Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:26 PM ET, 03/ 8/2011

Reid supports using 1099 repeal to undermine health-care reform

By Ezra Klein

Harry Reid says he “prefers” the House’s approach of paying for 1099 repeal through higher IRS penalties on working- and middle-class Americans to the Senate’s earlier effort to pay for it by rescinding unobligated funds. That’s bad news, for reasons I explained here.

It is, however, worth noting the irony -- or perhaps the hypocrisy -- of Republicans who are simultaneously planning to cut the IRS’s budget to keep it from enforcing the Affordable Care Act and pay for their preferred policies by asking the IRS to enforce increased penalties in the Affordable Care Act. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds and all that.

By Ezra Klein  | March 8, 2011; 4:26 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What do values have to do with rural subsidies?
Next: Have we already survived the rise of the robots?


where was the outrage during the SGR debate over the summer when they already tweeked the subsidies to hurt middle class families? The Senate doesn't understand why this is bad because they already chipped away at the subsidies in the same way.

Posted by: emmas | March 8, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Who advocates for the poor, again?

Posted by: will12 | March 8, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

pardon, I meant in December not the summer.

Posted by: emmas | March 8, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

If the Dems are going to start sabotaging ACA, and in the meantime start exempting multitudes of companies from it's provisions, then add me to the list of those who want it repealed.

I am a former republican and soon to be former democrat if democrats don't stop being republicans.

Posted by: lauren2010 | March 8, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse


i'd like to think Reid would but he's too busy advocating for the "cowboy poets".

Posted by: visionbrkr | March 8, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

It seems odd that so many people think that the bureaucracy is going to "advocate" for them. It's like a gigantic ponzi scheme where people become convinced that there is some other group, some well off race of obscenely wealthy who can be easily shaken down to fund the desires of "us" you know, the "in" group, the "we" who are smarter, more victimized, more important, more deserving, more whatever....
Your politician is like a father or mom, or an understanding patriarch who's going to fix everything and get "you" what you "deserve".
There's a little problem though our "patriarch" has needs, expensive desires and hordes of "helpers" each of whom has needs and caffeinated latte desires and each one of those folks is just a tad more "special" than you are.....
On the other side of the ledger there is a dire shortage of obscenely rich folks so when ever the "patriarch" and his bureaucratic "helpers" come looking for loot they end up shaking down the only tried and true cash box.... Our children's futures.
Now that they have nearly depleted the sale of the future efforts of the next two or three generations, they are starting to worry about where the next case of bureaucratic Bonbons will be coming from.
They have been whispering about free healthcare while promising the MD class ever greater wealth and power and cursing those nasty insurers who mutter things like "this looks like it's going to be expensive" as they are required to ignore preconditions like "house actually presently on fire" when selling insurance policies.
I guess that at some level you have to doff your hat to the bureaucracy, they are bringing fantasy to life and not letting reality get between themselves and our money... Besides it is a good idea to hold your hat in your hand as they are ripping the shirt off your back..
Fight for us brave bureaucrats! fight for the poor! Is that a $5 skinny mocha latte your sipping! You're yanking down $10k a month plus bennies?
Well, no matter.... fight on brave little bureaucrat!

Posted by: Cheesy1959 | March 8, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Uh, just to be clear: the IRS long ago determined that the 1099 requirement cost more than it generated in revenue. This means that "paying for 1099 repeal" involves a cost savings, not a payout of any sort -- despite the fact that everyone is discussing methods of replacing the revenue generated by that which, in fact, generated no revenue.

Overlooking facts -- in particular, the fact that the 1099 requirement of the now-struck-down Obama/Pelosi PPACA was a non-revenue-producing expense -- enables the foolish argument. And, of course, we shouldn't overlook the fact that the Courts have nullified the Obama/Pelosi PPACA in its entirety.

Posted by: rmgregory | March 8, 2011 5:56 PM | Report abuse

rmgregory continues to pedal the false "fact" that the Courts have "nullified" the health care reform law. rmgregory might consider going to law school to learn what actually happens when a U.S. District Court finds a law unconsitutional and about the whole appeal process and then rmgregory might want to pull a copy of the THREE U.S. District Court opinions UPHOLDING the constitutionality of the health care reform law. Neither the Vinson or Hudson rulings ordered an immediate stop to implementation of the PPACA. Your "facts" don't become "facts" just because you repeat them over ... and over ... and over again.

Cheesey, who thinks "the bureaucracy is going to 'advocate' for them"? Advocacy is not a bureaucrat's job though it's nice when a bureaucrat remembers s/he is a "public" servant.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | March 8, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

And, rmgregory, when did the IRS "long ago determined that the 1099 requirement cost more than it generated in revenue." If you have a source for that I'd gladly take a look.

Posted by: pbasso_khan | March 8, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

In this instance, hypocrisy is the better word than consistency, unless, of course, you meant that Republicans have been consistent hypocrites.

As for Senator Reid, words fail me.

Posted by: tomcammarata | March 8, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Reid decided that the 1099 filing requirement, attempting to wring money out of small business owners to pay for grandiose schemes, would likely not win the future. This part of the "affordable care act" will have to go, if we are to win the future. But can the "patient protection" part of the act win the future without this extra tax burden?

Posted by: truck1 | March 8, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company