Noem discusses payroll tax cut extension

Congresswoman Noem was on The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd this morning to discuss the payroll tax cut extension.

69 Replies to “Noem discusses payroll tax cut extension”

  1. Bill Fleming

    Well, that’s what it looks like in DC when the wheels come off the GOP traincars. Seems like the macrocosm of what’s going on right here in the good ol’ SDGOP congress. (Are you listening Stace?)

    The patients have revolted and taken over the asylum.

    So much for that big R sweep last election.

    This is not going to set well with the voters.

    1. Job Creator

      Bill, what a great perspective. The only thing I would not agree on is that you are calling traincars what you should be calling “clown cars.”

      This is the new Republican legislative version of a Chinese Fire Drill. I used to be disgusted. Now I’m just amused…

      1. BF

        Okay, a circus train, maybe?

        Clowns, elephants, RINOS, contortionists, and a high wire act without a net? A guy getting shot out of a cannon? A “strange but weird” sideshow?

        I like it, Job Creator. Let’s go with that.

        *honk honk*

  2. Anonymous

    You could see Noem was getting really uncomfortable near the last two questions. She started breathing really hard when she wasn’t talking. She’s pretty smooth though.

    Obviously she and Thune didn’t communicate.

  3. Electrifying South Dakota

    This is one of those times where I just have to slap my forehead and exclaim, “I voted for her?” Furthermore, please don’t bother asking for a political contribution from either me, my family, my management team, or my organization this year. In all honesty, it is time to pack up your stuff and prepare to come back home. Yes Virginia, I got a lousy sweater for Christmas.

  4. Troy Jones Post author


    From a negotiating/positioning point of view, I really disagree with you. I think it exposes more than anything Obama’s lack of leadership/involvement in the process. A President involved would have nailed down the two houses into one deal.

    Instead, this allowed for one house to move him (he said he would accept the deal) and then the other house is forcing him to either concede or get nailed for it all falling apart.

    Last week, Obama had two choices he could have taken:

    1) Said nothing on the deal except to evaluate what is sent to his desk to evaluate. Or,

    2) Pin the House down to support what passed the Senate.

    Instead he did neither. The “good news” is he got a poll bump as with his words the public thought the deal was done.

    If it blows up, he will lose the bump and more. If he has to cave again, he will lose most of the bump. In both cases, bad for Obama.

    P.S. Noem was so good in the interview, nothing will blow back on the House while some might blow back on the Senate which is controlled by the Democrats creating even another win for the GOP.

    1. Bill Fleming

      I think you’re looking at this through rose colored glasses, Troy. (I use that image rather than the “polishing a t*rd” metaphor that first came to mind, mostly because I’m trying to adopt a more positive outlook myself for the Holiday Season.)

      I think the voting public is furious about the brinkmanship being played in DC, and are fed up with everyone involved.

      Especially when they’re staring down the barrel of a significant tax increase while the House seems to be shielding the wealthy one more time AND trying to throw a big fat pork chop to the already-rolling-in-dough oil companies.

      I think the average voter here (be it D, R, or I) is about ready to throw up his/her hands and take it to the streets. In fact, a lot of have been doing just that, starting with the Tea Party, and now with the OWS 99%ers.

      So, at a minimum, the new GOP crew is sadly tone deaf.

      On the very issues they ran on. Y

      ou do realize, right, that were talking about a TAX CUT here, right?

      So are we only for those when it comes to the “job creators” and their confidence fairies, or are we also concerned about the people who actually DO those jobs?

      Finally, it’s also telling that the house has refused to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. Isn’t it pretty obvious that they know it would pass?

      This is just a bunch of little idealist Neros fiddling while Rome burns, my friend. Maybe that’s why your getting such a nice warm feeling while you cast your strategic gaze upon the issue through those already rosy specs of yours.

      1. Bill Fleming

        p.s. Troy, the only challenge for Obama here will be if a stinker of a bill gets through Congress and he has to decide whether to veto it or not. (You would, I would, I don’t know if he would.)

