5

The Bring Jobs Home Act (S. 2569 ) is a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to grant business taxpayers a tax credit for up to 20% of insourcing expenses incurred for eliminating a business located outside the United States and relocating it within the United States, and deny a tax deduction for outsourcing expenses incurred in relocating a U.S. business outside the United States.

Republicans seem to be against the bill, see here, and here.

Why are Republicans against the bill?

  • I'm as much a fan of bashing Republican policy as the next registered Democrat, but is there a real question here, or is this just a rant? – Avi Dec 20 '14 at 8:44
  • The best republicans support bringing jobs home. Some of them are fighting on the monetary front to curb Bullionism. – George Chen Dec 20 '14 at 12:31
  • 3
    @user1873 - Really good rewrite of this question. – Bobson Dec 22 '14 at 15:21
  • @Bobson - were the 3 upvotes pre- or post-rewrite? :) – user4012 Dec 23 '14 at 17:14
  • 4
    @OminousOwl - That's your prerogative, but the question as you originally asked it would have been downvoted, closed and likely deleted after a while. This form of it is still asking about the same thing, but in a way which actually fits the Stack Exchange format and will generate good answers. So consider whether you asked this question to get an actual answer (in which case you should leave it as is) or whether you asked it simply to rant about politicians (in which case it doesn't belong here). – Bobson Dec 24 '14 at 14:32
6

There are several reasons:

  • The Senate cannot initiate a tax bill
    The bill in question, S.2569 Bring Jobs Home Act, originated in the Senate, hence the 'S', and would not survive a constitutional challenge even if it did pass.

  • Democrats didn't want to allow any amendments to the bill
    Orrin Hatch offered several amendments to the bill, but no amendments were allowed to be voted on.

    Sadly, if the recent past is any indication, there won’t be any votes on amendments to this bill.

    The Bring Jobs Home Act is not designed to create jobs. It’s not even designed to pass the Senate.

    Once again, the entire purpose of this bill is give Democrats some political talking points as the August recess approaches. Having an open and fair debate on amendments would distract from this partisan goal.

    —Orrin Hatch in a speech in the Senate, July 24, 2014

  • 1
    The Origination Clause specifies that bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. It doesn't say anything about bills reducing taxes, though. – Bobson Dec 22 '14 at 15:20
  • 2
    Who are you quoting? – user1530 Dec 22 '14 at 16:17
  • Also, note that it didn't go to debate due to being blocked. Your quote implies that they didn't want it to go to debate. – user1530 Dec 22 '14 at 16:22
  • 1
    @DA., Orrin Hatch. – user1873 Dec 23 '14 at 1:45
  • 2
    Actually, yes. See this report from the Congressional Research Service: Tax bills are those where (1) raising money must be the primary purpose of the measure, rather than an incidental effect; and (2) the resulting funds must be for the expenses or obligations of the government generally, rather than a single, specific purpose. I'm not saying that it would survive a constitutional challenge (although it's much more likely to get a blue slip first), but it's by no means as clear-cut as you imply. – Bobson Dec 23 '14 at 13:38
5

Per your linked CNN article, some key points:

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, had warned Democrats before the vote that his party would want to amend the bill -- possibly with hot-button issues like repealing the health care reform law or extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded that those amendments were not germane to the bill and he would not allow votes on them.

  • Republican aides called attention to opposition by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, who generally support Republicans.

The Politicususa article is a bit more direct in their opinion:

  • Senate Republicans blocked the bill because they were angry that Harry Reid wouldn’t allow them to offer amendments. Senate Republicans blocked a bill that could have helped end the flow of jobs out of the country, because Mitch McConnell is still mad at Harry Reid.

So, on one level, it's due to just plain old politics. On a different level, it's petty personal bickering. Which, I guess, is plain old politics as well.

  • "Mitch McConnell opposes the bill more so than Republicans in general" - is there stats to support that assertion? Historically, McConnell seems a lot more open to compromise than post-2012 bulk of Rs – user4012 Dec 23 '14 at 17:21
  • 2
    @dvk that's a valid point. I'll remove that line as I have no way to validate that. It sounded like McConnell wanted to add the amendments but in hindsight, it very well could be read that he was simply the messenger. – user1530 Dec 23 '14 at 17:32
1

In a nutshell, there were amendments Republicans wanted to apply to the bill that Democrats rejected to vote on.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .