Senator Ron Johnson Talks Payroll Taxes, Appropriations
The Wisconsin Senator's Weekly Report from Washington features explanations for why he stands where he does on payroll taxes and the budgeting process.
I do not want to see anyone’s taxes raised at this time, but I believe reducing funding for Social Security by extending the payroll tax holiday is bad policy. It has not helped boost economic growth, and it replaces Social Security revenues with more borrowing. This is the last thing we need considering that Social Security already has an unfunded liability of $18.7 trillion.
I support tax relief for low and middle-income taxpayers - but not by starving Social Security revenues. Now that the Senate has voted to extend the payroll tax holiday for two months, let's use that time to craft an alternate tax relief package that targets middle-to-lower income workers. A properly-targeted package would be smaller and easier to offset with credible spending cuts - instead of increased fees on taxpayers.
The proposal the Senate passed last Saturday is typical Washington politics, intended to produce short-term political gains. Without structural reform, we will bankrupt Social Security, and we will bankrupt our nation. It is long past time to act responsibly and begin to seriously address and reduce our debt and deficits.
Opposing Omnibus Appropriations Measure
The budgeting process for the Federal government is horribly broken. The Democrat-controlled Senate has refused to fulfill its legal obligation by failing to pass a budget in over 2 years (968 days and counting). The Omnibus bill that I voted against last Saturday is just the latest example of Washington’s business as usual. Business as usual is bankrupting our nation.
The bill is 1219 pages long, and was available for review only 58 hours before the Senate voted on it. It does not begin to address our spending problem or our serious fiscal challenges. It will still produce a deficit that could exceed $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row.
My ‘NO’ vote is a vote against the broken process, as well as the continuation of massive deficit spending. Washington is growing our national debt faster than our economy is growing. That is reckless and irresponsible. It mortgages our children’s future. If we don’t begin to seriously address our fiscal situation, we face a day when our creditors will do it for us – in a process that will be far more painful than had we acted sooner. The time to act is now. Time is running out.
patchreader 123
11:37 am on Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Interesting..........
While Congress is engaged in partisan gridlock and U.S. citizens take financial hits, Congress DOES NOT SUFFER THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS of the remaining U.S. populace, regardless of party affiliation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45793299/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/t/economic-downturn-took-detour-capitol-hill/
What is wrong with this picture?
Heather Asiyanbi
3:25 pm on Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Excellent point - no reduction in pay or benefits. Someone on another board about village board member salaries made a comment about trustees not reducing their own salaries in the face of budget issues. Why not expect that of our federal officials, too?
Eric
9:25 pm on Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Million dollar question is, how to encourgage economic growth while simultaneously reducing government spending and borrowing? While increased revenue from taxes on the wealthy may help immediately, it also may be counter-productive in the long run. Substantive answers involve reprioritizing spending within a shrunken federal budget to favor infrastructure and education/training, tax reform of the individual and corporate codes to spur efficiency, immigration reform to keep the foreign talent that is educated in US universities, new policies to encourage tourism, moratoriums on some regulations, and serious efforts to curb healthcare costs. Agree with Senator Johnson, curtailing funding for social security expedites the date when that program will be in deficit and defies logic.
Bren
12:34 am on Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Strong words from the guy who embarrassed our state by sending a ridiculous proposal to the White House urging the U.S. government to function with a $2.6 trillion budget "for an indefinite period." Timothy Gaithner had to write Ron a letter explaining why his idea wouldn't work. (Here's a link: http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/Documents/DLJohnsonLetter062911.pdf)
I expected little else from this supposed "entrepreneur." His brightest move was to marry Jane Curler, the Bemis heiress. The company he was supposed to have started, PACUR, was actually founded by his brother in law Pat, who gave Ron a job after the marriage to his sister. (Get it? Pat Curler = PACUR. Why would Ron name his company after his brother in law?)
I don't listen to one word Ron Johnson has to say. He is an obstructionist in the Senate, and misrepresented himself and his business background during his campaign (a 2010 campaign theme, apparently).
GearHead
11:42 am on Wednesday, December 28, 2011
And your point would be what, Bren? That we can't stop spending, and must continue to raise the debt ceiling? So you have to take a swipe at Johnson for asking the same question the rest of us have on our minds?
BTW, how did sleepy Herb fall into all of his wealth? Think he benefited from the family business? And why isn't he being pilloried for supporting every spending bill known to man. Where is his leadership in demanding the Senate (that he is a majority member of) puts forth a budget? Nine hundred days and counting the Senate has shirked its primary constitutional responsibility.
