Both houses of Congress approved a deal today to extend a payroll tax cut through the end of this year. It was only the second time I can remember that Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Steve King (IA-05) voted against a bill that the rest of Iowa’s Congressional delegation supported.

The U.S. House passed the conference committee’s payroll tax cut agreement by 293 to 132 (roll call) this morning. Both caucuses were divided: 146 Republicans and 147 Democrats voted yes, while 91 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted no. Supporters of the deal included Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). King opposed the deal.

I’ve enclosed statements from Loebsack and Boswell at the end of this post and will add others as they appear today. I wonder whether Latham will address or gloss over his previous insistence that any payroll tax cut be fully paid for.

In the Senate, Republicans took an approach that once would have seemed normal but now appears unusual. Alexander Bolton explains:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) agreed Friday morning to let the roughly $150 billion package come to a final vote by unanimous consent.

It’s a departure from recent Senate tradition. Nearly all controversial bills must first receive 60 votes to overcome a filibuster before receiving final consideration.

Republicans, however, decided not to filibuster the bill because that would have required more Republicans to vote yes on the bill to overcome the hurdle.

By setting a lower bar for passage, fewer of them will have to vote for it.

“We want it to pass, but we don’t want to vote for it,” a Republican senator, who requested anonymity, told The Hill Thursday.

The irony is that Tom Harkin, one of the leading Senate critics of the filibuster, considered filibustering this payroll tax cut deal.

Harkin said Friday morning that he considered blocking the legislation because it would undermine Social Security and cut $5 billion from a preventive healthcare fund he helped establish under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Harkin said he decided against a filibuster after Democratic leaders made concessions to him but declined to reveal details.

In the end, a filibuster wouldn’t have made any difference. The payroll tax cut deal passed by 60 votes to 36 (roll call) just before noon.

Chuck Grassley was one of 14 Senate Republicans to vote for the package. Six members of the Democratic caucus opposed the deal, including Harkin. Not only did Harkin vote no today, he “tore into President [Barack] Obama” yesterday for “unraveling Social Security.”

The liberal senator was unusually tough in criticizing Obama, who Harkin said would deprive the Social Security fund of roughly $100 billion by extending the two-percentage-point payroll tax cut through the end of 2012. That tax funds the Social Security trust fund.

“I never thought I would have to see the day when a Democratic president of the United States and a Democratic vice president would agree to put Social Security in this kind of jeopardy,” exclaimed a visibly agitated Harkin from the Senate floor. “Never did I ever imagine a Democratic president would be the beginning of the unraveling of Social Security.”

Harkin predicted that Americans would become addicted to the payroll tax cut, which has been in place since the begiining of last year.

At this writing, Harkin’s full floor statement from yesterday is not available on the senator’s website, but I will update this post if I can find the full text.

Statement from Loebsack on February 17:

Loebsack Statement on Passage of the Compromise to Extend Payroll Tax Cut

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement after the House passed legislation to extend the payroll tax cut for the rest of the year. This legislation extends the exact same benefit to Iowans as a bill Loebsack introduced in December, the Tax Cuts for the Middle Class Act (HR 3746). If action had not been taken, 160 million Americans would have seen their taxes increase.  The bill passed today also extended both Medicare reimbursements and unemployment insurance.  The Senate also passed this legislation today and the President has signaled he will sign it into law.

“Since November, I have been calling on Congress to take action and approve compromise legislation to extend the payroll tax cut.  While this compromise is not perfect, and there are things that I did not support, I am pleased it has finally passed so every hardworking Iowan did not see their taxes increase.

“At the same time, I continue to be disappointed with how much of a dirty word ‘compromise’ has become in Washington.  The legislation I introduced in December would have accomplished the same goal of extending the payroll tax cut for working Iowans without all of the brinksmanship.”

