by James Oliphant
The Senate today passed by a 68-29 margin a $17.6 billion measure intended to spur hiring nationwide, sending the bill to the White House for the president's expected signature.
Once the bill becomes law, it would mark the first significant piece of job-creation legislation to pass since President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress earlier this year declared that they would "pivot" and focus on reversing widespread unemployment.
The bill would grant employers an exemption from their 6.2 percent Social Security payroll contribution for every new employee hired through the rest of the year, as long as that employee had been out of work for at least 60 days. There would also be an additional $1,000 income tax credit for every new employee kept on the payroll for 52 weeks.
Experts are split as to whether the payroll tax holiday will boost hiring.
The measure would also make it easier for businesses to write off equipment purchases and would pump billions into federal highway and mass-transit funding programs, which Democrats hope will jump-start construction projects. The bill's cost is offset by tax code modifications.
"The bill we passed today is a targeted approach designed to get Americans back to work right away by creating jobs to rebuild our country's infrastructure and providing tax cuts for businesses to hire new workers," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
The bill, Baucus said, "represents a critical victory in our job-creation agenda and we will continue working to get Americans back to work this year."
The bill had passed the Senate last month, but was modified by the House, which required a second Senate vote.
The House is currently considering a $140 billion package passed by the Senate last week that contains a series of industry-friendly tax breaks such as a credit for research and development as well as extensions of unemployment benefits and COBRA insurance subsidies for the unemployed through the rest of the year.
The Senate is expected to turn its attention to legislation that would provide struggling small businesses with increased access to credit.
Comments
This legislation is from the same politicians who gave us the job-destroying "stimulus" bill.
The result of which, in our state of IL, is:
"Illinois Unemployment hits 11.6% in area, 12.2% in state Local jobless rate surges
The unemployment rate in the Chicago metropolitan area jumped to 11.6 percent in January, the highest level in nearly 27 years, and up from 10.6 percent a month earlier, the Illinois Department of Employment Security reported Tuesday. Chicago's unemployment stood at 8.4 percent in January 2009. The metro area shed 149,900 jobs over the year, according to IDES." (from today's Sun Times)
Posted by: Bruce | March 17, 2010 11:36 AM
Arizona Der Fuehrer Joe Speaks! By "striking" Attorney General, while in the consultation of Joe's Law, while in consultation with SANCTIONS unto you, while in consultation with the commissioner of immigration and naturalization, by inserting "Trespassing in the GOP Axis of Evil First Degree! You're all illegal! Drink the GREEN TEA! Let's PAR-TAY! It was always about "civil rights" It was always about YOU LIE, Obama, brown skin, brown eye, unattested unto me, Russell, and Andrew! Saint what! Saint who! Drink the TEA! Drink the GREEN TEA! Let's PAR-TAY! Stop! Stop! Stop! You in the green shirt! Papers Please! No Papers! You're under arrest! Sure you are Mexican American born! Papers Please! Senator Grasley "REAL ID's" Please! No Birth Certificate or REAL ID! You're under arrest! Happy St. Patricks day! Stop! Stop! Sure you are American born drinking that GREEN TEA!
Posted by: Roger Morris | March 17, 2010 1:21 PM
Bruce,
Are tax cuts only acceptable to you if they are supported by a majority of republicans? There were 11 republican Senators that voted for this.
Posted by: martin | March 17, 2010 2:50 PM
There's an old saying that the best definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. A feeble jobs bill is a prime example. As long as voters put the same people in office and expect an improvement in the jobs picture or any other aspect of the economy, the definition is proved...to the dismay of the citizenry.
Posted by: Darius | March 17, 2010 3:51 PM
"martin", if you bothered to read the article prior to commenting, you'd realize that this bill is about a LOT more than "tax cuts." Phrases such as "funding", "subsidies" and "billions" should have informed even a five year old of that.
The fact is undeniable: the original "stimulus" bill was sold as a job creator, and instead, we've lost jobs. Now the same guilty parties are coming back for more. Ponder that fact.....
Posted by: Bruce | March 17, 2010 4:36 PM
Marty,
Think the tax-break thru. An employer hires someone for $50K and thus saves 6.2% in taxes or $3,100. And he gets another $1,000 after a year. The employer has got a $4,100 tax credit for hiring someone. Do you think that $4,100 will make that big of a difference?
The larger question is in order to get this tax break you must jump thru the gov't hoops. The tax incentives that work is cutting the tax rates - letting the business man keep more of what he earns. Works every time.
Posted by: Terry | March 17, 2010 7:32 PM
Why do we need this job bill in the first place? I thought Foot-in-the-Mouth Biden said the Stimulus was working as planned?
Posted by: Terry | March 17, 2010 9:58 PM
Notice how the DNC Swamp only quoted a Democrat who supported this bill, and not an opponent?
At last night's dinner for radio and tv correspondents, VP Biden quipped that he was speaking to Obama's "base." Every day, the DNC Swamp proves how true that is.....
Posted by: Bruce | March 18, 2010 9:52 AM
"Do you think that $4,100 will make that big of a difference?"
* * * * *
Posted by: Terry | March 17, 2010 7:32 PM
.
It could make a difference in a close case, where, for instance the employer was sitting on the fence on the issue of hiring another employee. This also depends on the kind of wages we're talking about for the new hire. It could easily make more of a difference the closer the wages are to minimum wage.
.
As I recall, the bill does exactly as you suggest: It allows the businessman to keep more of what he earns. No business owner is going to hire that new employee if he/she knows that it will result in a net loss. Thus, giving someone a tax break for hiring someone who will presumably help the business turn a profit is not exactly a bad thing.
.
The only down side to the law that I can see is that it's not likely to be used often until other factors pick up the economy.
Posted by: John W. | March 18, 2010 3:43 PM
John W,
My point is that this bill is no big game changer when it comes to unemployment. Businesses are going to higher when there is an incraesed demand for their product/service. This bill will just slightly decrease the cost to the employer making his product/service slightly less expensive.
Businesses aren't expanding now because of all teh uncertainity reagrding to gov'ts pwoer grab.
Posted by: Terry | March 18, 2010 6:55 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Terry | March 18, 2010 6:55 PM
.
I sorta' figured that, Terry. That's why I indicated that it probably wouldn't be used often until other things picked up the economy. The government getting out of the way would be the best "picker-upper" (to quote a commercial). And, yes, it's probably not a big game changer for this reason. But that's not to say I won't make any difference at all in close cases.
Posted by: John W. | March 18, 2010 7:13 PM
John W,
One more thing, most of the credits that will be taken will be by businesses that would have hired the employees anyway.
Posted by: Terry | March 18, 2010 9:11 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Terry | March 18, 2010 9:11 PM
.
Okay, but so? Don't you think that good little boys and girls who hire the unemployed should get a pat on the head and a cookie even if they were going to do it anyway?
Posted by: John W. | March 19, 2010 3:12 AM
John W,
I disagree. It is all these special treatments in the tax code that cause businesses and indivduals to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.
Posted by: Terry | March 19, 2010 6:31 PM