Anyone else a little confused about why 2 months or 12 months are such a big deal in Washington? Bear in mind: the payroll tax is the ONLY funding for Social Security. Bear also in mind, we've been enjoying a cut in that tax rate during the last year, which is due to expire. So, Obama cut Social Security funding, and no one is crying out that he's killing retirees, bankrupting them, etc - because he's a Democrat. And why aren't the Republicans bringing up this fact? Beats me.
Rush explained the nitty-gritty of the fight for me: maybe it will help you understand it too. I've posted below about half of what he said.
"In the meantime, the substance of this issue is being totally ignored at the expense of playing the political game. So what is apparent to me -- and I shall detail this as the program unfolds -- what's apparent to me is that the view that you and I have about the country and its perilous state right now is not shared. We know by the Democrat establishment. Continuing evidence is that the Republican establishment does not really see the country threatened or imperiled. This is just the latest political cycle. Democrats happened to win last time, it's gonna be our turn soon, it's nothing really out of the ordinary here. Seventeen trillion national debt, ah, no different than five trillion. The president, the White House is waging war on the middle class, "Ah, not that big a deal, Mr. Limbaugh, we'll fix all this when we get our turn back."
"In the meantime the substance of this issue, this payroll tax cut, FICA, Social Security, what's actually being done here, what it actually means, and the substantive reason to not let Obama win this, to not let the Democrats win this, to insist on this being for a full year is being lost. In fact, what this is is even being lost. On the one hand, they tell us that Social Security is not really a tax, right? It's a deduction, it's a contribution. This is simply citizens paying into their own retirement, and they'll get the money back, it's not a tax. Now all of a sudden it's a tax. Now all of a sudden it's a tax cut. No, it's the only mechanism for funding Social Security that there is. The Democrat president -- see, if we had a team that was on offense rather than trying to defend something, if we had a team that was on offense what we'd be doing is making the point that a Democrat president is trying to underfund senior citizens' retirement.
"I don't know about you, but as a Republican I'm sick and tired of being told all my life that I want to kick old people out of their houses and that I want them to eat dog food, and that I don't care about their health care or any of that, that I want to cut their Social Security. That lie has been around for as long as I can remember. Well, now look what's happening. The only funding mechanism is being underfunded by 250 to $500 billion a year by the Democrat president, and nobody talks about us that. No, we get caught up here in, "Oh, gosh, oh, gosh, Obama, Obama is gonna get away with a tax cut idea, we're gonna have it stolen from us, oh, no, no, no." Meanwhile, Romney was on O'Reilly last night. He refuses to call Obama a socialist. He says he's in over his head. He won't call him a socialist. And that's nothing. Imagine asking Romney to call him a Marxist. So it's coalescing here, what we face and where we are."
"Here we have a Democrat actually doing to the Social Security trust fund what they have accused us of wanting to do all my life. A Democrat presidents actually doing it, and we're going along with the language that it's a tax cut, when it's not, it's a raid on the Social Security trust fund. But Jake Tapper said that the implementation here can't be accomplished. Not enough time to reprogram all the computers for the proper withholding and so forth. Two months is not enough time to do this. By the time they get the computers programmed, the two-month extension will be over. The law will foul up the entire payroll system because it's too last minute.
"Now, I hate to nitpick here, but I would think that that would mean something to lawmakers who didn't know that when they came up with their hare-brained idea, but who do know it now. The Journal in their editorial does not make mention of this logistical nightmare. They're too busy panicking here over the optics. They just say the fatally flawed law must be passed for appearances. They admit it's fatally flawed but we gotta pass it, because it says tax cut. "Oh, gosh, it says tax cut, we have to be behind it. We can't cede tax cut optics to Democrats." Because if we let 'em have that then all of a sudden Obama, despite reality, despite his massive tax increases, all of a sudden Obama will be forever known as the king of tax cuts. That's nonsense to me. The only way that happens is if we lay down and let it happen, which seems to be the preferred course by too many on our side."