a reasonable, balanced compromise are Republicans in this building – Republicans in Congress.

“In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary,” the leaders write.

Senate leaders made clear their willingness to pursue balanced approach to cutting spending and reducing our deficit, but reiterated their insistence that any approach be a balanced between smart cuts and revenues from the wealthiest Americans.

###

The full text of the letter is below.

January 11, 2013

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As you know, Republican leaders are threatening to bring on an economic catastrophe unless Democrats make deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

This threat is outrageous and absurd. Defaulting on America’s legal obligations would undermine the American economy and spread global economic havoc. Just two years ago, Speaker Boehner himself admitted that failure to raise the debt limit “would be a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy.”

It is hard to imagine that the Speaker and Leader McConnell would really follow through on their threat to let our nation default on its debts. They are responsible leaders who know better. Sadly, some of their Republican colleagues do not. Therefore, we believe that you must make clear that you will never allow our nation’s economy and reputation to be held hostage. In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary.

As you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending. It merely ensures that we meet our existing obligations. Those obligations were incurred by both Republicans and Democrats, and are the responsibility of all Americans.

Accordingly, we hope that you will continue to ignore claims that agreeing to an increase in the debt limit would somehow represent a concession by Republicans to Democrats. All Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, have a stake in ensuring that our country meets its legal obligations. Financial markets have long viewed securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States as the most trustworthy in the world. This lowers borrowing costs for homes, cars, and college for all Americans and strengthens our economy. If we violate that trust for the first time in history, we will never fully regain it, and every American will suffer.

For all these reasons, we support your view that an extension of the debt limit is not something for which Democrats should have to negotiate. At the same time, as a separate matter, we agree about the importance of developing a broad, bipartisan agreement on fiscal policy that strengthens our economy and reduces our long-term budget deficit.

As you have said, any such agreement must treat all Americans fairly and include not just responsible spending cuts but additional revenue from the wealthy and the elimination of wasteful tax breaks. It would be wrong to slash earned benefits for seniors and middle class families, while allowing corporations, millionaires, and billionaires to continue to exploit wasteful tax loopholes. We therefore hope that you will continue to insist that the entire budget be on the table, and that any agreement be fully balanced and fair.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Respectfully,

Senator Harry Reid
Senator Dick Durbin
Senator Chuck Schumer
Senator Parry Murray

A PDF of the letter can be found online here.

“House Republicans pushed middle class families closer to the cliff by wasting an entire week with their incompetent ‘Plan B’ stunt. It is time for House Republicans to put middle class families first by passing the Senate’s bill to protect 98 percent of Americans from a tax hike on January 1. The Senate bill could pass tomorrow if House Republicans would simply let it come to the floor.

“The Senate has already rejected House Republicans’ Tea Party bills, and no further legislation can move through the Senate until Republicans drop their knee-jerk obstruction. Right now, the Senate bill is the only bill that can become law, and House Republicans owe it to middle class families to let it pass with Democratic and Republican votes.”

“It’s time for the Speaker and all Republicans to return to the negotiating table. It’s time for Republicans to work with us to find the middle ground.”

“In the meantime, the Speaker should bring the middle-class tax cut passed by the Senate five months ago to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.”

Washington, D.C. –Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the status of budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Last night the House of Representatives proved what Democrats have known all along: Speaker Boehner’s plan to raise taxes on 25 million middle-class taxpayers while handing out $50,000 bonuses to millionaires and billionaires was dead on arrival.

We knew the so-called Plan B was no plan at all.

It couldn’t pass the Senate.

Turns out, it couldn’t pass the House, either.

It’s too bad Speaker Boehner wasted a week on this futile political stunt.

But at least now House Republicans have gotten the message loud and clear that any comprehensive solution to the looming fiscal cliff will need to be a bipartisan solution.

No comprehensive agreement can pass either chamber without both Democratic votes and Republican votes.

Which means any solution will have to ask the most fortunate among us to pay a little more to reduce the deficit and ensure partisanship doesn’t take the nation to the brink of default a few months from now.

Nothing that has passed the House of Representatives fits this test.

A few days ago President Obama and Speaker Boehner appeared poised to strike a grand bargain.

But instead of making hard choices or compromising, as President Obama has been willing to do, Speaker Boehner retreated to his corner and resorted to political stunts.

But the stunt fell flat.

It’s time for the Speaker and all Republicans to return to the negotiating table.

It’s time for Republicans to work with us to find the middle ground.

That is the only hope of averting the devastating impacts of the fiscal cliff entirely.

And in the meantime, the Speaker should bring the middle-class tax cut passed by the Senate five months ago to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.

The clock is ticking until the nation goes over the fiscal cliff and taxes go up for every family in America.

But there’s still time for Speaker Boehner to hit the brakes and avoid the cliff.

The Senate-passed bill would protect 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses from crippling tax hikes while President Obama and the Speaker work toward a comprehensive agreement.

If Republicans truly want to ensure American families’ taxes don’t go up on January 1, they should simply pass the Senate bill.

The only reason Speaker Boehner hasn’t brought our bill to the floor sooner is that he knows it will pass.

Americans are not fooled by the Speaker’s phony, procedural excuses for failing to bring this solution to a vote. They’re tired of excuses. They expect action.

Let me be plain: there is nothing preventing the Speaker from taking up our bill and giving middle-class families certainty.

So I say to my friend, the Speaker, this isn’t a game.

It isn’t about scoring political points or putting wins on the board.

There will be very serious consequences for millions of families if Congress fails to compromise.

And there will be very serious consequences for our economy if Congress fails to act.

It’s time for Speaker Boehner to return to the negotiating table ready to compromise.

And it’s time for House Republicans to remember what’s at stake.

Incoming Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn: “I believe we’re going to pass the $250,000 and below sooner or later, and we really don’t have much leverage there because those rates go up by operation of law Dec. 31.  I would focus on the areas where we do have more leverage.”  [Politico, 12/12/12]

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV): “But as government leaders are negotiating in advance of a year-end deadline to avert at least $500 billion in automatic tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts – the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ - Heller said he would ‘take a serious look at any proposal,’ including ones that might allow rates to increase on upper-income families while keeping them lower for others.” [Las Vegas Review Journal, 12/12/12]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): “Give in by voting present, let the Democrats pass an increase in the upper tax brackets, comes over to the Senate, Republicans vote no, and it becomes a Democrat tax increase but not a Republican/Democrat tax increase, which I think is a mistake for the Republicans.” [Fox News, 12/11/12]

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): “Murkowski, in an interview this morning from Washington, said she had been among Republicans who have been saying that raising the tax rate on some of the nation’s wealthiest individuals should be a part of the solution to the national debt problem if it is coupled with a reduction in spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. An increasing number of Republicans have, following Obama’s re-election and Republican losses in Congress, been expressing such a view. ‘I have been suggesting for a period of time now that I think it is worth a discussion, consideration, to look at the highest earners,’ Murkowski said. ‘For us as party to draw a line in the sand, to say ‘Don’t ever touch tax rates,’ I think that became a problem for us.’” [Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,12/12/12]

GROWING NUMBER OF GOP LAWMAKERS AGREE

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “So, and a lot of people are putting forth a theory and I actually think it has merit where you go ahead and give the president the 2 percent increase that he is talking about, the rate increase on the top 2 percent.”  [Fox News Sunday, 12/9/12]

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE): “Sen. Mike Johanns edged Friday toward willingness to consider an increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans as part of a fiscal cliff agreement if it also includes ‘a good-faith down payment’ on reducing entitlement spending. ‘You know, I think there is an opportunity there,’ Johanns told Bloomberg TV anchor Al Hunt when he asked whether Republicans could go along with a Democratic plan that would restore the top tax rate to 39.6 percent with a promise that it could be revisited next year.” [Lincoln Journal Star, 12/7/12]

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): “Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don’t really care which way we do it.  Actually, I would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.” [The Hill, 12/5/12]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): “Representative (Tom) Cole’s (R-Okla.) proposal to proceed with an extension of tax relief for working families making $250,000 or less has merit because everyone agrees lower and middle-income families should not be subjected to higher taxes. I believe that very wealthy individuals — millionaires and billionaires — should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes to help us reduce the soaring deficit.” [Portland Press Herald, 12/6/12]

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): “Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who is retiring, joined a handful of other Republicans on Tuesday suggesting that Congress should pass the middle-class tax cut extensions now, then leave the fight over taxes and spending until later. Americans, she said, ‘should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.’ Congress could take that off the table‘while you’re grappling with tax cuts for the wealthy,’ she said.” [NY Times, 12/5/12]

Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): “Separately, Representative Kay Granger of Texas is endorsing Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole’s call to extend all tax cuts for middle-class earners as ‘just the right thing to do.’” [Bloomberg, 12/5/12]

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC): “I would probably vote for it at that point.” [Huffington Post, 12/4/12]

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH): “Rate increase, if the package includes significant entitlement reform that gets you to $4 to $6 trillion (in deficit savings) over 10 years, I would vote for that.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH): “If it gets us past the fiscal cliff and the president is willing to consider meaningful savings in entitlements, it’s a legitimate solution.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.” [Politico, 11/27/12]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): “I have to say that if you’re going to sign me up with a camp, I like what Tom Cole has to say.” [CNN, 11/29/12]

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID): “I wouldn’t have a problem with letting those tax rates go up.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL): “Tom Cole is talking about passing the ones that are out there so there could be more certainty, and I think that would be a positive step.” [NY Times, 11/29/12]

CONSERVATIVE OPINION MAKERS ALSO SEE WRITING ON WALL

Bill Kristol: “My view is, get the tax issue off the table. It’s the weakest one for Republicans right now.”  [Fox News Sunday, 12/9/12]

Anne Coulter:  Coulter: “OK fine, let’s do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone’s taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it.  It doesn’t mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans.”  Hannity: “So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?”  Coulter: “Not exactly, I–Well, yeah, I guess I am.”  [Huffington Post, 12/6/12]

NY Post Columnist John Podhoretz: “Republicans have a bad hand to play when it comes to the “fiscal cliff” coming up Jan. 1, when taxes will rise automatically on everyone and whopping defense cuts will be imposed automatically.  The truth is, every way you look at it, the GOP is trapped. Republican politicians will cave and give the president most of what he wants…The only real question is when. The answer is: Probably at the worst possible time, when they’ve done even more damage to the party’s‘brand.’”  [NY Post, 12/5/12]

Daily Caller Columnist Matt K. Lewis:  “Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how Republicans have anything but bad options regarding the fiscal cliff. At least, not in the short term… This hasn’t stopped some conservative pundits from acting as if Republicans hold all the cards. But the notion that Republicans have leverage is silly. It’s the same kind of happy thinking that led some to boldly predict a Romney victory.”  [Daily Caller, 11/30/12]

Washington Examiner Editorial Writer Conn Carroll: “But as a backup plan, passing a tax cut for 98 percent of Americans, while avoiding any of the additional new stimulus spending that Obama is asking for, may be the best Republicans can hope for right now.” [Conn Carroll Column, Washington Examiner, 12/5/12]

NY Times Columnist David Brooks: “So Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates.” [New York Times, 12/4/12]

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The low-risk [option] is to pass an extension of the middle-class tax cuts, which presumably the Democrats would have to pass, and watch taxes for high earners rise. That way at least Republicans wouldn’t get blamed for middle-class tax increases. That second option isn’t great. But it’s better than some of the possible deals I’ve been reading and hearing about.” [National Review, 11/30/12]

Wall Street Journal Editorial: “This is where Mr. Norquist can give some ground. If taxes are going up anyway because the Bush rates expire, and Republicans can stop them from going up as much as they otherwise would, then pledge-takers deserve some credit for that.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/27/12]

 Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “So, and a lot of people are putting forth a theory and I actually think it has merit where you go ahead and give the president the 2 percent increase that he is talking about, the rate increase on the top 2 percent.” [Fox News Sunday, 12/9/12]

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE): “Sen. Mike Johanns edged Friday toward willingness to consider an increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans as part of a fiscal cliff agreement if it also includes ‘a good-faith down payment’ on reducing entitlement spending. ‘You know, I think there is an opportunity there,’ Johanns told Bloomberg TV anchor Al Hunt when he asked whether Republicans could go along with a Democratic plan that would restore the top tax rate to 39.6 percent with a promise that it could be revisited next year.” [Lincoln Journal Star, 12/7/12]

GROWING NUMBER OF GOP LAWMAKERS AGREE

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): “Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don’t really care which way we do it.  Actually, I would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.” [The Hill, 12/5/12]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): “Representative (Tom) Cole’s (R-Okla.) proposal to proceed with an extension of tax relief for working families making $250,000 or less has merit because everyone agrees lower and middle-income families should not be subjected to higher taxes. I believe that very wealthy individuals — millionaires and billionaires — should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes to help us reduce the soaring deficit.” [Portland Press Herald, 12/6/12]

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): “Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who is retiring, joined a handful of other Republicans on Tuesday suggesting that Congress should pass the middle-class tax cut extensions now, then leave the fight over taxes and spending until later. Americans, she said, ‘should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.’ Congress could take that off the table ‘while you’re grappling with tax cuts for the wealthy,’ she said.” [NY Times, 12/5/12]

Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): “Separately, Representative Kay Granger of Texas is endorsing Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole’s call to extend all tax cuts for middle-class earners as ‘just the right thing to do.’” [Bloomberg, 12/5/12]

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC): “I would probably vote for it at that point.” [Huffington Post, 12/4/12]

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH): “Rate increase, if the package includes significant entitlement reform that gets you to $4 to $6 trillion (in deficit savings) over 10 years, I would vote for that.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH): “If it gets us past the fiscal cliff and the president is willing to consider meaningful savings in entitlements, it’s a legitimate solution.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.” [Politico, 11/27/12]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): “I have to say that if you’re going to sign me up with a camp, I like what Tom Cole has to say.” [CNN, 11/29/12]

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID): “I wouldn’t have a problem with letting those tax rates go up.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL): “Tom Cole is talking about passing the ones that are out there so there could be more certainty, and I think that would be a positive step.” [NY Times, 11/29/12]

CONSERVATIVE OPINION MAKERS ALSO SEE WRITING ON WALL

Bill Kristol: “My view is, get the tax issue off the table. It’s the weakest one for Republicans right now.”  [Fox News Sunday, 12/9/12]

Anne Coulter:  Coulter: “OK fine, let’s do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone’s taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it.  It doesn’t mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans.” Hannity: “So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?”  Coulter: “Not exactly, I–Well, yeah, I guess I am.”  [Huffington Post,12/6/12]

NY Post Columnist John Podhoretz: “Republicans have a bad hand to play when it comes to the “fiscal cliff” coming up Jan. 1, when taxes will rise automatically on everyone and whopping defense cuts will be imposed automatically.  The truth is, every way you look at it, the GOP is trapped. Republican politicians will cave and give the president most of what he wants…The only real question is when. The answer is: Probably at the worst possible time, when they’ve done even more damage to the party’s ‘brand.’”  [NY Post, 12/5/12]

Daily Caller Columnist Matt K. Lewis:  “Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how Republicans have anything but bad options regarding the fiscal cliff. At least, not in the short term… This hasn’t stopped some conservative pundits from acting as if Republicans hold all the cards. But the notion that Republicans have leverage is silly. It’s the same kind of happy thinking that led some to boldly predict a Romney victory.”  [Daily Caller, 11/30/12]

Washington Examiner Editorial Writer Conn Carroll: “But as a backup plan, passing a tax cut for 98 percent of Americans, while avoiding any of the additional new stimulus spending that Obama is asking for, may be the best Republicans can hope for right now.” [Conn Carroll Column, Washington Examiner, 12/5/12]

NY Times Columnist David Brooks: “So Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates.” [New York Times, 12/4/12]

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The low-risk [option] is to pass an extension of the middle-class tax cuts, which presumably the Democrats would have to pass, and watch taxes for high earners rise. That way at least Republicans wouldn’t get blamed for middle-class tax increases. That second option isn’t great. But it’s better than some of the possible deals I’ve been reading and hearing about.” [National Review, 11/30/12]

Wall Street Journal Editorial: “This is where Mr. Norquist can give some ground. If taxes are going up anyway because the Bush rates expire, and Republicans can stop them from going up as much as they otherwise would, then pledge-takers deserve some credit for that.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/27/12]

“While too many Americans in Nevada and across the country continue to struggle, there is no doubt our economy is moving in the right direction. The only question is whether Republicans will jeopardize the progress made so far by forcing a $2,200 tax hike on middle class families, or initiating another destructive fight over the debt ceiling.

“The steps we need to take to keep our economy moving in the right direction are simple. Speaker Boehner should pass the Senate’s middle-class tax cut bill immediately, and Senator McConnell should allow an up-or-down vote on his own proposal to give the President the authority to avoid default by raising the debt ceiling.

“If Republicans refuse to take these simple steps, their focus will be clear:  they are more interested in appeasing the Tea Party than protecting the middle class.”

“The only question left is how long Speaker Boehner will make middle class families wait for relief and how long he’ll force the financial markets to wait for certainty.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding tax and budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Democrats have been saying it for more than four months: it’s time for the House to pass the middle-class tax cut approved by the Senate.

But as the days until the country goes over the fiscal cliff tick by, more and more Republicans have joined our chorus. They realize Republican leaders’ unwillingness to compromise sooner has put them in a real bind.

So reasonable Republicans are asking their House leadership to allow a vote on the Senate-passed legislation. What was once a trickle has become a flood.

Last week Republican Rep. Tom Cole said it was time to give middle-class families certainty their taxes won’t go up by $2,200 on January 1.

Then Rep. Tim Scott, also a Republican, admitted the Senate’s middle-class tax cut would surely pass the House – since it will take only 26 moderate, Republican votes to ensure passage.

Conservative opinion makers piled on. Columnist David Brooks, of the New York Times, wrote: “Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates.”

Then on Tuesday the Senior Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, urged House Republican leaders to end the suspense for middle-class taxpayers.

They shouldn’t have to wonder, she said, whether “we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.” I assure them, we won’t.

And on Wednesday Senator Susan Collins, joined her colleague from Maine, agreeing the idea of ending the suspense for the middle class “has merit.”

Yesterday, it seemed every practical Republican left in Washington was suddenly willing to say out loud what we’ve known for weeks: the only remaining option is for the House to pass the Senate bill.

Dozens of House Republicans signed onto a letter urging Speaker Boehner to take the last exit before the cliff.

Neither President Obama nor Democrats in Congress have ever been ambiguous about our proposal – to provide economic security for 98 percent of American families, while asking the wealthiest 2 percent to contribute just a little more to stop runaway debt.

And now that even a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Senator Coburn has endorsed the Democratic approach, Speaker Boehner has the political cover he needs.

“I know we have to raise revenue,” Senator Coburn said Wednesday. “I would rather see the rates go up,” he said, than eliminate tax credits and deductions that benefit the middle class.

It’s apparent how this will end. The only question left is how long Speaker Boehner will make middle class families wait for relief and how long he’ll force the financial markets to wait for certainty.

The longer he delays, the greater the risk to our economy. So I urge Speaker Boehner, if you won’t listen to me, listen to your own caucus. Listen to prudent members of your own party.

We can argue whether to give more unnecessary tax breaks to the wealthy tomorrow. We can discuss balanced, responsible ways to reduce our deficit next week. We can reform our tax code next year. But we must give economic certainty to the middle class today.

Democrats agree. Independents agree. Republicans agree. Americans agree. Even dozens of CEOs of major corporations – whose personal taxes would go up under our plan – emphatically agree.

I’ve been saying for weeks that the only people who aren’t on board are Republicans in Congress. But now even they are crying out for compromise. I only hope Speaker Boehner is listening.

COBURN: ‘I’D RATHER SEE RATES GO UP.’ “Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don’t really care which way we do it.  Actually, I would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.” [The Hill, 12/5/12]

GROWING NUMBER OF GOP LAWMAKERS AGREE

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): “Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who is retiring, joined a handful of other Republicans on Tuesday suggesting that Congress should pass the middle-class tax cut extensions now, then leave the fight over taxes and spending until later. Americans, she said, ‘should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.’ Congress could take that off the table ‘while you’re grappling with tax cuts for the wealthy,’ she said.” [NY Times, 12/5/12]

Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): Separately, Representative Kay Granger of Texas is endorsing Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole’s call to extend all tax cuts for middle-class earners as “just the right thing to do.” [Bloomberg, 12/5/12]

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC): “I would probably vote for it at that point.” [Huffington Post, 12/4/12]

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH): “Rate increase, if the package includes significant entitlement reform that gets you to $4 to $6 trillion (in deficit savings) over 10 years, I would vote for that.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH): “If it gets us past the fiscal cliff and the president is willing to consider meaningful savings in entitlements, it’s a legitimate solution.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.” [Politico, 11/27/12]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): “I have to say that if you’re going to sign me up with a camp, I like what Tom Cole has to say.” [CNN, 11/29/12]

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID): “I wouldn’t have a problem with letting those tax rates go up.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL): “Tom Cole is talking about passing the ones that are out there so there could be more certainty, and I think that would be a positive step.” [NY Times, 11/29/12]

CONSERVATIVE OPINION MAKERS ALSO SEE WRITING ON WALL

NY Post Columnist John Podhoretz: “Republicans have a bad hand to play when it comes to the “fiscal cliff” coming up Jan. 1, when taxes will rise automatically on everyone and whopping defense cuts will be imposed automatically.  The truth is, every way you look at it, the GOP is trapped. Republican politicians will cave and give the president most of what he wants… The only real question is when. The answer is: Probably at the worst possible time, when they’ve done even more damage to the party’s ‘brand.’”  [NY Post, 12/5/12]

Daily Caller Columnist Matt K. Lewis:  “Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how Republicans have anything but bad options regarding the fiscal cliff. At least, not in the short term… This hasn’t stopped some conservative pundits from acting as if Republicans hold all the cards. But the notion that Republicans have leverage is silly. It’s the same kind of happy thinking that led some to boldly predict a Romney victory.”  [Daily Caller,11/30/12]

Washington Examiner Editorial Writer Conn Carroll: “But as a backup plan, passing a tax cut for 98 percent of Americans, while avoiding any of the additional new stimulus spending that Obama is asking for, may be the best Republicans can hope for right now.” [Conn Carroll Column, Washington Examiner, 12/5/12]

NY Times Columnist David Brooks: “So Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates.” [New York Times, 12/4/12]

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The low-risk [option] is to pass an extension of the middle-class tax cuts, which presumably the Democrats would have to pass, and watch taxes for high earners rise. That way at least Republicans wouldn’t get blamed for middle-class tax increases. That second option isn’t great. But it’s better than some of the possible deals I’ve been reading and hearing about.” [National Review, 11/30/12]

Wall Street Journal Editorial: “This is where Mr. Norquist can give some ground. If taxes are going up anyway because the Bush rates expire, and Republicans can stop them from going up as much as they otherwise would, then pledge-takers deserve some credit for that.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/27/12]

“The few reasonable Republicans left in Congress agree we need to give certainty to middle-class families now.”

“I still believe there are 26 reasonable Republicans willing to put their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to Grover Norquist.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the failure of the disabilities treaty and ongoing tax and budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Across the country, Americans are lamenting the lack of progress in negotiations to avoid a massive tax increase on middle-class families. I share their frustration.

But for insight into why negotiations have been difficult, consider yesterday’s failure of the Disabilities Convention at the hands of the Tea Party.

This shouldn’t have been a battle. But extreme elements of the Republican Party picked a fight where there was none.

Thirty-eight Republicans voted against the Convention, including several who were on the record supporting it.

This treaty, already ratified by 125 countries, would hold foreign nations to the same high standard of treatment the U.S. already maintains for people with disabilities.

And it would safeguard American citizens traveling, working and serving abroad.

The treaty has the support of veterans groups and disability groups from around the country.

It wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny. It wouldn’t require any changes to existing U.S. law. And the issue is as bipartisan as they come. This is what one Senator said about the treaty:

“Protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, ANY person, is not a political issue. It is a human issue, regardless of where in the world a disabled person strives to live a normal, independent life where basic rights and accessibilities are available. Disability rights and protections have always been a bipartisan issue and ratifying this treaty should be no different.”

That wasn’t some ultra-liberal. That was Senator John McCain, a veteran, who broke with the extremists and Tea Partiers in his party and voted to ratify the treaty.

The Convention also had strong support from a number of other leading Republicans, including President George H.W. Bush and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.

Senator Dole, a disabled veteran of World War II who led the fight to pass the treaty, was here yesterday urging Republicans to support it.

One by one, those Republicans greeted the 89-year-old war hero and patriot, who just last week was in Walter Reed hospital.

And then, one by one, all but a handful of them voted against the treaty – ensuring its failure.

But their professed reasons for opposing it had no basis in fact. Even many Republicans acknowledge that.

There is no justification for sending a message / that every individual around the world / who strives to lead a full and productive life / in spite of a disability / does not deserve the same just treatment.

There is no justification for telling disabled Americans – especially those who have sacrificed their very bodies for our freedom – that they do not deserve the same protections abroad / that they do at home.

Yet that is the message 38 of my Republican colleagues sent yesterday.

And these are the same Republicans with whom Democrats are supposed to reach an agreement to protect middle-class families from a tax increase.

