More

Tax Cut Bill Passes Senate On 81-19 Vote

First Posted: 12/15/10 01:27 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:20 PM ET

Tax Cut Bill Senate

(AP) WASHINGTON — The Senate Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a sweeping tax package that would save millions of Americans thousands of dollars in higher taxes while also reducing their Social Security taxes and extending jobless benefits.

President Barack Obama swiftly urged the House to pass the $858 billion bill without changes, a slap at Democratic liberals eager to toughen a part of the measure that permits up to $10 million to pass to heirs estate tax-free.

A wide array of tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush is scheduled to expire on Jan. 1 – just two weeks away – affecting taxpayers at every income level. The bill passed by the Senate, 81-19, would extend those cuts for two years.

Obama urged quick action in the House.

"I know there are different aspects of this plan to which members of Congress on both sides of the aisle object. That's the nature of compromise," the president said. "But we worked to negotiate an agreement that's a win for middle-class families and a win for our economy, and we can't afford to let it fall victim to either delay or defeat."

House Democratic leaders said they expect to vote on the bill Thursday.

Obama negotiated the package with Senate Republicans, and then administration officials worked for days to persuade congressional Democrats to support it, signaling a possible blueprint for future legislation. Because of November's election victories, Republicans will take control of the House in January and gain seats in the Senate.

"Middle class families need a boost in this economy, and that is exactly what this plan gives them," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It is not perfect, but it will create 2 million jobs, cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses, and ensure that Americans who are still looking for work will continue to have the safety net they rely on to make ends meet."

The bill would extend expiring tax cuts at every income level. It also would renew a program of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed that is due to lapse, and enact a one-year cut in Social Security taxes. The bill's cost, $858 billion, would be added to the deficit.

"Opposing this bill is tantamount to supporting massive tax increases that threatens our economic future," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Allowing middle-class families, small businesses and investors to keep more of what they earn, while denying Washington hundreds of billions in new tax revenue to spend, is the right thing to do."

Other Senate Republicans, however, balked at the price tag, noting that Obama's deficit commission recently outlined the massive fiscal problems facing the nation.

"The American people are going to be looking, and they're going to say, does the Senate get it? Do they understand the severity and the urgency of the problems that face our fiscal future?" Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Wednesday.

At the insistence of Republicans, the plan includes a more generous estate tax provision: The first $10 million of a couple's estate could pass to heirs without taxation. The balance would be subject to a 35 percent tax rate.

The lower estate tax infuriated some Democrats who were already unhappy with Obama for agreeing to extend tax cuts for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

"This administration fights for nothing," said Rep. David Wu, D-Ore.

The estate tax was repealed for 2010. But under current law, it is scheduled to return next year with a top rate of 55 percent on the portion of estates above $1 million – $2 million for couples.

House Democratic leaders want to bring back the 2009 estate tax levels. That year, individuals could pass $3.5 million to their heirs, tax-free. Couples could pass $7 million, with a little tax planning, and the balance was taxed at a top rate of 45 percent.

House Democrats said they are considering a vote to impose the higher estate tax, perhaps as an amendment to the package. But even critics of the lower estate tax say they expect the package to be enacted without changes.

"Let's find out if Republicans really want to jeopardize income tax, payroll tax and estate tax relief for every American in order to provide a budget-busting bonanza to the country's richest estates," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote in an op-ed in Wednesday's Washington Post. "House Democrats think this trade-off should be debated and voted on in the light of day."

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., said, "We can jump up and down all we want about the higher-end estate taxes, and I don't think anything's going to change because the Senate isn't going to change it."

Thirty-one members of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging quick passage of the bill.

"It is time for us to put aside the partisan talking points and accomplish what the American people sent us here to do," said the letter.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
(AP) WASHINGTON — The Senate Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a sweeping tax package that would save millions of Americans thousands of dollars in higher taxes while also reducing their Social Se...
(AP) WASHINGTON — The Senate Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a sweeping tax package that would save millions of Americans thousands of dollars in higher taxes while also reducing their Social Se...
Filed by Whitney Snyder  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,579
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (44 total)
  1 of 4  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
cybersense 01:53 PM on 12/15/2010
Why did the President make this Deal and why did the dems vote yes for it?
 
The reason this happened because of the overturn in the House and partially in the Senate.
 
Why is this such a big deal?
 
Because it means that for the next two years, nothing will come  Read More...
 
Why?
 
Because the House of Representitives is where all tax/financial bills have to pass through with approval before it goes to the Senate, or when changes are made, back to the House for approval again and so on. In addition, Senators who sponser a bill that has to go through the House as well (affecting certain legisture).
 
This is why the President made a deal. There will no such help in the two years, so doing something rather then nothing was important.
 
Debating, fighting for not passing this bill, would have resulted in all taxes to increase, no unemployment extensions and much more then you are hearing about in HP or on TV.
 