In December, the House and Senate leadership would not agree to a full year extension, and instead passed a two month patch.  In response, Loebsack introduced the Tax Cuts for the Middle Class Act (HR 3746), which would have extended the tax cut for the rest of the year in order to prevent 160 million Americans from getting a tax hike on March 1st.  In addition to introducing the Tax Cuts for the Middle Class Act, Loebsack took multiple actions to extend the payroll tax cut, including urging Speaker Boehner multiple times to swiftly pass compromise legislation. Before the patch was passed in December,   Loebsack was one of only six members in the House of Representatives who bucked both parties’ leadership and supported both his preferred plan and a second, compromise plan.

Statement from Boswell on February 17:

“I am pleased Republicans finally stopped playing games with the payroll tax and a compromise was reached. As a result, 160 million hardworking Americans will not see their taxes increase. This measure extends the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012 ensuring the average middle-class worker has an extra $1,000 in their pocket, which is critically important during our economic recovery. It also extends unemployment insurance programs and allows seniors to continue seeing the doctor of their choice through their Medicare program.

UPDATE: Bit of a role reversal going on in the IA-04 race, as Republican King highlights the need to protect Social Security, while Democratic challenger Christie Vilsack slams the incumbent’s vote for “higher taxes for working families.”

King: Payroll Tax Holiday Legislation Breaks Faith with America’s Seniors

Washington, DC – Congressman Steve King (R-IA) released the following statement after voting against the Conference Report for H.R. 3630, legislation extending the payroll tax holiday through the end of 2012.

“The Social Security program represents a sacred promise to America’s seniors. Given the already bleak financial outlook for the Social Security Trust Fund, it’s important that Congress avoid doing anything that would do further harm – but that’s exactly what the House voted to do today,” said King. “Today’s vote in the House digs the Social Security Trust Fund hole another $94 billion deeper, resulting in a total $206 billion deficit caused by the reductions in contributions to the fund. Today’s vote further imperils the security of a program that America’s seniors depend on.”

Vilsack: Steven King Voted to Support Higher Taxes for Working Families

Ames, IA – Christie Vilsack, candidate for Congress in Iowa’s new 4th District, released the following statement on Congressman Steve King’s vote to raise taxes on 1.7 million Iowans, while protecting tax cuts for billionaires:

“Congressman King’s vote against the payroll tax cut extension threatened to raise taxes by $1,000 per family on 1.7 million Iowans. This legislation was a rare compromise in Washington, and once again, Congressman King put rigid ideology over what is best for nearly 2 million Iowa families.

“There is perhaps no better example than today’s vote of how Congressman King and I view the job of representative differently. Time and again, King has put ideology over what is best for Iowans. Today’s vote is just another example including voting against funding for flood relief and renewable energy tax credits.

“I have traveled the 39 counties of the new 4th District talking to Iowans about bringing a new economic prosperity to our communities. I’ve heard firsthand from Iowans the financial hardships they have face. I know these families can’t afford a $1,000 tax increase or a Congressman who refuses to compromise on what is best for his constituents. ”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was also out with a press release slamming King. Naturally, they don’t mention that some good Democrats like Harkin voted against the same bill for the same reason as King.

After months of relentlessly protecting tax breaks for the ultra wealthy, Representative Steve King (IA-05) is willing to let taxes go up on 160 million middle income taxpayers. Again and again, House Republicans like King opposed extending the payroll tax cut by repealing tax breaks for the ultra wealthy and Big Oil. Today, King opposed a bipartisan proposal to again stop the $1,000 payroll tax hike.

“Every time House Republicans like Representative Steve King have had a chance, they have protected the ultra wealthy and proved that middle income Iowa families are officially his last priority,” said Jesse Ferguson of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It could not be more clear that Representative Steve King is doing everything he can to serve the ultra wealthy, not the 160 million middle income families who would have seen a $1,000 payroll tax hike. If Steve King got his way, Iowa middle income families struggling to pay for gas and groceries would face a $1,000 tax hike but the ultra wealthy wouldn’t have to spare a dime.”