Posted on 06/09/2007 5:40:59 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Family Education Freedom Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 1056 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1056
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 14, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. RUSH, and Mr. SENSENBRENNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Family Education Freedom Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TUITION AND RELATED EXPENSES FOR PUBLIC AND NONPUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.
(a) In General- Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after section 25D the following new section:
`SEC. 25E. TUITION AND RELATED EXPENSES FOR PUBLIC AND NONPUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.
`(a) Allowance of Credit- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified educational expenses paid during such taxable year for the elementary or secondary education of any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer at a qualified educational institution.
`(b) Limitation- The credit allowed by this section shall not exceed $5,000 per student for any taxable year.
`(c) Definitions- For purposes of this section--
`(1) QUALIFIED EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES- The term `qualified educational expenses' means cost of attendance in connection with the elementary or secondary education of the student at a qualified educational institution. Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the rules relating to cost of attendance (within the meaning of section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll) (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this paragraph) shall apply for purposes of the preceding sentence.
`(2) QUALIFIED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION- The term `qualified educational institution' means any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized for the purpose of providing elementary or secondary education, or both.
`(d) Cost-of-Living Adjustment-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2007, the $5,000 amount contained in subsection (b) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
`(A) $5,000, multiplied by
`(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins by substituting `calendar year 2006' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
`(2) ROUNDING- If any increase determined under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $10, such increase shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of $10. In the case of a married individual (as determined under section 7703) filing a separate return, the preceding sentence shall be applied by substituting `$5' for `$10' each place it appears.
`(e) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section, including regulations providing for claiming the credit under this section on Form 1040EZ.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25D the following new item:
`Sec. 25E. Tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.'.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
When it comes to domestic policy Ron Paul is a solid conservative. I think most FReepers would agree with that.
But, it’s his foreign policy that causes him to stay stagnant in the polls at 1 or 2%. An anti-war and anti-Israel candidate just isn’t going to win the Republican nomination, especially in a post-9/11 world.
“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” —
George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
After listening to this dimwit blame our country for 9/11 its hard to get excited about anything this man says.
Ron Paul would make a great President.
If it were 1901.
I guess I don’t understand the part about spreadin’ “demokracee” around the world for sh*ts and giggles.
IMHO, the absolute worst thing about this bill is that it let’s the camel’s (government’s) nose under the tent of all private schools and home schoolers. If this thing should pass, the government could soon be telling private schools what they can and cannot teach.
“Ron Paul believes that violations of the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government is wrong even when the causes under which it might do so are just. He is a strict Constitutional originalist.”
Originalist? Even the original authors of the consitution were not like this. If they were we would not have:
-Religious services being held in the capital building while Washington DC was being built.
-Congressional chaplains around since the beginning of the federation
-The Lousiana purchase
One can go on and on an on with examples. And as you point out: Ron Paul’s extremism does not lead to justice as his votes against children and civil rights prove.
Irony:
Running off Rudy supporters and getting a multitude of Ron Paul whack jobs.
If it were 1901....
My arguement is that he would not have made a good president even then. I don’t know any president in our history who is as much an extremist as Ron Paul is.
He’s anti-war all right, but not anti-Israel; he’s Israeli-neutral.
He condemned last summer’s attacks on Lebanon, primarily because the attacks on Lebanese infrastructure were pointless, unjust, and self-defeating (why the heck did they bomb infrastructure targets anyway?). The attacks also resulted in a lot of dead Lebanese Christians, which pro-Israel evangelicals also ignore. How can Christians support Israeli actions that hurt Palestinian and Lebanese Christians, which number 15% and 35% of their respective populations?
But Ron Paul has also said that Iran wouldn’t dare to attack Israel, as the Israelis have the ability to “mop the floor” with Iran.
Since when is Paul a military tactician anyway?
The Israeli Government has condemned its own actions in the war as pure buffoonery. Some say its because the Chief of staff was a “Blue Suiter” and thought Air Power could win.
I am thinking that Ron Paul is the only candidate that says what I am thinking. I am pretty much fed up with the rest of the candidates. I am thinking of getting VERY involved in his campaign work. He has an office here in town and he comes to my Christmas parties.
and he comes to my Christmas parties???
The only real way for the Israelis to stop the problem is to conduct counter-Hizbollah raids whenever rocket attacks start up.
Move in — Clear out — move back.
Occupation doesn’t work, and bombing only increases Hizbollah’s support.
Just one important message to everyone out there who is seriously supporting Dr. Paul for president. Don’t get distracted arguing with folks online. Take the fight out to the real world. Go grab a bumper sticker and put it on your car. Participate in the meet-up groups to get brochures and pass them out. I for one, am tired of hearing this “internet phenomenon” crap. Lets show the world there is real support for this man.
Ron Paul believes that that is not up to the federal government. It should be up to each individual state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.