Brian Dey
12:17 pm on Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Oh yes Bren, and he's secretly one of the Koch Bros...
Timothy Gaithner is destroying our economy. And again you can't face the facts that he was elected by the majority of people in our state. Feingold lost and now you want to whine about that too. Did you everythink that the majority of us wanted someone that wasn't just going to bow to politics as usual?
There is a distinct reason why the payroll tax cut is a bad idea and someone who aspires to Democatic social values, you may actually agree with this. Social Security, year in and year out, has said to be in financial trouble. We are now paying out just at the start of the babyboomers. Where is this tax cut coming from? Employee contributions to Social Security. How dumb is that?
Both the beltway Republicans and Democrats took from the one place that didn't mean anything to them today, but could bankrupt Social Security in the future. Why didn't they simply cut the federal income tax by 2%? Because then they would have to stop spending money.
And back to Gaithner, cutting interest rates is a short term fix. Printing money is long term damage. He's printing money like its going out of style and thprinting presses can't keep up with the interest on the borrowing we are doing just to pay the interest. And now he wants to raise the debt ceiling again?
Bren
12:57 pm on Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Gearhead, I think some folks still think "debt ceiling" and "debt" are the same thing. No one complained when George W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times because elected representatives understood the difference between the two. This is why it's so important to send the "best and brightest" to represent us in government!
And yes, Herb Kohl and Jim Sensenbrenner come from wealthy families. The difference is that they respect their offices and constituents. Sensenbrenner did create a national stir with his immigration reform ideas, but said at the outset that his intent was to develop a starting point for discussion. That's very different from sending an ignorant and embarrassing letter to the White House during a first term.
Concerning the budget, I think most of us are figuring out that the corporate-owned Tea/GOP is causing obstruction/imbalance in government. I feel sorry for John Boehner, I truly do. We the People can do something about the Tea/GOP in the next election cycle.
Brian Dey, Social Security is not in trouble for the next 25 years. Here's an opinion piece from USA Today on the subject: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-02-22-editorial22_ST1_N.htm
If Social Security had not been treated like a slush fund to pay for war (thanks GWB), this fund would be even larger. It was designed to accommodate for population fluctuations over time.
And no, Tim Gaithner is not destroying our economy. I heard that on Fox, it's not true.
GearHead
1:35 pm on Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Bren, you continue to ignore the fact the Democrats in the Senate haven't had the stones to realize reality and put forth a budget for Obama's entire term. They would rather just keep borrowing 40 cents on the dollar through continuing resolutions and raising the debt ceiling. Piling on more debt. Johnson is right; we've reached the tipping point. Your side can't admit the great society is crashing under its own weight. Take your blindfold off.
Bren
12:37 am on Sunday, January 1, 2012
Gearhead, did you read and/or understand one word I wrote?
GearHead
2:01 pm on Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Bren, did you somehow misunderstand that we are broke? Obama at 1.2 Trillion or whatever in one swoop blows Bush's 7 increases away in aggregate. And that's just this year! Look at last year, and the one before that, and the porkulous bill.... aaack! Why should the Dem Senate care about the budget, when they keep on with continuing resolutions? Johnson is right on.
Bren
2:08 pm on Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Gearhead, again: the debt ceiling is not debt. Where was all the weeping and rending of garments when GWB raised the debt ceiling 7 times if this was such an issue? Many Republicans currently in office voted for those increases. The difference and dissent now came from the Koch-brothers' Tea/GOP members who are (by their words and actions apparently) attempting to destabilize our economy and government. (Sedition!)
Not raising the debt ceiling would have had serious global repercussions, which economists and past presidents know.
And do let's keep blaming Barack Obama for America's massive debt, even though his predecessor took office with a surplus and ended with a record deficit. It took Clinton 8 years to fix Reagan's mess and that was with some measure of cooperation from Republicans.
If you read Gaithner's response to Ron Johnson (link provided in a previous post in this thread), you will gain understanding as to why Ron's suggestion was unsound.
GearHead
2:35 pm on Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Bren, are you suggesting that by having Obama doubling the total debt since he came into office, that somehow it will fix Bush's so-called mess? At some point Obama has to own the mess.
And I'm not so obtuse as to get hung up on where the arbritray debt ceiling limit line gets drawn. Wherever it ends up, we deficit spend right back up to it. Not raising the limit forces accountablility. Gaithner is part of the problem, not the solution.