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.
Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:
“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Paul said this week. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.
He also wrote: “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.”
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.
He added, “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
Paul also asserted that “complex embezzling” is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” he wrote.
In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government’s U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.
Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.
Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation “would explain certain mysteries” about the president’s scratchy voice and insomnia.
“None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting,” he said.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
I don’t know if it is so much about (R) and (D) as the fact we have a 2 party system. Always have had one. Each party puts forward a candidate and you vote. More often than not, you vote for the least/worse candidate.
The comment I made to an Eagle Scout who is now a CAPT in the Army back in 2004 was that I thought the Republicans ran an extremely weak candidate in Bush and I was shocked that the Democrats were able to find an even weaker candidate in Kerry.
So if Dr. Paul is against Israel actually defending itself, but then says it would be able to mop the floor with Iran that makes him neutral?
Seems to me it makes him at best Israel-neutral in hypothetical situations but anti-Israel when the rubber hits the road.
Oh I agree pretty much. The Dems could walk away with it in ‘08 if they had a decent candidate. They don’t. (Thank God)
You cannot condemn a politician based on the views of his supporters. I imagine that neo-Nazis vote in America, but that does not make the person they support a Nazi, nor does it make a communist out of a democrat.
Ron Paul is not a “Truther”.
But John Gibson is an as*hole. Invite people on and scream at them — Great.
There is a tendency in America to distrust anything the Government says, and it’s not hard to figure out why.
If you won’t spill American blood for Israel, you MUST hate Jews. Nice argument.
Yes; now you’re a liberal moonbat if you’re against having a trillion-dollar foreign policy (defense + supplementals + intelligence + DOE + State Department + DHS, etc.).
90% of FReepers: “A strong executive is only a problem if there’s a Democrat in the White House.”
Ron Paul immediately fired the ghost writer who wrote those articles.
Somebody was writing his obscure newsletter for him in the early 1990s; when he saw what the guy wrote, he was fired.
Ron Paul has publicly acknowledged this and so have his opponents in Congressional Races.
Reference?
He just doesn’t want American Blood and treasure spilled for another nation’s foreign policy.
His statements are totally in-line with that view.
Did he immediately fire him in 1992 or did he immediately fire him in 1994?
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.
He added, “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
Paul also asserted that “complex embezzling” is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” he wrote.
In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government’s U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.
Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.
Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation “would explain certain mysteries” about the president’s scratchy voice and insomnia.
“None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting,” he said.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
Paul fired them sometime between ‘1992 and 1996; don’t know when. He slapped his name on some rag and didn’t even hear about it until it became public.
Protecting oil trade is now in our national interest.
He can sit back and bellicose all day about how wonderful it would be to sit at home and ignore the rest of the world, while there are thousands of military personnel in danger all over the world protecting his ability to turn on a light switch or start his car.
The fact of the matter is, we are dependent upon free global trade, and you know, we have been since the beginning of our nation. All you need to do is read the history of the Marine Corps to realize that.
IMHO: he doesn’t live in the real world.
But they’ll be the first to b!tch and moan when a (D) “abuses” the so-called Patriot Act.
Ron Paul had a newsletter with his name on it, and you are telling me he didn’t read it?
And this is the man you want us to vote for to be President of the United States?
Think man!
Exactly. I bet they’ll be a bit upset when Hillary starts classifying pro-life protesters as “terrorists”.
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.