        If Congress doesn’t pass something, there will be hell to pay with the voters, but that won’t be on Obama.

        It will instead work to his advantage, and the Democrats. Clearly the R’s in the Senate get this, but somebody apparently forgot to send the memo to the new boneheads in the House.

    2. BF


      Troy. I do enjoy the way you sneaked in Obama’s improvement in the polls and then tried to minimize it by hanging it all on this tax issue.

      Nice try my friend.

      No doubt you’ve seen Nate Silver’s take on the bump, but didn’t want to mess up your post by having us get into a discussion on how the R’s might be trying to hold back the recovery until they can get their own guy in there to take credit for it. You are a smart cookie, Mr. Jones. I’ll give you that.

      ps. Nice being on opposite sides with you again, man. For a while there I was starting to think I might have turned into a RHINOSC. (RINO in Sheep’s Clothing. That Nelson/Ellis team really knows how to mess up a good old fashioned two party system.)

    3. J Rae

      Troy, seriously? “A President involved would have nailed down the two houses into one deal.”

      First of all you don’t punch down. You should know that.

      Secondly, the House is not walking away, they are running away from any kind of vote. Mostly because they know that vote, taken out of context can be used against them. Did you see them run off the floor on CSPAN?

      Lastly, do you really think that the Keystone II should be a part of the bill or do you think that was a last minute add on to stir the pot?

      OK, this time I mean lastly, do you think that packing all the extra crap on the bill is good policy or good politics?

      So enlighten us. If this were a Republican president, what should he do? Fold like a lawn chair? Say I know my approval rating is only at 49% so I’m really afraid of your 11% (lowest ever) rating?

  5. Anonymous

    I thought Noem did well in the interview. I haven’t seen her flustered yet but yes I could tell she was uncomfortable during the last little bit of the interview. Very subtle. I’m always surprised at how well she does.

    This was a good interview. I thought Todd kept her on her heels but didn’t really try to push her over he tried to get her to stumble but it didn’t work. She knows her talking points.

  6. Anonymous

    Kristi come home and collect your farm subsidies.Better yet come home and have a town hall meeting, and see how many fans you really do have.

  7. Anonymous

    The hot air is coming from the east Thune talked today and so did Noem, no wonder we cant have a white christmas.

    1. J Rae

      Hey fellas!!! Mr. Heidelberger asked a legitimate question.

      Certainly one of you true blue Republicans can answer this. Or maybe even one of you RINOs can answer it.

      I would think Stace and his gang would be furious at the even thought of raising the tax rate on hard working middle class Americans.

      Stace where are you when we need you? Still worried about the midwife issue as the defining moment of being a pure Republican? Screw it Stace, stand up and say that you are for the middle class and you don’t want to see a tax increase!

      1. veldy

        Grover Norquist is a strawman. Outside of junkies, he gets filed under “don’t know, don’t care”. Much like George Soros on the other side.

  8. springer

    What is so great about a cut in payroll taxes, which again reduces the viability of Social Security? And I doubt that it puts $1,000 back in every American’s pocket anyway, although that does sound good in a political year. And it will be paid for by a tax on mortgages? It’s all crap!

    CUT THE SPENDING! Cut the regs. Drill for oil. Pass Keystone. Pass true tax reform. Repeal Obamacare and then address real health care reform, not Obama’s power grab. Then sit back and watch the economy take off. The rest of this is just politics, and the people are not buying it anymore. We are awake now, have smartened up considerably, and see thru the fog and political spin.

      1. J Rae

        Springer I will admit you have the talking points down flat. How are you on intended and unintended consequences?

        Oh heck, you don’t need to worry your little head about those things, there’s bumper sticker dogma to be followed.

        Carry on Springer, you are a great American according to Sean Hannity.

  9. duggersd

    Not that I agree they should do it, but the House wants to make this a one year tax holiday. The tax cuts should be paid for in spending cuts. Obama has said this cut is a good for the economy, yet says raising taxes on job creators does not hurt the economy. The two month extension is riddled with costs to the people who have to implement it. And it appears, contrary to what a some people would have us believe, it is the Senate refusing to do its job.

  10. BF

    Springer, we already have enough oil. We’re shipping more out than we’re importing:

    We’ve already cut the spending. That’s why consumers don’t have any money and there is a slump in demand for goods and services. No sense hiring anybody to help you make things if there’s no one to buy them.

    And the economy crashed because there wasn’t enough regulation on the financial industry, not because there was too much.

    Insurance companies are now bound to deliver real health care with the money you send them, not just buy ads and pay people to deny your claims. And people no longer have to go broke just because they get sick.

    That leaves “real tax reform.” Yes we need it.

    I just knew if I tried hard enough I could find something to agree with you about. Merry Christmas, Springer.

    1. duggersd

      We have cut the spending and that is why the budget this year is smaller than last year. OK. Now that I know when you say yes you mean no and when you say no you mean yes, I am beginning to understand you.
      That oil thing does not say we have enough oil. We still import oil. That that article says is we export more oil products. We import a lot of the raw material and export a finished product. Yes, we have increase production, something not done for some time, but we still need to increase it more.

  11. Troy Jones Post author


    We have not cut any spending. Federal Expenditures (Deficit in brackets) in the following fiscal years (ending September):

    2008: $2.98 Trillion ($0.5 Trillion)
    2009: $3.52 Trillion ($1.4 Trillion)
    2010: $3.46 Trillion ($1.3 Trillion)
    2011: $3.60 Trillion ($1.3 Trillion)
    2012: $3.73 Trillion (projected without changes) ($1.1 Trillion)

    Your simplistic attribution is this is a demand problem is wrong. Spending $500Billion per year in “stimulus” has produced no results.

    In the last three years, the federal government has spent $4 Trillion more than it taxed (about 30% more than revenues which is unprecedented “stimulus”). GDP was $14.3 Trillion in 2008. It is forecast to be roughly $14.6 Trillion this year.

    Economically, we have gotten zero return on the increase in the deficit.

    Finally, the only place where there was insufficient financial regulation was in the mortgage market. Regulatory reform of Fannie and Freddie? NADA.

    1. J Rae

      Troy, how much of that deficit is due to the Bush/Obama tax cuts, the Medicare plan passed by a Republican administration and two unfunded wars?

      Maybe you have a graph that you can show us how these things don’t matter and we should gut Social Security and Medicare. Heck while we are at it we should continue to defund veterans benefits, education and health care.

      Anything I’m leaving out that the Republicans want to end that affects anyone other than the rich? Like maybe voting rights?

  12. BF

    I’m talking about consumer spending, Troy. It’s been cut to the bone.

    But okay, to your point, to claim the stimulus didn’t work is disingenuous. Of course it has. Right here in South Dakota. Look how it helped balance the States books. Had it not been there, we’d be in a world of hurt right now. Same with a lot of the other red states.

    And this is hilarious: “the federal government has spent $4 Trillion more than it taxed.”

    Umm… yes. Because the tax rates are too low, because the middle class has been hemorrhaging decent paying jobs, and because we’ve been spending obscenely on an unnecessary war.

    You know all this, of course.

    I think you’re just trying to put lipstick on the Grover Norquist, Military Industrial, GOP pig.

    1. duggersd

      The stimulus was supposed to increase employment. What happened with those stimulus dollars that went to the states is they went to current spending and were not used for increased spending, except for highway signs telling us our tax dollars were at work. So, no the stimulus did not work. Look at the goals. Unemployment under 8% was the main goal. Not achieved means it was a failure.

  13. BF

    p.s. Troy, you’re a venture capitalist, right? When you look at a pro forma business plan, how far out do most go before they show break even and begin to produce ROI? One year? Two? Five, ten? What? On average?

