Pearce explains 'no' vote
With all of the attention focused on the state Legislature the past few weeks, the vote in Congress on Feb. 17 to extend the payroll tax cut for the rest of the year slipped in under the radar.
Our representative, Steve Pearce, was one of 132 members of the House to oppose extension of the tax cut. Had he prevailed, it would have meant an additional $20 a week in taxes for the average New Mexican.
In a press release explaining his vote, Pearce said it was "a difficult decision for a number of reasons."
“While I am always in favor of putting money back in the pockets of New Mexicans, we simply cannot continue spending money we do not have. This plan would add around $93 billion to the deficit," Pearce said.
That's a departure from December, when Pearce voted for a bill to extend the payroll tax for one year.
"Washington cannot continue down the path of destruction by overtaxing hard working Americans." he said at the time.
Why the change of heart? Perhaps Pearce knew full well that the bill he voted for would never get through the Senate.
The bill passed by Republicans in December was about much more than just payroll taxes. It would have also frozen the pay of federal workers for a year, required federal retirees to pay more for health care, raised fees on banks doing business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, blocked clean-air regulations, imposed means testing for Medicare, slashed emergency unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks and imposed a deadline on a decision for the Keystone pipeline.
The bill went on to the Senate, where it met the fate everyone knew that it would. Washington watchers were preparing for the typical tug-o-war that we've come to know and loath. But with Christmas fast approaching, Republicans in the Senate appeared to weary of the fight.
They ditched all the poison pills except the provision on the Keystone pipeline, passed a two-month extension and then went home.
That put House Republicans in a box. They could accept the Senate bill, or accept the responsibility for everyone's taxes going up. But there could be no charade this time.
It's probably overly simplistic, but it seems to me the modern-day philosophy of the Republican Party can be summed up in six words: lower taxes, less government, fewer regulations. All of the sudden they found themselves on the wrong side of the tax debate.
And so, when Congress returned this year they quickly passed the extension for the rest of the year, no strings attached.
Pearce certainly has a viable argument when it comes to the deficit. It's just that he has always insisted that taxes could never be increased for the most wealthy — you know, the "job creators" — it order to cut the deficit.
"I don't believe the problem is that we're not taxing Americans enough. I don't even believe that the problem is that we're not taxing the rich enough," he said during a town hall meeting in April of last year. "The truth is that when you tax people you kill jobs."
The Bush tax cuts, which disproportionately favored the "job creators" — lowering the top income bracket from 39.6 percent to 35 percent — will expire at the end of this year, unless Congress acts. Unlike that tax cut, the payroll tax cut has a much greater impact on the working class (the job doers).
Pearce has fought tooth and nail to protect the first, while voting against the second. You can draw your own conclusions.
Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment