GOP Blocks Reauthorization Of 'Important Social Safety Net Program'

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday tried to push a three-month extension of a stimulus bill jobs program that is set to expire on Thursday, jeopardizing tens of thousands of jobs. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) objected.

"The majority has known this program was going to expire at the end of this month all year and has taken no steps to reauthorize this important social safety net program," said Enzi, who blocked Durbin's request for "unanimous consent" for a reauthorization.

Having known about the expiration all year, Democrats first attempted to reauthorize the program back in March, but were blocked by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who objected to the $1.5 billion cost of the measure. The next attempt came last week when Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) included the program in a catchall "tax extenders" bill shot down by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

The program is an "Emergency Fund" created by the stimulus bill to help states subsidize jobs for poor parents via the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (formerly known as welfare). The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the TANF Emergency Fund has created more than 240,000 jobs.

"In my state, we call this program Put Illinois to Work. It helps states subsidize the cost of hiring workers in mostly private sector jobs," said Durbin. "This small program has had a huge impact in Illinois... Rather than paying people to do nothing, this program helps private companies hire the employees they need but can't quite afford... I think the only reason there is opposition to this is the fact that it was originally conceived and offered to the Senate in the President's Recovery Act."

A Democratic aide told HuffPost that the Emergency Fund "sounds like it's pretty much dead in the water" after Tuesday's request failed. But at least in Illinois, the program will continue for an additional two months by order of Gov. Pat Quinn, who announced the state will use $75 million of its own funds to preserve the 26,000 jobs created there.

"The best way to make our economy stronger is to put people to work -- that is why we are temporarily continuing this successful program until Congress acts to extend the program," Quinn said.

In his objection to Durbin's request, Enzi noted that the Senate is also expected to pass a reauthorization of the underlying TANF program. "I am not sure the Senator from Illinois is aware that the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee have put together a bipartisan 1-year extension of TANF," Enzi said, presumably referring to a provision of a continuing resolution to fund government operations in the absence of a budget. But it was not clear if Enzi meant he expected the Emergency Fund to be included in that resolution. Enzi's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

UPDATE 3:30 PM: Enzi's office sent a clarifying statement to HuffPost:

"Senator Enzi does not want money for the ECF to be included in the TANF authorization extension as part of the Continuing Resolution -- and it isn't. The Continuing Resolution includes a TANF authorization extension of current program funding levels. The Continuing Resolution is set to be voted on tonight or tomorrow and will run until December 3, 2010. Yesterday Senator Enzi was objecting to a stand-alone extension of the TANF ECF for one quarter.

"Senator Enzi objects to the continuation of this fund because it undermines key principles of welfare reform by rewarding states that increase welfare spending and when created, the fund was meant to be temporary. The Emergency Contingency Fund is not sound welfare policy, has not been considered by the Senate Finance Committee, is not bipartisan, and is costly, estimated to cost approximately $500 million for a one quarter extension, that is why Senator Enzi objected to its extension."

Comments

[dbailey]

02:41 PM on 09/30/2010

but the rethugs have no problem with rewarding the millionaires and billionaires with more tax breaks. unbelievable

[Teamster Man]

12:19 PM on 09/30/2010

The Republicans wrote the tax cuts law and they were set up to expire at the end of 2010 so that they could get the law passed by, let's see what was the word they used during the health care debate that was a unconscionable, ram it down our throats word, oh yes now it comes back to me, RECONCILIATION. So now that the end of their time is approaching they want to go back on their own word, why do this not susprise anyone, and extend the tax cuts permanently. Going back on their word is a way of life for them so why would I want to believe anything they have to say about anything now?

[Horus45]

01:06 PM on 09/30/2010

I don't understand why the Democrats have not ALSO passed this with Reconciliation.

[Fattonecat]

11:57 AM on 09/30/2010

But they'll hand the big Corporations billions on a silver platter. Republicanism = mental illness

[mikegriffith]

10:01 AM on 09/30/2010

“Why don't we just go back to the tax structure of the Eisenhower years?”

I hear this argument a lot in reply to the indisputable evidence that revenue has always gone up after major tax cuts.

Ok, would you also be willing to shrink the federal government back down to the size it was under Eisenhower, along with returning to the Eisenhower-era tax rates? Back then the federal government was a fraction of its present size. Also, are you aware that the top marginal rate didn't apply until you made $400K back then? That would be $3.1 million in today's dollars. Moreover, do you realize that many business activities that we now tax were not taxed back then?

And are you aware that JFK himself said that the Eisenhower-era tax rates were hindering economic growth and job creation and needed to be cut substantially? I discuss this in my article "The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth":

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

If we want prosperity and genuine job growth, we need to put aside ideology and do what has proven successful over and over again.

[mikegriffith]

08:33 AM on 09/30/2010

“The math is simple: 3 trillion in tax cuts 3 trillion in uncalled for wars 3 trillion in infrastructure overseas plus the cost of protecting them."

I'm with you on the uncalled-for wars and the infrastructure spending overseas, but you must understand that the tax cuts more than paid for yourselves. If you doubt this, just check any federal budget data website and look at federal revenue (both income tax and total) for the four years after the 2003 tax cuts. Federal revenue jumped enormously, by a staggering $780 billion, but Congress went on a spending spree and jacked up spending far beyond the increased revenue.

Federal revenue has jumped substantially after every single major tax cut since the Harding-Mellon tax cuts in the early 1920s. If you want the proof, I summarize it, with several budget data links, here:

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

[awake108]

10:42 AM on 09/30/2010

That was before the corporatist had shipped all our jobs to china. During WWII tax rates were 99% on the rich You can't have a war and not pay for it. Andbelieve me a large part of this country didn't want these wars.

[DUSAA-1775]

03:30 PM on 09/30/2010

Wow !! I did not know that!! A person making a million dollars would get $10,000 after the 99% tax rate.
That is... how shall I say this?.. Unbelievable.... totally unbelievable !!

[woodedbliss]

09:17 AM on 10/01/2010

You are conflating two ideas - federal revenue from taxes can increase (due to, say, inflation or economic growth) while not paying for themselves. Showing that revenue has increased does not prove the tax cuts paid for themselves. And both the CBO and Bush's own economic team would disagree with you:

"We do not say the tax cuts pay for themselves," said Mr. Lazear [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman]. "The point is that they created a positive environment for income growth" while helping make the 2001 recession shallower than it otherwise would have been."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/oct/4/20061004-093247-4817r/

And even if we grant that tax cuts increase economic activity, it is still one of the most expensive ways to create jobs.

The cold hard reality is that both Bush tax cuts were debt financing - creating an enormous deficit now and into the future:

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6

[mikegriffith]

07:55 AM on 09/30/2010

“Who is raising taxes? The Republicans authorized the tax cuts through reconciliation and knew this was going to happen. Your point is senseless."

LOL! Where did you learn that logic?! If the tax cuts aren't extended, taxes will go up. Down here on earth, that constitutes raising taxes. Taxes on our job producers would be higher than they are now. Is this too complicated to follow or something?

The rates would go from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%. That's a 9% and 13% increase in those respective brackets. Plus, the taxes on capital gains would jump by 33% and the taxes on dividends would go up by more than 100%. But, oh, "who's raising taxes"?!!!

Take off your ideological blinders and embrace basic math.

[Cacey]

08:11 AM on 09/30/2010

Why don't we just go back to the tax structure of the Eisenhower years?  After all, Ike was the last decent Republican President we've had with the possible exception of Ford who the Republicans rejected.

[woodedbliss]

09:43 AM on 10/01/2010

If the Republicans felt so strongly about these tax cuts, why didn't they make them permanent when they passed the original cuts?

The fact that taxes will go up was part of the plan - and thus, this "tax increase" (a semantic argument not really worth addressing) has really been caused by the Republicans - not Democrats.

Of course, one big reason the tax cuts weren't made permanent is because the CBO told them it would balloon the deficit by an enormous amount, so politically the only way they could pass them was to provide a sunset provision.

[Cacey]

07:43 AM on 09/30/2010

So much for the argument that America is a "Christian Nation", the caviat being come to our churches for food and warmth and let us brainwash you in return.  Let's hope every American affected by our fellow Americans' plight get out and vote these Republican obstructionist clowns out in November.

[mikegriffith]

07:59 AM on 09/30/2010

So if we'd just buried ourselves in more debt and had quintupled the deficit instead of only tripling it, we'd have prosperity now? If those nasty Republicans had just gone along with these Keynesian spending polices, which have NEVER worked anywhere they've been tried, we'd be better off? So it's the Republicans' fault that the $800 billion "stimulus" obviously failed? It's the Republicans' fault that Congerss bailed out the auto industry? It's the Republicans' fault that we've more than doubled Bush's reate of debt accumulation? It's the Republicans' fault that we passed that healthcare "reform" monstrosity that didn't lay a finger on a single systemic problem with our healthcare?

[Cacey]

08:14 AM on 09/30/2010

The math is simple:
3 trillion in tax cuts
3 trillion in uncalled for wars
3 trillion in infrastructure overseas plus the cost of protecting them
The Bush Administration -- Priceless meaning the cost to our country will never end.
And in terms of health care, the Republicans had their opportunity to pass it as early as when T. Roosevelt proposed it and when Nixon wanted it.  They, again failed, and now we have it and it will benefit Americans.

[woodedbliss]

09:51 AM on 10/01/2010

Your argument that Keynesian policies don't work doesn't hold water - the end of the Great Depression was WWII - essentially an enormous Keynesian spending effort to build the American war machine necessary for the effort. The same is also true for Reagan, who grew the deficit by engaging in deficit spending to finance a huge growth in our country's military.

