Looking out for His Corporate Donors and Himself, not Montana Seniors

First, Senator Daines voted to give his corporate donors a trillion dollars in new tax breaks while cutting Medicare and Social Security by hundreds of billions of dollars and raising the retirement age to 67. Now, Daines, who has taken over $2 million from corporate PACs, is supporting a plan to eliminate the payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare.

Economists say that Daines plan would be a “windfall” for big corporations and millionaires like himself, while the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary says it would permanently deplete the Social Security Trust Fund and END benefits for seniors by the year 2023.

SENATOR DAINES VOTED TO GIVE HIS CORPORATE DONORS A TRILLION DOLLARS IN NEW TAX BREAKS

DAINES VOTED FOR THE REPUBLICAN TAX BILL THAT GAVE CORPORATIONS A TRILLION IN TAX BREAKS

12/20/17: Daines Voted In Favor Of The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act, Which Reduced The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 Percent To 21 Percent. In December 2017, Daines voted in favor of “McConnell, R-Ky., motion that the Senate recede from its amendment and concur in the bill with a further amendment. The bill would revise the federal income tax system by lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent; lowering individual tax rates through 2025; limiting state and local deductions to $10,000 through 2025; decreasing the limit on deductible mortgage debt through 2025; and creating a new system of taxing U.S. corporations with foreign subsidiaries.” Motion agreed to by a vote of 51-48 [H.R. 1, Vote 323, 12/20/17; CQ, 12/20/17]

• Corporate Tax Cut Cost Roughly $1 Trillion. “It still amounts to roughly a $1 trillion tax cut for businesses over the next decade. Republicans argue this will make the economy surge in the coming years, but most independent economists and Wall Street banks predict only a modest and short-lived boost to growth.” [Washington Post, 12/15/17]

• S&P 500 Companies Could See $1.64 Trillion in Tax Cuts. “In other words, you can thank tax cuts for nearly half the growth in big-company earnings in the first quarter. For many companies – including a favorite target of Trump’s ire, Amazon.com Inc. – the boost was even more substantial, representing all, or nearly all, the quarter’s growth. It gets better: At the rate they’re going, S&P 500 companies could save $1.64 trillion in taxes over the next decade, Steve estimates – $300 billion more than lawmakers expected. Now we’re talking real money.” [Bloomberg News, 5/25/18]

DAINES VOTED TO CUT MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY BY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE TO 67

DAINES VOTED TO CUT MEDICARE BY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS

2017: Daines Voted For The GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For Cutting Medicare By $473 Billion. In October 2017, Daine voted for a budget resolution that would have, according to The Hill, “The spending blueprint is key to Republicans’ efforts to pass tax reform because it includes instructions that will allow the plan to avoid a Democratic filibuster. […] The budget, meant to outline spending for the fiscal year, was widely viewed as a mere vehicle for passing tax reform. […] The budget would allow the Senate GOP’s tax plan to add up to $1.5 trillion to the deficit over a decade, a proposal that has raised concerns with fiscal hawks in the GOP. Its instructions call for the Senate Finance Committee to report a tax bill by Nov. 13. Still, the document outlines the Senate GOP’s political vision. It maintains spending at 2017 levels for the year, but would then cut nondefense spending in subsequent years, leading to a $106 billion cut in 2027. It would also allow defense levels to continue rising at their current rates, reaching $684 billion at the end of a decade. The resolution also proposes $473 billion in cuts to Medicare’s baseline spending over a decade and about $1 trillion from Medicaid, though those provisions are not enforceable without additional legislation.” The vote was on passage. The Senate agreed to the budget by a vote of 51 to 49. The House later passed the budget resolution. [Senate Vote 245, 10/19/17; The Hill, 10/19/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]

• Daines Voted Against Restoring $473 Billion In Medicare Cuts, Paid For By Closing Special Interest Tax Loopholes. On October 18, 2017, Daines voted against “Enzi, R-Wyo., for Nelson, D-Fla., amendment no. 1150, to the Enzi substitute amendment no. 1116, that would increase the new budget authority for Medicare by $5.9 billion for fiscal 2018.” The amendment was rejected by a vote of 47-51. [CQ, 10/18/17; Vote 222, S.Amdt. 1150 to S.Amdt. 1116 to H.Con.Res. 71, 10/18/17]

2015: Daines Voted To Make $430 Billion In Unexplained Cuts To Medicare, As Part Of The Senate’s FY 2016 Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Daines voted for the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution, which, according to Bloomberg, “avoided a plan to partially privatize Medicare that the U.S. House of Representatives embraced in its budget [and] instead call[ed] for $430 billion in spending cuts without explaining where they would be made.” The Senate adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 52 to 46. A final budget resolution included the same unspecified cuts to Medicare. [Senate Vote 135, 3/27/15; Bloomberg, 3/27/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; S. Con. Res. 11, 4/7/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

• Politico: Senate Republican FY 2016 Budget “Calls For Finding $430 Billion In Cuts From Medicare, But Offers Few Details On How To Achieve Those Savings.” “The overall budget, written by Enzi in his first budget as chairman, slashes $5.1 trillion in spending over 10 years — achieving the GOP’s goal of balancing the budget within a decade. The budget also relies heavily on a war contingency fund to boost military spending — a move that allows Republicans to go around the strict spending caps outlined in a 2011 deficit deal. It calls for finding $430 billion in cuts from Medicare but offers few details on how to achieve those savings. It also proposes cuts to Medicaid and welfare programs, while not increasing taxes. The budget also gives reconciliation instructions to two key committees that would be charged with replacing Obamacare.” [Politico, 3/27/15]

• Bloomberg: Senate Republican FY 2016 Budget “Avoided” House Budget’s “Plan To Partially Privatize Medicare, […] Instead Calls For $430 Billion In Spending Cuts.” “Senate Republicans avoided a plan to partially privatize Medicare that the U.S. House of Representatives embraced in its budget. The Senate plan instead calls for $430 billion in spending cuts without explaining where they would be made. Some Senators worried that the House approach on Medicare, unpopular with voters, would damage them politically in 2016. Next year, Republicans must defend 24 Senate seats compared with 10 for Democrats, a reversal from the past two elections when significantly more Senate Democrats were on the ballot. The Medicare provisions will now be the subject of a House-Senate conference committee next month.” [Bloomberg, 3/27/15]

DAINES VOTED TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY

DAINES VOTED AGAINST A BILL THAT INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

2018: Daines Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels, Including $7 Billion For The VA. In March 2018, Daines voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level.” The vote was a motion to concur. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 65 to 33, thereby sending the bill to the president, who signed it into law. [Senate Vote 63, 3/23/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]

• The Omnibus Bill Increased Funding For Social Security Administration Operations Expenses. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee and a member of Democratic leadership, welcomed the $480 million increase in funding to the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the omnibus appropriations bill as a victory for senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and SSA personnel who are overworked and underpaid.” [US Senator Bernie Sanders, Press Release, 3/22/18]

• Social Security Works: “For The Last Decade, Congress Has Starved SSA Of Funding, Making It Increasingly Difficult For Americans To Access Their Earned Social Security Benefits.” “The following is a statement from Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, in reaction to the $480 million increase in funding for the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the omnibus appropriations bill: “For the last decade, Congress has starved SSA of funding, making it increasingly difficult for Americans to access their earned Social Security benefits. Thanks to the efforts of Social Security champions in Congress and activists around the country, this bill takes a step in the right direction.” [Social Security Works, Press Release, 3/23/18]

DAINES VOTED AGAINST A LABOR, HHS, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT CUT THE AGENCIES ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET BY NEARLY $200,000

Daines Voted Against A Labor, HHS, And Education Appropriations Bill That Cut The Agencies Administrative Budget By Nearly $200,000. In 2016, Daines voted against a Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill that cut the agencies administrative budget by nearly $200,000. [US Senate, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2016, committee report, 6/25/15]

• The Bill Cut $3.6 Billion In Spending. “U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies, today highlighted the fiscal year 2016 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill approved by the Committee this afternoon. […] While the measure is $3.6 billion below the FY2015 spending level, the Subcommittee increased funding for the National Institutes of Health, Community Health Centers, Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant. In addition, the bill takes steps to prohibit the administration from improperly using discretionary funding to prop up state insurance exchanges and the Risk Corridor program established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.” [US Senator Roy Blunt, press release, 6/25/15]

DAINES SUPPORTED A PLAN THAT WOULD FORCE DEEP CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY

Daines Supported The GOP’s Plan To Cap Federal Spending At 18 Percent To 20 Percent Of The Gross Domestic Product. According to the Great Falls Tribune, “Daines supports a GOP plan to ‘cut, cap and save,’ by cutting the deficit spending in half in next year's budget, capping federal spending at 18 percent to 20 percent of the gross domestic product and passing a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.” [Great Falls Tribune, 7/3/11]

• Daines Advocated For Cutting Spending To Between 18 to 20 Percent GDP. Daines said during the MTN Congressional debate “And then across the board we need to set limits and set targets of percent spending versus our GDP. Today we’re about twenty-four percent; it’s virtually a record high. We need to get back down to the 18 to 20 percent range and we can do that by setting some glide paths, some targets here, over the next seven to ten years and start bending that spending curve; combined with igniting the economy and generating more tax revenues because we’re creating more jobs.”[MTN Congressional Debate, 10/13/12](video)

• Daines Called For “Long Term Structural Reforms Where The Government “Does Not Spend More Money Than We Take In.” Daines said during the MTN Congressional debate “Well I would step back. There’s a couple of things fundamentally we need to do to reform the way government, spending in federal government. Number one we need to put in place long term structural reforms. This is a difference from my opponent and myself is we need, I believe, a balanced budget amendment. That won’t fix next year’s spending problems, but it starts putting structural reforms in place; that insists that we don’t spend more money than we take in; forty-nine states have it, Montana has it, why doesn’t the federal government have that?” [MTN Congressional Debate, 10/13/12](video)

CUT, CAP AND BALANCE WOULD FORCE DEEP CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

Cut, Cap and Balance Will Force Deep Cuts to Social Security and Medicare. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled. Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. […] Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]

Cut, Cap and Balance “Is Simply Massive Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid By Another Name.” According to the Center for American Progress, “There is no way around the basic arithmetic. The only way to achieve that level of spending is by radically altering some fundamental public programs and services. A federal spending cap may sound innocuous but it is simply massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by another name.” [Center for American Progress, 7/18/2011]

• CBPP: “Claim That Social Security and Medicare Would Not Be Touched Falls Apart Under Scrutiny.” According to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities statement on the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan, “Talking points that the legislation’s proponents circulated on July 15 seek to foster an impression that the measure would protect Social Security and Medicare. Such an impression would not be accurate. The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions.” [CBPP, 7/16/11]

HEADLINE – Republican ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ Plan Would Require a 25 Percent Cut in Every Government Program. [Think Progress, 7/18/2011]

• Cut, Cap and Balance “Would Require a 25 Percent Cut to Everything in the Federal Budget – From Social Security to Veterans’ Benefits to the Pentagon to Education.” According to the Center for American Progress, “Of that $4.4 trillion in 2016, about $520 billion will be interest payments on the debt—an area Congress can’t directly cut. That leaves about $3.9 trillion in noninterest spending, from which Congress would have to slash about $1 trillion in order to bring total spending down to 18 percent of GDP. This would require a 25 percent cut to everything in the federal budget—from Social Security to veterans’ benefits to the Pentagon to education. Congress could try to protect some programs from such severe reductions but then, of course, other areas would have to be slashed even more.” [Center for American Progress, 7/18/2011]

AARP Opposed Cut, Cap and Balance Because It Did Not Shield Social Security and Medicare From “Arbitrary Reductions.” In a July 2011 letter to Senators, AARP CEO Addison Barry Rand wrote, “The Cut, Cap and Balance Act requires that a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution be transmitted to the states as a pre- condition of increasing the debt ceiling. Social Security and Medicare, which are not excluded under the balanced budget amendment, would therefore be at risk for arbitrary reductions under the constitutional amendment, and as such, AARP is opposed.” [AARP Letter, 7/21/11]

Center for American Progress: “Level of Cuts Required Is So Dramatic, So Draconian, That Any Way You Slice It, Congress Would End Up Making Severe Cuts To Some Very Important Programs.” In a July 2012 report on the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan, the Center for American Progress stated, “Capping federal spending at 18 percent of GDP—a level not seen in half a century—would actually require cuts that are even larger than those in the original House Republican budget plan. The last time federal spending dipped below 18 percent of GDP was 1966 … Even the budget passed by the Republican-led House, with all its draconian cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, keeps spending above 18 percent of GDP for the next 30 years … But it turns out that the level of cuts required is so dramatic, so draconian, that any way you slice it, Congress would end up making severe cuts to some very important programs.” [Center For American Progress, 7/18/12]

Balanced Budget Amendment Would End the Medicare Guarantee and Slash Services While Giving a Tax Break for the Wealthy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The balanced budget constitutional amendment (H. J. Res. 1) recently approved by the Judiciary Committee is a masquerade designed to foster the policy choices of the Republican budget: to end the Medicare guarantee for seniors and slash vital services while providing tax breaks for the wealthy. This balanced budget amendment would have dire consequences on the economy, on Medicare and other government guarantees to our citizens, and on Congress’s ability to respond to changing needs.” [Democratic House Committee on the Budget, 6/27/11]

Balanced Budget Amendment Would Require More Extreme Cuts Than Ryan Budget Plan; Any Budget Passed Under Reagan Would Violate its Structures. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The constitutional balanced budget amendment that the House Judiciary Committee began considering June 2 and is expected to pass next week, is a highly ideological measure that would force Congress to enact the Republican Study Committee’s extreme budget plan or something similar to it. Even the House-passed budget plan of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would not pass muster under the proposal; the more draconian Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget or a close equivalent would be required.” According to the Washington Post, “The 18 percent cap on spending is so severe that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s economic plan would violate its strictures. So would any budget passed under President Ronald Reagan.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/6/11]

DAINES VOTED AGAINST EXPANDING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

2015: Daines Voted Against An Unspecified Expansion Of Social Security Benefits. In March 2015, Daines voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according a press release from the office of Sen Elizabeth Warren, would have “support[ed] a sustainable expansion of Social Security benefits and promote[d] the long- term solvency of the Social Security and Disability Insurance trust funds.” According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “created[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would expand Social Security benefits, the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund.” The Amendment was defeated by a vote of 42 to 56. [Senate Vote 131, 3/27/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Elizabeth Warren, 3/27/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/27/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 1094; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

DAINES VOTED TO RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE

DAINES VOTED FOR THE RYAN BUDGET THAT RAISED THE MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY AGE

Daines Voted for FY 2014 Ryan Budget That Restructured Medicare as “Premium Support System.” In 2013, Daines voted for passage of the controversial Ryan Budget that would provide $2.769 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2014, not including off-budget accounts. It would assume that the spending levels required by the sequester remain in place and that non-war discretionary spending for all future years will be at post-sequester levels. It would assume that all discretionary savings from the sequester beginning in fiscal 2014 will come from non-defense programs. It would assume $5.7 trillion in reductions over the next 10 years in both discretionary and mandatory spending. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and a restructuring of Medicare into a "premium support" system beginning in 2024. It would call for an overhaul of the tax code, under which the alternative minimum tax would be repealed, the six current individual income tax brackets would be consolidated into two and tax credits and deductions would be eliminated or curtailed. The budget was adopted by a vote of 221-207. [CQ; H Con Res 25, Vote #88, 3/21/13]

• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: 2013 Ryan Budget Would “Raise The Age Of Eligibility For Medicare From 65 To 67.” “The Medicare proposals in the 2014 budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) are essentially the same as those in last year’s Ryan budget. Once again, Chairman Ryan proposes to replace Medicare’s guarantee of health coverage with a premium-support voucher and raise the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67. Together, these changes would shift substantial costs to Medicare beneficiaries and (with the simultaneous repeal of health reform) leave many 65- and 66-year-olds without any health coverage.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]

• 2013: Politico: Ryan Budget “Raise[d] The Medicare Eligibility Age By Two Years For Those...Under 55.” “So it appears that the two budgets show few signs for any common ground on entitlement reform going forward. One potential exception is Ryan’s plan to gradually raise the Medicare eligibility age by two years for those who are now under 55. While opposed by many Democrats, the administration has put eligibility age on the table in previous deficit talks, and it could find some Democratic support in a broader deficit reduction deal that also raises revenues.” [Politico, 3/13/13]

DAINES OPPOSED EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE RETIREMENT AGE FROM INCREASING

Daines Voted Against Requiring 60 Votes For Legislation That Would Reduce Social Security Or Medicare Benefits, Increase The Social Security Retirement Age, Or Privatize Social Security. On December 1, 2017, Daines voted against “Sanders, I-Vt., motion to waive all applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to the Enzi, R-Wyo., point of order that the Sanders amendment no. 1720 to the McConnell, R-Ky., for Hatch, R-Utah, amendment no. 1618 violates section 313(b)(1)(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment would create a 60- vote point of order against any reconciliation legislation that would result in a reduction in guaranteed Social Security or Medicare benefits, would increase the early or full retirement age for Social Security benefits, would privatize Social Security, or would result in a reduction of Medicare benefits.” The motion was rejected by a vote of 46-54. [CQ, 12/1/17; Vote 294, S.Amdt. 1720 to S.Amdt. 1618 to H.R. 1, 12/1/17]

Daines Voted Against Banning Legislation That Would Privatize Medicare Or Raise The Program Eligibility Age, Or That Would Block Grant, Cap Per Capita Spending Of, Or Decrease Coverage Of Medicaid. On January 9, 2017, Daines voted against “Hirono, D-Hawaii, motion to waive section 305(b) of the Budget Act and applicable budget resolutions with respect to the Enzi, R-Wyo., point of order against the Sanders, I-Vt., for Hirono amendment no. 20 that would ban legislation from being considered in the Senate that would privatize or raise the eligibility age of Medicare, or that would block grant, impose per capita spending caps, or decrease coverage of Medicaid. The ban would be waived by a three-fifths vote of the Senate.” The motion was defeated by a vote of 49-47. [CQ, 1/9/17; S.Amdt. 20 to S.Con.Res. 3, Vote 4, 1/9/17]

DAINES SUPPORTED THE NOMINATION OF TOM PRICE WHO VOTED TO RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE

2017: Daines Voted To Confirm Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) To Be The Secretary Of Health And Human Services. In February 2017, Daines voted for confirming President Trump’s nomination of Rep. Price to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The vote was on the nomination. The Senate confirmed Price by a vote of 52 to 47. [Senate Vote 61, 2/10/17; Congressional Actions, P.N. 33]

• 2013: Price Voted To Raise The Retirement Age To 70. In March 2013, Price voted to support raising the Social Security eligibility age, as part of the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, “This budget would slowly phase in an increase in the Social Security full retirement age for individuals born in 1962 (currently 51) and after to an eventual full retirement age of 70.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC’s proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted “present” to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan.” [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]

DAINES, WHO HAS TAKEN OVER $2 MILLION FROM CORPORATE PACS, IS SUPPORTING A PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE PAYROLL TAX THAT FUNDS SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

DAINES ACCEPTED MORE THAN $2 MILLION IN CORPORATE PAC MONEY

July 26, 2020: Daines Had Taken $2,186,969 From Corporate PACs Over His Career. [MapLight, updated 9/7/20]

DAINES SUPPORTED A PLAN THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE PAYROLL TAX THAT FUNDS SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

DAINES PLANNED TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO CODIFY PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PAYROLL TAX CUT EXECUTIVE ORDER

HEADLINE: "Daines To Introduce Payroll Tax Cut Relief Bill Following President Trump’s Executive Order" [Fallon County Times, 8/14/20]

Daines Introduced Legislation To Support President Trump’s Executive Action On Payroll Taxes And Forgive Employee-Side Payroll Taxes For Workers Making Less Than $100,000 Through The End Of 2020. "U.S. Senator Steve Daines today announced he would be introducing a bill to forgive employee-side payroll taxes for workers making less than $100,000 through the end of the year following President Trump’s executive action. Daines’ bill supports the President’s executive action and ensures Montana workers will not have to pay back these taxes after the delay is lifted. ‘This payroll tax cut is about supporting Montana workers who are living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to make ends meet because of the impacts COVID-19 has had on this economy,’ Daines said. ‘As Montanans go back to work, allowing them to keep more of their hard earned money would make a big difference and provide immediate support for Montana families struggling to get by. I stand by the President as he works to help support our workers with this much needed boost during the pandemic.’" [Senator Steve Daines, Press Release, 8/8/20]

DAINES FULLY SUPPORTED PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PLAN TO CUT PAYROLL TAXES

Daines Said Trump Was Right to Call For Payroll Tax Relief And Claimed He’d Been Pushing For That Since The Beginning Of The Pandemic Because It Would Serve As A “Back to Work Bonus.” “.@realDonaldTrump is right to call for payroll tax relief. I’ve been pushing for this since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic bc it will help put money in the pockets of Montana families & serve as a back to work bonus.”

