House can't override veto of marriage tax cut

On September 13, by a vote of 270 to 158, the House failed to override the President's August 5 veto of the Marriage Penalty Relief bill. Two-thirds of all members present and voting (285 in this case) were required to override a veto.

The bill would have eliminated the marriage penalty for lower-income families by adjusting the standard deduction and also raised the upper earnings limit of the 15% bracket for all married couples to twice that for singles. Those modifications would have given nearly all married couples a tax break, regardless of whether they were subject to a marriage penalty.

Every Republican supported the bill, which would actually give a larger tax break to most middie-class couples than to rich couples. Many Democrats supported the bill, but the majority, echoing Clinton, objected to it as "too costly."

Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, was hesitant to criticize the fairness of the cut, so he spoke about the "cost" of the bill and the Republicans' methods. "So this is poppycock. They are holding the marriage penalty bill hostage because they want to vote on the President's veto. He had the courage to veto this bill because it is irresponsible. We have to sustain the President, and then find out what Is the next rabbit they are going to pull out of the hat before we conclude."

Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Bill Archer (R.-Tex, who has been thwarted by vetoes of his most significant tax-break measures, questioned the Democrats' use of the words "costly" and "expensive." He asked, "Too expensive for whom? Too expensive for the U.S. Treasury, which is expected to vacuum in 4.5 trillion surplus dollars over the next 10 years from the American taxpayers, or too expensive for President Clinton who, just yesterday, said he needed to spend that money for more government programs."

Rep. Mark Foley (R.-Fla.) stressed the moral imperative of the override. "As a society and as a civilization, we cannot afford a government that punishes marriages. I ask every one of my colleagues to search their hearts and souls and think about this upcoming weekend as they return to their communities, their churches, and their friends by standing up for the institution of marriage, standing up for families, giving them the relief they deserve, and overriding the President's political veto of this bill."

Despite the distortion in the bill that slants the tax savings overwhelmingly towards the middle class at the expense of the rich, some Democrats still tried to invoke class warfare. Rep. Jerry Kleczka (D.-Wis.) said, "Then, they come before the House floor and cry alligator team for these young, married couples when they know the bulk of the $290 billion goes to their rich friends. That is what is going on around here."

A "yes" vote was a vote to pass, over the President's veto, a bill to alleviate the marriage penalty and cut taxes for all married couples. A "no" vote was a vote against the bill, and an affirmation of the President's position.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Sep 29, 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved