You seem to be missing the point. The House passed its bill first and outlined not only a year's extension of the payroll contribution cut of 2%, but also included other issues like the pipeline, how the cut will be paid for including a freeze on federal employee salaries including Congress. The Senate bill has a different approach including tax increases.
The Senate hasn't approved a budget for over two years. It had the nerve to pass its bill and leave town leaving the House to deal with a take it or leave it approach rather than the normal way Congress operates. Is the Rep controlled House an equal to the Dem-controlled Senate or must the House defer to the Senate? And by extending the payroll contribution cut for only two months, the battle will be rejoined again allowing the Dems another opportunity to demagog the issue again, more than likely until November with a string of extensions. And there are some very real practical considerations in trying to implement two months at a time.
It is idiotic if the Reps cave in to the Dems once again. Here is the comparison between the two bills:
House bill, approved last Tuesday:
_Price tag over $180 billion.
_Keeps this year's 4.2 percent Social Security payroll tax rate paid by 160 million workers through the end of 2012, instead of rising to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.
_Extends expiring benefits for the long-term jobless through 2012, but at a maximum of 79 weeks coverage, less in some cases, which is well below this year's 99-week limit. Revamps program to require beneficiaries without high school diplomas to seek an equivalent degree; lets states test applicants for illegal drug use.
_Prevents 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors for 2012.
_Blocks Obama administration rule curbing pollution from industrial boilers; extends tax break for businesses buying equipment for 2012.
_Price tag over $180 billion.
_Keeps this year's 4.2 percent Social Security payroll tax rate paid by 160 million workers through the end of 2012, instead of rising to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.
Requires President Barack Obama to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline within 60 days unless he declares the project would not serve the national interest.
_Paid for by extending current pay freeze on civilian federal workers another year through 2013 and requires them to contribute more toward their pensions; raises fee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge for insuring mortgages; raises Medicare premiums paid by higher-income elderly; cuts some health care overhaul law programs; sells part of broadcast spectrum; prevents illegal immigrant parents from collecting child tax credit refund checks; bars food stamps, unemployment benefits for the wealthy.
Senate bill, approved Saturday:
_Price tag $33 billion.
_Extends 2-percentage-point cut in Social Security payroll tax through Feb. 29.
_Renews benefits for the long-term unemployed at current levels through Feb. 29, no other changes in program.
__Prevents 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors; extends other health care fees through Feb. 29.
__Same provision on Keystone as House.
__Paid for by increasing home loan guarantee fees charged to mortgage lenders by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration by one-tenth of 1 percentage point. The fee is passed on to home buyers and will apply to many new purchases and refinancings starting Jan. 1.
Good post on the breakdown of the two different bills. I am against the 2% cut to the underfunded SS program.
I have to ask, where is the hit to the wealthy? Everyone needs to pony up to help get this debt under control.
I’m a fed employee making 64k/yr as a technician working under a pay freeze. The house bill extends that freeze and also raises my contribution to retirement, a hit that will show on my paycheck.
Extending unemployment helps those in need but also benefits businesses and the wealthy. I don’t see the house bill as being equal in how to pay for it.
I’m a conservative who supported Cain but I would have voted NO on house bill.
Besides being against the 2% SS tax cut, I would have voted NO on senate bill due to ethics. A two month extension is no way of doing business and doubt the .1% loan fee will ever pay the 33 billion tab.
Postal employees and USPS have paid nearly 200% of what the actuaries say its going to cost for their retirements.
There really hasn't been a issue over federal employee retirements. There has, however, been a major public outcry regarding state and local pensions.
I'd take the ERISA and pass a law PROHIBITING it from picking up any state or local bankrupt retirement operations. Now that'd protect federal resources from criminal involvement ~ but not likely to see any Congress do that is there.