It’s difficult to engage in rational negotiation when one side holds well-known facts and proven truths in such low esteem.

That doesn’t mean compromise is out of reach.

But as negotiations continue, I hope my Republican colleagues will keep in mind the oft-repeated words of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

The stakes are high. The days run short. But there is still a quick, easy way out of this predicament.

The House must take up the Senate-passed, middle-class tax cut. The few reasonable Republicans left in Congress agree we need to give certainty to middle-class families now.

Yesterday, Senator Olympia Snowe, the Senior Senator from Maine, who is retiring, said Congress should fight about tax rates for the top 2 percent after we’ve reassured the middle class.

Americans, “should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.”

If House Republican leaders allow a vote on our legislation, it will pass. Every Democrat will vote for it.

It will only take 26 Republican votes to push the legislation across the finish line.

And I still believe there are 26 reasonable Republicans willing to put their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to Grover Norquist.

“Given the choice between millionaires and the middle class, Republicans sided with the wealthiest few.”

“Democrats won’t pass it. President Obama won’t sign it. And the American people won’t support it.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding tax and budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

It’s been nearly three weeks since leaders from both parties commenced negotiations with President Obama to avert the fiscal cliff.

But yesterday, after weeks of delay – and as the days dwindled until taxes are set to go up for millions of families and businesses – Republicans finally showed up to the negotiating table.

And now we know why they’ve been holding their cards so close to the vest: their proposal would raise taxes on the middle class.

Their plan to raise $800 billion in revenue by eliminating popular tax deductions and credits would reach deep into the pockets of middle class families.

Republicans are so intent on protecting low tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, they are willing to sacrifice the economic security of the middle class to do it.

Their proposal was short on specifics. But we know from independent analyses that it’s impossible to raise enough revenue to make a dent in our deficit without doing one of two things: raising tax rates on the top two percent or raising taxes on the middle class.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center called it “mathematically impossible” to reduce the deficit and give more tax cuts to the rich without harming the middle class.

As usual, given the choice between millionaires and the middle class, Republicans sided with the wealthiest few.

In fact, their plan doesn’t just keep rates low for the richest 2 percent – it actually lowers them further.

Democrats’ plan would protect 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses from painful tax increases by asking the top 2 percent to pay a little bit more to reduce the deficit.

Republicans’ plan, on the other hand, is more of the same.

Not only does it balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, it voids our promise to seniors with steep cuts to Social Security and Medicare – all to pay for even more handouts to the rich.

At least now we know where they stand.

Republicans have sought cover by invoking Erskine Bowles’ name, but he has disavowed their plan in no uncertain terms.

We are glad to finally see Republicans joining in the negotiating process instead of watching from the sidelines.

But while their proposal may be serious, it’s also a non-starter.

They know any agreement that raises taxes on the middle class in order to protect more unnecessary giveaways to the top 2 percent is doomed from the start.

Democrats won’t pass it.

President Obama won’t sign it.

And the American people won’t support it.

They are tired of budget-busting giveaways to the wealthiest few – people who have enjoyed growing paychecks and shrinking tax bills for more than a decade.

The American people want a balanced deal. And simple math dictates that a balanced deal must include higher tax rates for the richest few.

Republicans would be wise to keep that in mind as negotiations move forward.

Democrats are willing to compromise.

But we will not consign the middle class to higher tax bills while millionaires and billionaires avoid all the pain.

“To protect millionaires, Speaker Boehner’s offer would force middle class families to pay higher taxes. Raising taxes on the middle class is bad policy and flunks the test of balance. To protect the middle class while reducing the deficit, simple math dictates that tax rates must rise on the top two percent of taxpayers next year. The sooner Republicans grasp that reality, the sooner we can avoid the fiscal cliff.

“Democrats are willing to compromise, but any agreement must protect the middle class. We have also been clear that we have no intention of kicking the can down the road. Not only does Speaker Boehner’s proposal delay revenues into 2013, it sets up another destructive fight over the debt ceiling first thing next year.

“Republicans have made an offer, but now it is time for them to get serious about forging a balanced approach.”

“The sooner they make a legitimate offer, the sooner we can all start working to find the middle ground.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the tax and budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Before I came to Congress, I was a lawyer.

I tried lots of cases – including more than 100 jury trials.

But my greatest victories were the cases that never saw the inside of a courtroom.

As the English poet George Herbert said, “A lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit.”

It’s always better to settle than to fight it out. So I’ve done my fair share of negotiating – both as a lawyer and as a lawmaker.

And I have a bit of negotiating advice for Republican Leaders: you’re doing it wrong.

Generally during a negotiation, each side brings an offer or demand to the table. And then the two sides sit down and find middle ground everyone can live with.

It’s not always easy and it’s rarely ever fun. True compromise means no one gets everything they want.

But unless both sides come to the table with an offer, you can’t even begin the negotiation.

In fact, unless both sides come to the table with an offer, it’s not really a negotiation at all.

Over the last week, Republican Leaders from both Chambers have complained that Democrats put forward a proposal for resolving the fiscal cliff that reflected our priorities. What did they expect?

Our proposal is simple: we want to end unnecessary tax breaks for the richest of the rich and provide security for everyone making less than $250,000.

No one should be surprised by President Obama’s offer. It is exactly what he has said he supports time and again.

It’s what I have said I support time and again.

It’s what Democratic Senators campaigned on across the country.

This plan to protect 98 percent of American families from a tax increase also passed the Senate four months ago.

And it has the support of the American people.

Sixty percent of Americans – including 63 percent of independents – support raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.

I wish I could share with you the details of the Republicans’ answering proposal.

Unfortunately, they have yet to produce one.

We’re not going to do their homework for them.

It is Republicans’ responsibility to respond with a counter-offer – not a hint dropped during a Wall Street Journal interview or a Sunday talk show, but a real offer.
And the sooner they make a legitimate offer, the sooner we can all start working to find the middle ground.

Let me remind my Republican colleagues that, as we work toward a final agreement, millions of middle-class families are nervously watching and waiting.

For four months, Republicans have held them hostage to protect the richest 2 percent of taxpayers.

Reasonable, rank-and-file Republicans are urging their leadership to stop delaying Senate-passed legislation that would give millions of middle-class families making less than $250,000 the certainty their taxes won’t go up by $2,200 on January 1.

It wouldn’t be hard for Speaker Boehner to pass our bill. Every Democrat in the House will vote for it.

To reach 218 votes to pass our legislation, it only takes 26 reasonable Republicans willing to put the needs of the middle class ahead of the demands of Grover Norquist.

As my friend and colleague, the Senior Senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, said on Sunday, John Boehner has a decision to make.

This is what she said: “He’s got to decide, is his speakership more important or is the country more important?”

As we continue to hope for a balanced agreement that will safeguard the economy, I hope Speaker Boehner ends the suspense for millions of American families.

THREE NEW GOP LAWMAKERS ECHO REP. TOM COLE

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.” [Politico, 11/27/12]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): “I have to say that if you’re going to sign me up with a camp, I like what Tom Cole has to say.” [CNN, 11/29/12]

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID): “I wouldn’t have a problem with letting those tax rates go up.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL): “Tom Cole is talking about passing the ones that are out there so there could be more certainty, and I think that would be a positive step.” [NY Times, 11/29/12]

HOUSE GOP LAWMAKERS: ‘SENATE BILL COULD PASS THE HOUSE’

Rep. Steve King (R-IA): “Conservatives might be able to figure how they can go home and rationalize a vote that included a revenue increase and or a tax rate increase.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Spokesman for Rep Tim Scott (R-SC): Such a measure “could pass the House.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Anonymous GOP Lawmaker: “Another senior Republican lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters that a Democratic bill, which passed the Senate in July and would raise income taxes on families with net incomes above $250,000, could pass his chamber if it got to the floor.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

It took four months, but Republicans are finally realizing the way back from the fiscal cliff has been right in front of them all along.

In July, the Senate passed legislation to give economic certainty to 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses – to every American making less than $250,000 a year.

For four months we’ve been one vote away from a solution to this looming crisis.

And for four months, House Republicans have refused to act.

Instead they have held the middle class hostage to protect the richest 2 percent of taxpayers – people who have enjoyed a decade of ballooning income and shrinking tax bills.

Now reasonable Republicans are coming around to what Democrats have said all along: let’s reassure millions of middle-class Americans their taxes won’t go up by $2,200 on January 1.

Prominent Republicans are calling on Speaker Boehner to end the suspense for millions of American families.

Republican Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma urged his caucus to pass the Senate’s legislation keeping taxes low for those making less than $250,000.

And conservative, Republican Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina admitted yesterday that if the Speaker brought our bill to a vote, it would surely to pass.

It’s time House Republican leadership listened to the will of the American people – and the advice of reasonable members of their own caucus.

The way out of this standoff is clear.

Yet we’re left wondering how long Republicans will force middle-class families to wait and worry.

Unfortunately, resolving this standoff won’t eliminate every conflict over our fiscal future.

If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, it will take a balanced approach.

Last year, we successfully worked across party lines to cut a trillion dollars’ worth of spending we just couldn’t afford.

Now, even our Republican colleagues acknowledge budget cuts alone won’t solve our fiscal challenges.

A majority of Americans – 60 percent – want to end needless tax breaks for the richest Americans. Democrats couldn’t agree more.

But we can argue over whether to give more unnecessary handouts to the wealthy tomorrow.

We can discuss balanced, responsible ways to reduce our deficit tomorrow.

Let’s take care of the middle class today.

Too often, it is a challenge finding common ground in Washington.

But as we negotiate a path back from the fiscal cliff, we should also recognize when Democrats and Republicans agree.

We agree taxes should not go up for anyone making less than $250,000 a year – 97 percent of small businesses and 98 percent of middle-class families.

With common ground in sight, we should be able to act today to avert the fiscal cliff for millions of families and business.

Even if we disagree on whether to end tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans, we should agree to hold the middle class harmless – and do it now.

A single vote in the House of Representatives would get the job done.

Unfortunately, there’s one obstacle standing between Congress and compromise: Grover Norquist.

For years, Norquist has bullied lawmakers willing to put their oath of office or their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to the anti-tax zealot.

His brand of ideological extremism has been bad for Congress and even worse for the country.

So I was pleased to see a few Republicans in Congress distance themselves from Norquist this week.

Several Republican lawmakers have said revenue should be on the table during fiscal cliff negotiations.

Now it’s time for those Republicans to turn happy talk into action.

President Obama and Senate Democrats ran on a promise to end the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.

Americans raised their voices, cast their votes and supported our pledge.

Congress must act in accordance with the will of the American people.

An agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff must give economic certainty to middle-class families.

It must protect important tax deductions for families and businesses still struggling to recover from the Great Recession.

It must take a balanced approach to reduce spending.

But it must also ask the richest of the rich to pay a little extra to reduce the deficit.

Any balanced agreement will require difficult concessions from both sides.

Clinging to the kind of ideological purity Grover Norquist peddles – saying you’ll never bend or compromise – is easy.

Cooperating with those with whom you disagree is hard.

Doing what’s right for the country – despite the personal cost – is hard.

Legislating is hard.

As we approach the fiscal cliff, Democrats are ready to make tough choices.

I hope my Republican friends – especially those who claim they put no pledge before their pledge to serve their constituents – can say the same.

Senate-Passed Bill is Only One With a Chance to Become Law

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks on the Senate floor today regarding the bipartisan compromise needed to avoid the fiscal cliff. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

In the weeks since our country voted to return President Barack Obama to the White House and a Democratic majority to the Senate, I have spoken often about compromise.

And I remain optimistic that when it comes to our economy – when it comes to protecting middle-class families from a whopping tax hike come January 1 – Republicans and Democrats will be able to find common ground.

President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, once said, “People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable… There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface.”

Too often Republicans and Democrats in Washington face off from our entrenched positions – never realizing the solutions to this country’s problems rest not on one side of the aisle or the other, but somewhere in the middle.

However, as we continue to negotiate a responsible path forward, I remind everyone within the sound of my voice of one fact: this Congress is already one vote away from avoiding the fiscal cliff for middle class families and small businesses.

We could solve the greatest economic emergency facing the nation today – if only the House would consider the Senate-passed bill freezing tax rates for 98 percent of American families and 97 percent of small businesses.

As Thomas Jefferson said, we should not put off for tomorrow what we can do today.

Our legislation would give economic certainty to the middle-class, protect important tax deductions for families and businesses and restore balance by asking the most fortunate among us to pay a little extra to reduce the deficit.

It’s also the only bill with a chance of being signed into law by President Obama.

I was dismayed to hear Speaker Boehner once again urge the Senate to take up the House-passed bill extending more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

The Senate has already considered that bill – and rejected it on a bipartisan basis.

The Senate has spoken.

And President Obama has spoken. He has promised he will not sign any bill that mortgages our future to pay for handouts to the wealthiest 2 percent.

I only hope House Republicans have been listening.

I also hope my colleagues – Republicans and Democrats, members of the House and of the Senate – used the Thanksgiving break not only to give thanks but also to reflect on the monumental tasks ahead.

And I hope they took time to reflect on the effort it will take to complete those tasks.

As President Eisenhower said, there will have to be compromises.

And seeking the middle of the road isn’t just acceptable – it’s the only way forward.

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC): “When you’re $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece, and Republicans — Republicans should put revenue on the table. We’re this far in debt. We don’t generate enough revenue.”  [ABC’s This Week, 11/25/12]

Rep. Peter King (R-NY): “A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress.  For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941, I would have signed a declaration of war against Japan.  I’m not going to attack Japan today.  The world has changed.  And the economic situation is different.  Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill realized that in the 1980s.  I think everything should be on the table.” [NBC’s Meet the Press, 11/25/12]

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.  If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.” [WMAZ News, 11/22/12]

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “I’m not obligated on the pledge.  I was just elected; the only thing I’m honoring is the oath that I take when I serve, when I’m sworn in in January.”  [The Hill, 11/26/12]

“On Tuesday, Americans from across the political spectrum made it clear that they want a balanced approach to tax policy that asks millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more. The sooner Republicans come to grips with this reality, the sooner we can forge an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff and prevent a tax hike on middle class Americans.

“The Senate passed a bill to cut taxes for Americans making less than $250,000, and the House should pass it immediately. Our bill cuts taxes for small businesses. When Republicans talk about small businesses, they are really trying to protect millionaires like Donald Trump.

“It is time for us to put politics aside and give the American people the balanced approach they are demanding. I am optimistic that we can meet this challenge before the end of the year.”

NATIONAL EXIT POLLS: 60% OF VOTERS SUPPORT HIGHER TAXES ON WEALTHY

POLITICO: “More than half of voters favor increasing taxes, according to early exit polls released Tuesday night. Six in 10 voters nationwide say they think taxes should be increased, a welcome statistic for President Barack Obama and a sign that the president’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cuts for the wealthy may have been effective.” [11/6/12]

PUNDITS AGREE: OBAMA WON PUBLIC’S BACKING ON TAX ISSUE

WEEKLY STANDARD’S BILL KRISTOL: “President Obama won re-election. I hate to say it, but he said he wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy and he got 51 percent of the vote. They won seats in the Senate and the House.” [Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier, 11/7/12]

WSJ’s STEPHEN MOORE: “Now, look, Barack Obama won the election. Elections have consequences. He ran on the fact that he’s going to raise those tax cuts — those tax rates on the rich, so he can claim that he’s got a voter mandate to do that.” [FBN’s The Willis Report, 11/7/12]

NBC’s CHUCK TODD & DAVID GREGORY:

GREGORY: “Did the President win the fight over taxes last night?”

TODD: “I looked at that exit poll. It sure looks like it to me.”

GREGORY: “Yeah.”

TODD: “Maybe not on health care. There were some other things that didn’t go so well for the President, but boy, on taxes, it wasn’t even close.”

[NBC’s The Daily Rundown, 11/7/12]

CNN’s ANDERSON COOPER: “This president got re-elected very clearly saying that is what he wanted to do—to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The Republican challenger said he did not want to do that and he did not get elected. Doesn’t that give President Obama and the Democrats some right to push for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans?” [CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, 12/7/12]

SLATE’S DAVE WEIGEL: “Barack Obama ran on one consistent tax promise, in both 2008 and 2012. Vote for him, and you’d see middle-class tax rates stay the same while the rate on income over $250,000 increased to 39.6 percent. /// Twice, in four years, a majority of voters have picked Obama for president, knowing full well that he’ll raise upper-income tax rates.” [Slate, 11/7/12]

“Mitt Romney’s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his ‘severely conservative’ agenda is laughable. In fact, Mitt Romney’s Tea Party agenda has already been rejected in the Senate. In the past few months, we have voted down many of the major policies that Mitt Romney has run on, from the Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it, to the Blunt Amendment to deny women access to contraception, to more tax giveaways for millionaires and billionaires, to a draconian spending plan that would gut critical services for seniors and the most vulnerable Americans.

“Mitt Romney has demonstrated that he lacks the courage to stand up to the Tea Party, kowtowing to their demands time and again. There is nothing in Mitt Romney’s record to suggest he would act any differently as president. As governor of Massachusetts, he had a terrible relationship with Democrats, cordoning himself off behind a velvet rope instead of reaching out to build relationships. And in the near-decade that Mitt Romney has spent running for president, both his words and his actions have shown that pleasing the far right is more important to him than working across the aisle.

“Senate Democrats are committed to defending the middle class, and we will do everything in our power to defend them against Mitt Romney’s Tea Party agenda.”

“For months Mitt Romney has been dishonest about his own taxes, but now he is being dishonest about your taxes. When he was asked to answer for his proposal to give huge breaks to millionaires and billionaires while raising taxes on middle-class Americans, Mitt Romney feigned ignorance and tried to disavow his own tax plan.

“With so much valid concern over the nation’s deficit, the American people deserve to know the truth about Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Democrats have been clear that we want to cut taxes for American families earning less than $250,000 while asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share as part of a balanced plan to reduce our deficit.

“But instead of being honest with Americans about taxes and the deficit, Mitt Romney is peddling snake oil. He seems to think he is entitled to hide the details of his tax plan from the American people, just like he continues to hide his tax returns. But the truth is that Mitt Romney’s math just doesn’t add up without raising taxes on the middle class.”

“The information released today reveals that Mitt Romney manipulated one of the only two years of tax returns he’s seen fit to show the American people – and then only to ‘conform’ with his public statements. That raises the question: what else in those returns has Romney manipulated? We already know Romney has money in tax havens in Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. What we don’t know is why he refuses to be straight with the American people about the choices he’s made in his financial life. When will the American people see the returns he filed before he was running for president? Governor Romney is showing us what he does when the public is looking. The true test of his character would be to show what he did when everyone was not looking at his taxes.

“It’s also galling to see the creative accounting Mitt Romney applied to his own tax returns only days after learning of his insulting comments that seniors, soldiers and hard-working parents don’t pay enough taxes. Once again, we see Mitt Romney is out of touch with middle class families, who don’t have the luxury of accounting wizards and foreign tax shelters. It’s obvious he believes in two sets of rules: one for him, and one for the middle class. He says he wants to be president for only half the people but he acts like he only cares for the top two percent. Despite the fiscal cliff looming in just over three months, Mitt Romney refuses to explain the details of his tax policy. Will the policies he proposes benefit all Americans, or only multi-millionaires like him?”

Senate Tea Party Leader: ‘We Might as Well Cut a Deal’

WaPo: ‘REPUBLICANS SAY THEY’LL RETREAT ON TAXES IF OBAMA WINS’

WaPo: “Senior Republicans say they will be forced to retreat on taxes if President Obama wins a second term in November, clearing the biggest obstacle to a deal with Democrats to defuse a year-end budget bomb that threatens to rock the U.S. economy.” [Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane, 9/21/12]

WaPo: “… Even some ardent conservatives say Republicans may have no choice but to throw in the towel on taxes if they want to persuade Democrats to spare the Pentagon budget.” [Montgomery and Kane, 9/21/12]

SENATE TEA PARTY LEADER: ‘WE MIGHT AS WELL CUT A DEAL’

WaPo: “We’re not going to save our defense unless we go along with the president’s wishes…,” said Sen Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a leader of the Tea Party movement. … “There are enough Republicans, I think, who are so afraid of defense cuts that they would probably give in.” [Montgomery and Kane, 9/21/12]

BLOOMBERG: “Last week, one of the Republican Party’s most ardent tax- cut advocates said if Obama is re-elected, there’s not much point in delaying a compromise on taxes.  … ‘We might as well cut a deal,’ [DeMint] said. ‘If Republicans want to maintain the defense, we’re going to have to give tax increases to Obama.’” [Heidi Przybyla, 9/20/12]

TOP SENATE CONSERVATIVE: ‘I’M ALL FOR’ DEAL THAT INCLUDES REVENUES

BLOOMBERG: “’I’m all for that, I wanted Bowles-Simpson,’ said Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican participating in the Senate group’s talks.” [Przybyla, 9/20/12]

MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS: Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Cut Taxes for 114 Million Middle Class Families. Senate Democrats led the passage of legislation to extend middle-class tax cuts for the 98% of Americans making less than $250,000, preventing a $1,600 tax hike on 114 million middle-class families. House Republicans are willing to add nearly $1 trillion to the deficit and hit 25 million families with a tax hike by ending credits for raising children and paying for college. [Vote 184, 7/25/12; National Economic Council, 7/12]

FARM BILL: Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Strengthen the Rural Economy. In June, Senate Democrats passed the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act, which would invest in successful jobs initiatives, help increase export opportunities, make it easier for farmers to sell locally and access capital, support innovation in bio-manufacturing and bio-energy, and support farmers and small businesses owners who have suffered disasters, while saving tens of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. American agriculture supports 16 million jobs. [Vote 164, 6/21/12; Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, 6/12]

POSTAL REFORM: Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Modernize the United States Postal Service. In April, Senate Democrats passed legislation to modernize the postal service and give it the flexibility to maintain critical functions while adapting to changes in the way people use the mail system. The United States Postal Service is the country’s second largest civilian employer and sustains over 8 million jobs. The House has been idle in the face of the Post Office’s first ever default – on $5.5 billion of future retiree health benefits. [Vote 82, 4/25/12;Envelope Manufacturers Association, 3/11; Reuters, 8/2/12]

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT : Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Reduce the Incidence of Violence Against Women.  In April, Senate Democrats passed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which enhanced emphasis on prevention and response to sexual assault and extended VAWA protections to all Americans.  House Republicans have been unwilling to act on the Senate’s bipartisan, inclusive bill. In the time since the Senate passed its bill, there have been over 1.2 million incidents of violence against women. [Vote 87, 4/26/12; CQ, 4/26/12]

CHINA CURRENCY: Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Crack Down on China’s Cheating and Level the Field for American Workers. In October of 2011, Senate Democrats passed the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act, which improves currency oversight and includes tougher consequences for breaking the rules. Revaluing China’s currency could create over 1.6 million jobs. [Vote 159, 10/11/11; EPI, 6/17/11]

“Today, the most secretive presidential candidate since Richard Nixon is coming to Nevada, asking to be elected president. Forget about president – Mitt Romney couldn’t get confirmed as a cabinet secretary. Every single nominee overseen by the Senate Finance Committee has to release more tax returns than Romney is willing to release. The contents of the one year of returns he has released would probably be enough to tank his nomination anyway: secret overseas bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, tax avoidance tricks and a lower tax rate than middle-class families pay.

“Romney’s tax plan is even more insulting to Nevadans than his belief that he’s above basic scrutiny. His plan is simple: he’ll cut rates for millionaires like himself, and pay for it by raising taxes on middle class families like you. In Nevada alone, more than 1.2 million families could face a tax hike under Romney’s plan, with the average middle-class family seeing their taxes rise by $2,000.

“In short, Romney’s message to Nevadans is this: he won’t release his taxes, but he wants to raise yours.

“It’s hard to say which is more insulting to Americans’ intelligence, Mitt Romney’s tax plan or his refusal to show the American people what’s in his tax returns. Romney seems to think he’s above the basic level of transparency and openness that every presidential candidate has lived up to since his father set the standard in 1968. Thumbing your nose at the people you’re asking to vote for you won’t fly in Nevada, just like it won’t fly in the rest of the country.”

Stay Connected With Senator Reid

I was pleased to hear Speaker Boehner say last week that he will bring the Senate-passed middle class tax cut to the House floor for a vote.

The nation is one vote away from avoiding the fiscal cliff for middle class families.

Every member of the House of Representatives should have the opportunity to show where they stand: with millionaires or with the middle class.

Members can support Democrats’ plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit by almost $1 trillion.

Or they can support the Republican plan to hand out more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while increasing taxes for 25 million families struggling to put kids through college and food on the table.

The two approaches demonstrate a glaring difference in priorities.

But there’s another difference between the two plans: Democrats’ proposal is the only one with a chance of actually becoming law.

President Obama has said he would sign it tomorrow. What he won’t do is sign into law any more wasteful giveaways to the wealthiest two percent.

And the Senate has already defeated the Republican proposal in a bipartisan vote, so it’s simply a waste of time for House Republicans to continue to pursue their middle-class tax hike.

House Republicans should stop holding the middle class hostage to extract more tax cuts for the richest of the rich. They should pass our middle class tax cut now.

