Senate Votes To Repeal 1099 Reporting Rules

Yesterday, the Senate voted to repeal one of the least popular parts of the Affordable Care Act:

After months of failing to agree on how to repeal an unpopular IRS reporting provision included in the healthcare reform law, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to strike it down Wednesday night.

The Senate voted 81-17 on the 1099 reporting requirement, with 17 Democrats voting against the measure.

The healthcare reform provision requires businesses to report annual purchases of goods or services of more than $600 to each vendor. The House, which must still approve its own version of the legislation, has signaled it would move quickly to repeal the 1099 requirement.

President Obama has already signaled that he supports repealing this part of the law, so it would appear that something that had the potential to bury millions of small businesses in paperwork and administrative overhead will be gone very soon.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Health Care, Quick Takes, Taxes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. c.red says:

    Good… does anyone know if this will be applied retroactively for the last month or will the charges need to be reported?

  2. Alex Knapp says:

    Good.

  3. Herb says:

    One wonders if the GOP hadn’t been so obstinate during the debating of the bill, if this measure couldn’t have been removed then.

    I guess we’ll never know…

  4. tom p says:

    I am shocked, SHOCKED…. that the Republicans allowed this bill to pass now after they blocked it in the previous session.

  5. mantis says:

    Good point, tom. Let’s not forget the Democrats tried to remove this last session, but were thwarted by Republicans. I guess they were against it before they were for it.

  6. EJ says:

    wasnt the dispute on this last session over how and if the scored revenue would be replaced? How did this deal with it? Was there a tax increase or a spenidng cut elsewhere to make up for it?

  7. Jay Tea says:

    Anyone want to explain who put it in the bill in the first place? What the reasoning was? A law as important as this one surely must have been crafted with exceptional care and caution and forethought. There must be some Democrat who has the pride in their work who will step forward and say “yes, I put that in there, and this is why.”

    J.

  8. anjin-san says:

    > yes, I put that in there, and this is why.”

    Don’t you know? It was meant as a slight to Sarah Palin by people who are jealous of her wonderful awesomeness. Guess you did not get the memo.

  9. Jay Tea says:

    Gee, anjin pleads ignorance. Talk about things that can go without saying…

    J.

  10. mantis says:

    Anyone want to explain who put it in the bill in the first place?

    The people who wrote the bill, dumbass.

    What the reasoning was?

    It would increase revenue by preventing more tax fraud, dumbass.

    There must be some Democrat who has the pride in their work who will step forward and say “yes, I put that in there, and this is why.”

    Learn something about how legislation is crafted, dumbass.

    By the way, who prevented the Democrats from getting rid of these requirements, several times, when it became clear they would be a bit too onerous for small businesses? That’s right, the Republicans. Seems they were quite fine with keeping these requirements. Why don’t you ask them why they think they’re so great?

    Dumbass.

  11. Jay Tea says:

    Good lord, mantis has revealed his real identity. He’s Red Foreman. Loved you in Robocop!

    And I can give a damned good reason to fight removing it. Several, in fact.

    First up, the principle of severability. Yes, I know that’s a legalistic term, but the underlying philosophy is consistent — the law was passed saying that the courts can’t strike it down piecemeal, so the Congress should at least try it that way at first.

    Second, the whole thing is an abomination. Peeling away some of the more idiotic measures only makes the whole package slightly less obnoxious, but still as toxic.

    But you’ve intrigued me somewhat, mantis. Just what sort of revenues would have been gained by it? And would they have been less than the crippling financial burden it put on everyone, including a lot of honest small businesses? Nothing says “fairness” like imposing a huge burden on everyone, including those already struggling, to maybe catch a few cheats.

    I don’t understand why the Republicans in the House didn’t fight that when they had the chance. Oh, that’s right, Pelosi and her lickspittles wrote the whole bill without ever giving any Republicans a chance to have any input, then rammed it through with virtually no debate.

    Which means that the Democrats own it, lock, stock, barrel, and sheer idiocies like this, the Medical Savings Accounts rape, and the provisions that pretty much guaranteed that a lot of insurance companies have decided to just get out of the “insurance policies for children” business.

    mantis, your folks own it. Take some pride in it. Love it and embrace it, warts and all.

    Personally, I oppose paring off any part of it. I want that bill as big, as bloated, and as warty and thorny as possible to inflict maximum discomfort when we ram it right up the Left’s nether orifices.

    J.

