FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 06/12/2002 7:02:27 PM PDT by StopDemocratsDotCom
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats dealt defeat Wednesday to President Bush ( news - web sites)'s call for permanent repeal of the estate tax, and Republicans signaled plans to turn the vote to their advantage in the fall campaign for control of Congress.
The vote was 54-44, six short of the 60 required under Senate rules to approve the measure, which Republicans said represented simple fairness and Democrats derided as a giveaway for the superrich.
"Strip it all away, this is a tax relief for billionaires when we have a very big deficit and we have other priorities," such as health care, education, Social Security ( news - web sites) and Medicare, argued Sen. Byron Dorgan ( news, bio, voting record), D-N.D.
Sen. Phil Gramm ( news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, countered that opponents of the repeal measure "believe it is worth forcing people at the death of their parents to sell off their life's work to give half of it to the government."
The president expressed disappointment. "It is wrong that, as a result of a quirk in the law, millions of Americans will be subject to the death tax beginning at the end of the decade," Bush said in a written statement. "The Congress must fix this unfair tax and provide families with certainty so they can plan for the future."
Democrats advanced two alternatives in the run-up to the final vote, both of which fell short of the 60-vote threshold required by Senate rules.
One option, which got 38 votes, would have made the tax repeal permanent for all but the largest estates — those over $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples. The second, which gained 44 votes, would have added permanent relief for all family-owned farms and small businesses.
Gramm belittled the Democratic tactics, saying their proposals were not designed to help taxpayers, but were "about protecting 40 senators by giving them a fig leaf when they vote" against killing the tax.
The repeal measure was passed by the House last week on a vote of 256-171 and drew the support of 41 Democrats, an indication of the political potency of the issue in rural areas.
"It's very much an issue in the campaign for folks who vote against it," said Ginny Wolfe, spokeswoman for the GOP senatorial campaign committee. "Is this an issue which on its own will make or break a single election? Probably not. It's an additional burden on vulnerable Democrats who vote the wrong way."
"Republicans will try but they're going to have a hard time" making use of the issue, countered Tovah Ravitz-Meehan, spokeswoman at the Democratic campaign committee. "Being fiscally responsible" will be attractive to voters, she said.
The bill drew the support of 45 Republicans and nine Democrats, including three who are on the ballot this fall — Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Max Cleland of Georgia and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Three other Democrats facing tough challenges — Sens. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Jean Carnahan of Missouri and Tim Johnson of South Dakota — voted for at least one of the Democratic alternatives.
Voting in opposition were 41 Democrats, one independent and Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and John McCain of Arizona.
Congress approved a phase-out of the estate tax last year as part of the major tax reduction that Bush pushed to passage in his first few months in office. To conform with Senate rules, though, the legislation expires on Dec. 31, 2010, meaning that the levy would be resurrected in 2011.
As a second act, Bush has prodded Congress to pass new legislation making the cuts permanent. The GOP-controlled House hastened to comply, first passing an overall repeal measure, and then, when Senate Democrats refused to schedule a vote, breaking the bill into pieces.
Even then Democrats made no move to hold an estate tax debate willingly, but were maneuvered into it weeks ago by Gramm. For his part, Daschle picked the moment most likely to emphasize the Democratic contention that the bill would harm the economy.
He brought the issue to the floor on Tuesday, only a few hours after the Senate had pushed through legislation to increase the federal debt limit, a fact that Democrats pointed out over two days of debate.
Both sides used well-rehearsed arguments.
"Should death be a taxable event? I emphatically believe the answer should be no," said Sen. Wayne Allard ( news, bio, voting record), R-Colo. "If we want to help farmers and ranchers and if we want to help small business owners we need to kill the death tax," he added, using the term that Republicans employ to describe the estate tax.
But Dorgan said that unlike a year ago, when Bush's first tax cut measure was passed, "the country has an economy that's in some trouble and we now have deficits for years and years into the future."
Democrats produced figures showing the repeal would cost the government more than $750 billion in the decade that begins in 2011, and Sen. Jack Reed ( news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., said state treasuries would be affected, as well.
The House Wednesday, for the seventh straight year, rejected a proposed constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority by both houses of Congress to raise taxes. The vote on the GOP-backed measure was 227-178, well short of the two-thirds majority needed to approve a constitutional amendment.
Rep. Pete Sessions ( news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, sponsor of the measure, argued that a super-majority was appropriate because "raising taxes should be an absolute last resort, not an easy fix for excessive government spending." But Democrats said the amendment would undermine the democratic system of majority rule and make it more difficult to close loopholes used by tax dodgers.
Don't believe me? Go to www.senate.gov and check out today's votes. Captain McQueeg/McLame hung it out to dry...he wants your estate tax to go back UP in 9 years.
Being fiscally responsible using money that isn't yours, won't be.
So the Republicans will "compromise" and vote for that disgusting porkfest called the Farm bill, but they won't compromise and vote for this? They'll "compromise" and deliver teeny-tiny little marginal rate reductions, but they won't pass a repeal of the death tax unless it includes estates over 7 million for couples? Seems a bit extreme. I like Phil Gramm, but maybe the Democrats aren't the only ones looking for a fig leaf. Compromise on CFR, compromise on education, but for some reason, no compromise on this? What about all those small businessmen the GOP was saying they wanted to protect. My uncle's business ain't worth 7 mil.
If they can justify taking half of a dead man's wealth, they could justify taking it all.
In a very bizarre way, I almost have more respect for democrats (well not really)......at least dems don't try to hide what they are, they love taking away your money and your constitutional freedoms and don't give a rats ass if you like it or not. Republicans on the other hand drape themselves with the banner of "conservative" and pretty much do the same thing as the dems, they just use more of a backdoor approach. You know, like farm subsidies, corporate welfare/tax cuts?
It's like being on Mr. Toad's wild ride from Alice in Wonderland......hold on for dear life. The Republican party could care less about the average citizen; that pretty much makes them blood kin with their Democrat brethren.
We'll hear about this again.
From today's Washington Times:
"The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has released an analysis of 690 House and 404 Senate bills introduced during 2001, revealing an "urge to splurge" among lawmakers.
"Among the findings:
"The average House Democrat had a net agenda that would, on average, raise federal spending by $262.4 billion per year (an increase of more than 13 percent over current outlays, and an 800 percent jump from the worth of the average House Democrat's agenda in the last Congress). House Republicans posted a net overall agenda of $19.8 billion — a switch from last year's average that proposed to cut spending by $4.6 billion.
"In the upper chamber, Democrats boosted their agendas six-fold, to $88.2 billion; Republicans shifted from a $0.3 billion average-cut agenda in the last Congress to an $18.7 billion increase in 2001."
Are the Republicans perfect? Far from it. Is there a difference between them and the Democrats. You bet.
Maybe not. But $7M isn't a lot now (esp. for businesses that include property) and will be even less a few years from now. And that number includes the family investments and homes as well.
The *really* rich already live off foundations established years ago (like the Kennedys and Gates). This tax hurts the families who are just starting to become wealthy. And the interesting thing is that it hurts minorities most - they are most likely to be 1st generation wealthy.
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.