American families can’t afford to wait until the last moment to find out what their bottom line will look like come January 1.

They’re sitting around the kitchen table today figuring out whether they can afford to buy their first house, send their kids to college or retire.

Republicans shouldn’t force 114 million families to guess whether they’ll have $1,600 less to spend or save next year.

They need certainty now. And one simple vote can give them that certainty.

Today the Senate also continues work to address a problem national security experts call the most urgent threat to our country: weaknesses in our defenses again cyber attack.

Cyber terrorism could cripple the computer networks that control our electrical grid, water supplies and sewers, nuclear plants, energy pipelines, transportation networks, communications equipment and financial systems.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said “a cyber attack could stop this society in its tracks.”

But cyber espionage doesn’t just threaten our national security – it threatens our economic security.

Hackers have already attacked most major corporations and the NASDAQ stock exchange.

Attacks like these cost our economy billions of dollars a year and thousands of jobs.

General James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said Chinese cyber theft of American intellectual property is “the greatest pillaging of wealth in history.”

“That’s our future disappearing in front of us,” added General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Administration.

In a report released last year, the Chamber of Commerce said government and the private sector should work together to develop incentives for businesses to voluntarily act to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure.

This legislation will do exactly that – establish a public-private partnership to make our nation safer and protect American jobs.

I hope that the Chamber will join the effort to pass this important legislation.

While I personally believe this bill could go further to address threats to critical infrastructure – the networks that operate our electric grid, our water supply and other life-sustaining systems – it is a tremendous first step.

I applaud Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Feinstein and Senator Rockefeller for their work on this legislation.

The bill managers are compiling a list of relevant amendments for consideration. I hope we can cooperate to work through that list and pass this legislation by the end of the week.

We can’t afford to fail to address what experts call the greatest security challenge since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Today the Senate will vote on whether to end a filibuster of Judge Robert Bacharach, a nominee from Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

By any measure, Bacherach is the type of non-controversial nominee the Senate would routinely confirm with broad, bipartisan support.

He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote.

And he has the support of the two Republican Senators from his home state of Oklahoma.

Senator Coburn, the Junior Senator from Oklahoma, said Friday, Bacherach is “just a stellar candidate, and he ought to get through.”

Yet Republicans have signaled they may block his confirmation.

If they hold up this consensus candidate, it will be the first time an appeals court nominee with bipartisan committee support has ever been successfully filibustered on the floor.

If Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe withdraw their support for this qualified nominee, blatant partisanship will be to blame.

But don’t take my word for it. Senator Coburn said Bacherach is “an awfully good candidate caught in election-year politics.”

“The Senate passed a plan that will cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and protect middle-class families in Nevada and across the country from the fiscal cliff. The Senate plan is the only solution that stands a chance of being signed into law to provide middle-class families security. Our colleagues in the House should take up our plan and pass it immediately. There is absolutely nothing stopping House Republicans from passing the Senate’s plan, if they possessed the courage to do the right thing for middle class families.

“To date, Republicans have insisted on holding middle-class families hostage to additional tax giveaways for millionaires and billionaires. Democrats believe we should focus on the middle class, but we have months to debate the right approach to tax policy. In the meantime, the responsible approach is for Republicans to stand up to the Tea Party, meet Democrats on common ground and pass these tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans.”

Republicans claim to share Democrats’ commitment to keeping taxes low for the middle class.

So it’s strange that they have repeatedly blocked votes on our proposal to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families.

Two week ago, Republicans seemed eager to have these votes.

They wanted to vote on our proposal to cut taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year – or 98 percent of Americans.

And they wanted to vote on their competing proposal, which would actually raise taxes for 25 million families while handing out more tax breaks to millionaires.

Democrats have tried to give Republicans what they wanted.

We have offered to skip their usual procedural delays and hold up-or-down, majority votes on both proposals.

So far they have refused. But the offer stands.

I hope Senate Republicans don’t insist on doing this the hard way.

And why are Republicans delaying votes they asked for in the first place?

They know a majority of Senators – and a majority of Americans – supports our plan to help middle-class families.

Our plan gives 114 million taxpayers – 98 percent of American families – certainty their taxes won’t go up.

And it reduces the deficit by almost $1 trillion by ending wasteful tax breaks for the rich.

Senate Republicans’ proposal takes a very different approach.

It extends tax breaks for the top 2 percent of Americans. But it fails to extend tax cuts that help middle-class families.

Their plan would hike taxes by another $1,000 for middle-class families while handing out an extra $160,000 tax break to every millionaire.

Democrats will simply never agree we should hand out more tax breaks to the richest 2 percent of Americans.

But that shouldn’t stop us from protecting the other 98 percent of Americans – and doing it today.

Cyber Security

Over the last few days, some of my Republican colleagues have suggested the Senate should delay action on what national security experts have called the most pressing threat facing our nation.

Instead of considering bipartisan cyber security legislation, they say we should first consider the annual Defense Authorization bill.

I argue we need to move rapidly to address the gaping hole in our defenses against cyber attack.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said that cyber threats will soon overtake terrorism as the most significant threat to our national security.

A bipartisan group of national security experts – led by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell – said cyber threats represent “one of the most serious challenges to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age.”

And the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, said:

“We must act now and quickly develop and pass comprehensive legislation to protect our electric grid, air traffic control system, water supply, financial networks and defense systems and much more from a cyber attack.”

That was a year ago. The threat has only grown more urgent.

And failing to act on cyber security legislation not only puts our national security at risk, it recklessly endangers members of our Armed Forces and their missions around the world.

Service members themselves have been repeatedly targeted by cyber actors.

In one hack last year, more than 90,000 military email addresses and passwords were stolen, and in another hack of the TRICARE system 4.9 million medical records were stolen.

If we are serious about protecting our troops, we must protect them against cyber attacks.

But acting to secure our critical networks doesn’t mean we won’t also pass a defense bill.

I do, however, have some specific concerns about the Defense Authorization bill.

I will not allow the defense bill to become an end-run around the bipartisan Budget Control Act.

If we are to going to debate the Defense bill, House and Senate Republicans need to make it clear that they are willing to abide by the budget levels set by that law.

We must also ensure the defense bill is not used as a platform to advance irrelevant, partisan agendas.

Remembering Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut

Last week, this nation was reminded how fragile life is, and how quickly it can be taken away by a random, senseless act of violence.

Fourteen years ago, the Capitol community was similarly reminded that we must never take life for granted.

On this day in 1998, two dedicated U.S. Capitol Police officers – Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut – gave their lives while protecting this building and the people in it.

But their lives were not spent in vain. The tragedy of that day made the Capitol a safer place.

It led to the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, which prevents a madman like the one who shot Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut from entering the Capitol.

And while nothing can erase the pain of losing a loved one, I hope their families take some measure of comfort in knowing Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut are not forgotten.

Even 14 years later, those of us who work in the Capitol continue to honor their service and their sacrifice.

And we are grateful to the brave men and women who safeguard ‘the People’s House’ today.

“This is a smokescreen by the Republicans to disguise their plan’s true impact on the deficit. The truth is, if we decouple the tax cuts for those earning above $250k, that means they will be gone for good. Over ten years, that will reduce the deficit by $800 billion compared to what Republicans want to do.”

If you own a business in this country, your goal is to make a profit.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Millions of hard-working America entrepreneurs are the backbone of our economy.

And if your company boosts profits by sending jobs overseas, that’s your right as a business owner.

But American taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize your business decision to outsource jobs, especially when there are millions of people in this country looking for work.

Over the last 10 years, 2.4 million jobs in call centers and sales centers, in financial firm and factories were shipped overseas.

And American taxpayers helped foot the bill.

Every time U.S. companies ship jobs or facilities overseas, taxpayers help cover their moving costs.

The Bring Jobs Home Act would end these disgraceful subsidies for outsourcing. And it would give a 20% tax credit for the costs of moving production back to the United States.

But Republicans are filibustering this common-sense legislation.

It’s no surprise Republicans are on the side of corporations making big bucks sending American jobs to China and India.

After all, their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, made a fortune outsourcing jobs, too.

So Republicans are once again putting tax breaks for big corporations and multi-millionaires ahead of the needs of ordinary Americans.

And what most Americans need is a good job here at home and the assurance their taxes won’t go up on January 1.

Yet Republicans in Congress are filibustering legislation to bring jobs home to America.

And they’ve twice blocked a vote on legislation to keep taxes low for 98 percent of American families.

It was Republicans who asked for a vote on their plan to raise taxes for 25 million families and a vote on our plan to keep taxes low for 135 million American taxpayers.

So we offered them what they wanted. We offered them up-or-down votes on both proposals.

No procedural hoops. No delay tactics. Just simple, majority votes on our plan and on theirs.

They refused.

Maybe they refused because they don’t have the votes for their plan to raise taxes on 25 million American families.

Or maybe they refused it because a majority of Americans support our plan to keep taxes low for 98 percent of families, while asking the top 2 percent to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit.

Even a majority of Republicans in America support our plan.

Yet still Republicans in Congress are holding hostage tax cuts for nearly every family in America to extort more budget-busting giveaways to millionaires and billionaires.

For a year, the budget deficit was all Republicans talked about.

They were willing to end Medicare as we know it, slash nursing home benefits for seniors, cut investments in education and raise taxes on the middle class – all in the name of deficit reduction.

But now that Democrats have a plan to reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars simply by ending wasteful tax breaks, Republicans have given up on fiscal responsibility.
So I say this to my Republican friends: you can’t have it both ways.

You can’t call yourself a deficit hawk, then fight for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

And you can’t call yourself a fiscal conservative, then fight to protect tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs to India or China.

“The legislation Republicans blocked was a common-sense proposal that provided small businesses with two tax cuts designed to create jobs. Under our proposal, small businesses would have received a 10 percent tax cut on the amount by which they increase their payrolls this calendar year. And to help them expand, small businesses would have been allowed to write off 100 percent of the cost of any major equipment or software they purchase.

“Unfortunately, Republicans played their usual games of obstruction and opposition. There was simply no reason to oppose this bill on the merits, so Republicans manufactured reasons to kill it out of thin air. Republicans claimed they wanted amendment votes, but refused to take ‘yes’ for an answer when I offered them votes on those very amendments.

“Senator McConnell made it clear that his ‘single most important’ goal is defeating President Obama. It’s sad that the middle class has to suffer for Republicans to achieve their political aims.”

6:22 pm Wednesday
Reid Offers Vote on President’s Tax Cuts
Reid: “Democrats are ready to have those votes right away and we will do it with a simple majority…”
[Floor Remarks, 7/11/12]

6:24 pm Wednesday
McConnell: ‘Never Mind’
McConnell: “… I cannot agree to this request, and therefore I object.”
[Floor Remarks, 7/11/12]

This week Republicans continued to make the case that millionaires and billionaires can’t afford to pay even a penny more in taxes.

Meanwhile, a new report shows average tax rates are at their lowest level in decades.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported this week that in 2009 rates fell to their lowest level in more than 30 years.

Much of that decline is thanks to President Obama – who has consistently fought to lower taxes for middle-class families over the last three and a half years.

The average tax rate in this country fell to the lowest rate since 1979 – 17.4 percent.

Of course, that’s still a higher rate than Mitt Romney pays.

But most Americans don’t have the benefit of Swiss bank accounts or tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

As our economy continues to recover, it’s critical we keep tax rates low for the middle class.

They’re still struggling to pay the mortgage, send their kids to college and save for retirement.

That’s why President Obama and Democrats in Congress want to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of American families.

But there’s one group that’s not struggling – Mitt Romney and the rest of the top 2 percent of Americans.

They can afford to contribute a little bit more to get this country’s deficit under control.

Yet Republicans are prepared to block tax cuts for 98 percent of families unless Democrats agree to even more giveaways for the richest of the rich.

As Republicans continue to argue the wealthiest 2 percent can’t contribute even a little more, I urge them to talk to the three-quarters of Americans who disagree.

I urge them to talk to some of the almost 60 percent of Republicans who believe the wealthiest Americans should shoulder their fair share of the responsibility for getting the deficit under control.

And I urge them to talk to a few of the more than 135 million taxpayers who are waiting to see whether Republicans will continue holding their tax cuts hostage.

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Senator Orrin Hatch’s amendment to the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, which would raise taxes on 25 million American families. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Right now the Senate is considering a small business tax cut – proposed by President Obama – that will create 1 million jobs.

This legislation would give tax credits to businesses that grow and hire.

Yet Republicans are looking for any excuse to vote down the proposal for two reasons:

• It has the support of President Obama and Democrats in Congress.
• And it would strengthen the economy, which would help the President.

We know Republicans won’t do anything that helps President Obama – even if it’s good for the economy – because their number one goal is to defeat the President. Mitch McConnell has said so.

So Republicans are hiding behind a procedural trick: filibustering with unrelated amendments.

If there is any doubt about Republicans’ motivation – to kill this legislation – just look at the amendment proposed today by Senator Hatch of Utah.

The first thing Senator Hatch’s amendment would do is eliminate all the tax cuts in the bill.

The amendment would literally eliminate every provision in the bill designed to create jobs.

Senator Hatch’s amendment eliminates the 10% credit for employers that hire additional workers or increase their payroll – a provision that would create half a million jobs.

And it strikes deductions for businesses that invest in machinery and equipment – which would create another half a million jobs.

But the Republican amendment doesn’t stop there.

It goes on to increase taxes for 25 million American families.

Senator Hatch’s amendment would extend tax breaks for the top two percent of Americans. But it fails to extend a number of tax cuts that help middle-class families get by in a tough economy.

Senator Hatch’s amendment will increase taxes by $1,100 for 11 million families trying to pay for college.

Senator Hatch’s amendment would make it harder for 6 million large families to put food on the table. It would increase taxes by $800 for families with at least three children.

And Senator Hatch’s amendment fails to extend the full Child Tax Credit for 12 million families, increasing their taxes by $500.

No one is fooled by this amendment.

We see it for what it is: more Republican obstruction that comes with the added bonus of sticking it to the middle-class.

If that wasn’t enough political theater for one day, my Republican colleagues also claim they’re anxious to vote on President Obama’s plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families.

Once again, no one is fooled.

Republicans know very well the Senate will vote on the President’s proposal to give middle-class families certainty they won’t face a tax increase.

We’ll vote on it this work period, as I have already said. They say they want to vote sooner.

So let’s lock in an agreement to vote on:

• The President’s plan to give 98 percent of Americans certainty their taxes won’t go up,
• And the Republican plan to raise taxes on 25 million families.

Democrats are ready to have these votes right away at a simple majority threshold.

Then we can get back to the task at hand – cutting taxes for millions of small businesses that want to expand and put Americans back to work.

Over the last few years, the wealthiest one percent of Americans has taken home the greatest share of the nation’s income since the roaring ‘20s.

But while the bank accounts of a few fortunate Americans have grown, their tax bills have not.

The wealthiest Americans now pay the lowest tax rates in half a century.

And while this generous tax code has been good for their bottom lines, it hasn’t been good for America’s bottom line.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts – handed out disproportionately to the rich by the previous administration – have fueled skyrocketing deficits and a growing national debt.

Democrats and Republicans alike agree we have to reduce the deficit and rein in the debt.

Unfortunately, the same Republicans who say we have to get our fiscal house in order also claim millionaires and billionaires can’t afford to contribute their fair share to that effort.

They say multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney need lower taxes than ever.

Well, let me tell you what – Mitt Romney doesn’t need another tax break. In fact, he’s got so much money he doesn’t even know where all of it is.

Some of it has run off to Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda. No wonder he doesn’t want America to see his tax returns.

So Mitt Romney is doing just fine. And so are the other millionaires and billionaires in this country.

It’s the middle class I’m worried about.

We all know times have been tough the last few years for ordinary Americans struggling just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

The last thing middle class families can afford now is a tax increase.

That’s why Democrats want to keep taxes low for 98 percent of Americans – everyone making less than $250,000 a year.

But while Democrats are focused on how we can help 98 percent of Americans, Republicans are focused on how they can help Mitt Romney and the rest of the top 2 percent.

And they’re willing to hold tax cuts for everyone else hostage just to protect tax breaks for that top 2 percent.

Democrats don’t agree the top 2 percent of wage earners can’t afford to pay the same tax rate they paid when Bill Clinton was president – back when the budget was balanced and our economy was creating tens of millions of new jobs.

Still, we’re willing to have that debate with our Republican colleagues. We’re willing to discuss it reasonably.

But we don’t believe middle class families should wait and wonder, watch and worry whether their taxes are about to go up while Congress has that conversation.

We shouldn’t wait until the last second to act.

This is what one major newspaper wrote yesterday about the need to act:

“The majority of Americans, and the broader economy, should not be held hostage again to another debate over the merits of tax cuts for the wealthy…. There will never be consensus for solving our nation’s budget problems without first ending the lavish tax breaks at the top.”

So I call on my Republican colleagues to help Democrats give 98 percent of American families the certainty and the security they need right away.

I call on them to help us pass a tax cut that will benefit the middle class without bankrupting our nation.

Because it’s time we faced facts: if we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we can’t keep handing out more tax breaks to the richest Americans.

We will have to make difficult decisions about where to cut and where to invest to keep our nation strong.

But whether to keep taxes low for middle class families shouldn’t be one of the difficult decisions.

I haven’t heard one person – Democrat, Republican or Independent – say we should raise taxes on middle class families.

This is an area where we can easily find common ground.

So, what’s stopping us from doing the right thing – right now? I hope it won’t be more Republican hostage-taking on behalf of the top 2 percent.

Manufacturing, Construction Among Industries That Would Get Biggest Boost

Study Adds Fresh Momentum to Tax Cut Proposal Ahead of Key Test Vote in Senate Later Today

WASHINGTON, DC—The small business tax cut proposal under consideration this week in the Senate would add nearly 1 million new jobs to the U.S. economy, according to a new, independent report released by Senate Democrats on Tuesday.

Nearly two-thirds of the net job creation—about 631,000 of the total 990,592 jobs added—would come from small businesses, according to the nonpartisan estimate. The projection adds fresh momentum to the tax cut measure ahead of a key test vote in the Senate later today.

“Creating close to one million jobs would put a meaningful dent in the unemployment problem,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), who chairs the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “This tax cut is not a cure-all, but it could be a difference-maker for small firms on the fence about adding payroll. After last month’s sluggish jobs numbers, we may be on the verge of a rare moment of agreement on how to help the economy.”

“This report is further evidence that a new tax cut for small businesses to hire and increase wages will provide a significant boost to the economy. Small businesses are the drivers of economic growth in Pennsylvania and across the country, and passing this tax credit will help them create good-paying, family-sustaining jobs, said Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and a co-sponsor of the proposal.

The analysis was performed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI), an independent, Massachusetts-based firm that conducts economic modeling on behalf of public- and private-sector clients.

“Since businesses that qualify are in each state, we find job impacts in all parts of the country,” said Frederick Treyz, CEO of REMI. “Most job impacts are in services, yet all sectors are affected by the tax changes. Specifically, we see large impacts in construction as some of the provisions target capital costs and because this industry is very responsive to overall economic conditions.”

The Senate Democrats’ tax cut proposal was first proposed by President Barack Obama last year. It would give a 10-percent tax credit to businesses that add payroll in 2012, either by hiring new workers or giving raises to existing employees. Companies would be eligible for the tax break on the first $5 million of new payroll, for a maximum credit of $500,000.

A second element of the proposal would allow businesses to write off 100 percent of the value of new capital investments they make in 2012. Current law only allows businesses to write off 50 percent of these costs.

The report estimated that the proposal’s two main components would have a nearly equal job-boosting effect. The tax credit for firms that add payroll would spur 483,786 new jobs, according to the report. The bonus depreciation provision would be responsible for the addition of 497,554 jobs.

The report concludes that the proposal’s impact would be felt across a range of industries. It estimated that 93,231 new jobs would be added to the construction industry and 60,620 would be added in manufacturing.

A copy of the report—complete with a state-by-state breakdown of the jobs impact of the tax cut—is attached.

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

My Republican colleagues talk a good game on taxes.

But Democrats’ record of cutting taxes for small businesses speaks louder than Republican rhetoric.

Since President Obama took office, Democrats have cut taxes for small businesses 18 times.

And today we’ll advance a plan to cut taxes for small firms for the 19th time in just three and a half years.

The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act would put money back in the coffers of true job creators.

Under our plan, business owners who hire new workers or give raises to current employees would get a 10 percent tax credit.

Our legislation would also cut taxes for firms that invest in new equipment, allowing more than 2 million businesses to grow faster.

These two proposals will create almost a million new jobs.

And economists from across the political spectrum agree this is the most efficient way to give the economy a badly-needed boost.

So if my Republican colleagues want their records to match their rhetoric, they’ll end their filibuster of this worthy measure.

And they’ll vote to support the real job creators – businesses that grow and hire.

Unfortunately, while Republicans agree we should cut taxes, their approach is completely different.

Congressional Republicans want to lavish huge, across-the-board tax breaks on billionaire hedge fund managers and mega-rich celebrities like Donald Trump.

Unlike our proposal, the Republican plan, which passed the House, wouldn’t do a thing to encourage hiring.

More than 99 percent of businesses in America would qualify for this extravagant tax break – even if they didn’t create a single new job or raise wages for one solitary employee.

In fact, fabulously rich so-called “small business owners” like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton could qualify for these wasteful giveaways.

Even though three-quarters of Americans oppose more tax breaks for wealthiest few, nearly half the benefits of this $46 billion Republican proposal would go to millionaires and billionaires.

Democrats want to cut taxes for small businesses – but the Republican alternative is simply the wrong way to do it.

“I agree with President Obama that we should extend tax cuts for all American families up to the first $250,000 of income immediately. This will protect middle-class families and allow us to reduce our deficit in a responsible manner. Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree that protecting the middle class is the most important priority, so Republicans should stop holding these middle-class tax cuts hostage to extract more reckless giveaways for millionaires and billionaires.

“I will be discussing the next steps in the Senate with my caucus in the coming days. Republicans have claimed they want to reduce our deficit; in the weeks ahead, they will have a chance to do so by joining Democrats to vote to extend tax cuts for all middle class American families on the first $250,000 of their income.”

The report, entitled “Winners and Losers: Understanding the Ryan Plan’s Potential Tax Implications for America’s Workers,” analyzes the impact on families of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposal to replace the current progressive tax code with just two tax brackets – 10 percent and 25 percent – while eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

The report finds that the top 0.1 percent of households would receive an estimated average federal tax cut of nearly $1.18 million in 2015 under the Ryan plan, corresponding to a 14.1 percentage point drop in the federal tax rate.  Lower-income earners (the bottom quintile) would see the slightest tax savings of only $67 and would enjoy just a 0.06 percentage point drop in their federal tax rate.

To pay for the tax cuts, the JEC report finds, Ryan would potentially have to eliminate tax expenditures that deliver significant tax benefits to middle-class workers.  These include tax deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions as well as the tax exclusions for employer-sponsored health insurance benefits and contributions to 401(k) plans.

After eliminating these tax expenditures, those at the top of the income ladder would still experience a net reduction in taxes – the typical household making more than $1 million will see their taxes fall by more than $286,000 under Ryan’s budget.  However, eliminating these tax expenditures would increase the tax burden facing middle-class workers:  a household making between $50,000 and $100,000 would face a tax increase of at least $1,358.

“We’ve seen this movie before and it doesn’t end well,” said JEC Chairman Casey.  “The Ryan plan doles out tax cuts for the wealthy and asks the middle class to pick up the bill.  This new JEC report makes clear that the middle class will be hit hard by the Ryan proposal.   To pay for his tax cuts, Chairman Ryan has no choice but to eliminate or drastically reduce tax benefits that help middle-class families meet their health care needs, pay for their homes, and save for their retirement.    This is the wrong approach.  As we recover from the Great Recession, our focus must be on creating jobs and helping middle-class families – not giving the wealthiest few more tax breaks.”

Fundamentally Skewed Priorities in Republican Budget Would Hand More Tax Breaks to Wealthy at Expense of Middle-Class Families

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Republican attempts to go back on an August budget agreement in order to protect multi-millionaires and corporate defense contractors at the expense of ordinary Americans. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Yesterday Republicans continued to filibuster Democrats’ plan to protect 7 million students from skyrocketing interest rates on federal student loans.

What’s worse, they seem proud of it. Not a single Republican voted to allow the debate on this bill to go forward.

But this fight is not over. Democrats have not given up efforts to keep college affordable for almost 30,000 Nevadans and more than 7 million students nationwide.

I hope Republicans will come to their senses, and work with us toward a compromise.

As Democrats work to create jobs and make college affordable, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are operating under a different set of priorities.

In the House, Republican efforts are underway to undo a hard-fought August agreement to cut more than 2 trillion from the deficit over the next decade.

But the Republican budget and their so-called reconciliation bill don’t just renege on that bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reduce spending.

They reflect fundamentally skewed priorities. They hand out even more tax breaks to multi-millionaires and shield corporate defense contractors, all at the expense of hard-working, middle-class families, the elderly and those in greatest need.

They would slash investments that strengthen our economy and shred the social safety net.

President Dwight Eisenhower once said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

In a balanced world – one where a strong national defense and a strong social safety net are both valuable pillars of a successful society – that need not necessarily be true.

But the Republican plan would enshrine into law a set of truly unbalanced priorities – and ensure the kind of terrible math Eisenhower envisioned.

Unlike defense contractors and billionaires, ordinary Americans don’t have high-priced lobbyists to protect them. That’s our job.

But Republicans are going after those who can’t fight back – hard-working Americans and struggling families.

Let’s review a bit of history. The sequester isn’t the first bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit.

Over the years there have been many efforts to reach comprehensive, bipartisan solutions to our deficit.

There was the Fiscal Commission, Bowles-Simpson, the Gang of Six and the Supercommittee. They all failed.

Although President Obama was willing to make difficult concessions to achieve meaningful deficit reduction, Republicans and Speaker Boehner could never go against Grover Norquist.

This is a Grover Norquist Congress.

So we’re left with the threat of almost $500 billion in cuts to domestic programs and almost $500 billion in cuts to defense programs.

Democrats agree the sequester – which includes across the board cuts both to domestic spending and the defense budget – is far from the ideal way to solve our nation’s fiscal problems.

It’s a tough pill to swallow. But that was the point.

Those cuts were designed to be tough enough to force lawmakers to compromise.  They were designed to be tough enough to force the two sides to reach to a balanced deal.

But Republicans refused to be reasonable. They refused to raise even a penny of new revenue, or ask millionaires to contribute their fair share to help reduce our deficit and our debt.

I’d like to read a short excerpt from a piece by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein from the Washington Post.

They eloquently describe the GOP’s unwillingness to compromise here:

“We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.”

They went on to say:

“The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Republicans insisted on balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, seniors, students, single mothers and so many others who could least afford it.

And it is their intransigence – their refusal to compromise – that leaves us facing the threat of the sequester, and its difficult but balanced cuts.

Going back on the August budget agreement now in order to protect wealthy special interests is no solution.

Neither is refighting the battles of last year.

Democrats agree we must reduce our deficit and make hard choices.

But we believe in a balanced approach that shares the pain as well as the responsibility.

Is the sequester the best way to achieve that balance? Absolutely not.

But Republicans refuse to consider a more reasonable approach – one that asks every American to pay his fair share while making difficult choices to reduce spending.

And Democrats won’t agree to a one-sided solution that lets the super-wealthy off the hook while forcing the middle class, and those in greatest need, to bear all the hardship.

Democrats believe we can protect Americans’ access to health care, create jobs while investing in the future and protect the poor and elderly.

And we can do all that while reducing the deficit in a responsible, even-handed way.

But we can’t do it alone. It will take hard work and compromise.

And so far Republicans have been unwilling to make a serious effort to achieve that compromise.

Republicans have rejected our balanced approach. Their one-sided solution to across-the-board cuts would take from the many to give to the few.

So, here’s what their plan would do:

• Cut Medicaid benefits, increasing the number of uninsured children, parents, seniors and people with disabilities by 300,000. It would also put seniors in nursing homes at risk.
• Punish Americans who receive tax credits to purchase health insurance when their financial circumstances change – causing 350,000 Americans to forgo coverage.
• Weaken Wall Street reforms, protecting big banks at the expense of consumers.
• Once again target middle-class workers, including food inspectors, air traffic controllers and border patrol, drug enforcement and FBI agents.
• Cut funding for preventive health care programs that fight chronic illnesses – such as heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes – that cause 70 percent of deaths in America.
• Slash Block Grant funding that allows states to help 23 million children, seniors and disabled Americans live independently and out of poverty.

No segment of the population is immune from the pain of this Republican plan – except maybe millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations.

The Republican proposal cuts Meals on Wheels for seniors.

It reduces food assistance for 1.8 million needy people.

And it cuts off 280,000 kids from free school lunches at a time when one in five children lives in poverty.

That’s why the U.S. Conference of Catholic of Bishops said the Republican plan fails a “basic moral test.”

This budget sets very clear priorities. The problem is, they’re the wrong priorities.

President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”

Republicans would do well to remember our nation is judged not only by the strength of its military, but also by the strength of its values.

“Democrats are opposed to shortchanging an important program that supports crucial efforts to prevent disease and protect against public health emergencies just so Republicans can continue protecting millionaire tax dodgers. The best way to pay for legislation that will keep student loan interest rates from doubling is to close a tax loophole that allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying the same income taxes that middle-class Americans pay.”

A loophole exists in current law that allows certain wealthy professionals to avoid paying payroll taxes on their earnings, like every other working American has to do. Commonly known as the “Newt Gingrich/John Edwards” loophole, this loophole is used most often by Subchapter S Corporations (“S-corp”) to avoid the Medicare tax on earnings. This costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

How the Loophole Works

• Consultant A is in-house counsel for a small firm. He uses his years of experience and connections to provide his clients with advice on a variety of issues. He is well compensated for his work. Last year he made $1,000,000 as an employee. Because his employer is a C corporation, 100% of his compensation is treated as performance of services and subject to payroll taxes.
• Consultant B has gone out on his own as a consultant for hire. He has been successful and earned $1,000,000 last year for his work on behalf of his clients. He has formed his own S-corp of which he is the sole owner. His full salary is passed through to him as wage compensation and he pays self-employment payroll tax rates.
• Consultant C has also gone out on his own and been quite successful. He uses his skills and reputation to advise his clients. He has received $1,000,000 in total compensation for services and like Consultant B, he is also incorporated as his own S-corp. However, unlike Consultant B, he found an article on the internet that showed him how he could dodge payroll taxes on most of his service income. He only treats $100,000 of his earnings as wage compensation for performance of services. The other $900,000 is treated as the company’s profits that pass through to him. This allows him to avoid payroll taxes on the other $900,000 he earned. By exploiting this loophole, Consultant C is able to avoid over $26,000 in payroll taxes.

Two Prominent Examples

• Newt Gingrich: In 2010, Gingrich Holdings, Inc and Gingrich Productions paid Newt Gingrich$444,327 in wage income while declaring $2.4 million as profits of the S corp. This allowed Speaker Gingrich to avoid $69,000 in Medicare payroll taxes. [Wall Street Journal Market Watch, 1/23/2012]
• John Edwards: Senator Edwards earned $26.9 million from his work as a trial lawyer in 1995. He paid himself a salary of $360,000 each year for four years and took the rest as distributions from his S corp. This saved Senator Edwards an estimated $600,000 in payroll taxes. [New York Times, 7/10/2004]

The Solution
This proposal closes the Gingrich-Edwards loophole by requiring those with modified adjusted gross income (adjusted gross income increased by the taxpayer’s excludible foreign income and housing cost amount and without factoring the deduction for payroll taxes) over $250,000 to include in income for purposes of payroll taxes any income from a limited partnership interest in a professional services business or a S corp in a professional service business in which more than 75% of its gross revenues come from the service of 3 or fewer shareholders.

• This proposal does not raise anyone’s taxes. It closes a loophole that allows wealthy individuals to cheat the system by structuring their businesses to avoid payroll taxes. It does not change what anyone owes. It forces wealthy tax cheats to pay what they already owe.
• The proposal is targeted only to those S-corps that derive 75 percent or more of their gross revenues from the services of three or fewer shareholders or where the S-corp is a partner in a professional service business. The proposal also applies to partnerships.
• This proposal only applies to S-corps and partnerships in the fields where virtually all of the earnings are attributable to the performance of services. Thus, they should be subject to payroll taxes. These are professional service businesses engaged in the fields of health, lobbying, law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, brokerage services, or investment advice or management.
• This proposal exempts S-corp shareholders or partners in partnerships with modified adjusted gross incomes below $250,000 for joint filers and $200,000 for individuals.
• This proposal prevents professional services income from being mischaracterized to avoid employment taxes. However, legitimate passive income (rents, dividends, interest and certain gains) accrued to the S-corp will continue to be treated as such, and will continue to be exempt from employment taxes.

Yesterday Senate Republicans once again rejected the idea that millionaires and billionaires should contribute their fair share to help this country prosper.

Republicans sent a message to millions of honest, hard-working Americans who will file their taxes today: it’s fair for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Republicans said it’s fair for Mitt Romney to pay a lower tax rate than his cleaning lady or his chauffer.

They believe it’s fair for hedge fund managers and executives to pay a lower tax rate than school teachers and waitresses and bus drivers.

That’s just crazy.

But that’s not my word for it. That’s what President Ronald Reagan called a system of “unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.”

In 1985, Ronald Reagan knocked the web of loopholes that allowed people making hundreds of millions of dollars each year to pay lower tax rates than construction workers or janitors. President Reagan called it “crazy.”

This broken system “made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary,” Reagan said.

But the same system is in place today. And, as that radical liberal Ronald Reagan said, “That’s just crazy.”

Yesterday my Republican colleagues used some strong words to oppose Democrats’ plan to right that inequality.

Republicans called our common-sense proposal to ensure no one making more than a $1 million a year pays a lower tax rate than a truck driver, a secretary or a police officer “class warfare.”

Republicans are pushing a budget that would end Medicare as we know it, slash nursing home coverage for the elderly, decimate Pell Grant funding and kick 200,000 kids out of the Head Start Program.

And they’re calling our proposal class warfare?

I wish that were the most ridiculous thing Republicans have said about our proposal to bring a measure of fairness to America’s tax system. Far from it.

One member of Senate Republican Leadership equated this measure to “shooting ourselves in the head.”

The Paying a Fair Share Act – also called the Buffettt Rule – would have ensured millionaires and billionaires paid at least as much as their secretaries, assistants and nannies.

Yet Republicans think asking those lucky millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share is just like shooting the country in the head.

Our legislation would have protected 99 percent of small business owners, and maintained deductions for charitable giving.

And it would have been a small but meaningful step to reduce our deficit at a time when every penny – or in this case, every billion – counts.

It doesn’t seem radical to me to ask Warren Buffett – who made almost $63 million in 2010 – to pay a higher tax rate than his secretary.

It didn’t seem radical to Ronald Reagan, either.

And it doesn’t seem radical to the three-quarters of Americans who support our legislation.

The wealthiest Americans take home a greater percentage of the nation’s income than at any time in nearly a century. Yet they enjoy the lowest tax rate in more than 50 years.

So it’s no surprise Americans believe millionaires should shoulder their fair share.

Even two-thirds of millionaires – and a majority of Republicans around the country – agree it’s time to fix a system rigged to favor of the richest of the rich.

Republicans in Congress are the only ones who aren’t on board.

If you need evidence that millionaires and billionaires can afford to contribute a little more, consider this fact: last year there were 7,000 people who made more than $1 million but didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes. Not one thin dime.

Thanks to Republicans, those lucky millionaires and billionaires can keep gaming the system, while middle-class workers keep picking up the tab.

“Today Senate Republicans again put millionaires ahead of the middle class. Currently, most hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than many of their middle-class employees – but while the incomes for the wealthy have ballooned in recent years, middle-class wages haven’t kept pace with the price of a college education or a secure retirement. The measure that Republicans blocked today would have restored fairness to our tax code and reduced the deficit without asking middle class families or seniors to sacrifice any more than they already have.

“Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues would rather end Medicare as we know it than build a stronger middle class or ask millionaires to contribute an extra penny. Democrats will not stop fighting to restore fairness to our tax code, and I hope that in the future, my Republican colleagues will think of the teacher and the mechanic before the wealthiest Americans.”

As millions of Americans prepare to file income tax returns, the Senate will consider the basic fairness of our country’s tax system.

Today the wealthiest one percent takes home the highest share of the nation’s income since the roaring ‘20s.

But while their bank accounts have grown, their tax bills have shrunk.

The wealthiest Americans now pay the lowest tax rates in 50 years.

And this unfair system has turned the gap between the richest few and everyone else into a gulf.

Over the last few decades, a small number of Americans have seen their incomes skyrocket – by almost 300 percent.

But for the rest of Americans, wages have barely crept up. They haven’t kept pace with the price of a modest home, a good college and a secure retirement.

So times are tough for many middle-class families. But millionaires and billionaires aren’t sharing the pain – or the sacrifices.

Last year, there were 7,000 millionaires who didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes. Instead, ordinary Americans footed the bill – and that’s not fair.

In recent years, some Americans earning north of $110 million a year paid a lower tax rate than millions of middle-class families – and that’s not fair.

That’s how someone like my friend Warren Buffett winds up paying a lower tax rate than his secretary – which is just not fair.

When the richest few are making more than ever before, they can afford to shoulder their fair share of the burden to make this country prosper.

And they shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind tax loopholes that rig the system in their favor.

The Paying a Fair Share Act – also known as the Buffett Rule – would restore fairness to a system that has favored the interests of the wealthy for too long.

This legislation would ensure Americans who earn more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

The bill would hold harmless nearly every small business in America – more than 99 percent of small businesses, in fact.

It would maintain the deduction for charitable giving.

And it would be a small but important step toward restoring fiscal responsibility as our nation makes difficult choices about where to spend and what to cut.

Three-quarters of Americans believe millionaires and billionaires should contribute more.

Two-thirds of millionaires say it’s time to even the playing field.

And outside the Beltway, even a majority of Republicans agree.

But Republicans in Congress would rather end Medicare as we know it and slash education funding than ask the richest of the rich to contribute even a penny more.

As Senate Democrats work to make our tax system fair for all Americans, Republicans in the House continue to pursue a budget that would hand more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.

At its heart, this important debate – and the Buffett Rule – is about setting priorities.

America can build a world-class education system that will prepare our children and grandchildren to compete in the industries of tomorrow.

We can honor our commitment to a generation of young men and women who put their lives on the line to serve and protect our freedom.

And we can ensure seniors who worked hard all their lives look forward to a secure retirement and quality, affordable healthcare.

Or we can keep protecting special tax breaks for the richest of the rich. We can’t do both.

We must make smart choices.

President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people.”

I hope my Republican colleagues will join Democrats this evening as we choose a path toward economic fairness that allows all Americans to rise together as one people.

Summary of the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act

1.     Creates an Incentive For Small Businesses to Add New Jobs This Year.  Although the economy is recovering from a severe economic recession, a tax credit designed to stimulate job creation and wage increases could help put more Americans back to work and provide tax relief targeted at America’s small businesses. This proposal would provide a 10 percent income tax credit on new payroll—through either hiring or increased wages—added in 2012. With a maximum increase in eligible wages of $5 million per employer and the amount of the credit capped at $500,000, the benefits of this tax credit will be targeted on America’s small businesses.

• CBO Deems It Effective Way to Spur Growth and Increase Hiring. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that proposals like this, which would reduce the cost to businesses of adding employees or increasing payroll, “would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar…” compared to those that “affect businesses’ cash flow but would have little impact on their marginal incentives to hire…” [CBO, 11/15/2011]
• Leading Economists Support Tax Relief for New Payroll. Former Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Alan Blinder has endorsed the idea as a job creator, proposing that “the basic idea is to offer firms that boost their payrolls a tax break. As one concrete example, companies might be offered a tax credit equal to 10% of the increase in their wage bills (over 2011 levels, say). No increase, no reward.” Other prominent economists who have endorsed the concept of increased payroll incentives include Paul Krugman and Mark Zandi. [Wall Street Journal, 7/12/2011; New York Times, 1/20/10; Moody’s, 9/9/2011]

2.     Extends 100-Percent Depreciation Deduction For Certain Property. Typically, businesses expenditures are tax deductible in the year in which they are made, except for major purchases (such as large equipment or buildings), which must be written off over many years. One hundred percent depreciation allows businesses to write off the entire cost of major purchases in the year they are made rather than depreciate those expenses over many years. By accelerating in time the recovery of investment costs through “bonus depreciation,” additional first-year deductions for new investment lower the after-tax costs of plants and equipment. This encourages new investment and promotes economic recovery. Senate Democrats propose extending 100 percent first-year depreciation for one year, effective for qualified property acquired and placed in service before January 1, 2013 (or January 1, 2014 for certain longer-lived and transportation property).

• Bonus Depreciation is a Bipartisan Approach to Growing the Economy. Bonus depreciation has traditionally garnered bipartisan support:
• The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 was introduced by House Republicans and passed the Senate by a vote of 85 – 9.  [Vote 44, 3/8/02]
• The Tax Relief, Unemployment Compensation Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 expanded bonus depreciation to 100 percent. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 81 – 19. [Vote 276, 12/15/10]
• Last December, the House Republicans overwhelmingly voted for an extension of 100 percent bonus depreciation in H.R.3630. [Vote 923, 12/13/11]
• Bonus Depreciation is a Proven Way to Help Small Businesses Invest and Grow. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, extending bonus depreciation will provide a tax cut to over 2 million businesses. In addition, the analysis estimates that 100 percent expensing reduces small businesses average cost of capital across all investment by more than 75 percent. [U.S. Treasury Office of Tax Policy, 11/2010]
• Economists Consider Bonus Depreciation One of the Most Productive Ways to Boost GDP. There is substantial empirical evidence that accelerated depreciation boosts business investment. For example, an analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation estimated that every $1 of tax cuts devoted to accelerated depreciation generates about $9 of GDP growth. [Institute for Policy Innovation, 10/10/2001]
• Businesses Add Jobs When They Make Capital Investments. Studies by economists across the political spectrum have found that earlier, less generous versions of bonus depreciation have created 2 to 3 hundred thousand jobs. [American Economic Review, 7/2008]

“This shows that even in an election year, this divided Congress can still accomplish something to help boost the economy. Republicans may not have preferred to extend this tax cut, but they were powerless to oppose it given its popularity and the power of the President’s bully pulpit. We will be seeking to replicate this dynamic with other jobs measures in the months to come.”

“More than 160 million American workers will keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets this year thanks to this bipartisan compromise. More than four million unemployed Americans will continue receiving checks that help them pay the rent and buy groceries while they look for a job, and millions of seniors on Medicare will continue to have access to their doctors. I fought to prevent Republicans from making extreme cuts to unemployment insurance in hard-hit states like Nevada that need assistance as our economy continues to recover.

“In the end, both sides compromised for the good of our country, which is exactly how the American people expect their elected leaders to work.

“I commend the members of the conference committee for their diligence and dedication throughout this process. This bipartisan victory will help our fragile economy as it continues to gain steam. More needs to be done, but this is an important step forward. I hope the spirit of compromise shown by Republicans today will continue as we work together to keep our economy growing.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL):  ‘I Have Doubts About The Wisdom’ Of Payroll Tax Cut. [MSNBC, 2/13/12]

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): ‘We Shouldn’t Be Having a Payroll Tax Cut.’ [The Hill, 2/13/12]

THE LIST OF REPUBLICANS WHO PUBLICLY OPPOSE ANY EXTENSION OF THE PAYROLL TAX CUT CONTINUES TO GROW

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Bad Policy,’ ‘A Gimmick.‘ [Politico, 2/7/12]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Bad Policy.‘ [Politico, 2/7/12]

Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘A Terrible Idea.’  [Reuters, 1/13/12]

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Not Worth Our While.’ [Politico, 1/6/12]

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): Extending the Tax Cut ‘A Very Slippery Slope.‘ [Politico, 2/7/12]

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE): Payroll Tax Cut ‘A Hard Sell.‘ [Politico, 2/7/12]

]]> http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/02/13/republican-opposition-to-payroll-tax-cut-threatening-year-long-extension/feed/ 0 http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/02/07/here-we-go-again-gop-divisions-on-payroll-tax-cut-holding-up-year-long-deal/ http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/02/07/here-we-go-again-gop-divisions-on-payroll-tax-cut-holding-up-year-long-deal/#comments Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:07:03 +0000 aaron http://democrats.senate.gov/?p=107077 HOUSE GOP LEADERS ARE FRANTIC TO PORTRAY GOP AS ‘UNITED’  IN FAVOR OF PAYROLL TAX CUT …

“Republicans support a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits …”  [Boehner-Cantor Joint Statement, 2/6/12]

CNN: “On the latest fight over payroll tax cut, Cantor pushes back on reports House GOP is again divided. ‘We are united.’” [Tweet by CNN’s Kate Bolduan, 2/7/12]

… BUT THEIR PARTY STILL HASN’T GOTTEN THE MESSAGE

POLITICO: ‘Payroll tax cut splinters GOP’

REUTERS: ‘Support has always been soft among Republicans for the payroll tax cut’

THE NEW YORK TIMES: ‘Republicans in Congress seem to have forgotten the embarrassment they suffered late last year for trying to block a payroll tax cut for millions of wage-earners’

SEN. BOB CORKER (R-TN): Extending the Tax Cut ‘A Very Slippery Slope.’ [Politico, 2/7/12]

SEN. MIKE JOHANNS (R-NE): Payroll Tax Cut ‘A Hard Sell.’ [Politico, 2/7/12]

REP. PAUL BROUN (R-GA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Bad Policy,’ ‘A Gimmick.’ [Politico, 2/7/12]

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R-UT): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Bad Policy.’ [Politico, 2/7/12]

REP. JEFF LANDRY (R-LA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘A Terrible Idea.’  [Reuters, 1/13/12]

REP. JACK KINGSTON (R-GA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Not Worth Our While.’ [Politico, 1/6/12]

Republicans in Congress claim they’re the only thing standing against a wave of deficit spending.

But where were those Republicans when President Bush pushed for trillions in unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich? Many of them were right here in Congress, that’s where.

So, instead of pointing the finger at Democrats, Republicans should examine their own track record of extravagant spending: a prescription drug plan, two wars and tax breaks for the rich all paid for with borrowed money.

Bush’s tax cuts were the single largest contributor to ballooning budget deficits during his administration.

And no one benefited more from those tax breaks than millionaires and billionaires.

Tax breaks for the richest Americans piled nearly a trillion on our debt over the last decade.

Yesterday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report showing those tax cuts will continue to push deficits to unsafe levels.

Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans – people making more than $1 million – would add another trillion dollars to the deficit in the next 10 years.

We can no longer afford to bankrupt our nation to give more tax breaks to people who don’t need them.

Republicans are right about one thing: we do have a deficit problem in this country. And there are two ways to ease the crisis.

We could cut more jobs for teachers, firefighters and police. We could cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for seniors after a lifetime of hard work. We could put off repairing our crumbling roads and bridges. And we could continue to let our schools fall into disrepair and our students fall behind.

Or we could end wasteful, unnecessary tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

This is the choice we face. But it shouldn’t be difficult a choice.

This country has limited resources, and we must use those resources wisely.

Investing in the middle class is a wise use of resources.

When you put money back in the pockets of middle class families, they spend it.

They spend it on groceries and gas. They spend it repairing the family car. They spend it fixing the roof.

That spending boosts business, spurs hiring and helps the economy. Rigging the tax system to favor the richest of the rich doesn’t.

Rigging the system doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t spur growth. And it’s just not a wise use of resources.

“While CBO’s report shows a lower deficit in 2012, it also demonstrates that we must do much more to put the nation’s long-term budget outlook on a sustainable path. The deficit reduction included in last summer’s Budget Control Act cannot be the end of the story. We need to achieve about $4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years, including what has already been enacted, to stabilize the federal debt and begin to bring it down as a share of the economy.

“In his State of the Union Address, President Obama called for a balanced approach to reducing the debt, with both spending cuts and new revenue. We will not solve this problem unless both sides, Democrats and Republicans, are willing to move off their fixed positions and find common ground. Republicans must be willing to put revenue on the table and accept a tax code where everyone, including the wealthiest, pays their fair share.

“CBO’s report also shows the importance of Congress completing work on extending the payroll tax cut and emergency unemployment benefits through the end of the year – two measures that provide significant ‘bang-for-the-buck’ in generating economic growth and job creation. Although the economic recovery is strengthening, it is clear the economy remains fragile. Failing to extend these critical measures would add further drag to the economy and jeopardize the gains we have already made.”

In 1946, President Harry Truman delivered his first State of the Union message. It was the first since the end of World War II.

The trials of war were behind us. But new challenges lay ahead.

Truman laid out a vision for how America could not only survive those challenges, but thrive in a modern world.

He described the path forward in simple words: “Our basic objective – toward which all others lead – is to improve the welfare of the American people.”

That meant economic prosperity. It meant Social Security and unemployment insurance. It meant opportunity for higher education, access to medical care and the dream of homeownership.

The goal, he wrote, was “that we become a well-housed people, a well-nourished people, an educated people, a people socially and economically secure, an alert and responsible people.”

And in the three decades that followed, that vision was reality. The middle class was never larger and never stronger. And it had never been easier to become a part of that middle class.

Through hard work and ingenuity, Americans prospered together.

For three decades after World War II, the rungs on the ladder to success grew closer together.

But in the three decades that followed, something changed.

The goal was the same – to be a well-housed, well-educated nation of responsible and economically secure people.

But for many, reaching that goal became more difficult.

Incomes skyrocketed for the richest few. But they stalled for the rest. And the middle class lost more and more ground.

Today, the richest one percent holds nearly half of all the wealth in this country.

Today, the richest one percent takes home a quarter of the personal income.

Americans are working just as hard as they worked 60 years ago. But that hard work is paying off for fewer and fewer people.

What does this mean? For the last three decades, the rungs on the ladder to success have grown farther apart instead of closer together.

And the farther apart those rungs grow, the fewer Americans climb that ladder. The farther apart those rungs are, the fewer Americans make it into a disappearing middle class.