[Twitter, @SteveDaines, 7/20/20]

Daines Said The Payroll Tax Cut Was A “Back To Work Bonus We Should All Support” And He Applauded Trump For “Demanding It.” “President Trump’s months long insistence on a payroll-tax cut continues to shape discussions over the next round of economic relief despite a lukewarm reception from economists and lawmakers in both parties. […] ‘It is a back-to-work bonus we should all support, and I applaud President Trump for demanding it,’ said Sen. Steve Daines (R., Mont.).” [Wall Street Journal, 7/22/20]

ECONOMISTS SAY THAT DAINES PLAN WOULD BE A “WINDFALL” FOR BIG CORPORATIONS AND MILLIONAIRES LIKE HIMSELF…

TAX CUTS WOULD BENEFIT CORPORATIONS

ITEP: “Eliminating The Employer Side Of These Taxes Would Provide A Windfall To Corporations And Other Businesses.” “Half of these taxes are paid by employees and the other half by employers. The table below illustrates the different ways this proposal would affect revenue. Employees would benefit directly from elimination of the employee side of the Social Security tax and Medicare tax, although the benefits would not be well targeted to those who need help the most. Eliminating the employer side of these taxes would provide a windfall to corporations and other businesses. Because this proposal is a temporary (presumably one-year) measure, there is no reason to believe that employers would pass the benefits to workers. We, therefore, assume that the benefits of eliminating employer’s payroll taxes would be distributed the same as income from business assets (capital gains, dividends, business profits, etc.).” [Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, 5/13/20]

• ITEP: “Because This Proposal Is A Temporary (Presumably One-Year) Measure, There Is No Reason To Believe That Employers Would Pass The Benefits To Workers.” “Half of these taxes are paid by employees and the other half by employers. The table below illustrates the different ways this proposal would affect revenue. Employees would benefit directly from elimination of the employee side of the Social Security tax and Medicare tax, although the benefits would not be well targeted to those who need help the most. Eliminating the employer side of these taxes would provide a windfall to corporations and other businesses. Because this proposal is a temporary (presumably one-year) measure, there is no reason to believe that employers would pass the benefits to workers. We, therefore, assume that the benefits of eliminating employer’s payroll taxes would be distributed the same as income from business assets (capital gains, dividends, business profits, etc.).” [Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, 5/13/20]

Forbes Contributor: “A Payroll Tax Cut Would Result In Huge Savings For Employers Like Amazon.” “Businesses could also save money on payroll taxes whether they need the savings or not. And expanding a payroll tax cut for businesses across a company’s total workforce could lead to huge savings that stands to grow the bigger they are. For example, in a blog post earlier this year, Amazon AMZN +0.1% said they paid upwards of $2.4 billion in payroll taxes in 2019. A payroll tax cut would result in huge savings for employers like Amazon. It’s also likely that successful businesses would just pocket the savings and use the money to boost profits versus using the funds to hire more workers or grow their operations - especially if there is no demand for their products or they simply don’t need more workers.” [Forbes, Robert Farrington, 5/4/20]

TAX CUT WOULD BENEFIT THE WEALTHY

Institute On Taxation And Economic Policy: “He Wealthiest 20% Of Taxpayers Would Reap The Most From A Suspension Of This Levy.” “The people who would get the greatest benefit from a payroll tax holiday may be the ones who need it the least. […] “The wealthiest 20% of taxpayers would reap the most from a suspension of this levy, according to a recent analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.” [CNBC, 7/22/20]

[CNBC, 7/22/20]

… WHILE THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S CHIEF ACTUARY SAYS IT WOULD PERMANENTLY DEPLETE THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND AND END BENEFITS FOR SENIORS BY THE YEAR 2023

SSA: Trump’s Payroll Tax Cut Would Cause Social Security Benefits To Stop By 2023. “The federal government’s ability to pay Social Security benefits could stop by mid-2023 if President Donald Trump were to permanently terminate the payroll tax and not offer another revenue source, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration said Monday. The chief actuary, Stephen Goss, offered the prediction in a letter to a group of Senate Democrats who requested an analysis of what would happen if the payroll tax is eliminated with no other funding stream for Social Security benefits.” [NBC News, 8/25/20; Letter, 8/24/20]