  12. Jay Tea says:

    Oh, and Red/mantis? The SEIU fought against the repeal of the 1099 requirement. That’s the same SEIU that fought like hell for the whole ObamaCare measure, and is pre-eminent among those who have been granted the most-of-a-thousand waivers the Obama administration has granted from ObamaCare — along with a LOT of other unions.

    Good enough for us, but lousy for them? Or, since they were so involved in its passage, maybe they just happen to know a hell of a lot more just how bad it is than the rest of us.

    J.

  13. mantis says:

    I don’t understand why the Republicans in the House didn’t fight that when they had the chance.

    Because they’re children?

    Oh, that’s right, Pelosi and her lickspittles wrote the whole bill without ever giving any Republicans a chance to have any input, then rammed it through with virtually no debate.

    Aww, aren’t you cute when you just make shit up.

    mantis, your folks own it. Take some pride in it. Love it and embrace it, warts and all.

    I love the fact that millions of Americans won’t go without health care insurance. You’re obviously a misanthrope who enjoys the suffering of others.

    I want that bill as big, as bloated, and as warty and thorny as possible to inflict maximum discomfort when we ram it right up the Left’s nether orifices.

    You really have a lot of fantasies about shoving things into other people, don’t you?

    The SEIU fought against the repeal of the 1099 requirement.

    So did Republicans.

    those who have been granted the most-of-a-thousand waivers the Obama administration has granted from ObamaCare — along with a LOT of other unions.

    Those are temporary waivers of one component of the reform law, the elimination of low caps on annual benefits. Some unions, businesses, and other employers have sought them so that they can phase in the cap elimination more slowly. There are various reasons for such a request. In the SEIU’s case, it is because the unions have many initiatives which make health care available to very low wage workers who weren’t getting it previously (especially in places like Texas where they hate the working poor and like to see them die). These waivers allow those programs to consider while the rest of the health care reforms are phased in over time, and the waivers will be gone once that’s complete and the various exchanges and such are set up.

    Good enough for us, but lousy for them?

    Actually, the unions have been granted the waivers because they’ve already been doing the hard work of securing health care for people who desperately need it, and due to the way the reforms will be implemented over time, those people’s care will be at risk temporarily over the next couple of years.

    Or, since they were so involved in its passage, maybe they just happen to know a hell of a lot more just how bad it is than the rest of us.

    Don’t worry about it. I highly doubt that a) you’re an employer or union, and b) you’ve ever given a shit about people without healthcare, so these waivers don’t apply to you in the least.

    But thanks for coming back to spread some more of your dumbassery.

  14. mantis says:

    Also, Jay, I hope you lose your insurance soon, get a horrible illness, and die broke and suffering.

    For the rest of Americans, I hope for the opposite. But you? You deserve it.

  15. Jay Tea says:

    Also, Jay, I hope you lose your insurance soon, get a horrible illness, and die broke and suffering.

    For the rest of Americans, I hope for the opposite. But you? You deserve it.

    Allready got the horrible illness, mantis, that will most likely kill me — but not before it turns my life into a living hell. So I got that covered.

    As for the rest… won’t happen. Already made plans. Sorry.

    But back to the topic at hand, and away from your exceptionally venomous hatred of me, about those waivers: sorry, I don’t give a rat’s ass how “temporary” they are. No exception, no exclusions, no special treatment, no second-class or third-class citizenry, no enshrined soi-disant elites who don’t have to live by the same rules as the rest of us. Otherwise, it ain’t universal, and that was the whole frigging point of the thing, as we were told over and over and over again.

    One last thing about your hatred of me: I don’t quite understand it, and I’m glad. I reserve my hatred for a very select few, and damned few of those are my fellow Americans. For them, I settle for pity and disdain. Please don’t explain your hatred of me, but feel free to wallow in it all you like. It’s far more corrosive on your own soul than any harm it might do me, and I even find it a smidgen entertaining.

    Live long and prosper, mantis.

    J.

  16. mantis says:

    But back to the topic at hand, and away from your exceptionally venomous hatred of me, about those waivers: sorry, I don’t give a rat’s ass how “temporary” they are

    Of course not! Why let facts or people’s lives get in the way of your lying demagogy? After all, there might be some poor people out there with access to health care. Can’t have that!

    Otherwise, it ain’t universal, and that was the whole frigging point of the thing, as we were told over and over and over again.