    I’m no pro at it like you are, but I have been involved in helping people with their IPO’s and private placement memoranda from time to time. So I have my number. What’s yours, bud?

  14. BF

    p.p.s. I hope you’re beating up on the banks, Troy.

    They got a ton of our money, still have all those bad assets on their books and are gambling with the dough (our dough) that was supposed to go to folks upside down in their mortgages.

    (Isn’t that about 30% of all current “homeowners” by now?)

    Talk about a confidence problem. What gives with those guys?

    Oh yeah, no regulation.

    Some free market we got goin’ here.

    1. J Rae

      OK, Dodd-Frank wasn’t the best…but do please tell the other issues with the banks? You know, help us out with how the guys that still got their bonuses thanks to the tax payers helped anyone but them…the same ones that have given so much back to the tax paying middle class for keeping their sorry crooked a***s solvent.

      OK, that might have been a little over the top. So Troy, tell us how the banks that we have bailed out, lent trillions to through the back door and looked the other way on regulations has helped the country.

        1. duggersd

          You and BS have another thing in common. You keep talking to yourself. It must be tough to have an intelligent conversation in that group.

  15. Bill Fleming

    Yes, I know we probably agree on quite a bit of this, Troy. I’m just trying to respect your Republicanism and give you guys space to change your leader’s minds. It’s okay with me if our two parties get together every once in a while to save our nation from total disaster. ;^)

  16. veldy

    Is anyone willing to consider the logistical nightmare of a 2 month payroll tax cut, both for business and the SS administration? How about the impact on the “trust fund” that is so awash in surplus? This whole thing is just a red herring, more Washington games. Not too long ago the Dems referred to OASDI payments as “contributions” now they’re “taxes” when they wish to play games with SS. This doesn’t even take into consideration what’s coming next, break the bank as far as SS is concerned then go back to “GOP wants to throw gramma out in the street”

      1. J Rae

        By golly, you are right duggersd. Why should the few who are buying new houses have to sacrifice their $17 a month just so the rest of the middle class can save their $40 a month tax break.

        Help me out on this one…are you saying screw the middle class working family so the new home owner can get a tax break?

        1. duggersd

          No, JRae, I am saying why should a middle class home owner have to give money to someone else? Again, this is a redistribution of money from one person to another. Why should middle class home owners be screwed so someone else can have cash in their pocket?

  17. Arrowhead

    I’m with Noem on the issue. We can’t keep punting but why are we not proclaiming victory right now?

    The problem is the perception this gives that the GOP was for it until the Dems decided to pass it. And now we can’t be infavor of it. It passed the Senate 89-11. That’s hard to look like people in DC were against it.

    1. caheidelberger

      The Senate proposal is imperfect, but it’s not a punt; it’s choosing to run the ball a couple yards at a time instead of throwing downfield. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      1. veldy

        Sorry, if it even fits the definition of “good” why not just deal with it for the whole year and be done with it? Because it takes a campaign issue off the table?

  18. BF

    All financial transactions are a function of taking money from one person and redistributing it to another.

    1. duggersd

      Do you really want to compare taxes with someone purchasing something? Using your logic, if I put a gun against your head and force you to give me money, that is just a “financial transaction” taking money from you and redistributing it to me. The difference between what I purchase or donate and what is taxed has to do with me voluntarily parting with money. At least in my voluntary transaction, I get to choose who my money is redistributed to or I get something in return. But I think you might like my idea of charging a 15% tax on advertising and redistributing it to food stamp recipients. After all, those advertisers can afford it.

      1. J Rae

        Duggersd, I think you have said you work for the school system. I pay taxes to support the school system and you are the beneficiary of my redistributed wealth. Is that an accurate assessment? Did you hold a gun to my head and I missed it?

        1. J Rae

          By the way, I’m not sure I see any benefit from what you are doing with my tax dollars. But maybe I missed something. So tell me again how spending money on education is a good thing.