You seem to regard direct stimulus as somehow different from military spending - there is no difference. The military contractors have jobs that are, more or less, 100% created by government and would go away if the military budget was cut.

As for your comment "It's the Republicans' fault that we've more than doubled Bush's rate[sic] of debt accumulation" - the simple answer is yes - because the policies passed under Bush have long-term effects. The two tax cuts already ballooned the deficit - keeping them will further increase it. The two wars do not just go away - and Medicare Part D will continue to cause problems.

[Kizlov Yarhonsze]

09:13 AM on 09/30/2010

Why does religion constantly become a topic in regards to the running of this country? It has nothing to do with anything.

[rainkitty]

11:22 AM on 09/30/2010

The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2006/10/dominion_theolo.html

http://www.alternet.org/news/145796/heads_up:_prayer_warriors_and_sarah_palin_are_organizing_spiritual_warfare_to_take_over_america_?page=entire

[Cacey]

02:28 PM on 09/30/2010

In the abstract truty you are correct.  In reality it has been part of the debate since 1607.

[triplettam]

05:21 AM on 09/30/2010

The GOP blocked legislation? "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here."

[taddles]

02:52 AM on 09/30/2010

"The majority has known this program was going to expire at the end of this month all year and has taken no steps to reauthorize this important social safety net program," said Enzi, who blocked Durbin's request for "unanimous consent" for a reauthorization."

And who's surprised that this weasel Enzi is a liar? Anyone?

[HST]

02:35 AM on 09/30/2010

"Since TANF was enacted, the number of people on welfare has declined dramatically. By 1999, there were only 7.2 million recipients, including 2.6 million families and 5.1 million children, roughly half the caseload of the 1994 peak. Analysts believe several factors have contributed to this decline, including an improved economy, tougher work requirements, and diversion strategies that have moved applicants directly to work programs. Not only have recipients left the program in higher numbers, but fewer have joined to replace them."
http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/welfare.shtml


"The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2008. Because they (were) financed by borrowing — which increases the national debt — this figure includes the extra interest costs resulting from that additional debt."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/”

[hey0there]

01:47 AM on 09/30/2010

Let's not extend programs that are wasteful and have shown themselves incapable of fixing real problems.

[taddles]

02:58 AM on 09/30/2010

Cool, so all the money the Government sends to red states to supplement their programs, because they actually put less in in taxes than they take out, we can just not send right? since that's just wasting my money to support states that can't support themselves. Excellent!

[Tim303]

12:51 AM on 09/30/2010

"As a Republican I believe in cruelty to geese, shooting poor people and the extension of slavery to anyone who doesn't own a corporation."

Tea Partier: "Woo hoo! It's common sense."

[rainkitty]

12:24 AM on 09/30/2010

"Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to
ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness."
...... the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups.
http://www.evilgopbastards.com/june_2003.htm

[starlady7]

04:39 AM on 09/30/2010

VERY Well said!!! Absolutely on point! I am so glad for these blogs because it allows me to see that there are other americans...thousands, who get it...who are rational and who understand what is happening in our country! Fanned!

[Kizlov Yarhonsze]

09:11 AM on 09/30/2010

and you're too simple to figure out that a larger group of bastards use both parties to achieve their goals. Has nothing to do with right or left....oh and btw wasnt it a republican who got us out of Vietnam anyway...not that playing the left/right game means anything to the reality of how and why things happen.

[R Car]

12:12 AM on 09/30/2010

"When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side. When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy?

Well, I'll tell you that given the state of the economy during my transition, between my election and being sworn in, our working assumption was that everybody was going to want to pull together, because there was a sizable chance that we could have a financial meltdown and the entire country could plunge into a depression. So we had to work very rapidly to try to create a combination of measures that would stop the free-fall and cauterize the job loss.

The recovery package we shaped was put together on the theory that we shouldn't exclude any ideas on the basis of ideological predispositions, and so a third of the Recovery Act were tax cuts. Now, they happened to be the most progressive tax cuts in history, very much geared toward middle-class families. There was not only a fairness rationale.........

I still remember going over to the Republican caucus to meet with them and present our ideas, and to solicit ideas from them before we presented the final package. And on the way over, the caucus essentially released a statement that said, "We're going to all vote 'No' as a caucus." And this was before we'd even had the conversation."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395

[nov2revolt]

11:54 PM on 09/29/2010

Take a look at the books. Its time to cut it all.

[bbkenn92]

11:59 PM on 09/29/2010

Yes, time to cut off the states where the tea partiers whine the most; cut off the southern states where the GOP want to destroy the federal government; let those in the blue states, who support them, continue the policies that have always looked after Americans by Americans who care.

[nov2revolt]

12:31 AM on 09/30/2010

Pass it in your own state.

[Tim303]

12:47 AM on 09/30/2010

Are you American?

[nov2revolt]

09:25 AM on 09/30/2010

Yes I am.