May 3, 2024

Senate Action on Health Law Moves to Brink of Shutdown

Angering Republicans who lead the House, Mr. Reid kept the Senate shuttered on Sunday, in a calculated move to stall action on the House measure until Monday afternoon, just hours before the government’s spending authority runs out at midnight.

Without a complete capitulation by House Republicans, large sections of the government would close, hundreds of thousands of workers would be furloughed without pay, and millions more would be asked to work for no pay.

Polls show that the public is already deeply unhappy with its leaders in Congress, and the prospect of the first government shutdown in 17 years would be the latest dispiriting development. With a temporary shutdown appearing inevitable without a last-ditch compromise, the battle on Sunday became as much about blaming the other side as searching for a solution.

House Republicans, who insisted that they had passed a compromise over the weekend that would avoid a shutdown if only the Senate would act, blamed Mr. Reid for purposely running out the clock.

“Unlock those doors, I say to Harry Reid,” said Representative Ann Wagner, a Missouri Republican who stood on the steps of the empty Senate on Sunday with a dozen of her House colleagues. “Come out and do your job.”

But Mr. Reid sees little incentive or political advantage in bowing to those demands. He has held his 54-member caucus together so far. And because of support from some Senate Republicans who have called it a mistake for House Republicans to try to force changes to the health care law in an unrelated fight over the budget, Mr. Reid’s hand has been strengthened.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine became the latest Republican to criticize her House colleagues, saying on Sunday that an effort to link the health care amendments to the budget was “a strategy that cannot possibly work.”

Mr. Reid’s plan, which exploits the bypasses and delays available to him in Senate procedure, leaves little time for the House to act before the Tuesday deadline. The Senate on Monday is expected to send back to the House a plain budget bill, stripped of its provisions to delay the full effect of the health care law, repeal a tax on medical devices and allow businesses to opt out of contraception coverage for their employees.

All Mr. Reid needs are 51 Democrats to vote with him — not the usual 60-vote threshold required for most Senate business — and the spending bill will go back to the House in a matter of minutes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, said that he had been canvassing Senate Democrats from Republican states and that the party remained unified.

Senate Democrats plan to emphasize a message that the blame for any shutdown rests squarely with Republicans. “They can decide at that point whether they’ll shut down the government or not,” Mr. Durbin said.

Republicans would then face a difficult choice. Speaker John A. Boehner could risk the ire of his more conservative members and put the Senate bill on the floor for a straight up or down vote, a route that his more moderate members have begun urging him to take.

Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, said on Sunday that he was actively courting Republicans and Democrats to get behind a temporary spending bill to avert a shutdown, even if it contained none of the additional measures the House passed over the weekend.

“I’m prepared to vote for a clean resolution tomorrow,” Mr. Dent said. “It’s time to govern. I don’t intend to support a fool’s errand at this point.”

Republican lawmakers said on Sunday that the House leadership had one more card to play, but that it was extremely delicate. They can tell Mr. Reid he must accept a face-saving measure, like the repeal of the tax on medical devices, which many Democrats support, or they will send back a new amendment that would force members of Congress and their staffs, and the White House staff, to buy their medical insurance on the new health law’s insurance exchanges, without any subsidies from the government to offset the cost.

Republicans expressed certainty that for all the discomfort a shutdown would inflict on Capitol Hill, Democrats would not risk it to protect their own benefits.

Brian Knowlton contributed reporting.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/us/politics/time-short-but-gop-leaders-say-shutdown-can-be-avoided.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Democratic Leaders Propose Millionaires’ Tax to Pay for Jobs Plan

The White House, after dismissing a similar proposal late last year, left the door open to backing the plan. “We are open to different ways of paying for the very important broadly supported measures in the American Jobs Act that would grow the economy and create jobs,” said the press secretary, Jay Carney.

The new plan, devised by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, has a twofold purpose: to draw a sharp contrast with Congressional Republicans, who have dug in against any increases in tax rates, and to quell a revolt brewing among some Democrats who objected to parts of the White House plan.

Mr. Reid said the surtax would raise $445 billion over 10 years, just about the amount needed to pay for the jobs bill, though it appears unlikely it could make it through Congress.

The proposal, he said, would “have the richest of the rich pay a little bit more” — specifically, “5 percent more to fund job creation and ensure this country’s economic success.”

Mr. Reid’s proposal was to have taken effect in 2012. The White House suggested a one-year delay. Mr. Reid agreed. On Wednesday night, his office announced a change, saying: “The millionaires’ surtax will now take effect in 2013, not 2012. The surtax rate is also changed, to 5.6 percent from 5 percent.”

Many economists predict that the economy will still face serious problems, including high unemployment, in 2012, an election year. Mr. Reid made clear that he thought his party would gain a political advantage from the proposal.

“It’s interesting to note that independents, Democrats and Republicans and even the Tea Party agree it’s time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes,” Mr. Reid said Wednesday.

The plan, pushed by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, comes after Mr. Obama earlier proposed a “Buffett Rule” that would force wealthy Americans to pay more in taxes. It also comes against a backdrop of protests against Wall Street, giving Democrats hope they can tap into some of that sentiment in next year’s elections.

Indeed, the Democratic proposal seems more about politics than policy. Even if wavering Democrats could be rounded up to support the president’s plan, Senate Republicans could block the proposal by denying Democrats the votes needed to overcome a near-certain filibuster.

Republicans, who control the House, scorned the new proposal.

In an interview with Bloomberg Television, the House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, said: “Here we go again, continued insistence in Washington — raise taxes on job creators right now. That’s not what we need. Most people in America think it’s counterintuitive to raise taxes if you want economic growth.”

Details of the surtax proposal are still being worked out.

Congressional aides said it would probably work this way: The government would collect an additional tax equal to 5.6 percent of the amount of income exceeding $1 million. So for a person with income of $1.1 million, the extra tax would be $5,600, which is 5.6 percent of $100,000. Estimates from the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation indicate that 330,000 households have more than $1 million of income, broadly defined.

The proposed surtax would apply to wages and salaries, capitals gains, interest, dividends and some other types of income, Congressional aides said.

Public opinion polls suggest some support for the Democrats’ approach.

In a recent CBS News poll, 64 percent of people said taxes should be increased on households earning $1 million a year or more and 30 percent said the government should address the budget deficit without increasing taxes on those households. Only a quarter said this tax increase would help job creation, 18 percent said it would hurt job creation and about half said it would not make a difference.

Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=377eb424aa2630fd69dbfb77a125754d