We just weathered the worst recession since the Great Depression. But the financial collapse of 2008 wasn’t the cause of the problem – it was a symptom of the problem.

It was a symptom of a system that is rigged to pay off for a few, but leave many behind. And it’s time we evened the playing field.

As we rebuild our economy, let’s rebuild it to last. Let’s rebuild it to work for every American, regardless of the size of their bank account.

This week, President Obama laid out a vision to do just that.

The President’s plan will spur manufacturing. It’s time to reward companies that “make it in America” and end giveaways to companies that ship jobs overseas.

It will reduce our reliance on expensive foreign oil. It’s time to rely on plentiful, home-grown, renewable energy sources.

The plan will ensure today’s students have the skills to become tomorrow’s workers. That is the only way to keep pace in a competitive global economy.

And it will return this country to the core value that made it great: fairness.

Everyone must share the prosperity as well as the responsibility. And every person and every corporation must play by the same rules.

That value encouraged three decades of growth after World War II. And it can make America grow again.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this vision of fairness a reality.

In case it wasn’t already clear that the House GOP’s call for a “conference committee” was simply a ploy to bury the payroll tax cut, just look at who Speaker Boehner has selected to “negotiate” for the House GOP. It’s a veritable “who’s who” of payroll tax cut opponents.

Boehner: “There’s no disagreement here.  There’s no disagreement at all.  About the fact that everyone wants to extend this for the next year.”  [Boehner Floor Speech, 12/20/11]

…Except They Didn’t:

Boehner: Payroll Tax Cut Is A “Little Short-Term Gimmick.”  “House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called proposals to extend or expand the payroll tax cut ‘another little short-term gimmick.’”  [AP, 6/23/11]

Cantor Spokesman: “Better Ways to Grow Economy” Than Payroll Tax Cut.   Cantor spokesman said: “If the goal is job creation, Leader Cantor has long believed that there are better ways to grow the economy and create jobs than temporary payroll tax relief.”  [New York Times, 8/25/11]

“It is unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is blocking a bipartisan compromise that would protect middle-class families from the tax hike looming on January 1st – a compromise that Senator McConnell and I negotiated at Speaker Boehner’s own request. First Senator McConnell would not let the Senate vote on the House’s payroll tax cut bill because he knew it would fail, now Speaker Boehner won’t let the House hold an up-or-down vote on the Senate’s bipartisan compromise because he knows it would pass.

“As the clock ticks towards a middle-class tax hike, I would implore Speaker Boehner to listen to the sensible Senate Republicans and courageous House Republicans who are calling on him take the responsible path, and pass the Senate’s bipartisan compromise to hold middle class families harmless while we negotiate a yearlong extension. I have been trying to negotiate a yearlong extension with Republicans for weeks, and I am happy to continue doing so as soon as the House of Representatives passes the bipartisan compromise to protect middle-class families, but not before then.”

“Speaker Boehner should allow an up-or-down vote on the compromise that Senator McConnell and I negotiated at Speaker Boehner’s request, and which was supported by 89 Republican and Democratic senators.

“With millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet, it would be unconscionable for Speaker Boehner to block a bipartisan agreement that would protect middle-class families from the thousand-dollar tax increase looming on January first. It is time for Speaker Boehner to follow through.

“The bipartisan consensus behind the Senate’s approach has grown stronger since we passed our compromise legislation. Senator McConnell said that our bill is ‘designed to pass,’ and I was encouraged to see courageous Republicans in both the House and Senate speak out against Speaker Boehner’s decision to put politics ahead of middle-class Americans’ economic security.

“I have been working for weeks to negotiate a year-long extension with Republicans. But as we approach the end of the year, it is time to make sure that no matter what else happens, middle class families will not wake up to a tax increase on January 1st. I am happy to continue negotiations on a yearlong deal as soon as the House of Representatives passes the Senate’s bipartisan compromise, and prevents a tax hike from hitting middle-class families.”

###

After Months of Opposing Tax Cut Altogether, House GOP Now Claims Extension Is Too Short

The GOP’s latest excuse for opposing a middle-class tax cut is the most desperate one yet.

After spending months opposing any extension of the tax cut, Speaker John Boehner and other top Republicans now say the Senate’s bipartisan compromise doesn’t extend it for long enough.

Republicans will say anything to disguise their opposition to tax relief for middle-class families.

Take a look at what leading House Republicans have said previously about the payroll tax cut and what they are saying now. You have to see it to believe it…

“My House colleagues should be clear on what their vote means today. If Republicans vote down the bipartisan compromise negotiated by Republican and Democratic leaders, and passed by 89 senators including 39 Republicans, their intransigence will mean that in ten days, 160 million middle class Americans will see a tax increase, over two million Americans will begin losing their unemployment benefits, and millions of senior citizens on Medicare could find it harder to receive treatment from physicians.

“Senator McConnell and I negotiated a compromise at Speaker Boehner’s request. I will not re-open negotiations until the House follows through and passes this agreement that was negotiated by Republican leaders, and supported by 90 percent of the Senate.

“This is a question of whether the House of Representatives will be able to fulfill the basic legislative function of passing an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement, in order to protect the economic security of millions of middle-class Americans. Democratic and Republican leaders negotiated a compromise and Speaker Boehner should not walk away from it, putting middle-class families at risk of a thousand-dollar tax hike just because a few angry Tea Partiers raised their voices to the Speaker.

“I have always sought a year-long extension. I have been trying to forge one for weeks, and I am happy to continue negotiating one once we have made sure middle-class families will not wake up to a tax increase on January 1st. So before we re-open negotiations on a year-long extension, the House of Representatives must protect middle-class families by passing the overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that Republicans negotiated, and was approved by ninety percent of the Senate.”

###

o   THURSDAY: Speaker Boehner made public comments promising to live by whatever agreement the Senate reached. He said, “If the Senate acts, I’m committed to bringing the House back—we can do it within 24 hours—to deal with whatever the Senate does.”  [Washington Post, 12/15/11]

o   FRIDAY: Speaker Boehner reacted to reports that we may have to settle on a two-month extension by saying if the Senate passed that, he would take it, add the Keystone pipeline provision to it, and send it back to the Senate. So we added the pipeline into the deal in the Senate because that’s what Speaker Boehner said he needed to get the measure through the House. [CNN, 12/18/11; Washington Post, 12/17/11]

o   FRIDAY NIGHT: After Senator McConnell presents the payroll tax deal to his caucus, he is captured in this video leaving the caucus “high fiving” Senator Barrasso.  Later Senator McConnell tells reporters, “I obviously I keep the Speaker informed as to what I’m doing.”  [CNN, 12/16/11; Roll Call, 12/18/11]

o   SATURDAY: McConnell calls payroll tax cut compromise a bill designed to pass.  McConnell said, “I thank my friend, the Majority Leader, for the opportunity to work together with him on something that could actually pass the Senate and be signed by the President.” [McConnell Floor Speech, 12/17/12]

o   SATURDAY: Speaker Boehner called the deal a “good deal” and a “victory”. According to reports, he urged his caucus to declare victory and pass it, on a conference call. [CNN, 12/18/11; Washington Post, 12/17/11]

o   SATURDAY AFTERNOON: Senator McConnell gave his consent to allow the Senate to adjourn for the year.  [The Hill, 12/17/11]

o   SUNDAY: Once Tea Party Republicans in his caucus rebelled, Speaker Boehner reversed course and is now disowning the deal he had supported 24 hours earlier.  [CNN, 12/18/11; Washington Post, 12/17/11]

“Democrats have worked tirelessly to prevent a thousand-dollar tax increase on middle-class families, but my Republican colleagues wouldn’t agree to long-term tax relief unless Democrats agreed to cut Medicare benefits for seniors. Tomorrow, the Senate will take up and pass a two-month extension of the middle class tax cut, along with unemployment insurance and the so-called ‘doc fix.’ For the next two months, Democrats will work to extend the middle-class tax cut through the end of the year. Republicans can either join us, or explain why they want middle-class families’ taxes to go up.”

BUT THAT ISN’T WHAT HE SAID YESTERDAY AFTERNOON…

McConnell: “So I think the first thing we need to find out is whether there are the votes in the Senate to pass what the House has passed. And so I’d rather not speculate about what happens later. I’m hoping and we’re spending our time and energy trying to get this bill passed in the Senate, as well as in the House.”  [McConnell Remarks GOP Stakeout, 12/13/11]

OR YESTERDAY MORNING…

McConnell: “So I would suggest that our friends put the political  games aside and give the American people the certainty and the jobs that they deserve. Take up the house bill, pass it right here in the senate, and send it to the president for a signature without theatrics and without delay.”  [McConnell Floor Speech, 12/13/11]

OR MONDAY…

McConnell: “My suggestion is that once this legislation comes over from the House, we pass it without delay.”  [McConnell Floor Speech, 12/12/11]

SO WHY ARE SENATE REPUBLICANS PREVENTING US FROM VOTING ON THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN BILL?

“The bill passed by House Republicans tonight is a pointless, partisan exercise. The Senate will not pass it and the President has said he will veto it.  Democrats were ready to have a vote tonight to prove that. But despite calling for the Senate to vote on the House bill ‘without delay,’ Leader McConnell told me he needs more time and will not be able to make a decision until tomorrow morning.

“We need to begin real negotiations on how to prevent a $1,000 tax hike on American families. The sooner we get this vote over with, the sooner those negotiations can begin in earnest. I will speak with Sen. McConnell again tomorrow to determine how soon we can hold this vote.

“On January 1^st, every American worker will have less money to spend on groceries and gas and rent. We can’t let that happen. And we can’t afford to waste any more time.”

In the last month, Republican leaders have repeated this mantra over and over: we support a payroll tax cut for working families.

We have yet to see the proof.

Senate Republicans have twice voted down their own payroll tax cut proposal. And House Republicans were unable to bring their plan to a vote for weeks.

We understand they’re going to have a run at that tonight.

When I served in the House, no one would ever consider pushing something through with a majority of the majority. When I served, the Majority Leader and the Speaker always worked together on a bipartisan basis to get legislation passed.

Now Republicans say they won’t pass anything unless they can do it on their own. That’s unfortunate.

I spoke to the Speaker yesterday. This is what I told him: we are not going to finish the work of our country this year unless we work together.

He can’t pass anything in the House without Democratic votes, because anything you pass with strictly Republican votes fails over here.

In the Senate, we can’t pass anything unless we get Republican votes. It’s a fact of life.

And we have issues, we must complete this year. As I explained to the Speaker yesterday, we have to do this together.

So I’m very disappointed in what the Speaker has done to his payroll tax proposal to get Tea Party votes.

Speaker Boehner had to add ideological candy coating to his bill to get rebellious, rank-and-file Republicans on board.

They added a provision to fasttrack a controversial pipeline proposal attractive to the Tea Party because they believe it is opposed by President Obama.

Congressman Jim Jordan said this about the Keystone XL pipeline: “Frankly, the fact that the President doesn’t like it makes me like it even more.”

But President Obama doesn’t oppose this proposal. That’s not true. He believes it’s an important proposal that deserves proper review.

And, as Secretary of State Clinton said yesterday, if Republicans push him to make an uninformed decision in three months – as this legislation would – he will be forced to deny the permit.

If Republicans push this through, the pipeline is bound and doomed to failure.

That’s why President Obama and Democrats in the Senate have already declared the House legislation dead on arrival. Yet – after weeks of delay – Republicans plan a vote on it tonight.

They are wasting time catering to the Tea Party when they should be working with Democrats on a bipartisan package that can pass both houses.

Democrats have offered solutions – serious, good-faith proposals with bipartisan support.

If Republicans continue to block these reasonable plans to cut taxes for 160 million workers, there will be consequences.

Middle-class Americans will notice when they open their paychecks in January and have less money to spend. And they’ll have Republicans in Congress to blame.

For the third time in two weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered a qualified nominee.

Last night, they blocked confirmation of Mari Carmen Aponte to serve as ambassador to El Salvador, a job she did well for 15 months. Ms. Aponte finalized an important, international, anti-crime agreement and forged a strong partnership with El Salvodor during her time as ambassador.

Late last week, Republicans blocked the nomination of Richard Cordray to serve as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Cordray has a record of protecting consumers from predatory lenders.

And two days before that, Republicans blocked the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Ms. Halligan is an exceptional legal mind with an impeccable resume.

All three nominees were qualified. All three had bipartisan support. All three were committed, enthusiastic public servants.

Yet Republicans opposed their nominations for one purely partisan reason – to deal a blow to President Obama.

This kind of Republican obstructionism has unfortunately become commonplace. But it also has consequences.

And Republicans aiming to hurt the President have once again harmed our country instead.

Sen. Harry Reid heard the report and highlighted it on the Senate floor this morning.

“Millionaire job creators are like unicorns – impossible to find,” said Reid.

Today the Senate will vote on two nominations: those of Norman Eisen to serve as ambassador to the Czech Republic and Mari Carmen Aponte to serve as ambassador to El Salvador.

These nominees are accomplished, qualified public servants who will continue to represent their nation with distinction.

For my Republican colleagues, however, being qualified and dedicated is no longer enough.

Last week they blocked the nomination of a “brilliant legal mind,” Caitlin Halligan, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

And they blocked the nomination of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite his obvious qualifications for the job.

He has a long history of protecting the middle-class against unfair practices by financial predators. And he would have been a great asset in our fight to protect Main Street from the kind of Wall Street greed that caused the 2008 financial crisis.

Yet Republicans denied Mr. Cordray’s confirmation to weaken the agency he was nominated to lead.

I hope Republicans will not turn every confirmation process into a political three-ring circus. These candidates – in particular Ms. Aponte – have jumped through enough hoops already.

Ms. Aponte’s accomplished record as ambassador to El Salvador over the last 15 months speaks for itself. And experts on the region from across the political spectrum support her confirmation.

The same enthusiasm is there for Mr. Eisen.

If Republicans block the confirmation of these qualified candidates, it will be for nakedly partisan reasons.

Also under partisan assault this month is a Democratic proposal to prevent a $1,000 tax increase on working families.

Senate Republicans have blocked four proposals to protect middle-class pocketbooks.

Every hour they delay and every day they filibuster is one more the Senate will stay in Washington to get its work done.

Republicans have opposed our plan to pay for this legislation with a tiny surtax on a tiny fraction of America’s highest earners.

The tax would only apply to the second million the wealthiest Americans earn.

But Republicans say the richest of the rich in this country – even those who make millions every year – shouldn’t contribute more to get our economy back on track.

They call our plan a tax on so-called “job creators.” Yet every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring.

National Public Radio went looking for one of these fictitious millionaire “job creators.”

A reporter reached out to business groups, the anti-tax lobby and Republicans in Congress hoping to interview one of these millionaires. Days ticked by with no luck.

Millionaire job creators are like unicorns – impossible to find.

That’s because only a tiny fraction of people making more than $1 million – about one percent – are actually small business owners. And only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction is traditional job creators.

Most of those business owners are hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers.

They don’t do much hiring. And they don’t need more tax breaks.

Finally, the NPR reporter looked for millionaire job creators hiding on Facebook. This time, she actually found some.

And they actually supported our plan to ask the richest of the rich to pitch in to improve the economy for all Americans.

This is what Jason Burger, owner of a contracting company that is “hiring like crazy” said about our proposal: “It’s only fair that I put back into the system that is the entire reason for my success.”

Mr. Burger may be a millionaire, but he isn’t one in a million. A majority of people who make more than $1 million a year say they would gladly contribute more to improve the economy.

It’s often said that what is good for business is good for America. But I hope my Republican colleagues remember, as Mr. Burger does, that what is good for America is also good for business.

“Republicans showed yet again that they are more interested in passing tax cuts for millionaires than tax cuts for the middle class. Senate Republicans rejected two proposals to give middle-class families a tax cut.  And House Republican leaders had to entice their members into supporting their proposal by weighing it down with a laundry list of policies whose sole purpose are scoring points against President Obama.

“House Republicans’ bill is a partisan joke that has no chance of passing the Senate, but middle-class families facing a thousand-dollar tax hike on January 1^st are not laughing. Instead of playing political games, Congress should work to find common ground. In the days ahead, I intend to do exactly that.”

Seventy years ago, the attack on Pearl Harbor changed our country forever. It also hardened our resolved to become a better, stronger nation.

The example of the USS Nevada epitomizes that resiliency. While in the port of Oahu on December 7, 1941, the battleship was hit by several bombs and a torpedo. Sixty Americans were killed.

Less than a year later that battleship returned to service.

Today we honor the living Pearl Harbor veterans for their courage and sacrifice.

We also remember the nearly 2,400 Americans who lost their lives that day, and the hundreds of thousands more who made the ultimate sacrifice during World War II.

These service members were true heroes. They set a fine example for the men and women who protect our freedoms today. And we will never forget their courage.

Republicans like to claim they are the Party of tax cuts.

But as Democrats propose more tax relief for working families, Republicans are showing their true colors. They only support tax cuts that benefit the rich.

Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell say they agree with Democrats that we should prevent a $1,000 tax hike on middle class families.

But it has become clear that the caucuses they lead do not.

Tea Party Republicans oppose our plan to cut taxes for nearly every family in America. But Republican leaders recognize taking $1,000 out of middle-class pockets during these hard times is political suicide.

Reports today say the bitter division has thrown the House Republican caucus into disarray.

Faced with rebellion in their caucuses, Republican leaders have two options: they can work with Democrats to forge a compromise that can pass, or they can move even further to the right to appease the Tea Party.

As we have seen before, when faced with a choice between the middle class and the Tea Party, Republicans will choose the Tea party every time.

Tomorrow the Senate will vote on whether to move forward with confirmation of Richard Cordray, the nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

My Republican colleagues have signaled that they will block Mr. Cordray’s nomination – but not because he’s unqualified.

For the first time in Senate history, Republicans are poised to block a qualified nominee solely because they don’t like the federal agency he will lead.

Senate Republicans have no problem with Richard Cordray. He has bipartisan support and a long history of fighting unfair practices by financial predators.

Instead Republicans are trying to cripple the new consumer agency altogether by depriving it of a director.

Their attempts to hamstring the consumer watchdog will leave Americans vulnerable to scams and rip-offs.

It is shameful that Republicans would leave consumers in the dark about the risks they face when making financial decisions only to prove a political point.

For 45 years Medicare has been improving and extending the lives of seniors.

Passing the Affordable Care Act ensured Medicare would stay strong for future generations of retirees. But health care reform is also helping today’s seniors by beginning to close the doughnut hole.

This year, more than 2.5 million Medicare recipients, including thousands of Nevadans, saved nearly $600 apiece on prescription drugs.

For some seniors on fixed incomes, those savings prevented difficult choices between food and live-saving medicine.

Medicare recipients have saved more than $1.6 billion so far this year thanks to this provision.

And more than 24 million seniors got free physicals this year because of health care reform.

That’s progress Democrats can be proud of.

Expands and Extends the Payroll Tax Cut For the Middle Class

Cantor: “You Aren’t A Republican” If You Vote Against Payroll Tax Cut Extension. “During the closed-door meeting Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) urged rank-and-file members to support the extension, saying it was necessary for a party that historically opposes tax increases, a leadership aide said. Cantor told members that ‘taxes are a Republican issue and you aren’t a Republican if you want to raise taxes on struggling families to fund bigger government,’ according to a source in the room.” [The Hill, 11/30/11]

Boehner: “If You Guys Think That Not Extending the Payroll Tax Cut Is Politically Advantageous, You’ve Got to Be Kidding Yourself.” According to Roll Call, “House Republican leaders bluntly warned their Members on Wednesday that opposing an extension to a popular payroll tax cut is politically unsustainable. According to a Republican source in the GOP’s weekly conference meeting Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) told his conference that ‘if you guys think that not extending the payroll tax cut is politically advantageous, you’ve got to be kidding yourself.’” [Roll Call, 11/30/11]

McConnell: “Republicans Are Going To Put Aside Their Misgivings And Support This Extension.” McConnell also said, “There’s a lot of sentiment in our conference, clearly a majority sentiment, for continuing the payroll tax relief that we enacted a year ago in these tough times.” [CQ, 11/28/11]

PAID FOR WITH…

… Bipartisan Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Reforms Agreed to During the Joint Super Committee Negotiations…

…Bipartisan Proposal to Ensure Wealthiest Americans Don’t Receive Unemployment Benefits or Food Stamps…

… Asking Millionaires to Pay Their Fair Share With a Small Increase on the Taxes They Pay on Income Over a Million.

Republican Super Committee Proposal Contained Increase in Freddie/Fannie Loan Fees.  [Fox News, 11/21/11]

• Sen. Toomey Called Revenues From Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “Really Noncontroversial, Innocuous Things” “And when presented with the options — you know, we put a deal on the table with the least possibly controversial items, things like a very modest savings of some of the least defensible agricultural subsidies that Democrats and Republicans on the committee said they could accomplish, ending some corporate subsidies, asking banks to pay something closer to a market fee for the guarantees they get from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are really noncontroversial, innocuous things.” [Fox News, 11/21/11]
• Sen. Kyl Said Republicans Agreed to Raising Fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “Finally, more in desperation than anything else Republicans said last week, look, if we can’t agree on those things why don’t we agree on what we essentially agreed on. There are a lot of places where the government has surplus property we can sell, where we can raise fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”  [CNN, 11/21/11]

Senate Republicans Paid for Payroll Tax Extension By Means Testing Food Stamps and Unemployment Benefits.  Last week, Senate Republicans introduced a proposal to extend the payroll tax cut.  The GOP proposal was paid for by ending unemployment and food stamp benefits for Millionaires. Twenty Senate Republicans voted for the bill. [S. 1931]

• Sen. Coburn Said We Should Not “Pamper” The Well Off With “Unnecessary Welfare”  “This welfare for the well-off – costing billions of dollars a year – is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations. We should never demonize those who are successful. Nor should we pamper them with unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs.” [Press Release, 11/13/11]

Bipartisan Majority Voted For Payroll Tax Extension Paid For By Millionaire Surtax.  Last week, a bi-partisan majority, including GOP Senator Susan Collins, voted for an extension of the payroll tax cut that was paid for with a Millionaire surtax.  [Vote, 12/1/11]

• Senator Collins Said Multimillionaires and Billionaires “Could Pay More of their Income to Help Us Pay More of the Deficit” “I do believe that multimillionaires and billionaires who are not running businesses could pay more of their income to help us pay more of the deficit,” Collins said Wednesday. [Roll Call, 12/1/11]
• Senator Roberts Suggested GOP Could Support Tax Increases On High-Income Earners. According to the New York Times, “Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said his party’s plan could involve a small increase in taxes for some high-income people who meet certain criteria.” [NY Times, 11/30/11]
• Senator Johanns Sensed “Change In Mood” On Millionaires’ Tax. “Another Republican senator has opened the door to tax increases on high earners as a way to pay for a payroll tax cut, showing more movement in the party ranks after resistance all year to tax increases.  ‘I sense a change in mood,’ Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said Wednesday.’ “It’s a little more bipartisan. My position has always been, ‘Let’s not raise taxes,’ but on the other hand, I don’t want our country to collapses under a mountain of debt. If that means compromise, I am going to do everything to get that done.’” [NY Times, 11/30/11]

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding a compromise payroll tax cut extension proposal. Below are his remarks as prepared:

Last week my friend, the Republican Leader, tried to convince me Republicans realize it would be disastrous to raise taxes on the middle class.

Here on the Senate floor, he quoted half a dozen news reports as evidence Senate Republicans support an extension of payroll tax cuts for 160 million American workers.

I told him I was skeptical Republicans really support this tax cut. It turns out I was right.

On Thursday Republicans shot down Democrats’ proposal to cut taxes for middle-class Americans, supposedly on the grounds it raised taxes on the richest of the rich in this country.

But a few minutes later Republicans also shot down their own proposal to extend payroll tax cuts, even though it was paid for with their own hand-picked reductions in government spending.

Whatever my friend, Senator McConnell, may say, it is obvious Republicans just aren’t interested in preventing a $1,000 tax increase on nearly every family in this nation from taking effect on Jan. 1.

But Democrats will not relent on keeping taxes low for the middle class. So today Sen. Casey will unveil a modified version of the payroll tax cut proposal he introduced last week.

Like our previous proposal, this scaled-back version will cut taxes for 160 million American workers, including 1.2 million Nevadans. Sen. Casey’s proposal will allow the average family to keep an extra $1,500 to spend on necessities next year.

And like our previous proposal it won’t add a penny to the deficit. It will be fully paid for with a mixture of spending cuts Republicans have already agreed to and a tiny surtax on the top two-tenths of one percent of American taxpayers.

Every spending reduction in the proposal was agreed to by a bicameral group of Republicans on the Supercommittee, so we know they support these cuts.

And, in an effort to make our proposal more palatable to Republicans, we have conceded to significantly cut the surtax on income above $1 million and make it temporary.

Democrats know how important extending and expanding the payroll tax cut is to working families. It’s also important to our economy.

Economists of every political persuasion agree if Republicans block this proposal – raising taxes on American families by $1,000 next month – it will have an immediate, negative impact on our economy. It will halt our still-fragile recovery in its tracks, and drag us back into recession.

We all know Congress can’t afford to play chicken with the economy. That’s why Democrats are committed to passing this payroll tax cut.

Republicans need to be prepared to meet us partway. We are offering a serious proposal with meaningful concessions, including spending cuts Republicans have already agreed to.

And the scaled-back, temporary tax on the very richest Americans – a group with an average income of $3 million a year – is also a sincere attempt to get Senate Republicans on board.

We know a few of them have even said publically that they are open to asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute to our economic recovery. I only hope they have the courage to act on their convictions.

I repeat: this is a serious proposal, and Republicans should take it seriously.

Here’s why: Americans, regardless of political affiliation, say they wholeheartedly support Democrats’ plan to cut taxes for middle-class families.

Fifty-eight percent of Republicans agree we should extend and expand payroll tax cuts for 160 million American workers.

Further, Americans overwhelmingly support our proposal to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share to help this country thrive.

Americans from every corner of the country and every walk of life agree. Democrats, Republicans and Independents agree.

Asked if they support a plan that would require people making more than $1 million a year to contribute a little more to ensure this country’s economic success, the results were decisive: three-quarters of Americans said yes.

Wealthy Americans agree. Two-thirds of people making more than $1 million a year said they would gladly contribute more.

A supermajority of Republicans agrees, with two-thirds supporting the idea. And even a majority – 52 percent – of members of the Tea Party agreed.

It seems the only place in the country you can’t find a majority of Republicans willing to speak up for shared sacrifice is the United States Senate.

Republicans across the country support our plan and the way it is paid for. Republicans in Congress dismiss it at their peril. The American people are watching.

Acknowledging that Republican opposition to middle-class tax cuts was untenable, Republican leaders spent this week trying to convince the world that they supported middle-class tax cuts:

Cantor: “You Aren’t A Republican” If You Vote Against Payroll Tax Cut Extension. According to the Hill, “During the closed-door meeting Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) urged rank-and-file members to support the extension, saying it was necessary for a party that historically opposes tax increases, a leadership aide said. Cantor told members that ‘taxes are a Republican issue and you aren’t a Republican if you want to raise taxes on struggling families to fund bigger government,’ according to a source in the room.” [The Hill, 11/30/11]

Boehner: “If You Guys Think That Not Extending the Payroll Tax Cut Is Politically Advantageous, You’ve Got to Be Kidding Yourself.” According to Roll Call, “House Republican leaders bluntly warned their Members on Wednesday that opposing an extension to a popular payroll tax cut is politically unsustainable. According to a Republican source in the GOP’s weekly conference meeting Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) told his conference that ‘if you guys think that not extending the payroll tax cut is politically advantageous, you’ve got to be kidding yourself.’” [Roll Call, 11/30/11]

McConnell: “Republicans Are Going To Put Aside Their Misgivings And Support This Extension.” McConnell also said, “There’s a lot of sentiment in our conference, clearly a majority sentiment, for continuing the payroll tax relief that we enacted a year ago in these tough times.” [CQ, 11/28/11]

But last night, a majority of Senate Republicans bucked McConnell, voting against the Republican plan and exposing their true colors: Republicans want to give tax breaks to millionaires, but not the middle class.

Washington Post: “In A Surprising Turn, More Republicans Voted Against The GOP Plan Than In Favor Of It.” “All but a handful of Democrats voted in favor of their party’s proposal, but in a surprising turn, more Republicans voted against the GOP plan than in favor of it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted this week that a majority of his conference would vote for the party’s plan to extend the payroll tax cut. The vote suggests that rank-and-file Republicans remain divided on the merits of keeping the tax cut, leaving their party vulnerable to criticism from Democrats that they would raise taxes on the middle class as Americans are struggling economically.” [Washington Post, 12/2/11]

Politico: “Mass Defections Reflect The Payroll Extension’s Unpopularity Among Rank-And-File Republicans.” “The mass defections reflect the payroll extension’s unpopularity among rank-and-file Republicans, even as GOP leaders move to make the Obama proposal more palatable to their caucus and block Democrats from seizing the mantle of the tax-cutting party. The divided conference also portends how difficult it will be for Speaker John Boehner to move a payroll tax cut extension through his chamber without significant Democratic backing… [A] surprising number of Republicans defected from their party’s proposal – 26 in total, despite comments from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell earlier this week that the GOP would support a payroll tax cut extension.” [Politico, 12/2/11]

Reuters: “Republican Ambivalence Toward Any Extension of the Payroll Tax Cut Was Evident” “Republican ambivalence toward any extension of the payroll tax cut was evident in the Senate as a majority of the party’s 47 senators voted against the Republican plan.” [Reuters, 12/2/11]

New York Times: Republicans Leaders “Struggle”, in “Political Bind” “Republican leaders’ struggle this week to find a strategy that could unite their party reflected the political bind it is in. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans said the policies of Republicans in Congress favored the rich, a New York Times/CBS News poll found in October.” [NY Times, 12/2/11]

Wall Street Journal: Republican Leaders “Fear The Politics Of Allowing A Tax Increase To Hit Virtually All Wage-Earners” “The vote suggests a disconnect between Republican leaders of both houses, who fear the politics of allowing a tax increase to hit virtually all wage-earners on Jan. 1, and many rank-and-file Republicans, who say the payroll-tax cut doesn’t create jobs and oppose short-term tweaks to the tax code.” [WSJ, 12/2/11]

Associated Press: Vote “Exposed Rare Divisions Among Senate Republicans” “But in a vote that exposed rare divisions among Senate Republicans, more than two dozen of the GOP’s 47 lawmakers also voted to kill an alternative plan backed by their leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to renew an existing 2 percentage point payroll tax cut.” [AP, 12/2/11]

Los Angeles Times: “Deep Resistance” Within GOP to Payroll Tax Cuts.  “Both bills met with GOP opposition, illustrating deep resistance within the ranks despite party leaders’ efforts to coalesce around the politically volatile issue.” [LA Times, 12/2/11]

The vote was a rejection of McConnnell’s effort to corral his caucus – Sen. Thune Called Republican Proposal “The Right Way” Minutes Before Voting Against It:

Thune Called The Republican Proposal “The Right Way” “There is a right way and wrong way to do this. This is the wrong way in the Democratic proposal. The Republican proposal is the right way.” [Floor Speech, 12/1/11]

…Minutes Before Thune Voted Against The Republican Plan. [Roll Call Vote 220, 12/1/11]

“This news is a reminder that we must continue using every tool at our disposal to get our economy growing and get Americans back to work. Too many families in Nevada and across America are struggling. One of the most effective things we can do for them is to put  more money in their pockets. Unfortunately, Republicans last night blocked a $1,500 tax cut for the middle class that would have spurred job creation. Republicans proved once again that the only tax cuts they will fight for are giveaways for millionaires and billionaires.

“Democrats will continue our focus on creating jobs. I hope Republicans will put politics aside and join us in fighting for the middle class.”

“Republicans proved tonight they are more interested in tax cuts for millionaires than tax cuts for the middle class. The legislation they blocked would have put $1,500 dollars in the pockets of the average middle-class family in America and across Nevada next year. The bill was fully paid for by asking millionaires to pay just over three percent on their incomes above $1 million.

“Republicans spent this week trying to convince us that they support middle-class tax cuts, but tonight a majority of Senate Republicans voted against their own bill – calling into question whether they support middle-class tax cuts at all.

“I was encouraged to see one Republican join Democrats in asking millionaires to pay their fair share. But because every other Republican continues to insist on protecting millionaires, middle class families could face a $1,000 tax increase next year. Democrats will not stop fighting to avoid that outcome. I hope Republicans will decide that the economic security of hard-working Americans is more important than protecting the wealthiest one percent.”

Yesterday on the Senate floor my friend, the Republican Leader, said he supports an extension of the payroll tax cut that was enacted last year.

I was glad to hear that he had experienced a change of heart since Tuesday, when he said our legislation wouldn’t “do a thing to help the economy.”

But I noticed my friend was careful to say only that he supports existing cuts, not that he supports Democrats’ plan to cut taxes for 160 million American workers and every business in this country.

And last night I found out why. I was disappointed to see Republicans’ alternative proposal was actually a backdoor route to protect the very rich while shortchanging the middle-class and small businesses.

Our proposal would provide deeper relief for working families and expand existing tax cuts to benefit businesses as well.

The Republican proposal rejects this new tax relief. It doesn’t provide a penny of additional tax cuts for working families. And it does nothing for small businesses – the “job creators” Republicans claim to care so much about.

Republicans seem to think our plan – to put $1,500 back in the pocket of nearly every American family and give small businesses the boost they need to hire new employees – goes too far.

They are willing to fight for ever-deeper tax cuts for the wealthy. But when it comes to the middle class, Republicans believe the status quo is good enough for families struggling to get by.

The Republicans plan goes directly against the budget agreement we reached just a few months ago. And while Democrats have been working tirelessly to create new jobs, the Republican plan goes in precisely the opposite direction. Instead of creating jobs, it would cost jobs.

Under their plan, many more middle class families around the country would lose their jobs. That includes Americans dedicated to public service – hard working people committed to educating our youth, or to keep our streets safe.

Do the Republicans really believe that the way to revive the economy is to lay off more FBI agents? Or to fire more border patrol officers? These cuts won’t revive the economy, they’ll only slow it down and cost even more jobs.

While targeting the middle class, the Republicans propose to do nothing to cut back on excessive subsidies for many of the large corporations that benefit from government contracts. Employees at some of these taxpayer-supported corporations are being paid almost $700,000 a year, even while many public servants struggle to make ends meet.

But the Republicans seem uninterested in going after those high income earners. As usual, the only real target of the Republican meat axe is the American middle class. And that’s just wrong.

America’s middle class has been hurting for too long. They’re the people who are struggling. They’re the ones who need help. Not multi-millionaires. And not large, profitable government contractors.

So, M. President, the Republican proposal is unacceptable. And it won’t pass the Senate. We can do better, and we must.

“We are glad Republicans have seen the light and taken up Democrats’ call to pass a middle-class tax cut, just a few days after their leadership indicated they would oppose it. However, Democrats’ proposal would put more money in the pockets of middle class families and create more jobs. The Republican proposal cannot pass the Senate as it stands, but now that Republicans have reversed their position on this middle-class tax cut, we look forward to working with them to negotiate a consensus solution.”

“You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans”

– Senator Jon Kyl, speaking on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
[Fox News Sunday, 7/11/10]

Chaser:

“Boehner backs payroll tax cut extension, but says it must be paid for”
[The Hill, 11/30/11]

Roll Call: GOP Leaders Feel the Heat on Payroll Tax. “House Republican leaders bluntly warned their Members on Wednesday that opposing an extension to a popular payroll tax cut is politically unsustainable. According to a Republican source in the GOP’s weekly conference meeting Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) told his conference that ‘if you guys think that not extending the payroll tax cut is politically advantageous, you’ve got to be kidding yourself.’” LINK

New York Times: In Congress, Role Reversal Over Federal Payroll Tax Cut. “In a sharp role reversal, Democrats and Republicans have become divided over whether to extend a federal payroll tax cut enjoyed by every working American last year, with Democrats leading the charge for the tax break and many Republicans demanding that the cut be paid for if it is extended at all.” LINK

National Review (Editorial): Republicans Have Put Themselves in Odd Position of Opposing a Cut in Taxes. “For more than a generation, the Republican party has stood for cutting tax rates and opposing increased tax rates. That commitment has, on balance, well served the causes of limited government, economic growth, and conservative political success. (We are not among those who imagine that we would somehow be a freer society if we still had 70 percent tax rates.) In recent weeks, however, some Republicans have put themselves in the odd position of opposing a cut in tax rates that Democrats are proposing.” LINK

Politico: GOPers Fear Losing Jobs Message War. “Congressional Republicans have become increasingly divided during the latest legislative battles, with some fearing that the White House is winning the message war over the No. 1 issue facing the country: jobs. As Congress debates an extension of a payroll tax holiday, a number of Republicans are worried that their party has not done an adequate job responding to the battering they’re taking daily from President Barack Obama on the campaign trail.” LINK

Republicans love to talk about taxes.

They like them low; we like them high. Or so they would have you believe.

By that logic, Republicans ought to be lining up to support our payroll tax cut legislation.

Democrats propose we cut taxes for 160 million Americans and every single business in the country. The average American family would save about $1,500.

Yet Republicans have appeared out of the woodwork to oppose our plan.

They don’t like these particular tax cuts because of how they’re paid for – with a small, 3.25 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year.

Come to find out, Republicans only care about keeping taxes low for one very small group of people: the richest of the rich.

Here is the contrast:

On one side, you have Democrats fighting to cut taxes for 160 million Americans who each make an average of less than $30,000 a year. On the other side, you have Republicans fighting to keep taxes low for fewer than 350,000 people who each take home about $3 million every year.

And what’s worse, if Republicans get their way – if they successfully side with the richest of the rich over the rest of Americans – taxes will actually increase by $1,000 a year for 120 million households.

Ninety-two percent of American families will be affected.

In other words, Republicans are increasing taxes on nearly every American family to protect people who make an average $37,500 a week – more than most Americans make in a year.

Nearly every household in this country will have $1,000 less to spend on food and clothing and diapers next year. All so Republicans can protect people who earn an average of $3 million apiece.

In Kentucky, home to my friend, the Republican Leader, 2.1 million middle-class workers will be hit with a tax increase if Republicans block our proposal.

But 1,345 Kentuckians who make an average of $3.5 million each will be protected thanks to the efforts of Senate Republicans.

So, why would Republicans throw 92 percent of American families under the bus, whacking them with a tax increase on January 1, to protect the richest of the rich? It sounds like political suicide, not to mention being shockingly callous policy.

So, one might assume there is some compelling reason for Republicans to stake out this seemingly indefensible ground – to take the side of the top two-tenths of one percent of American earners while raising taxes on 160 million others.

Here is their reason: Republicans say they want to protect “job creators.”

Of course, that claim is laughable on its face. Our bill would cut taxes for literally every business in the country. And for 98 percent of firms – including virtually every small business – it would cut payroll taxes in half.

I could quote virtually every member of the Republican caucus singing the praises of small businesses that create jobs.

You won’t hear any disagreement from Democrats. That’s why our bill cuts taxes for every small business in America, including 50,000 firms in Nevada.

Yet, a bill that will cut taxes for 92 percent of American families and every single business in the nation without adding a penny to the deficit may not get a single Republican vote because it would cost a few incredibly prosperous Americans two weeks pay.

And to top it all off, Republicans know the tax increase they’re foisting on middle-class families would be devastating for our economy.

The Economic Policy Institute says this Republican tax hike will reduce GDP by $128 billion and cost 972,000 jobs.

That would send our economy into a tailspin, and it’s impossible to tell how long we would take to recover.

Republicans often say we can’t afford to raise taxes on the top two-tenths of one percent of American taxpayers.

So I ask them this: How can we afford a tax increase on 92 percent of American families?

Key Excerpt:
Pond: “One of the things that we’re watching is the payroll tax extension and the signals that we’re getting from Washington as to whether we get that extension. Because if we don’t, our growth forecast frankly will probably be dropped down from about 2.5 percent in Q1 down to around 1 percent. It’s that big.”

Senate Democrats’ number one priority this Congress is to pass common-sense legislation – such as tax cuts and infrastructure investments – that will put Americans back to work and revive our economy.

Republicans in the House, on the other hand, are focused on gutting the safeguards that keep our air clean, make our workplaces safe and check the greed of big Wall Street banks.

Never mind that this wholesale destruction of measures that save millions of lives and trillions of dollars each year has no chance of passing the Senate. Never mind that non-partisan experts and economists from both sides of the aisle say their so-called jobs agenda wouldn’t create a single job.

House Republicans complain we have not taken up and passed these policies, which would risk American lives while doing nothing to improve our economy. They insist that we should waste weeks or months on legislation that is both dangerous and proven-to-fail.

But the Senate has too much work to do on legislation that would create jobs without risking American lives to waste time on these ineffectual, purely partisan measures.

Unlike Republicans, our jobs agenda was designed to create jobs, not headlines.

And in any case, the Senate has passed its own share of legislation – 40 pieces, in fact – that has yet to be taken up by House Republican leaders.

The Senate has passed legislation that would stop China from cheating American workers by manipulating its currency, evening the playing field for American exporters and saving jobs.

We have passed a bill to modernize our air travel system, keeping passengers safer and saving money and travel time.

We have passed a measure that would protect lives by keeping our food safe from contamination, to name a few.

House Republicans have refused to take up these worthy pieces of legislation and many others.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have blocked many reasonable jobs proposals with proven track records of success. They are simply too busy rooting for our economy to fail and pursuing an extreme social agenda to work with Democrats to create jobs.

But that won’t stop Democrats from doing everything in our power to get the economy back on track. That’s why Senator Casey has introduced legislation to put money back in the pockets of middle-class workers and small businesses by extending and expanding the payroll tax cut.

This legislation cut taxes for 160 million American workers, saving the average family $1,500 each next year. Those families will have more money to spend the local grocery store or pharmacy, giving communities across the country a financial shot in the arm.

The proposal would also give payroll tax cuts to businesses, including 50,000 firms in Nevada.

More than 1.2 million Nevada workers benefited from the payroll tax cut this year. Under our proposal, they will get even greater tax relief next year.

Payroll tax cuts have also been a boon to the economies of every station in the nation. In Kentucky – the home of my friend, the Minority Leader – 2.1 million workers took home $1.2 billion in payroll tax cuts this year.

That’s why the Minority Leader said in 2009 that a payroll tax cut “would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses and in the hands of individuals.”

The average Kentucky family will keep $1,330 of their hard-earned money next year under our expanded payroll tax break. And 70,000 firms in Kentucky will benefit from new tax cuts.

In 2009, Sen. McConnell went on to say that, “Republicans, generally speaking, from Maine to Mississippi, like tax relief.”

Yet Republicans already appear poised to block this legislation.

So let’s be clear what a “no” vote on this proposal really means. It’s a vote to deny tax relief to millions of businesses. It’s a vote to raise taxes for 120 million families by nearly $1,000 each.

Republicans who vote “no” will literally be taking money out of the pockets of middle-class taxpayers.

Once upon a time, Republicans rushed to cut taxes, regardless of which tax it was or whether it added trillions to the deficit. Just look at the Bush tax cuts, for example.

Today they are lining up against a tax cut that will put money back in the pockets of the middle-class, ensure businesses have more cash to hire new workers and get our economy moving immediately.

I hope Republicans will work with us to pass a tax cut for 160 million American workers and every business in America.

As my friend, the Republican Leader, said, “Republicans, generally speaking, from Maine to Mississippi, like tax relief.” I hope they remember that today.

Democrats’ Legislation Would Extend Tax Break For Workers, and Also Expand It To Include Employers; Vote Expected Later This Week

Leading GOP Lawmakers, After Demanding Massive Tax Cuts For Wealthy in Debt Reduction Talks, Are Suddenly Cool To Renewing Tax Cuts That Help Middle Class

Washington, DC—Today, U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the Senate is expected to vote this week on legislation sponsored by Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) to stop a huge tax hike from hitting middle-class families.

Unless Congress acts, a two-percent payroll tax break will expire at the end of this month. Casey’s legislation would continue payroll tax cut for employees into next year, and boost it to a 3.1 percent break. The legislation would also cut in half (from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent) the employer-side Social Security payroll taxes.

The bill was expected to be formally filed later today. It should receive a vote in the Senate later this week.

Economists of all political stripes have called the continuation of tax cut critical for America’s economic growth. They have warned that letting it lapse could push the country back into a recession. But a number of leading GOP lawmakers, after fighting for massive tax cuts for the wealthy in the recent deficit reduction talks, are suddenly cool to renewing a tax cut aimed at middle-class Americans.  On Monday, Senate Democrats urged their GOP colleagues to extend and expand the tax cut, which would put $1,500 into the pockets of the average American family next year.

Key Provisions Of The Middle Class Tax Cut Act Of 2011:

• Provides Tax Cut to 160 Million Workers. The bill cuts in half (from 6.2% to 3.1%) the Social Security payroll tax paid by employees and the self-employed on their wages and salaries for 2012.  Approximately 160 million workers will benefit from this tax cut, with the average family seeing nearly $1,500 in additional take-home pay.
• Cuts the Payroll Tax in Half for 98% of U.S. Businesses. The Senate bill cuts in half (from 6.2% to 3.1%) the Social Security payroll tax paid by employers on the first $5 million of taxable payroll for 2012. This will benefit all businesses, but 98% of businesses will see their portion of the Social Security payroll tax cut in half.
• Gives an Added Incentive for Businesses to Hire New Workers. The bill completely eliminates (from 6.2% to 0%) the Social Security payroll tax paid by employers on the first $12.5 million of an employer’s increased taxable payroll for the 4^th quarter of 2011 and $50 million in increased payroll for 2012.
• Asks Millionaires to Pay Their Fair Share Without Adding a Dime to the Deficit. In order to create or save hundreds of thousands of jobs and prevent a tax hike that would impact 160 million American workers, the Senate bill imposes a 3.25% surtax on modified adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million for both single filers and married couples filing jointly.  The surtax is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.
• Protects Social Security. The legislation would not affect the Social Security Trust Fund by one penny, because it requires that the Social Security Trust Fund be made whole through transfers from the General Fund.

Supported By Economists From Across The Political Spectrum:

• Zandi: “We’ll Likely Go Into Recession” If the Payroll Tax Cut Expires. In October, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics said of the 2010 payroll tax cut that is set to expire in December, “We`d be in recession right now without it. So I think if they don`t do that, at the very minimum, we`ll likely go into recession.” Zandi wrote, “It is critical (and assumed in our baseline outlook) that lawmakers agree at least to extend and increase the payroll tax holiday for workers through 2012 as proposed by President Obama. This would reduce next year’s fiscal drag to less than 1 percentage point—still a heavy lift for the economy, but doable.” [MSNBC, 10/7/11; AP, 9/9/11; Moody’s Analytics, 10/10/11]
• Zandi: Payroll Tax Cut Would Create 750,000 Jobs. [McClatchy, 10/4/11]

Payroll Tax Cuts Could Create More Than 50,000 Jobs A Month. “Preliminary analyses of the White House plan estimate that the tax cuts could create more than 50,000 jobs a month, a significant boost considering that employment climbed by 35,000 jobs, on average, in each of the last three months… Joel Prakken, senior managing director at Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm, said that the benefits of creating more than half a million jobs next year should not be minimized. ‘It’s going to make the unemployment rate lower than it otherwise would be,’ he said.” [New York Times, 9/9/11]

• Macroeconomic Advisers: “Meaningful Drag” on the Economy if Payroll Tax Cut Expires. Discussing the possibility that congress would allow the payroll tax cut to expire, Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers in St. Louis, said, “And it occurs quite quickly at the beginning of the year… It’s a meaningful drag.” Macroeconomic Advisers estimates that it would reduce GDP growth by 0.5 percent and cost the economy 400,000 jobs by the fourth quarter.  Joel Prakken at Macroeconomic Advisers said the benefits of the payroll tax were somewhat muted earlier this year because of a spike in gas prices. He added that an extension next year could produce greater benefits. [USA Today, 11/15/11; Washington Post, 11/22/11]

Ameriprise Financial Economist: Payroll Tax Cut Could Add More Than 1 Million Jobs. “This additional spending capacity in the hands of consumers should continue to foster improvements in aggregate domestic demand. And ultimately, it is demand and demand alone that will lead to more business hiring,” said Russell Price, senior economist for Ameriprise Financial Services. “Price estimates the increased payroll tax holiday for workers by itself is likely to add between 750,000 to 1 million jobs, and that the new break on payroll taxes for employers could add an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs. He added that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation’s economic activity, could get a 1.5 percentage point boost as well.” [CNNMoney, 9/9/11]

JPMorgan: Allowing Unemployment Benefits and Payroll Tax Cut to Expire Could Slow Growth By Up to 2%.  “What’s more important for the economy in 2012 though is the fate of a number of stimulus measures, including a 2 percent cut in employee payroll taxes and extended unemployment benefits, that are due to expire at the end of the year, JPMorgan economist Feroli said. If Congress doesn’t continue them, ‘the drag from tightening fiscal policy could subtract 1.5 to 2 percentage points from GDP growth next year,’ the former Fed economist added in a Nov. 10 note to clients.” [Bloomberg News, 11/19/11]

•  JPMorgan: Current Payroll Tax Cut Boosted Consumer Spending. Discussing the payroll tax cut in a September note, JPMorgan wrote, “Although real consumer spending was subdued in the first quarter, when the tax cut kicked in, nominal consumer spending grew at a 6.1% annual rate, the fastest pace so far in the current expansion.” [JPMorgan, Economic Research Note, 9/9/11]

Barclays Capital: Allowing Unemployment Benefits And Payroll Tax Cut To Expire “Would Shave About 1.5pp Off Of Consumption Growth.” Barclays Capital wrote, “Given the political climate, finding $160bn of deficit savings needed to extend the payroll tax cut and the extended unemployment benefits at their current levels could be a high bar. The end of these stimulus measures would pose a noticeable headwind to disposable personal income growth early next year. We estimate if both stimulus measures expire, then the drag would shave about 1.5pp off of consumption growth (1pp off headline) on a q/q (saar) basis in Q1 of 2012.” [Barclays Capital, 11/22/11]

Goldman Sachs: Allowing Payroll Tax Cut to Expire Could Cut Growth By Two Thirds of a Percent in Early 2012. “Goldman Sachs economic forecaster Alec Phillips estimated that allowing the payroll tax cut to expire would reduce growth by as much as two-thirds of a percentage point in early 2012.” [Washington Post, 11/22/11]

RBC Capital Markets: Failure to Extend Payroll Tax Cut Would Cut GDP By 1% in 2012. “RBC Capital Markets estimated that allowing the payroll tax cut to expire at year-end would reduce U.S. gross domestic product growth by 1 percentage point in 2012.” [Christian Science Monitor, 11/21/11]

University of Chicago Economist: “Employment Could Be Roughly Three Million Greater During The Period Of The Tax Cut Than It Would Otherwise.”  Casey B. Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, wrote, “the 3.1-percentage-point part of the president’s proposal could raise employment by at least a million, albeit the duration of job creation is related to how long the tax cut lasts. I expect that every percentage-point reduction in employers’ costs raises employment by about a percentage point and real gross domestic product by about 0.7 percentage point. That means employment could be roughly three million greater during the period of the tax cut than it would otherwise… The tax cut is proposed to last a year, and some of the estimated three million incremental job-years — a job that lasts a year, or 12 jobs that last a month — could be spread over time. So we might see only two million in the first year of the cut, with another one million after the cut expires. But still that’s a lot of jobs.” [New York Times, 9/14/11]

CBO: Every Dollar of Employer-Side Payroll Tax Cuts Could Generate Up to $1.20 in Economic Activity. The CBO reported that every dollar in reduced taxes on employers would generate up to $1.20 in economic activity, while every dollar in reduced taxes on workers would generate up to 90 cents because workers tend to save a portion of their additional income. Moody’s Analytics estimates that every $1 reduction in federal tax revenue resulting from an employee-side payroll tax cut expands the economy by $1.27. [New York Times, 9/9/11; CBO, 2/23/10; CBPP, 9/7/11; Moody’s Analytics, 8/26/11]

EPI: Failure to Extend Payroll Tax Cut Would Cost Nearly 1 Million Jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, failure to extend the payroll tax holiday would cost 972,000 American jobs in 2012. [EPI, 8/4/11]

Moody’s: Letting Payroll Tax Cut Expire Would Shave .5% from GDP. Letting the payroll tax cut for employees expire would shave a half-percentage point from economic growth in 2012, Moody’s Analytics has reported. [New York Times, 9/7/11; Moody’s Analytics, 8/26/11]

Nomura: Extending Payroll Tax Cut Alone Would Raise 2012 GDP By .5%.Nomura wrote, “The passage of measures within The American Jobs Act has the potential to alter our baseline forecast for US economic growth. For example, extending the 2% social security tax cut for employees would raise growth in Q1 2012 real GDP by as much as 1.0 percentage point, and by 0.5 percentage points in 2012 overall.” [Business Insider, 9/9/11]

Payroll Tax Cut Will Benefit 160 Million American Workers. The Democratic plan would provide a tax cut for 160 million workers by expanding the payroll tax cut from 2 percent this year to 3.1 percent in 2012. For a typical family earning $50,000 a year, this cut would translate to an extra $1500 a year in their pockets. That’s more than $125 a month for households to pay for gas, food, and other expenses. On the other hand, if Republicans block passage of the President’s payroll tax cut, the typical family making $50,000 a year would see their taxes rise by $1,000 next year. [White House, 11/22/11]

I trust you had a safe and happy holiday. And I hope everyone is well rested, because we have a difficult work period ahead of us.

