Posted on 06/13/2002 11:54:22 AM PDT by kattracks
WASHINGTON, Jun 13, 2002 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- AP Special Correspondent
House Republicans pushed through legislation Thursday granting permanent tax relief to married couples, overriding Democratic complaints they were draining Social Security trust funds to gain election-year advantage.
The 271-142 vote sent the bill to the Senate, where Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., gave it a tepid reception.
"We don't want to have a $42 billion annual tax increase that goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011, because people are married," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said as Republicans advanced the latest in a string of bills designed to keep last year's tax cuts from expiring.
"The way to do that is to make the marriage penalty relief permanent."
But Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the bill was part of a "fiscal irresponsibility rampage" by Republicans, coming on the heels of last week's bill making estate tax repeal permanent.
"An election-year ploy," snapped Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.
Passage would send the bill to the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Tom Daschle showed scant enthusiasm for debate on the issue this year.
"With all the work we've got to do, I think it would be difficult to anticipate another tax debate. My sense is, we've been there and done that," said Daschle, D-S.D.
It was the second day in a row that congressional Republicans used debates in the Capitol to criticize Democrats on tax-cutting issues.
The Senate refused Wednesday to make the estate tax repeal permanent, bottling the bill up on a vote of 54-44, six short of the 60 needed for approval.
The measure on the House floor was part of a GOP plan to advance permanent tax relief on the installment plan in the weeks leading up to the fall campaign.
Because of Senate rules, the tax-cut legislation that President Bush pushed through Congress last year was drafted to expire on Dec. 31, 2010. Barring further action by Congress by 2011, some taxes would rise to their prior levels and some forms of relief would fade.
Bush asked Congress earlier this year to make all of last year's tax relief permanent, but Daschle has refused to schedule a vote on a House-passed bill to accomplish that.
In response, House Republicans have begun passing a series of bills to make portions of last year's measure permanent.
Thus far, bills have cleared the House making permanent the estate tax repeal, an adoption tax credit and tax-free treatment for Holocaust restitution. Debate is expected this summer on a measure to make permanent certain breaks for retirement accounts, and possibly other bills, as well.
Aware they are voting on politically appealing legislation, Democrats in the House and Senate have fashioned a series of alternatives designed to show they support tax relief at the same time they showcase support for Social Security and Medicare.
Under the legislation that House Republicans pushed, tax relief targeted to married couples beginning in 2005 would be extended permanently.
Couples who do not itemize their tax returns would receive the same deduction as two single people. Other changes in the tax brackets would benefit all married couples, and additionally, eligibility for a low-income tax credit would be liberalized.
In all, Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Ill., said 36 million couples would benefit if the so-called "marriage penalty" tax relief were made permanent, at a savings of $42 billion annually.
Without passage of the measure, added Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., "We will be in essence putting a tax back on the backs of" working couples in 2011, at an average of $1400 a year.
Democrats took turns lambasting Republicans.
Matsui said the bill would cost $460 billion for the first decade it was in effect. "We're going to break the bank for senior citizens when it comes to retirement benefits that they expect to get" he said.
"When are you going to be honest with people that you have to pay for stuff?" asked Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., looking across the House chamber to the Republican side of the aisle. "When are you going to be honest?
By DAVID ESPO
Copyright 2002 Associated Press, All rights reserved
I see it is fiscally irresponsible to allow married couples to keep their money.
Dash-hole is a frigging jerk. This man has got to GOOOO. PLEASE, Republicans, take back control of the Senate. Man, this really peeves me. Almost as bad as Hitlery compaining about utility smoke stacks polluting the poor people of New York. And the "greed" of people wanting to abolish the Death Tax and keep the money THEY EARNED in THEIR family, as opposed to lining the pockets of the ilk in Washington. Or Little Dick Gephardt complaining that HE has to help his mother pay for her perscription drugs when it should be EVERYONE'S responsibility to pay for her perscription drugs.
WE ARE SOOOOOOO DOOMED!!!
Apparently enough to give every green card holder a piece of the pie!
I saw a portion of the debate on C-SPAN where the Democrats had a substitute which made the marriage penalty permanent. One of the California congressmen. (I forget what his name is)Was given control of the opposition to this bill. He called it like it is. It was all baloney. Needeless to say the thin-skinned jerk who proposed this amendement took it personally and had those words taken down. The lead for the oppositioon wound up getting a repramand for those remarks.
It is really a sad state of affairs when a congressperson becomes more concerned with his sensibillties being offended over innocent little comments then with serving his constituents. It became obvious that the Demorats do not want to debate anything or have anyone speak in opposition to their enormously harmful agenda. It's a good thing I have J.C. Watts as my rep and not this skinned blockhead because I would be very embarrased not to mention having a great disservice done to me and all other people in the district.
If you can't show a willingness to be a good sport about people commenting on your ideas or beliefs then you shouldn't even be thinking about running for anything much lessa dog catcher. Thin skinned people like this are very counter-productive to their constituencies.
Regards.
Hmmm...well, if it is a winning strategy, why don't the Dems come on board. That way they don'y have to worry about being clubbed over the head about it in November (provided the GOP remembers to use it as a club those wishy-washy bastards)
Does anybody know when the rules were changed from a simple majority to 60 votes to pass a bill? Or is this just sloppy reporting?
"When are you going to be honest with people that you have to pay for stuff?" asked Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., looking across the House chamber to the Republican side of the aisle. "When are you going to be honest?
So put the SS in a "lock box" ala Al Bore and cut elsewhere. When are you going to be honest Mr. McDermott? BTW: still taping phone conversations?
Part of the Dems strategy = spend lots of time kicking sand in GW's face, with the "what did he know, etc.", and pointlessly reviewing hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports, then creating the fundraising picture flap, and arsenic in the water flap, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. Then claim they've got no time to debate tax relief.
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.