    The waivers are designed to make sure people keep their health care coverage during the interim while all the components of reform are instituted. If you had your way (no waivers), less people would be covered. You’re the one against everyone having coverage, not me or this law. The fact that you ignore that can only lead one to the conclusion that you quite enjoy the idea of people suffering, going broke, and dying needlessly. You are a sick f*ck, and I don’t mean medically.

    It’s far more corrosive on your own soul than any harm it might do me

    My dislike of people who do all they can to increase the suffering of others is in no way corrosive to me. The fact that you revel in the suffering of others, however will surely eat away at you from the inside.

  17. Jay Tea says:

    Keep telling yourself your little fantasies about getting inside my head, mantis. Some day, you might actually get someone else to believe them.

    Don’t bet the rent on it, though.

    Your delusions about ObamaCare being the wonderful cure-all reminds me a bit of people talking about how great it is that Mubarak is likely to get overthrown. Yeah, the status quo is bad — but it’s hardly the worst possible thing ever. From everything I’ve read about and in ObamaCare, it’s a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It will not only make things better for everyone, it’ll only make things better for a very few — and worse for a whole lot more.

    Likewise in Egypt — there’s a hell of a good chance that whatever takes over after Mubarak will be far worse than he ever was.

    And I have no idea what sent you off into Charles Johnson cuckoo-land, but I wish I did — so I could avoid it. You denounce me as some evil, hateful, malicious, malignant creature, in harsher terms than I’ve ever seen you use on, say, Al Qaeda, wishing death on me, and then claim that I’m the hateful one. You’re such a great projectionist, you ought to work in a cinema.

    Take a chill pill or a dozen, dude. You really need them.

    J.

  18. mantis says:

    Your delusions about ObamaCare being the wonderful cure-all

    Talk about “fantasies about getting inside my head.”

    From everything I’ve read about and in ObamaCare, it’s a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

    Consider your sources. They’re feeding you bullshit, but you probably know it’s bullshit and repeat it anyway. The alternative being you’re stupid and gullible. I used to think you were just a liar, but now I’m not so sure (and I don’t know which is the bigger insult).

    And I have no idea what sent you off into Charles Johnson cuckoo-land

    Again with Charles Johnson. I know you have a serious bug up your ass about the guy, but I’m not Charles Johnson, Jay. And nothing sent me off anywhere, and I’ve explained my problems with you ad infinitum (your typical response is to run away and not reply anymore).

    You denounce me as some evil, hateful, malicious, malignant creature, in harsher terms than I’ve ever seen you use on, say, Al Qaeda,

    But not as harsh as those you reserve for your fellow Americans.

    wishing death on me, and then claim that I’m the hateful one.

    You wish death on others, and gleefully support the violent revolutionary fantasies of your fellow travelers. You all are very dangerous people. In this case, you quite clearly think this country would be better if more people suffer, go broke, and die. It’s soulless, evil shit you peddle. Sorry if you don’t like it turned back around on you.

    By the way, don’t think I haven’t noticed your response lacks anything in the way of a rebuttal to my points about health care reform and the waivers. Rather than respond to that, you basically just say “It’s bad because I said so,” and leave it at that. That’s an argument from a man who has no argument.

    Take a chill pill or a dozen, dude. You really need them.

    I’m quite chilled, thank you. I just don’t hold back anymore on people whose main motivation in life is to increase the suffering of others. They’re just words though. What I don’t do is threaten to start shooting my political opponents or stage an armed revolution, or write in justification of those who do. I anxiously await your next piece on how the right has all the guns and they are totally justified in wanting to use them against their fellow citizens because someone, somewhere might be getting health care when they should really just shut up and die.

  19. Jay Tea says:

    I anxiously await your next piece on how the right has all the guns and they are totally justified in wanting to use them against their fellow citizens because someone, somewhere might be getting health care when they should really just shut up and die.

    Actually, the point I was making — and still stand by — is that the ones who do the most talking about killing are the ones who tend to NOT own guns, and they re threatening the ones who DO. Which I still think is an exceptionally lemming-like move.

    ObamaCare is NOT about providing health care to all who need it. We have that, have had that for years. (For very limited meanings of “need.”) It’s about providing health care COVERAGE. It’s about creating a new right for people — the right to demand goods and services from others without worrying about the costs of said goods and services.

    “Wish death on others?” Like you’re wishing death on me? I take that very seriously — more seriously than you obviously do. Or the fine folks from that Common Cause rally, who gleefully talked about torturing, maiming, and lynching Clarence Thomas. That’s why I don’t do it.