          1. BF

            J Rae thanks for showing DuggerSD the light. Be careful with him. He has a mind like a steel trap… rusted shut. You can get lock jaw messing around with stuff like that.

          2. duggersd

            All services need to be paid for. If you do not believe education needs to be provided by the government, and there is a case for it, then disband all of your local school districts and force all students to go to private institutions. If the government is going to provide education, then it needs to be paid for, just like police and fire protection. It is nice to see you have BS on your side BTW.
            The point in this particular little thread is someone says all financial transactions involve taking money from one person and redistributing it to another. That person has not commented on my idea of adding a 15% tax to all advertising transactions and giving to people with food stamps. Or perhaps, we could use THAT 15% to pay for the tax “cut”.

    2. Anonymous

      even if you get a government job or a tax credit so you pay less taxes for some useless product…………..

      1. duggersd

        So change the SD constitution and make it so a free education is not guaranteed.
        § 1. Uniform system of free public schools. The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.
        The state seems to believe there is a value in education. Apparently you do not. So go ahead and change it. If you do, I will find a job in the private sector either as a teacher or something else. I have been there and know what it is like.

  19. Bruce Whalen

    This is getting more confusing by the day. With payroll taxes funding Social Security, tax holiday’s decrease revenue to the trust. The GOP House wants to extend that holiday for a year, which means a year’s less revenue for the trust.

    Democrats want increased taxes to pay for the holiday. Does this mean revenue will be deposited into the trust or spent somewhere else to increase government?

    Republican’s want to pay for the holiday by cutting government. Will these so-called savings be deposited into the trust? Exactly how does this plan work?

    The alleged result is the “holiday” will stimulate the economy. With Obama saying that energy bills necessarily will increase under his energy plan, there goes the pittance of so-called relief for individuals and stimulus to economy.

    There must be another way to gain financial responsibility then spending tomorrow’s retirement on today’s budget mess, without printing more money.

  20. Job Creator

    Regardless of what everyone thinks here, the House Republicans are tone deaf on this issue big time. They have lost the middle and even many of the Right. I am beginning to wonder if the rise of the TEA party is really a George Soros conspiracy to bring down the Republican party. If so, his strategy is working perfectly.

  21. Troy Jones Post author

    JRae: Let me answer your questions.

    JR: Troy, how much of that deficit is due to the Bush/Obama tax cuts, the Medicare plan passed by a Republican administration and two unfunded wars?

    TJ: The items you mention were items (i.e. Bush-era tax cuts) included in the 2008 and prior numbers as well as during the Obama years. Thus, the extra $500B a year of spending since Obama is all his. To be clear, we are spending $500B more than we did before him. Second, the other $500B increase is from lower tax collections because of the failure of Obama’s policies to “stimulate” the economy (mostly due to poor small business profits and people falling into lower tax brackets or being unemployed).

    JR: “OK, Dodd-Frank wasn?t the best?but do please tell the other issues with the banks?”

    There is one fundamental problem with our financial sector and it can be traced to two events: Clinton’s expansion of the “Community Reinvestment Act” that forces banks to make riskier loans and the late 1990 elimination of Glass-Steagel which essentially allowed the mega-banks to form and the concentration of investment banking in a few large houses. Dodd-Frank didn’t address the problem. In fact, it changed the playing field by giving a strategic advantage to the mega-banks making the problem worse.

    JR: “So Troy, tell us how the banks that we have bailed out, lent trillions to through the back door and looked the other way on regulations has helped the country.”

    Regarding the first part, I don’t think it has. We allowed the megabanks to survive rather than broken up. I was opposed to TARP when it came out (wrote about it here). In retrospect, there were aspects that were good (gave confidence the world wasn’t coming to an end) but getting the money should have been combined with a requirement the big banks broke up. Instead, banks like Wells Fargo used the money to get bigger (buying Wachovia).