We have much to do over the next few weeks, and Hanukah and the Christmas holiday are looming ahead of us.

This week we need to finish work on the Department of Defense authorization and more.

This month we must also handle a number of nominations and extend unemployment insurance for Americans still struggling to find work during these difficult times. And we have more appropriations work to do. The continuing resolution to fund the government expires on December 16.

And we must not neglect the responsibility to continue our work to put Americans back to work. So we will take up additional pieces of President Obama’s American Jobs Act.

This week we will introduce legislation that would give the economy a boost by putting money back in the pockets of middle-class workers and small businesses by extending and expanding a popular payroll tax cut.

More than 120 million families took home an extra $120 billion this year thanks to payroll tax cuts Democrats championed.

The average family held onto $935 more of their heard-earned dollars this year. We need to assure those families that they can rely on that tax cut next year as well.

But this legislation does more than just protect the tax cuts Americans already count on. It deepens and expands that tax relief as well.

Next year, 120 million families will keep an average $1,500 because of this legislation. That means they’ll have more money to spend on necessities like gas and food, and will help spur economic growth in their communities.

Business will also benefit from this tax cut. Ninety-eight percent of American business will see their payroll taxes cut in half on the first $5 million in wages they pay out. And firms that add workers will benefit from a full payroll tax holiday on their increase in wages.

In Nevada, 50,000 businesses will benefit from this tax cut. And many businesses will save tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So this legislation will help families and business while spurring hiring and giving the economy a boost. And it will be fully paid for with a small, 3.25 percent surtax on income over $1 million.

A person who makes $1 million a year won’t pay an extra penny. Someone who makes $1.1 million – an extra $100,000 – will pay only $3,250 more.

At a time when many working families are still struggling, we can’t afford not to extend and expand this important payroll tax cut.

So I was disappointed to hear that some of my Republican colleagues, including the Junior Senator from Arizona, have already come out in opposition to this tax cut.

These are the same Republicans who loudly claim to care about keeping taxes low. But too often it seems they only care about keeping taxes low for the richest of the rich.

The same Republicans who today oppose a payroll tax cut for hundreds of millions of businesses and families last week jettisoned the hopes of a large-scale deficit reduction deal from the Supercommittee because they insisted on massive, permanent tax giveaways for the very rich.

Cutting taxes for middle-class families and business should be an area where Republicans and Democrats can find common ground, as we have in the past.

This Republican opposition smacks of partisanship. Because this tax cut has President Obama’s fingerprints, Republicans won’t support it even though they know it is good policy for American families and businesses.

Let’s examine the effects of their purely political opposition to a common-sense tax cut. If Republicans block passage of this legislation, they will be taking money out of the pockets of American families.

For a family making $50,000 a year, our proposal would not only preserve an existing $935 tax break, it would put an additional $565 a year in the family coffers. If Republicans get their way, that family will actually see its taxes increase by nearly $1,000.

If Republicans block this legislation, 120 million American families and 98 percent of American businesses will not get a tax cut next year. Instead, 120 million families and millions of businesses will be socked with a tax increase.

Those numbers are shocking. But the potential impact on the larger economy is downright scary.

Economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s said the economy will likely plunge back into a full-blown recession – erasing the economic progress we’ve made – if we do not extend this tax cut.

It is clear neither our fragile middle class nor our fragile economic recovery can afford the kind of setback a failure to extend and expand these tax cuts would bring.

Republicans say we cannot afford to raise taxes. If they choose to oppose this payroll tax cut, we’ll know what they meant to say was, “We cannot afford to raise taxes on the rich – but we are happy to raise taxes on the middle class.”

WATCH THE NEW VIDEO:
Grover Norquist, The Man Who Really Runs the GOP HERE

DECLARING VICTORY: WITH THE SUPER COMMITTEE DECLARING AN IMPASSE, NORQUIST IS TOUTING HIS TREMENDOUS POWER OVER REPUBLICANS ON TAXES

November 20: As The Super Committee Nears Impasse, Norquist Is Bragging About His Influence Over The Republican Stance On Taxes. “Grover Norquist has collected pledges from many Republicans that they will not vote for a hike of any kind. In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’s ‘60 Minutes,’ the head of the Americans for Tax Reform makes it clear he’s proud of his role firing up anti-tax fervor in Washington. ‘The Republicans won’t raise your taxes. We haven’t had a Republican vote for an income tax increase since 1990,’ he told Steve Kroft. When asked by Kroft if that were his doing, Norquist said, ‘I helped. Yeah’ … Norquist reiterated that he wants to starve the beast, reducing tax revenue so that the size of the federal government shrinks. ‘I intend to win. I intend to be part of the whole effort to crush the other team,’ Norquist said.” [Politico, 11/21/11]

Wall Street Journal: “Thank You, Grover Norquist.” [11/22/11]

WHEN SUPER COMMITTEE MEMBER JON KYL LOOKED LIKE HE MIGHT BE OPEN TO DEFYING THE PLEDGE AND INCLUDING SOME REVENUES, NORQUIST “YANKED” THE “WANDERING LEADER BACK INTO LINE.”

November 11: Politico: Norquist “Yanked” Senator Kyl “Back Into Line” When It Looked Like He Might Go Against His Pledge. “Sometimes, he said, he has to yank a wandering leader back into line, as he said he did with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in May. Kyl publicly ruled out raising tax rates to bring in revenue, which was interpreted by some observers as leaving the door open to a variety of tax increases that wouldn’t involve rate changes.  ‘So, I call Kyl. ‘What did you say? What did you mean? How can we work together on this?’ Norquist said, adopting the tone of a teacher scolding a second grader as he recalled the conversation.  ‘Yes, I said rates,’ Kyl said, as Norquist recalled.  ‘And then,’ Norquist said, ‘he went down on the floor, and he gave a colloquy about how we’re against any tax increases of any sort. Boom!’” [Politico, 11/9/11]

WHEN REPUBLICANS ON THE SUPER COMMITTEE PRETENDED TO PUT REVNUES ON THE TABLE, NORQUIST MADE SURE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS JUST “A UNICORN,” “NOT WRITTEN DOWN,” “A NEGOTIATING POSITION” – AND THAT HE WOULD NEVER LET IT ACTUALLY GO ANYWHERE

November 15: Norquist Said Republican Revenue Offer Was Just “A Negotiating Position … They’re Not Going To Be Passing Any Tax Increases” “It’s not written down. It’s a negotiating position. It won’t pass the House or the Senate. I’ve talked to the House leadership and the Senate leadership. They’re not going to be passing any tax increases.” [The Hill, 11/15/11]

November 16: Norquist Made It Clear That If Democrats DID Accept Toomey’s Phony Offer, He’d Pressure Them To Renege. “In an interview, Norquist said that Republicans have no intention of raising taxes, and that their decision to show ‘a little ankle’ on taxes in their latest offer was merely a ploy to prove that Democrats would not endorse structural changes to Medicare and Medicaid. Norquist acknowledged that the GOP tax plan is ‘problematic,’ however, and said he would have pushed Republicans to rescind the offer if Democrats had accepted it.” [Washington Post, 11/16/11 (emphasis added)]

November 18: Norquist Absolved Toomey For Including Otherwise “Poisonous” Revenue Increases In His Phony Proposal; “As A Negotiating Position … It Was Not Treason.” “Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, is responsible for the anti-tax pledge signed by nearly every Republican in Congress. But while he panned the tax hikes in the Toomey plan, Norquist viewed the blueprint merely as a ‘negotiating position’ to lure Democrats closer to real tax reform. ‘If it was the final bill, it would be poison for taxpayers, tea party supporters and Republicans,’ Norquist said in an email. ‘As a negotiating position to bring Democrats toward tax reform, it was not treason.’”  [Politico, 11/18/11]

NOT CONTENT TO SIMPLY DECLARE VICTORY, NORQUIST WAS SURE TO REMIND REPUBLICANS WHY THEY’RE ALL TOO SCARED TO DEFY HIM

November 20: Norquist Said He Works To Encourage Republicans Who Vote For Tax Increases “To Go Into Another Line of Work,” Called Them “Rat Heads In A Coke Bottle.”

NORQUIST: Republicans who vote for a tax increase are rat heads in a Coke bottle. They damage the brand for everyone else […]

KROFT: You make it pretty clear. If someone breaks the pledge, you’re gonna do everything you can to get rid of them.

NORQUIST: To educate the voters that they raise taxes. And again, we educate people–

KROFT: To get rid of them.

NORQUIST: To encourage them to go into another line of work, like shoplifting or bank robbing, where they have to do their own stealing. [CBS, 11/20/11]

November 21: Norquist Reiterated His Threat To “Go After” Republicans Who Broke His Pledge.

QUESTION: “But you go after these elected officials with all the money because there is a lot of very powerful people who donate to your cause. You go after these elected officials and you make sure they are not elected again. You do.”

NORQUIST: “Well, If somebody takes the pledge not to raise taxes and were to break it, we would certainly inform voters what they have done.” [CNN, 11/21/11]

IN THE END, IT’S CLEAR THE FIX WAS IN FROM THE BEGINNING, SINCE ALL 6 GOP MEMBERS SIGNED HIS PLEDGE

August 11: Norquist Blessed GOP Appointees To Super Committee, Saying They Were All “Taxpayer Friendly” And Had Signed His Pledge. “All the Republican appointees are ‘taxpayer friendly,’ said anti-tax activist Grover Norquist. They’ve all signed his pledge not to raise taxes — which was a key obstacle in the various failed plans to raise the debt ceiling.” [USA Today, 8/11/11]

Grover Norquist let slip what everyone already suspected: the Toomey offer to the Super Committee was “merely a ploy,” and Republicans really aren’t serious about including revenues in any agreement.

The Washington Post reported: 

“In an interview, Norquist said that Republicans have no intention of raising taxes, and that their decision to show ‘a little ankle’ on taxes in their latest offer was merely a ploy to prove that Democrats would not endorse structural changes to Medicare and Medicaid. Norquist acknowledged that the GOP tax plan is ‘problematic,’ however, and said he would have pushed Republicans to rescind the offer if Democrats had accepted it.”  [Washington Post, 11/16/11]

In an interview with Politico today, Grover Norquist can’t help but brag about his strangle-hold on Republicans in Congress. In a striking revelation, he even brags about scolding No. 2 Senate Republican Jon Kyl for suggesting openness to closing tax loopholes – prompting Kyl to perform his penance on the Senate floor.

Politico writes:

Sometimes, he said, he has to yank a wandering leader back into line, as he said he did with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in May. Kyl publicly ruled out raising tax rates to bring in revenue, which was interpreted by some observers as leaving the door open to a variety of tax increases that wouldn’t involve rate changes.

“So, I call Kyl. ‘What did you say? What did you mean? How can we work together on this?’” Norquist said, adopting the tone of a teacher scolding a second grader as he recalled the conversation.

“Yes, I said rates,” Kyl said, as Norquist recalled.

“And then,” Norquist said, “he went down on the floor, and he gave a colloquy about how we’re against any tax increases of any sort. Boom!”

Kyl, a longtime proponent of lower taxes, didn’t have a comment, his office said.

That’s an awful lot of influence for “some random person.”

CNN Poll: 63 percent of Americans support raising taxes on millionaires. [CNN, 9/19/11]

INDEPENDENTS:
ABC News Washington Post Poll:  75 percent of independents support raising taxes millionaires. [ABC News/Washington Post, 10/5/11]

CBS News Poll: 65 percent of independents support raising taxes on millionaires.  [CBS News, 10/3/11]

CNN Poll: 62 percent of independents support raising taxes on millionaires. [CNN, 9/19/11]

REPUBLICANS:
ABC News Washington Post Poll:  57 percent of Republicans support raising taxes on millionaires. [ABC News/Washington Post, 10/5/11]

TEA PARTY:
ABC News Washington Post Poll:  55 percent of Tea Party supporters agree with raising taxes on millionaires. [ABC News/Washington Post, 10/5/11]

I was saddened to hear of a terrible accident on Friday at the Reno air show, which killed 10 people and injured many more.

My heart goes out to those who were hurt. And my thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives, including the pilot of the World War II-era plane that crashed into spectators.

I commend the many first responders who rushed to the scene Friday. Their quick thinking and skillful assistance saved many lives.

While this crash was devastating, I am glad the pilot took quick action to prevent additional loss of life by avoiding a grandstand packed with thousands of spectators.

My four grandchildren attended the show on Thursday. And my oldest grandson, Mitchell was at the even with his scout troop earlier on Friday.

Although officials are still investigating the crash, initial reports indicate that a piece of the plane’s tail broke off prior to the accident.

I hope this terrible event – the first of its kind in this nation – will not deter people from attending air shows in the future.

Thousands of people enjoy these shows every year. The late Senator Ted Stevens attended the Reno show many times and told me it was the best of its kind.

I will continue to monitor the investigation.

This weekend Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, the progressive Republican and father-in-law to our own Senator Rockefeller, died at the age of 91.

Although I did not serve with Senator Percy, I knew him by reputation. He was an independent thinker and a moderate who always put country before political party. The Senate could use more of his brand of pragmatism today.

Senator Percy was a proponent of tougher environmental regulations and consumer protections, an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and a proponent of nuclear nonproliferation. He was also a Navy veteran and a businessman, and was often mentioned as a presidential contender.

The Senate honors him for his faithful service to his country as a sailor and in Congress. My thoughts are with his family, including Senator Rockefeller and his wife Sharon, today.

Last week, the President presented the country with a roadmap to reduce our jobs deficit – a proposal to create nearly 2 million jobs and reduce unemployment by a percentage point.

Today President Obama laid out a common-sense pathway to substantially reduce our budget deficit as well.

It is a concrete strategy to cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade and do it fairly. I congratulate him for his vision.

His plan calls for shared sacrifice from all Americans, including those who can best afford to help. It calls on those who benefited from the tax policies that sunk this country deeper and deeper into debt to help get us out of debt.

Americans know shared sacrifice is the best path to fiscal sustainability. Many of the richest few agree, including Warren Buffet.

That is why the President has proposed the so-called Buffet Rule – that no American making more than $1 million a year should pay a lower tax rate than this nation’s middle-class families.

This rule would apply to the top three-tenths of one percent of Americans – the richest of the rich, like Mr. Buffet.

Warren Buffet believes it is unfair that he pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary. This is what he said: “If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

There are about 22,000 people in this country who make more than $1 million each year, yet pay less than 15 percent of their income in taxes.

The top 400 earners in this country – all of whom make more than $110 million a year – pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than plumbers and teachers and factory workers do.

More than anyone else, these millionaires and billionaires benefited from Bush tax cuts that contributed $3 trillion to our deficit. They helped plunge this nation into a financial hole.

Yet Congressional Republicans believe middle-class families and seniors – not the millionaires and billionaires who have enjoyed trillions in tax breaks – should bear the burden of getting us out of that hole.

A balanced approach to reducing our deficit means those who have benefited the most from policies that created our deficit crisis should also help solve our deficit crisis.

A balanced approach means everyone pays his or her fair share. It means the middle-class, seniors and those who can least afford it will not bear the heaviest burden.

I commend the President for insisting on basic fairness as we address our deficit problem.

Last week was a productive one here in the Senate.

We reached a bipartisan agreement to pass emergency aid for communities affected by devastating floods, tornadoes and wildfires.

We also reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration, keeping 80,000 safety inspectors and construction workers on the job.

And we passed a highway bill that will keep 1.8 million people at work building roads and bridges. Congress has no duty more pressing than to putting Americans back to work, and this highway legislation will do that.

But we can and must do more to ease the unemployment crisis in this country.

That’s why this week the Senate will take up Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation. The TAA program helps U.S. workers who lose their jobs because of international trade to learn new skills so they can reenter a changing workforce. And it helps them pay for health insurance while they’re training for new jobs.

A global economy means fierce global competition. And unless our workforce is flexible and well-trained, we cannot hope to compete.

Between 2001 and 2008, America lost 2.4 million jobs because of trade with China. The TAA program is retraining many of those people, getting them back into the workforce and boosting our economy at the same time.

It’s unfortunate that my Republican colleagues, who say they care so much about free trade agreements, have prevented three such agreements from moving forward because of objections to this TAA legislation.

As we struggle to rebound from the worst recession in generations, it is unthinkable that we would abandon hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. TAA provides the lifeline they need to get back on their feet.

Republicans leaders in the House of Representatives wasted this week pursuing a right-wing proposal they knew from the start could not pass the Senate.

From the very beginning the Speaker’s Band-Aid approach was fatally flawed – it would have put us back in this incredible position, fighting the clock to prevent financial collapse, in just a few weeks.

It was a concession to Tea Party extremists, yet it barely passed the House yesterday with only Republican votes. And it failed on a bipartisan basis last night in the Senate.

But knowing all along that this radical legislation – which was neither balanced nor bipartisan – would not and could not pass in our chamber, Democrats have been working on a true compromise in the Senate.

We have solicited ideas from our Republican friends and colleagues. Let it never be said that Democrats in the Senate were afraid to compromise. We welcome it.

As recently as yesterday morning I asked my friend, the Senate Minority Leader, to help make this Senate compromise more palatable to Republicans. Yet we have heard nothing from the Republican leader.

My friend, Sen. McConnell, did not answer the call to negotiate yesterday or any other day this week. He did not come to the table on behalf of his caucus with ideas to improve a proposal already cut from Republican cloth.

But Democrats are still willing to sit down and negotiate. My door is still open.

I appreciate that several of my Republican colleagues have reached out to me over the last few hours, hoping to reach a compromise. Senate Democrats welcome their input and look forward to working with them on a path forward.

But my friend, the Republican leader of the Senate, must come forward as well.

The two parties must work together to forge an agreement that preserves this nation’s economy. We will need the help of reasonable Republicans – including Sen. McConnell – to get this done.

But unbelievably, another filibuster stands in our path.

The Republican filibuster has become routine. From the smallest measure to the greatest matter of national importance, they stall and delay and use every procedural trick in the book to keep this body from doing its job.

But a filibuster at this late hour, and when so much is at risk, is irresponsible. It puts our economy at risk.

A majority vote was good enough for the Speaker’s proposal in the House of Representatives yesterday, but Republicans believe it isn’t good enough for the Senate today.

Rather than filibuster, I ask that my Republican colleagues work with Democrats to make our proposal better.

We have offered a reasonable, rational way for Republicans to help us avert default. Let me tell you about it.

This amendment was written by Democrats with both parties’ principles in mind. It would:

• Avert default while cutting about $2.4 trillion from the deficit over a decade.  It includes no revenues, a concession to House Republicans.
• It establishes a Joint Congressional Committee to find additional savings this year, and guarantees that committee’s recommendations will see an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
• And literally every single spending cut in it has been voted for or endorsed by Republicans in both houses of Congress.

We have made several changes to make this proposition amenable to our Republican colleagues. We have:

• Improved the program integrity language to allow more savings by combating government waste and fraud.
• Removed a measure that would have raised revenue by selling spectrum, which would have caused a Blue Slip process in the House.
• Added a process conceived of by my friend, Sen. McConnell, to allow two additional votes over the next year and a half – two motions of disapproval – before the President may raise the debt ceiling.

This proposal also protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. But as you can see, this amendment was designed to appeal to our Republican colleagues as well as to Democrats.

As I said, we are willing to listen to ideas from the other side to make this proposal better. But time is short.

Already the economy has gone from bad to worse. Stocks continued a weeklong slide yesterday.

I know my Republican colleagues love this country. I believe they want to do what is best for our economy.

That is why together we must avert a default that would jeopardize veterans’ benefits, seniors’ Social Security payments and checks for troops on the front lines. It would also effectively raise taxes on every American family and business, increasing the cost of everything from groceries to the mortgage.

And so I urge them to join me to move forward the only true compromise plan left – in fact, the only option left at all – to save this country from default.

• The Senate plan received a major boost this morning when Congress’ official scorekeeper confirmed that the plan’s first draft cuts budget deficits more than the Boehner plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate draft bill achieves $1.3 trillion more in deficit reduction than the Boehner plan.
• The report also affirms that the Senate plan’s $1 trillion in savings from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are real.
  • This completely undercuts the argument by Republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago.
• Plus, since CBO only measured the plan’s first draft—before additional planned savings were incorporated into the bill—the final version of the Senate plan will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor.
• As Politico reports this morning, “in the battle of budget scores, the Senate Democrats deficit reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by Speaker John Boehner.” [Politico, “Reid savings trumps Boehner plan,” 7/27/11]

Last night Speaker Boehner pushed back that vote because this legislation doesn’t even have the support of Republicans in his own chamber. But pushing back the vote by a day or rewriting parts of this bill won’t solve the underlying problem: a short-term solution is not an adequate solution for our economy.

Even if the Speaker could get his legislation through the House of Representatives, I can assure you the Senate would not pass it and President Obama would not sign it.

Rather than lifting what economists call the fog of default, this Republican plan would usher in an era of bad economic weather that could last for years.

A few weeks ago, Speaker Boehner said it was a terrible idea to merely postpone a default on the national debt, or to push the problem down the road a few weeks or a few months.

Back then, he was not interested in a short-term solution. Back then he was right.

This is why: Economists, market analysts and rating agencies have said the world economy simply cannot bear this kind of uncertainty any longer.

They have said a short-term solution to the impending default would still result in a loss of the AAA credit rating that has kept interest rates low in this country and saved consumers money for 70 years.

I trust that Speaker Boehner and other reasonable Republicans understand the seriousness of a default crisis. Here is what the Speaker said recently:

“That would be a financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy. You can’t create jobs if you default on the federal debt.”