    Not even of you, who just can’t wait for me to die. And not just die, but die in a horrific fashion.

    As I said, I resigned myself to that well over a decade ago. So patience, you’ll get your wish.

    But back to the topic at hand. I know you have a fixation on me that borders on the erotic (in a rather twisted version of that), but I really don’t like talking about myself that much. I, personally, find it grossly offensive that so many of Obama’s allies who pushed so hard for this bill are now the first to get waivers from it — no matter how short-lived. A bill pushed so hard as the miracle cure-all shouldn’t NEED exceptions, especially those who spent millions telling us how wonderful it is.

    J.

  20. mantis says:

    Not even of you, who just can’t wait for me to die. And not just die, but die in a horrific fashion.

    This is exactly what you want for your fellow Americans. You know very well that was my point.

    A bill pushed so hard as the miracle cure-all

    It wasn’t. It was pushed knowing full well it would not provide universal coverage, but would get us a whole lot closer to that goal.

    Actually, the point I was making — and still stand by — is that the ones who do the most talking about killing are the ones who tend to NOT own guns, and they re threatening the ones who DO.

    Actually, you were just making threats on behalf of the gun-fetishists whom you fellate so they’ll
    protect your spineless ass. And if that “protection” means shooting liberals just for disagreeing with you, well hey, they deserve it anyway.

    shouldn’t NEED exceptions, especially those who spent millions telling us how wonderful it is.

    You don’t care about the context of those exceptions, or why they exist. You know that large initiatives like this take time, and certain components need to be phased in incrementally, so as to not be too disruptive to the existing system, among other reasons. You know that the exceptions are allowed to keep people from losing what coverage they do have in the interim. None of that matters, because you need to push a conspiracy theory to justify your desire to see more Americans suffer, go broke, and die early. That’s the only conclusion one can logically draw from your steadfast refusal to accept the facts in favor of your conspiracy fantasies and bullshit about this being sold as a panacea, which it wasn’t. If you don’t like that conclusion, maybe you should rethink the bullshit your peddling.

    Plus, you sound like a spoiled little child with your “No, this must be perfect, immediately, no exceptions, because I said so” attitude. This is a world for adults, Jay. You don’t qualify.

  21. Jay Tea says:

    Quite the little technique you got there, mantis. You argue your side, then completely and totally make up “my” side of the argument and then denounce it. I hardly need to even show up. I especially enjoy how you alternate between telling me I wish for people to die and wishing for me to die.

    The former is a crock, an utterly unmitigated lie that deserves no more acknowledgement than a blanket denial. The latter, however, you have repeatedly affirmed.

    Shrug.

    And yeah, I don’t care about exemptions. Unless I can get one, of course. And anyone else who wants one, for the asking — not just those who gave Obama tons of money, and spent tons of money lobbying for it, and supplied Obama with his purple-shirted Brute Squad whenever he needed some freelance thuggery.

    (god help me, going to actually take you seriously here for a second.) What you describe as an innate feature of a program of this magnitude I see as a reason to avoid such things in the first place. I don’t believe in a “one size fits all” solution for this — and exhibit one in my case is the fact that the bill as passed was over 2700 pages, no one actually read the whole thing (Nancy Pelosi saying “you’ll just have to wait until we pass it before you see what’s in it”) and the first thing you have to do is start giving out exceptions (mainly to those politically connected) and the second thing you have to do is go back and start fixing things that have already been shown to be totally screwed up (the Medical Savings Accounts requiring prescriptions, the 1099 requirements, and a host of others).

    To me, that just affirms that it was insane to push this through in the first place. I advocated giving grants to each state to set up its own program — if it wished to — and see what worked, and what didn’t, before pushing something like this through at the national level. (If it all — which I hoped wouldn’t come to pass.)

    So go back to your little fantasy version of me, mantis. That horrific inhuman monster you’ve so carefully constructed. And I hope and pray that should I even get a fraction of being what you seem convinced I am (or, at least, want to convince others that I am), that they will call me on it.

    Which ain’t happened yet. And ain’t about to.

    J.

  22. Jay Tea says:

    With that, I’m calling this discussion quits, mantis. There’s no reason to carry on our feud (well, your feud with me — I know you’ll furiously disagree, but I bear you no ill will) here on someone else’s site. It’s just plain rude.

    J.