    1. veldy

      Spot on Troy-
      Why is it that no one wants to just flat out say the two words responsible for the entire economic mess our country is in?
      “Affordable Housing”
      Defined: Housing for people who can’t or won’t pay for it.

    2. duggersd

      Troy, about Wachovia. Was it a matter of using the money to get bigger or did the government ask them to purchase due to Wachovia failing I really do not recall, but I do recall Wells and other banks being told they had to take bailout money
      While I agree it would be nice to see banks get smaller and not be “too big to fail”, what is the bank to do when they are told by the people who regulate them they need to do what the government wants them to do?

      1. veldy

        I recall reading an interview with the president of US Bank where he related that the funds were to be used for purchase of institutions that were one the edge. Concerning Wachovia specifically, originally FDIC tried to steer the deal to Citi, Wells messed it up by presenting a better offer.

    3. J Rae

      Wow, thanks Troy. You laid that out pretty well.

      There are some definite problems with Dodd-Frank and Gramm-Leach, but I’m trying to think back to why they were put in place. Bills like that don’t usually pass unless there’s been abuse.

      So how do we replace those without just trashing the intent of the bills? Or if we trash both of them, what do you think would be the worst of the unintended consequences?

    1. BF

      Correct. Main man Troy was an OWS protester before there ever was such an animal. Yikes, yet another thing he and I agree on. This is gettin’ spooky.

      1. Troy Jones Post author

        Bill, you lead the charge in the liberal circles to get rid of Dodd-Frank and I’ll lead the charge in conservative circles to get rid of Gramm-Leach. Both are so bad it is a tragedy.

        The people sleeping in the parks might instinctually be reacting to a visceral feeling the system is broken but nearly all of what they advocated could be described as written by one of Sibby’s New World Order nemesis’. The real irony is the OWS protesters were overtly populist but their “solutions” actually were the epitome of anti-populist.

    2. J Rae

      Nice link…I can see how Huntsman is not exactly popular with a certain set of bankers.

      From the NY Post article, “At least some people, like Republican presidential aspirant Jon Huntsman, see the benefits of the smaller-is-better banking model and are starting to talk about the need to make the banks smaller and nimbler.”

      I kind of like Huntsman and his experience…former Governor, knows our largest creditor and enemy inside and out, doesn’t say anything stupid, hasn’t done anything stupid. He’s easily the most qualified of the GOP slate of candidates.

  22. Troy Jones Post author


    Yes to both actually. Wells used the money to get bigger. And, because the current administration actually wants bigger banks they wanted Wachovia to be merged rather than bought by new investors who would keep Wachovia.

    Regarding your last question, the big banks want to get bigger. They didn’t need to be pushed by the Feds. In fact, a deal had been struck for Wachovia to be merged with Citi (talk about stupid to combine two troubled banks and think the system is more sound) until Wells showed up with a bigger check.

    1. duggersd

      Troy, I understand the banks want to get bigger. Most companies do. I also know when the feds “suggest” you do something, it is usually in your best interest to do so. I agree with your belief of getting banking and investing separated, but I do not believe all of the fault in this area lies with the banks. And some of t his is from the previous administration (TARP).

      1. Troy Jones Post author

        This is one time where I agree with Sibby. The sickness in the financial sector is a “conspiracy” between big government and big banks. Bush’s TARP was definitely imperfect (should have led to break-up/down-sizing and not consolidation) but Dodd-Frank as well as the policies of Obama are way past imperfect. They are fundamentally flawed.

  23. oldguy

    There is hope for us when my two favorite commentators, BF and TJ are agreeing. Shows we can work together without being jerks. Merry Christmas everybody as off to Grandma’s house I go.

  24. Cyber Chest Poker

    Total capitulation by House GOP.

    Boehner a 1-term speaker, and will probably retire from Congress after Eric Cantor deposes him with tea party backing.

    Noem plays both sides of the speaker battle. Deemed untrustworthy and loses influence regardless who wins.