So, all those who understood that nothing else could be done, and did vote for this to pass, was actually doing what they could as opposed to voting NO and having another - much worse affect.
 
 
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KWiedemer
Denver Unemployment Examiner
01:12 PM on 12/16/2010
President Obama and his administration, Congressional leaders on Capitol Hill, and members of the media everywhere have told the American people that this is a good deal and provided much-need help for the long-term unemployed. This is a complete and utterly disgusting mis-statement of the facts.

http://www.examiner.com/unemployment-in-denver/media-politicans-sell-bill-of-goods-to-the-public-re-u-i-benefits-extension
hopeisalive
Old enough to know better, but young enough to try
04:42 AM on 12/16/2010
I have a lot of misgivings about the additional Debt that this bill causes, but time will tell on that aspect. My deepest misgiving is that by extending them for two years, it puts them open for permancy and our economy can't stand that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:03 PM on 12/15/2010
I haven't read a single article by an economist that says this measure will create jobs. It may, by virtue of the spending of the unemployed receiving benefits, help to KEEP 2 millions jobs from disappearing, but that is the best one can hope for.

This jobs gain bull is an outrightLie!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:37 PM on 12/15/2010
Always has been....Look, the private sector isn't going to hire because they are making record profits the way things are. You are fooling yourself if you think they are. They don't need to hire, don't need to expand, don't need to do anything except maintain the status quo and count their money. As so many posters that come here that profess to own businesses will be quick to tell you, "It's not my problem and not my responsibility", that people need jobs. I hire who I want, when I want and that's my right. If I don't want to hire a jobless person, you can't force me.
 
The private sector is holding out for three things that will make their world complete:
 
1. Elimination of employer contributions to payroll taxes, including unemployment;
 
2. Elimination of corporate income taxes;
 
3. Abolishment of minimum wage laws
 
Without lifting a finger, they can instantly become 30, 40, 50% more profitable and virtually pay for nothing...treat workers any way they want and have a captive workforce that either accepts their pays nothing jobs or starves while they double and quadruple their personal income and profits. In effect they will essentially "own" you and your life while they live like royalty. The next step after that is cutting expenses even more by requiring the workers to pay for all the insurances that a business needs or is required to carry and demanding that local property taxes on business be abolished as well. They want it to the point where doing business and making money costs nothing, they are treated like sacred cows and become what amounts to American royalty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:52 PM on 12/15/2010
No, it hasn't always been the way you paint it; and with a mighty broad brush, too.

Aside from being non sequitur, yours is going to go down as the most pernicious comment of the evening. Your perspective of the American businessperson is skewed. I'd sure like to know where you get your data.
11:58 PM on 12/15/2010
people keeping more of there own money is now bad somehow

laughing
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:20 AM on 12/16/2010
As is usually the case, youfailto grasp the depth of the issue. Butyou'reright out there throwing your one-line marvels as if you haveaclue.

Most people will not experience much of a drop in disposable income with the expiration of the tax cuts; that according to the head of the Teamsters who spoke briefly at a news conference the other day. For many who earn a more nominal amount, they will experience even less of a loss.

But what will be gained by letting these cuts expire is a revenue stream that we have been missing for the past ten years, in the neighborhood of about 70-90 billion a year, which is money that will go back into our economy.

THAT is how you keep YOUR money. By being employed. The alternative that is being considered creates a deficit of 70-90 billion per year that has to be covered by loans. THAT is NOT how you keep your money.

Your turn
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
terry63
11:03 PM on 12/15/2010
How praytell is borrowing another trillion dollars going to bring taxes down? Long term I mean.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
terry63
11:01 PM on 12/15/2010
Oh great another trillion, well I guess we can just toss that on the pile.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:41 PM on 12/15/2010
As Joe Palermo said here today--

"Taken in isolation the "bipartisan" tax cut deal seems like a reasonable measure in the midst of a serious economic recession. But put in its wider political and economic context it is an unmitigated disaster. It's a disaster because it is based on "supply-side" premises that Obama appears to have fully embraced. And it's a disaster because the wrecking crew that's coming to Washington in January will point to the billions added to the deficit as yet another excuse to demand even deeper cuts in every federal program that might remotely benefit working people."

THE REPUBLICANS HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THE PRESS THAT THEY INTEND ON POINTING TO THIS BILL AS ANOTHER DEM ADDITION TO THE DEFICIT AND GO AFTER OBAMA AND THE REST ON THAT BASIS.

How bad of a 'chess playing' President do you need to be to keep walking into traps like this one???
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
treadway123
treadway123
10:38 PM on 12/15/2010
I was always a Republican untill the 08 elections! I am against letting the millionairs/Billionairs have any tax cuts/if they did get it they would have to prove to they used the money within a certain time frame or lose it the following yr! I understand WHY obama had to make this deal to keep roofs over children/families head/food on the Table! I also understand the Grand Old Party I once thought I would probally return to after Mccain/Palin disappeared has Blackmailed our Goverment an the President of the U.S.---That I will NEVER forget!
10:33 PM on 12/15/2010
Everyone, everyone, let's all calm down. The republican compromise is here to save us all by utilizing the trickle down effect!

And by trickle down effect I mean, we are all getting pissed on.
10:26 PM on 12/15/2010
The unemployment will help spur the economy because every penny will be spent back into the economy. The tax cuts for the rich, however, will destroy this country because the rich will just put it in a saving account.

Republicans are destroying this country.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:42 PM on 12/15/2010
Matter of fact, that's where they missed the boat....Okay, you want the wealthiest 2% to get their tax break for two more years? Fine. Whatever it is they benefit from not paying the normal 39.6% they must spend at least 50% of it...cannot be saved or placed in an investment vehicle. On $1,000,000 that 50% represents $18,000 they are required to "spend" on something and it must be purchased in the US from a US company. Otherwise, you personally lose your tax break that year. Not much in the big scheme of things but if every person making $1 million and up spent $18,000+ of their "break" in the US economy instead of hoarding it to earn interest on it would certainly be a boost of some degree.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notlieutishia
12:03 AM on 12/16/2010
I've thought that if there is an overhaul of the tax system, the wealthy might just eat their own dust. There could be changes made that would take away their tax breaks if not handled in ways to help this nation of ours. There is really "more than one way to skin a cat." When I was a kid, our state had a luxury tax that was three times what the regular tax was. There are lower taxes on food. If a person bought a new jet, then he should have to pay way higher taxes on it. Any money spent on the so called two martini lunches shouldn't be taken off their taxes. I knew someone who had a furniture store. He took trips to the beaches in his Cadillac and stopped on the way to order furniture. His entire expenses; gas, food, lodging, payments on the car, depretiation of the car, were all taken as business expenses. small potatoes There must be ways to make these billionaires pay what they don't pay toward minimum wages for outsourcing and return that money to our government since we help these slaves survive anyway. If they pay a dollar an hour, then the other six dollars belongs to us because it's an American Co. I took a survey of waiters for large chain restaurants..and they get three dollars an hour, so they pay their own bosses to pay them... out of their tips. It's not fair.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SMBrown2
99% of democrats give the rest a bad name.
10:18 PM on 12/15/2010
"Middle class families need a boost in this economy, and that is exactly what this plan gives them," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It is not perfect, but it will create 2 million jobs, cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses, and ensure that Americans who are still looking for work will continue to have the safety net they rely on to make ends meet."

As long as he's making up statistics, why didn't Reid promise us 5 million jobs? Or infinity? Go big or go home Harry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
terry63
11:20 PM on 12/15/2010
I thought the last trillion was supposed to do that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RodgzK
10:15 PM on 12/15/2010
For as long as I can remember I have thought of myself as a Roosevelt Democrat. I was proud of my association with a party that accepted that government has a responsibility not only to the monied and the power brokers but also to the young, the elderly, the poor and the sick. It’s true, I found myself disillusioned as the party tacked to the right in order to encompass the “Blue Dogs” and other conservative voters but I still tended to vote a party ticket. Tonight, I’m feeling a new emotion. I’m ashamed of my association with the Democratic party.

What brought this on? It’s difficult to explain clearly but I think it’s the fact that for two years I’ve watched the Democrats, as a group, duck the issues and allow themselves to be bullied by the minority. Tonight, they passed a Senate bill that they acknowledged was bad legislation and they passed it tonight because they were too timid to take it up earlier. Worse, in passing this bad legislation they opened the door for the Republicans to attack and eventually destroy the landmark social legislation, Social Security, a goal they’ve had since President Roosevelt signed it into law. They’ve crucified the needy and rewarded the rich. They’re no longer different from the Republicans.

How can the party that gave us Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson and can legitimately claim Woodrow Wilson also be the one that gave us Barak Obama and these Democrats?
photo
jazgr8
Ok, I give up, you win.
10:04 PM on 12/15/2010
The Fat Lady has already sung on this one folks. In fact she's showered up, driven home and is fast asleep already.
09:40 PM on 12/15/2010
China and Wall Street should start measuring for new drapes in the White House, they now own it.
10:26 PM on 12/15/2010
Pretty much.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
flyr1710
09:31 PM on 12/15/2010
It will create two million jobs. Wasn't the original stimulus supposed to do this? Ummmm. No.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
terry63
11:21 PM on 12/15/2010
umm,hmmm. Whats the definition of insanity again?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Nix
My bio is not micro
09:21 PM on 12/15/2010
I don't know anymore. DADT is going to get permanently repealed. Obama has shown that the surge was a bad idea and the only solution is to get out. Maybe he's right about this or he has a plan. I think he has earned the benefit of doubt. I maybe getting gamed but I'll reserve judgement.