November 11, 2006

Dems to Fix AMT

Even though I don't come anywhere near where it would kick in, I'm pleased to see this development -- but have some questions.

Democratic leaders this week vowed to make the alternative minimum tax a centerpiece of next year's budget debate, saying the levy threatens to unfairly increase tax bills for millions of middle-class families by the end of the decade.

The complex and expensive tax was designed to prevent the super-rich from using deductions, credits and other shelters to avoid paying the Internal Revenue Service. But because of rising incomes, the tax is expected to expand to more than 30 million taxpayers in 2010 from 3.8 million mostly well-off households in 2006.

Fixing the AMT has long been a top priority for Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is in line to head the Senate Finance Committee. Last year, Baucus co-authored a bill to repeal the tax with Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), the presumptive chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, this week put fixing the AMT at the top of his agenda, calling it far more urgent than dealing with President Bush's request to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire in 2010.

And yesterday, House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who is campaigning to keep his leadership post, said Democrats will make "fixing the AMT . . . a priority of tax policy next year."

But hold it -- doesn't this mean you are giving tax cut to "wealthy" Americans? Isn't cutting taxes for such folks a blow to the poor? And aren't such cuts irresponsible in a time of war and "skyrocketing" budget deficits? And didn't you folks just campaign against tax cuts, and for repealing (or allowing to expire) the ones implemented by the Bush administration? Why would you do this?

The focus on the AMT is hardly surprising, given that victims of the tax have been concentrated in high-cost urban areas such as Washington, New York and San Francisco -- places that tend to vote Democratic. Rangel, Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the presumptive House speaker, all represent states hit hard by the AMT, which is sometimes called the "blue-state tax." To map states with the highest concentrations of AMT taxpayers is to draw bull's-eyes over California and the Northeastern seaboard.

Oh, I see -- you want to fix a tax that hits the Democrat base. This isn't good tax policy, fairness, or anything else -- it is tinkering with the tax structure to reward your political base, rather than cutting taxes for all Americans like the Bush plan did. And your decision to forgo over $1 trillion over the next decade seems fiscally irresponsible for a party that ran on a platform of reducing budget deficits or getting GOP agreement or other tax increases.

And the utter hypocrisy of this complaint from the top Democrat staffer for the House Ways & Means Committee is so brazen as to almost be beyond belief.

"The real story on the AMT is how it takes back the Bush tax cuts," Buckley said. "For people who are married with children or live in states with income taxes, the tax cuts are temporary unless you fix the AMT."

But wait -- I thought you were the folks who complained that the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible and that people were wrongly being permitted to keep their own the government's money. Why on earth would you object to some Americans not getting them when you have committed yourself to taking those cuts away from all Americans?

Oh, by the way -- who originally supported the Alternative Minimum Tax and insisted that most tax breaks and deductions be taken from those who pay it? I believe it was the Democrats, who insisted that too many folks were not "paying their fair share" when they followed the rules that Congress applied to everyone. It was originally passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 1969, and restructured to its current form by a Democrat Congress in 1978, when it was signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. And efforts at repeal or reform have been blocked by Democrats, who object to wider tax cuts and changes sought by Republicans -- including the Bush tax cut mentioned above.

If this is going to be the sort of stuff tried by the Democrats for the next two years, i expect that we Republicans will have a lot of fun during that time -- and big celebrations in November 2008.

MORE AT Blog From on High, Moderate Voice, Sandwich Repair Kit, Blue Jersey, Massachusetts Liberal, Althouse, Eschaton, Holy Coast, Public Sphere, Hillbilly White Trash


OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, third world county, Pirates Cove, Uncooperative Blogger, Wake Up America, Clash of Civilizations, Is It Just Me?, Adam's Blog, Random Yak, Right Nation, Pursuing Holiness, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Sister Toldjah, Stop The ACLU, Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Church & State, Bullwinkle Blog, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 846 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Brilliant commentary. You're a credit to the internet.

Posted by: none at Sat Nov 11 04:35:41 2006 (ZSbe+)

2 By the way, the article makes the point that Bush is similarly interested in fixing the AMT. And the article makes the point that it's not realistic that the nation can foregot the $1 trillion. Most of your points (not worth engaging you on all) are not based upon a close reading of the article, or reflect a feigned shock that the dems would engage in playing to their constituency, instead of governing like some platonic poet-king, when that's all the republicans have been doing for years. In fact, it's all any party does most of the time in democratic politics.

Posted by: none at Sat Nov 11 04:40:03 2006 (ZSbe+)

3 Oh, and I agree that the AMT needs fixing -- or, more to the point, elimination. Bush and the GOP have been saying that for years -- only to be blocked by Democrats.

However, it seems a wee-bit hypocritical to run on the need to roll-back tax cuts which you claim were given by Republicans to their base, while walking through the door calling for tax cuts for your own base because a tax policy your party implemented and supported denied those same Bush tax cuts to that base.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Nov 11 05:07:55 2006 (Jq0Yu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
13kb generated in CPU 0.0039, elapsed 0.011 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0082 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]