Republican Fantasy Solutons: Payroll Tax "Cuts" and a Payroll Tax Holiday

What does the title mean? It means that I am boing to justify the name of this blog, and do articles this weekend about REPUBLICAN shams, scams and diishonesty (both deliberate, and rom lack of understanding). This first article is on the SAHM and SCAM knwon as a "payroll tax holiday", or "payroll tax cut".


Do you realize that Repubicans mad a DEAL in decemmber of 2010 that ADDED more to the current deficit (NOT including the extension of theBush tax cuts) MORE than th Republicans have yet cut spending: aLOT more. That was the "deal" extending the Bush tax cuts "in exchange" for continuing the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance for another 13 months or so, and a supposed "payroll tax cut", deducting 2% (2/3) of the amount deducted from employee paychecks TO SUPPORT SOCIAL SECURITY.


"Skip. You support every tax cut known to man. Why would you say such harsh things about a "payroll tax cut?"


Let me show you why this is a SHAM that OBAMA wanted (even if Republicans have pushed this idea of a "parroll tax holiday" in the past). Say someone proposed that we--the government of the United States--BORROW MONEY and pay that money to people in $200 monthly amounts--the borrowing to be "repaid" out of general revenue (from our progressive income tax system that Obama wants to make more porgressive). Or say you BORROWED MONEY, and then have those same $200 payments to CORPORATIONS for every employee they have (or hire, or whatever)?


What is this called? Right. It is called WELFARE. Ys, you people who are having less money withheld from your paycheck this year are getting WELFARE. Nope. It is NOT a "pyaroll tax cut". That is an Orwellian Big Lie. It is no different from what I described: borrowing money and making TRANSFER payments from that money to certain people, bo be repaid out of general revenue. How can you, or any Democrat or Republican, talk about a "payroll tax cut", when ont only is this a GIMMICK temporary "ctu", but it is NOT taken from Seocial Security revenue. In other words. Social Security will lbe REIMBURSED from the general tax/borrowing revenues, and this supposed l"payroll tax cut" is nott coming out of Social Security. The ONLY reason this is called a "payroll tax cut", instead of a WELFARE PAYMENT, out of general funds, is that such nomencalature is suuposedly more palatable to people. But the reason for this SHAM goes beyond that. Ti is a SAHAM "tax cut" designed to allow Republicans to justify giving in on SPENDING because they get a "tax cut". And I am morally certain that a good number of Repubican politicians KNOW that this is a sHAM. They are willing to go along because they really are Big Government people, AND because they think it is more politically popular than REAL spending cuts.


Yes, Democrats and the mainstream media--maybe some establishment Republicans as well--are talking about this "payroll tax cut" (maybe for the BUSINESS part this time, to further sweeten the pot for DISHONEST Repubicans), to justiy no REAL spending cuts (especailly not any that occur sooner than--ssy--ten years from now). What are Democrats, and the mainstream media, aiming for here? They are aiming for yet another STIMULLUS that INCREASES thedeficit and the debt in the next fiscal year, while the "compromise" purports to reduce the debt and deficit ten or twelve years from now.


Message to Republicans: I have had ti with these GAMES. With the 2011 budget "deal", you showed that you are NOT really interested in cutting spending. If you do it again, I will vote against ANY Republican (including Michelle Bachmann, although it is unlikey she would support such a deal, even if she does not label it as the fraud it will be) who supports such a "deal" FOREVER. Nope. Not next year. Not next decade. I will NEVER support a Repubican who palys this kind of GAME again. Cut spending THIS COMING YEAR> Sure, we need to do something about Medicare. But Ryan's Medicare plan has nothign to do with cutting spending THIS COMING YEAR (although maybe his MEDICAID plan does). If Republicans go for another one of these "comprehensive" compromises, accepting GHOST future "cuts' in exchange for not doing anything about CURRENT spendiing, then I have no use at all for the Republican Party. I will be readly for a third party (as, believe it or not, I have not yet been, even though I refsued to support John McCain).


"But Skip,, what can Republicans do? Democrats will not allow any real ctus in spending, and cerainly will not allow any changes in Medicare or Medicaid. What can Republicans do? They will be BLAMED for ryining the economy? That is why Republican politicianss constantly try to FOOL people like you, Skipo. They know you are EXTREME and UNREALISTIC."


Hogwash. It is the Repubican politicians who are "extreme" (in pusuing the faiures of the past), and "unrealistic", in living in their own fantasy world instead of the world of the real (where their GAMES have NEVER worked).


What do Republicns do? I will tell you. They give up on a SHAM "deal". I have about come to the conclusion that we would be better off NOT raising the debt ciling--the House simply saying accept our budget or set priorities on spending and live within our means. But that is HIGH RISK, politially (and maybe for the economy--lathough I think we would be better off in the long run). Waht to do, then? Easy. FORGET about a "deal". Simply pass a three month extension of the debt ciling "problem" (increasing the celing to allow for no more than 3 months of extra spending at a certain level). Make that a CLEAN bill--not extras. But tell everyone that such an "extension" is NOT to allow "negotiations". Rather, it is to allow Repubicans to pass SPECIFIC SPEDNING BILLS WITH REAL CUTS FOR THIS COMING YEAR. As stated above, Repubicans are dreaming if they think that they can transform Medicare in some sort of deal--especailly without that HIFH RISK refusal to raise the debt ceiling. Therefore, as Boehner (Speaker of the House, in cas I spelled it wrong) promised when he cae in as Speaker, the Republicans need to KEEP PASSING separate spending bills for specific parts of the government. They need to do this in accordance with THEIR BUDGET. Get away from these "omnibus" bills. Do what Obama FALSELY (a lie) said he would do: Examine each spending bill LINE by LINE, and send MULITIPE bills to the Seante and--hopefully--the President. Get totally away from this concept of "shutting down the government". Fight it out bill by bill, and make it clear that the RESULTS will MATTER for the NEXT debt ceiling "crisis" in three months. KEEP doing this for as long as it takes. If it takes PART ofthe government being shut down, so be it. If it ultimately takes refusing to raise the debt ceiling beyond a certain point, so be it.


What if the President and Democrats refuse to accept a short term extension of the debt ceiling, with the accompanying notice of a delcaration of war on CURRENT SPENDING? Well, then it will be the President and the Democrats who are iwllng t RUYIN the contry, rather than engage in a dialogue on the merits on EVERY spending item. Won't "blame" for ruin then rightly fall on the Democrats? It should, if Repubicans don't wimp out. Pur pressure on Obama and the Democrats. Don't let them control the debate, and talk about SHAM spnding "cuts" in SHAM amounts in the far future, while enticing Repubicans into SAHM tax cuts that do nothing but INCREASE the deficit.


Don't get me wrong here. These "welfare payments ("payroll tax cuts" or "payroll tax holiday") would have been a better STIMULUS than the Obama/Democrat PORK/political payoff "stimullus" bill. It is really the same lapproach as the Bush/Democrat stimulus billl of 2008, which did provide a direct stimulus instgead of increasing the size of government bureaucracy. It also DID NOT WORK. Republican politicians have to finally leave behind the idea that the government CAN "control the economy", so long as the government does it the way Republicans want. Not true. Forget government "stimulus" gimicks. We no longer can afford them, if we ever could. And they DO NOT WORK. That includes tax gimmicks as well as actual spending. The thing I areed most with the Debt Commission on is that there is such a thing as TAX EXPENDITURES. Nope. Tat is not true of TAX RATE CUTS--income tax RATE cuts. Those are NOT "tax expenditures", and it is absurd to say that they have to be "apid for". Permanent tax rate cuts--dorporate and individual--promote economic growth by a FAIR notice that we are going to rely on people spending their own money, which we are gong to let them keep. A "payroll tax cut or holiday" merely says we are going to sue the TAX CODE to TRANSFER money (ultimately) from on e group of people to another in an attmept to directly "stimulate' the economy. If Republicans do not foreget this concept, I am going to forget them.


You should be able to see what DEMOCTATS want here. Almost 50% of the country now pay almost NO Federal income tax. It is IMPOSSIBLE to "cut" the taxes of those people any further. The ONLY people who pay enough taxes to get large monetary "cutss" are the higher income lpeople. That means that the ONLY federal tax that lower income people pay is the Social Security tax--not known, by no coincidence, as the "payroll tax". This is where Democrats want EVERY future tax cut to occur: in the Social Secruity tax. What does this ultimately mean: this ABANDONMENT of the idea of Social Secruity as a self-sustaining, separate program that people pay into for their own retirement.? It means that Social Security beomces nothing more than another Big Government welfare program, supported by general tax revenues. People are no longer even partly responsible for contributing to their own retirement. The very basis up which FDR poposed Social Seccruity is GONE. Now it is true that Social Secruity has ALWYS really been differnet from the way it has been sold. But at least the CONCEPT remainted that people were providing for their OWN RETIREMENT. Now Democrats want to discared that idea, and treat Social Security as just another WELFARE ystem (note the same word I deliberately use as I do with regard to a fictiional "payroll tax cut"). Ultimately, if Democrats get away with this and Republicans liet them, it will be the END of Social Security (and probably of this country, as we know it).


You see the problems Republican politicians have with me. I have no interest ni their shams and games. I have no interest in their "deals' that exchange current deficits for "future spending cuts". When I say I have " no intrest", I mean that every attempt by Republicans to continue "politics as usual" jsut drives another nail in the coffin of my lat shreds of attachment to the Republican Party. Yes, I know some conservatives--even Rush Limbaugh--get led down the garden path on some of these "Republican fantasies". Doesn't matter. I see these things clearly. And I am "mad as hell, and I don't intend to put up with it anymore." (movie "Network"). This is why I often use the headline: Republican Party, R.IP. In the time of one of the Party's greatest triumps (the 2010 election), I believe the Repubican Party is as close to DEATH as it has ever been. Of curse, this is not only because of the dishonesty and lack of clear thinking. The challenges are great, and any path (including mine) has great risk. But "poitics as usual" is NOT an option.


Do NOT resume the "debt ceiling" talks. Forget about USING the debt ceiling (at least immediately) to force some kind of "comprehensive" deal. Fight CURRENT SPENDING on the MERITS, as if lyou really believe that we should "live within our means" (which many of you don't). Eric Cantor is RIGHT not to want to be associated with the kind of "deal" the Democrats are likely to agree to here. But getting Obama "involved" (for a photo op) does not do any good. If you dot it my way, you have a chance. If you don't, you will probably lose me (as if you have not already lost me). But that is not your problem. Your problem is that there are a LOT of people out there tired of the SHAMS. You are on the edge of losng THEM.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Looking ahead, you will likely see another article in the "Republican Fantasy Solutionis" series dealing with the FANTASY of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" as a "trae off" for CURRENT SPENDING, DEFICITS, and DEBT. By the way, I don't support the idea of a permanent payrool tax cut--virtually the only tax RATE where I would not support a cut, because it undermines the entire concept of a Social Secruity system that is gong BANKRUPT. But if you did make such a cut, the only wy it would not be a SHAM totally destroying the concept of Scoial Security would be if you handled the "cut" by a complete restructuring of Social Security so that it could operate on the reduced revenue. Since we can't even manage to PROPOSE a "solution" to the prolem of Social Security with the CURRENT REVENUE, you see how much of a SHAM this wole idea of "pyroll tax cuts" really is.