But a short-term fix doesn’t get the job done. It would cause many of the same calamitous results as a technical default, including rising interest rates that would essentially raise taxes on every person in this country.

American families would pay more for their mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit card bills and much, much more.

And higher interest rates wouldn’t just be costly for consumers. They would also cost the federal government more – and would actually increase our deficits and debt.

A less than one percent increase in interest rates – which economists have predicted if U.S. debt is downgraded – would cost our government more than $100 billion every year. I repeat – it would cost the U.S. government $100 billion every single year.

In a decade, that would cost this country as much taxpayer money as Speaker Boehner’s proposal would cut from the deficit. In effect, his short-term plan would yield not a single dime of savings.

Republicans would like the American public to believe Democrats in Congress and the White House are insisting on a long-term deal for political reasons. They say Democrats just want to push this off until after the presidential election.

That’s simply not true. It is not Democrats who have asked for a long-term solution. It is the economy that has demanded it.

If Republicans in Congress are willing to risk our economy by playing politics in July, why wouldn’t they do the same thing in January?

That is why every economist, every market analyst, every rating agency has insisted any legislation to avert a default on the nation’s debt must take us through the end of 2012.

The Senate is considering a measure that would avert default and cut $2.7 trillion from the deficit. It is a reasonable measure, and Republicans have supported every one of its cuts in the past, and it should be able to pass both Houses of Congress with bipartisan support.

It gives each side something it wants: it protects Social Security and Medicare without raising a single penny of revenue. And, most importantly, it is a long-term strategy to safeguard the economy and give the markets the stability they need.

Unlike Speaker Boehner’s legislation, which economists have rejected, it would not put us through this all again in six months, and with even less certainty of achieving compromise.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George once said, “There is nothing more dangerous than to leap a chasm in two jumps.”

Congress has a duty to do what it takes to avert a national default in one, swift leap.

That will take political courage. I urge my Republican friends to join hands with Democrats. We can take courage from one another, and make the leap together.

Because if we don’t clear this chasm, our nation’s economy will go over the edge with us.

“Tonight, talks broke down over Republicans’ continued insistence on a short-term raise of the debt ceiling, which is something that President Obama, Leader Pelosi and I have been clear we would not support. A short-term extension would not provide the certainty the markets are looking for, and risks many of the same dire economic consequences that would be triggered by default itself. Speaker Boehner’s plan, no matter how he tries to dress it up, is simply a short-term plan, and is therefore a non-starter in the Senate and with the President.

“In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans’ two major criteria: it will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues. We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his ‘my way or the highway’ approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines.”

Schumer: This Is A Coded Message From Norquist To GOP Hardliners Who Are Opposing Any Deal That Includes Revenues That They Should Relent In Order To Avert Default

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) today called on House Republicans to heed conservative activist Grover Norquist, who today gave his permission for Republicans to let millionaire tax breaks expire without violating his anti-tax pledge.

In a major development, Norquist—the head of Americans for Tax Reform—told the Washington Post today that his group would not consider it a tax increase if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to lapse after 2012.

Schumer said this acknowledgment by Norquist is a coded message to House GOP hard-liners—who have rejected any debt reduction deal that includes revenues—that they should stand down. Schumer urged House Republicans to heed this message and relent in their deep opposition to all form of revenues.

A copy of Schumer’s remarks, as delivered, appear below. You can watch the remarks here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvogCjVaGFE

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer

Remarks on U.S. Senate Floor

July 21, 2011

Mr. President, as we spend the day debating the Republicans’ plan to “Cut, Cap and Kill Medicare,” a plan that is dead on arrival in the Senate, it has become obvious what the true question of the day is.

That question, Mr. President, is this: Will we, as a nation, allow ourselves to be driven into default and financial calamity by a small group of extreme right-wing ideologues in the House GOP?   It is becoming increasingly clear that this group of ideologues have grabbed the reins, and are refusing to let go, no matter who tries to pry their fingers off. It is clear this small group of narrow ideologically driven congressmen is the one thing standing in the way of raising the debt ceiling.

We are now 11 days away from defaulting on our debt, and for the last few months this small group, far outside the mainstream, has contributed nothing to efforts to reach a compromise.

The House GOP has rejected every form of compromise, from the Simpson-Bowles plan to the President’s $4 trillion grand bargain to the McConnell fallback plan to, as of yesterday, the Gang of Six framework. Instead, they have offered dangerous schemes, like the “Cut, Cap, and Kill Medicare” plan that passed the House yesterday.

Their quote-unquote plan would wreak havoc on our country’s seniors and the middle class. It’s not a serious proposal, it will never pass the Senate, and it is a waste of time.

So, while reasonable people are trying to come to a compromise, the House GOP is becoming increasingly isolated. Yesterday, for example, my colleague Senator John McCain warned the House GOP that Americans don’t want the government to shutdown, and urged them to learn the lessons of 1995. Also, close to a third of Senate Republicans have signed on to a plan that would combine major spending cuts with new revenues – a balanced approach the House GOP has sworn off.

And every day more voters are abandoning them.  As the LA Times reported this morning, “Republican resistance to compromise has turned a significant bloc of voters against them… frustrated members of their own leadership as well as establishment GOP figures.”

So the House GOP is being criticized from every corner.

And then, today, we have what must be the most significant departure to date from the House GOP’s Fantasy-land. In a major development, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist told the Washington Post that letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would not constitute a tax hike.

This is a development the significance of which should not be underestimated.  It is a recognition from Norquist that the House Republicans are increasingly isolated, and have painted themselves into a corner. Norquist is trying to signal to the House GOP that their no-compromise position is untenable, deteriorating, and bad for their party and the country.

The House GOP is on an iceberg that is melting into the ocean, and even Grover Norquist is offering them a boat. The question is, for their own good and for the country’s good, will they take it?

I urge my colleagues in the House GOP to accept this life line – it’s time to leave default-denier island, and come back to reality.  The House GOP has painted itself into a corner even to the right of Grover Norquist.

Grover Norquist, the hall monitor when it comes to enforcing the Republican party’s anti-tax pledge, has given House Republicans a hall pass. They should use it.

This is a coded message from one of the truest believers in the Republican Party that it’s time for conservatives to step back from the brink.

Norquist has given us a potential path forward. If we decoupled the Bush tax cuts by only extending them for the middle class, and not for the millionaires and billionaires, we could have a deal that includes revenues but doesn’t violate the anti-tax pledge. Everyone wins.

This decoupling strategy is what the President and Speaker Boehner were entertaining earlier in the context of a grand bargain. But Leader Cantor and other right-wing hard-liners forced the Speaker to walk away because they feared violating the anti-tax pledge. But now a deal on decoupling has Norquist’s permission, if not his blessing. We should revisit it.

It’s time to recognize the quickest, most effective and economically sound way to reduce our deficit and debt is balanced approach that both cuts spending and raises revenue. A plan that mirrors every other successful deficit reduction deal in our nation’s history. A plan along the lines of the ones negotiated by presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.

I hope my colleagues in the House GOP see the danger of the path they are going down and change course, before they take the entire country down with them.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Jeff Schapiro
July 17, 2011

Virginia’s young gun apparently shot himself in the foot.

Eric Cantor this past week had an opportunity to define himself for an audience beyond the Beltway as more than a rigid conservative with one word in his vocabulary: no. Instead, the U.S. House majority leader, seen as a deal breaker rather than a deal maker, may have only trivialized himself.

Having walked out of Joe Biden-led budget-and-deficit talks; undercut John Boehner on a big fix and engaged Barack Obama in verbal fisticuffs over the fine print of a possible deal, Cantor looked more the insipid pill than the professional politician. It was, David Weigel wrote for the online publication Slate, the “official Newt-ification of Eric Cantor.”

Cantor’s avuncular, bow-tied mentor-predecessor, Tom Bliley, isn’t sure how his protégé’s shtick is playing outside Washington, crush of crummy press notwithstanding. “He’s a hero to his conference and the right,” says Bliley. “But how far it would go with the independents — I don’t know. The jury’s still out on that.”

Events of the past week may have gone a long way toward casting Cantor the wrong way. Cantor wants to be seen as serious-minded. A trunk-load of degrees, stints in law and finance and a business-fed fundraising machine say as much. But his hissing match with Obama and spending cuts-only approach to budget-balancing strikes Republican plutocrats in his hometown as evidence that Cantor is serious all right — about politics, not governing.

That’s probably why Cantor, in a hurry-up effort at damage control, told The Associated Press, a news service with the widest possible reach, that he meant no disrespect to Obama. Cantor also attempted a show of solidarity with Boehner at a joint appearance that was more PDA — public display of affection — than news conference.

Bliley, a former Commerce Committee chairman-turned-lobbyist who has schmoozed Cantor on behalf of convenience store owners over a cap on debit card swipe fees, dismisses talk of a Cantor challenge to Boehner for the speakership. Cantor — as he did for Bliley’s seat, biding his time as a Henrico delegate in the General Assembly — will “wait his turn,” says Bliley.

But could events mean that Cantor, labeled the “shadow speaker” by New York magazine, won’t have to wait very long? “I don’t want to get into that speculation,” says Bliley. “That’s like asking me what’s going to happen in six months.”

In politics, that’s many lifetimes. And if one flashed before Cantor’s eyes as he was methodically demonized the first part of the week, another rolled out at week’s end, as he and Boehner conferred privately with the treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, and White House chief of staff Bill Daley.

The point being that Cantor — his literal Elvis-like lip curl yielding to a figurative fat lip — remains relevant if only because of his rank: second-in-command of a House Republican Conference infused by tea partiers, who, despite Cantor’s no-no-a-thousand-times-no stance on new taxes, know that his record on fiscal issues is, at best, mixed. He previously voted to raise the debt ceiling, backed the deficit-financed Medicare drug benefit for seniors, two unpaid-for wars, the bank bailout and angled for Obama stimulus bucks for high-speed rail.

Having outmaneuvered Cantor for now, the president — alternately the smooth-talking conciliator and punch-in-the-nose Chicago pol — appears to be practicing an old-school rule: after stranding your adversary on a limb, you have to help him crawl back in.

MCCONNELL CONTINUES TO STICK TO HIS GUNS ON REVENUE…

McConnell “Slams Shut” The Door on Revenues. “Even as Cantor cracked the door open, however, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) slammed it shut, reiterating the long-standing Republican position that policymakers should consider eliminating tax breaks only as part of a comprehensive effort to rewrite the code and lower income tax rates.”  [Washington Post, 7/7/11]

McConnell Said No to All Forms of Revenue. “President Barack Obama stepped back into deficit-reduction talks Monday, only to be greeted by a double-barrel blast from Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who peremptorily rejected any deal that would include the added revenues Obama wants together with spending cuts. McConnell’s meeting with the president stretched more than an hour, but even before the two men sat down together, the Kentucky Republican had delivered a toughly worded speech on the Senate floor and posted an opinion piece on CNN.com demanding that ‘tax hikes’ come off the table.”  [Politico, 6/27/11]

McConnell: “Talking About Tax Revenue Not Helpful.” [AP, 6/26/11]

…EVEN WHILE HIS ENTIRE PARTY IS SEEMINGLY RUNNING SCARED:

The Hill: “GOP Shifts on Taxes.” [The Hill, 7/7/11]

Politico: “Democrats’ Populist Rhetoric Has GOP Backpedaling.” [Politico, 7/7/11]

NBC First Read: The GOP Revenue Message is Now All Over the Place. [NBC First Read, 7/7/11]

Reuters: Republicans Back New Revenues In Debt Deal: Kyl [Reuters, 7/6/11]

Cantor Open To Closing Tax Loopholes.  “House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told reporters today that there may be some wiggle room in the debt-ceiling negotiations when it comes to closing tax loopholes. ‘If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,’ he explained. ‘We’ve said all along that preferences in the code aren’t something that helps economic growth.’”  [NBC First Read, 7/6/11]

McCain: There Are Certain Revenue Raisers We Can Work On.

CROWLEY: No way no how would Senator John McCain vote for anything, a closing of a loophole or tax hike of any sort?

MCCAIN: Candy, Jon Kyl was in negotiations as you know with the vice president. And he said there were certain revenue raisers in other areas that perhaps we could work on. [CNN, 7/3/11]

Cornyn:  Eliminating the Tax Expenditures Or Loopholes could make our nation more competitive internationally.

BREAM: So, would you consider that a tax hike or raising taxes? How do you define what we’re talking about when we’re talking about revenue?
CORNYN: Well, I think it’s clear that the Republicans are opposed to any tax hikes; particularly, during a fragile economic recovery. The last thing that employers need is further disincentives to not hire people. And that’s what hire taxes would mean. Now, do we believe that tax reform is necessary? I would say absolutely. There’s not enough time to get it this done between now and August 2nd. But it ought to be the first thing we turn to, try to make our tax code more rational. We could bring down rates, eliminate the tax, a lot of tax expenditures or loopholes and actually make our nation more competitive internationally. [Fox News Sunday, 7/3/11]

• Cornyn Open to Revenues in Debt Limit Deal. “When asked about Democratic leaders’ demands that tax breaks be eliminated to raise billions of dollars in additional revenue, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the subject should at least be up for consideration in the debt limit talks. ‘I think the president’s own fiscal commission pointed out that there’s a lot of money being used in tax expenditures. I think we ought to get them all out on the table and look at them and see which ones make sense,’ he said. Cornyn, who heads the Senate GOP campaign organization, indicated that he was at least open to closing some tax breaks without requiring that the revenue raised be offset with spending cuts elsewhere. ‘I would tell you that I think that would be a fruitful area for discussion.’”  [CQ Today, 6/28/11]

Graham: Get Rid of Subsidies and Pay off the Debt. On “Meet the Press” Graham said, “No one on the Republican side is going to vote to raise taxes, but I think many of us would look at flattening the tax code, doing away with deductions and exemptions and take that revenue and help pay off the debt.  One way to do this is to do away ethanol subsidy and a bunch of other subsides that go to a few people, take that money back into the federal Treasury and pay off the debt.”  [Meet the Press, 6/19/11]

Senator Alexander Called Now “A Good Time To Take a Hard Look At Unwarranted Tax Breaks” “ Schumer pointed to Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) as a Republican who wants to reduce the deficit by ending permanent tax breaks that favor particular industries. ‘At a time when we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend, it is a good time to take a hard look at unwarranted tax breaks, and one appropriate use of those funds is to reduce the deficit,’ Alexander said Thursday.” [The Hill, 6/17/11]

Senator Johanns Said “We’re Looking at Everything Now” “More than two-thirds of senators voted to immediately end an existing 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for blending ethanol in gasoline that expires at the end of the year. ‘I think we’re looking at everything now,’ said Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, a former governor and George W. Bush-era agriculture secretary. ‘Trying to figure out what to do with the budget has caused us all to come to grips with some things we’ve supported in the past, all of us.’” [Politico, 6/17/11]

Senator Coburn Said The Vote To End Tax Subsidies “Should Send A Good Signal” To The Biden Talks. “The vote could also have implications for deficit reduction talks Vice President Joe Biden is leading with bipartisan congressional leaders. ‘It should send a good signal,’ Coburn told reporters. ‘We’ve got to do what’s in the best interest of the country, not what’s in the best interest of special interest groups.’” [Politico, 6/17/11]

Senator Coats Said It’s Entirely Appropriate To End Niche Tax Subsidies. According to The Hill, “Coats says it’s entirely appropriate to end niche tax subsidies, or what he calls tax expenditures, to reduce the deficit. He said the thinking has changed since the 2010 election. Before then, he said, the assumption was that money saved from ending tax breaks would be spent on other federal programs.” [The Hill, 6/17/11]

Senator Kyl Said “Revenues Have Never Been Off The Table.” According to Roll Call, Senator Kyl said “Revenues have never been off the table.”  [Roll Call, 6/28/11]

Today the Senate will consider legislation calling on millionaires and billionaires to contribute to this country’s effort to reduce our deficit.

Republicans have already asked the poor, the middle class, children and seniors to make sacrifices to help get our fiscal house in order. This legislation would reaffirm the Senate’s commitment to ensuring the extremely wealthy are asked to make similar sacrifices.

This principle – that all Americans should contribute their fair share as we work together to reduce the deficit – is so common sense it should go without saying. Yet Republicans have boasted about their opposition to having the wealthy contribute their fair share.

This is the simple, straight-forward statement my Republican colleagues oppose: “Any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort.” My Republican colleagues reject that.

Democrats are willing to go on the record saying we believe all Americans – including those who can afford private jets and yachts – should contribute to the collective effort to reduce the deficit. The question is, why aren’t Republicans willing to do the same?

They say it’s because they’re looking out for the people. That claim is ridiculous. It is without foundation.

Let’s talk about the millionaires and billionaires Republicans are determined to protect above all else. Less than one quarter of one percent of tax returns filed in the United States each year belong to people making more than $1 million.

These same people are among the one percent of Americans who control half the country’s wealth.

We are talking about the Warren Buffets of the world. Warren Buffet is my friend, and I have great respect for him. But he is very, very wealthy.

So, what does Warren Buffet, the third richest man in the world, say about contributing his fair share? He welcomes it.

And Buffet criticized a system in which his secretary gives a greater share of her income to the government each year than this man worth $50 billion.

“If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.” That’s what Warren Buffet said about contributing his fair share.

Since the late 1970’s, incomes for the lucky one percent in America have risen by 281 percent.

The last three decades have been a very, very good time for the very, very wealthy.

President George W. Bush called these people the “Haves and Have-mores.” He also called them his base. And right now the Republican Party is putting what is good for this very small base ahead of what is good for this great nation.

The legislation before us asks only this: that each American be part of the solution rather than of part of the problem.

In poll after poll, Americans have endorsed this principle. They have said they believe we must address our deficit both by reducing spending and by ending tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens and corporations. Democrats have heard them.

If Warren Buffet chooses to buy a private jet – or a whole fleet of them – that’s alright. But the American taxpayers shouldn’t give him a special tax break for doing it.

This country is facing a crisis. We face mounting debt brought on by a decade of war and tax breaks for the wealthy. And we face the prospect that Republicans will force us to default on our financial obligations for the first time in our nation’s history.

Difficult choices must be made. Together we will consider cutting programs that help real people in very real ways. Eliminating tax breaks for oil companies making record profits, corporations that ship jobs overseas and the owners of private jets and yachts should be the easy part of solving this problem.

Yet Republicans walked away from the negotiating table when a solution was in sight because they said no to fairness.

Democrats had already agreed to trillions in difficult cuts in order to prevent a default crisis and avert a world-wide depression. Then Republicans walked away from the table to help the one percent of Americans lucky enough not to need any extra help.

How will Republicans explain this to their constituents back home? As middle class families struggle to make ends meet, my Republicans colleagues are risking the financial future of this country and world for the sake of people who can afford private jets and yachts. I can’t imagine that conversation.

Asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute to solving this nation’s deficit crisis is not unreasonable. It’s just plain common sense and simple fairness.

Yesterday my Republican counterpart said the debate over how to avert the looming default crisis is really a debate over what kind of country we are going to be. I agree.

So, will we be the kind of country that protects tax breaks and giveaways for the richest people and corporations, while sacrificing seniors and the middle class? That is the America my Republican colleagues have proposed. And those priorities are simply backwards.

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that in a nation where nearly half the country’s wealth is controlled by just 1 percent of its people, that 1 percent should not be exempt from the sacrifices asked of everyone else.

If these negotiations will determine what kind of nation we’re going to be, they will determine the character of the Republican Party as well.

Will they be the party that came to Washington to help govern – to craft solutions to the difficult issues facing this nation in cooperation with patriots from both sides of the aisle? Or will they be the kind of single-issue, ideological party that walks away from reasonable compromise for the sake of politics?

David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the New York Times, believes they may be the latter. This is what he said yesterday about the illogical and ideological Republican Party that is emerging:

“If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not.”

If we default, he said, it will be the fault of “Republican fanaticism.” That fanaticism is making compromise impossible, no matter how much Democrats are willing to give.

Independent voters, Brooks says, “Will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern. And they will be right.”

I repeat: a conservative columnist said this.

The Republican Party has been taken over by ideologues either devoted to or terrified by Grover Norquist and his no-tax pledge.

These Republicans refuse to believe the countless respected voices that have said over and over how serious a crisis we face if we fail to avoid default.

And they have refused a deal Brooks called the “mother of all no-brainers,” because it violates an arbitrary pledge. Never mind that the deal is in the best interests of the country and gives Republicans much of what they say they want. They walked away from the table.

The statesman Dean Acheson said that negotiating “assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree.”

It’s no wonder, then, that Republicans have refused to negotiate. They won’t even admit to supporting their own long-held positions if Democrats support those positions, too.

We should all be able to agree we need to reduce the deficit and get our fiscal house in order. Democrats and Republicans alike have said that.

We should all be able to agree we need to avert the global economic disaster an American default would cause. Business leaders and economist alike have said that.

And we should all be able to agree that millionaires, billionaires, oil companies and the owners of yachts and jets don’t need special tax breaks the rest of Americans don’t get.

Yet Republicans have defended those tax breaks again and again. They claim that Democrats want to raise taxes on ship builders and airplane manufacturers. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

In fact, Democrats want to end special tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires who are lucky enough to be able to afford private jets and yachts. And we’re proud of that.

These tax breaks aren’t available to middle-class Americans. You can’t write off the family station wagon or the rowboat you take fishing with the grandkids.

These breaks are available for multimillion-dollar toys only a handful of Americans can afford.

I repeat: I am proud that Democrats are standing up for America’s middle-class families instead of the richest of the rich.

And as my Republican colleagues defend tax breaks for special interests, big donors and the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, I urge them to think once again about what kind of party they want to be.

They must ask themselves whether they want to be the kind of party David Brooks, a conservative, described: a party of unreasonable fanatics that refuses to compromise no matter how sweet the deal for their side and no matter how grave the consequences for our nation.

Washington, D.C.–Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding Republicans’ willingness to risk our economy to protect tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jets. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

T.S. Eliot wrote in a poem “hurry up please it’s time.” He could have been writing to us here in the Senate.

“Yesterday this great nation celebrated its 235^th birthday. In those 235 years we have accomplished many admirable things, and we have done it together

We have landed on the moon, invented new ways to save lives and fought for Democracy and freedom around the world.

But now we stand poised to make a different kind of history. For the first time the United States of America stands at the brink of defaulting on our financial obligations.

The chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said allowing America to default on its debt “would be tantamount to writing a bad check.”

But unless we take action, tarnishing this great nation’s sterling reputation will be the least of our concerns. We also risk the very fate of this country’s economy, and the world economy along with it.

The last time this country was plunged into a major recession – three short years ago – we took the world with us. When Wall Street greed caused the near collapse of our financial system, Americans across the country lost their jobs, their homes and their savings. And so did people across the globe.

This country is only beginning to recover, and the world with us.

But the crisis we face now is one of even greater proportion. Without exception, the most respected economists and business minds of our time have said that if America defaults on its debt it will have dire consequences here and around the globe.

“Catastrophe” they have called it.

That same U.S. Chamber of Commerce economist said a failure to avert this crisis “is not a possibility.” He could not even conceive that Republicans in Congress could shirk their duty.

Defaulting on our debt would risk millions of American jobs. It could halt tax refunds, Social Security checks, Medicare payments and even paychecks for our troops. And the depression it would cause here at home would ripple around the globe.

This default crisis is not a new problem. It has loomed for months.

But we no longer have those months – or even weeks – to avert this catastrophe. We have days.

Yet my Republican colleagues have walked away from the negotiating table when we were nearing a solution and so close to disaster.

Why? To protect oil companies. To protect the owners of yachts and corporate jets. To protect corporations that ship jobs overseas. To protect millionaires and billionaires from paying their fair share.

Twenty percent of all the income earned in this nation is earned by the top 1 percent of its citizens. It is this top 1 percent that Republicans are determined to protect. Republicans walked away from negotiations to protect them.

Meanwhile, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And the middle class Democrats have worked to make stronger is disappearing. Middle-class families are struggling to make ends meet.

That is why I have brought to the floor legislation demanding millionaires and billionaires contribute their fair share to this crucial deficit reduction struggle.

When Republicans talk about shared sacrifice, they mean the sacrifice should be shared by those who can least afford it. Democrats believe the sacrifice should be shared by the richest 1 percent as well. The others have all sacrificed too much already.

As we debate this in the U.S. Senate this week, negotiations with the President and Vice President must continue.

The invitation to Republicans to help prevent a catastrophic default remains open. To become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, all Republicans have to do is accept that invitation.

The time is here for my Republican colleagues to put politics aside. Simply put, we are out of time.

But Democrats cannot negotiate with ourselves. When one side comes to the table and the other side refuses, it is impossible to negotiate.

So, this week, we will debate the solution to this crisis whether Republicans like it or not.

Democrats will be clear about what is at stake: the fate of the global economy.

We will be clear about our priority: to avert a catastrophic default and protect our fragile economic recovery.

And we will be clear about the middle ground we have already found: we must cut the deficit to get our fiscal house in order.

Democrats are willing to compromise. But compromise does not mean allowing our Republican colleagues to put the wants of a few millionaires and billionaires ahead of the needs of this nation and the world.

I repeat the words of T.S. Eliot: “hurry up please it’s time.”