Rep. David B. McKinley (R-WV) voted Tuesday to protect the Social Security Trust Fund by opposing H.R. 3630, also defined as President Obama’s plan to take $180 billion from the Fund to pay for another stimulus plan. This extension of the payroll tax reduction did not create jobs for the last year it’s been in effect. Over the past five months, McKinley has been vocal in his opposition to Obama’s unproductive plan. The bill also cuts $17 billion from hospital payments, including those that are essential to help hospitals care for low-income Medicare patients. McKinley released the following statement regarding his vote:
“Over the last several days, I have conducted numerous town hall-like meetings to discuss this legislation with constituents. As a result of these conversations with everyday West Virginians, it is apparent to me that breaking from both President Obama and even my own party on this bill is the right thing to do.
“Washington just doesn’t get it. This tax cut has been in effect for the last year, and it clearly did not improve the economy. And at what cost? For the second year in a row, this bill would take another $180 billion from Social Security with a promise to be paid back over the years, all to give the average West Virginia worker an extra $30 in his or her paycheck every two weeks. That’s not a jobs plan – it’s a re-election plan. We have seen these same unsuccessful economic plans for the past three years, and for those three years they have failed miserably. Does it make sense to continue to make choices that we know from experience do not work?
“We’ve all been told that Social Security’s finances are in trouble, yet President Obama’s plan makes the situation worse. We cannot continue to send mixed messages to senior citizens and current workers; they need to be able to trust that Social Security will be there for them. If we do not stop extending this payroll tax cut, then Social Security will cease to be a guarantee and instead become another typical government program reliant entirely on politicians’ whims. That’s not fair for our seniors or current workers who are currently paying into Social Security. So the question becomes, if not now, when we will stop raiding Social Security?
“H.R. 3630 is just another temporary tax reduction that only produces more uncertainty for employers and fails to protect our seniors. What is really needed is comprehensive tax reform, less regulatory intrusion and a long-term plan to move our entitlement programs away from their current path toward insolvency.
“As Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said, ‘People don’t generally respond well to temporary tax cuts so it’s unlikely you’re going to see a strong economic response.’ House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has likened the payroll tax cut to ‘sugar-high economics.’ And Chris Edwards, a tax scholar at the Cato Institute, said that the president’s plan ‘is based on faulty Keynesian theories and misplaced confidence in the government’s ability to micromanage short-run growth.’ Perpetuating the president’s failed economic policies, especially if we have to rob Social Security to do it, has got to stop.
“Additionally, the reductions in federal reimbursements to hospitals that are contained in this legislation are not acceptable. Hospitals in northern West Virginia are already being paid at some of the lowest Medicare rates in the country; we should not be making it even harder for the hospitals to provide quality healthcare to our seniors.
“While this bill was loaded up at the last minute with several items which I have already strongly supported throughout this Congress – including jumpstarting the Keystone Pipeline, relaxing EPA regulations on industrial boilers, extending and reforming unemployment benefits and other government programs, and preventing a scheduled 27% cut to doctors’ Medicare reimbursement rates – it is simply unacceptable to continue the president’s misguided economic theories at seniors’ expense.
“This bill has a long way to go despite the short timeframe in which Congress is operating, and if significant changes are made, it may be worth another look. But I came to Washington to get something done, create jobs, and restore common sense to the process. Unfortunately this particular bill fails that test.”
