Stealth Tax Relief Act of 2005
STEALTH TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - December 07, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I agree with my friend and the gentleman from New York that the alternative minimum tax was not created to put this undue burden on middle class income people. But I would like to suggest to him as a member of the awesome and powerful Committee on Ways and Means, and former member of the Committee on Rules, that suspension of the rules were not meant for bills like this.
I think it takes a little bit of arrogance to put hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts on the suspension calendar, which does not give us an opportunity to see whether we can bring the relief that these taxpayers deserve in a more equitable way. It just seems to me that we had an opportunity to take care of this tax that for many, many years has been threatening the full fiscal load on taxpayers that it was not intended for, but somehow the leadership did not put this in the tax reconciliation bill. It did not include it with their bill to reduce corporate gains tax or the capital gains tax or the corporate dividends tax.
Why would Republicans do something like this? Well, maybe it is because they do not really think the Senate is going to take it up. Maybe this is just a fig leaf for not having the courage to say that this thing is going to cost a trillion dollars if it is going to be permanently removed, and as of now, it is going to cost $33 billion.
I think the American people ought to know that this is either going to cut deeper into the social programs that the very poor have had taken away from them, or it is going to increase the deficit by an additional $33 billion. In any event, I am more than confident that my able colleague from the State of New York and a part of the leadership of the majority party will make it abundantly clear to us that when we all vote for this, that not only have we got some guarantee that it is going to pass the Senate, but we will not cut any further into the $35 billion that is in the real tax bill that came to the floor.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that we are just going through this for political reasons. The Senate is not going to take it up. The deficit will be increased by $30 billion, but I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill because it certainly has more merit. We never intended for these people to get caught in this, but somehow capital gains and corporate dividends have a higher priority and so this suspension bill will turn slowly in the wind, but I do not know how much support we expect to get from the President or from the majority leadership on this. But we shall see what we shall see.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for the fine work they have done for these people who got caught in this political fiscal trap. What the gentleman from New York, however, my colleague, does not know is that he is not answering the questions that we are asking. It is not that we do not support this bill. It is why did it not get the same protection as the capital gains bill or the same protection as the corporate dividends bill? Why do you have this bill turning slowly on the wind on the suspension calendar when you could have sent it to the Senate with protection?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the person that was described by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) as his partner in a bipartisan way, a very distinguished member of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to point out, since we all are singing the same song as to how these taxpayers were pushed by inflation into this difficult situation, the question that we are raising on the floor, to make it abundantly clear, is what are the Republicans' priorities for relief? We had an opportunity to have $70 billion to give relief. This problem has been gnawing at all of us to do the right and equitable thing. It was not included in the Republican reconciliation bill. In fact, it was rejected when offered in the full committee by the Democrats.
So I can see the awkward political position that you find yourselves; and you know from the bottom of my heart, I sympathize with your political dilemma, not only in this area but in many other areas. But the question still remains, by putting it under the suspension calendar and sending it over to the other body, it does not have the same protection as the bill that you really want to make certain is there, and that is capital gains tax cuts and corporate dividends tax cuts.
So all we are trying to say as the minority party is that we thought there was a better way to do it to protect these people, not to put it on the suspension calendar, which limits the debate, which restricts the Democrats in trying to improve upon it, but to put it on a road that could be a road to nowhere. There are no protections on this bill when it reaches the other body. And we really, truly believe that this is serious enough, and having this cloud over hardworking voters, you should have given it a priority rather than just to put it on the suspension calendar without the legislative process protection that you have given to other issues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, certainly we agree on the substance of the bill. But you do not have to blindfold the American people to say that you did not give it the same protection as you have given other tax priorities.
Let's face it, the $56 billion tax cut bill that you are going to bring up later, we know how you pay for that. You pay for it by going after the most vulnerable people that we have in the United States by cutting these social services. The rest of it goes into the deficit. So why will somebody not have the courage to say where are we going to get the $33 billion for this? I am certain that Americans are prepared to make the sacrifice because, after all, this was an unintentional event by Republicans and Democrats, unintentional by liberals and conservatives. So we all agree with that.
All I am saying to the distinguished member of the committee from Florida is that you know when we send this, it could be on the road to nowhere, not paid for. And unless you intend to ask the Senate to cut further in social services, it means that you have agreed on the concept, but you did not give it the same priority or the same legislative protection.
And you say you would like to see it abolished forever. Well, I guess with your lack of respect for the deficit, another $1 trillion, we can do that. So bring it on. Include it with the war cause, which is $6 billion a month. I mean, if there is no respect for anything, if we cannot work together as Republicans and Democrats and try to consider what our priorities are, but to come up in the middle of the night and say do I have a gimmick for you, we will put it on the suspension calendar, nobody is going to vote against it and whatever happens in the Senate happens, that is not the way we are supposed to legislate. Democrats and Republicans are supposed to work together and try to work out their differences before we send things over to the other body.
There is not one Member on the other side of the aisle that can say that there is any way they are going to do both, their priority bill in terms of capital gains cuts, their cuts in corporate dividends, and this bill too, and fix it and put it into reconciliation.
We did not put it into reconciliation. Why do you think that they are going to take your priority bill?
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just tell the gentleman he is misinterpreting my remarks. I did not say just throw it into the deficit, because he knows and I know that doing away with the alternative minimum tax is a big revenue hit on the Federal Government and we are going to have to find a way to pay for that. We would have done this a long time ago if it was not such a huge figure.
All I am doing is trying to reach out to you, who agree that the alternative minimum tax should be done away with permanently, and say let us work together and figure out a way to do it and do something. We used to do things in a bipartisan way. Why can we not do it again?
Mr. RANGEL. How many names do you want as to why we don't do it again? I can tell you why we don't. We on this side would welcome the opportunity. I don't think that the general public and the voters like to see us fighting each other.
But there has not been one issue that the Republicans would allow us to work with them on. And further to that, even when you have your conferences, you know and I know Democrats are excluded from it. So if you and I were trying to work together, I am certain that we could.
But you and I don't call the shots around here, Mr. Shaw, and that is unfortunate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov