DeLay ties expanded child credit to larger tax cut

Associated Press ^ | 06-10-03

[Brian S]

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republican leaders ignored White House pressure for quick passage of a Senate bill to expand child tax credits for low-income families and scheduled a vote on a package that also would give bigger tax cuts to high-income couples and members of the armed forces. Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Tuesday the House will use the Senate's bill, which would send rebate checks of up to $400 per child to 6.5 million low-income families this summer, as a vehicle for language to make tax cuts President Bush signed last month less temporary.

[jern]

Delay is like the Republican goaltender. everyone can BS around him, but it won't get by him.

[Defender2]

Thanks for Fighting For U.S.(Taxpayers) Congressman Tom Delay!!!!:-)

[Sonny M]

Something is wrong with our media when somone who is a foster parent, and works to sponsor and do fundraisers for fostercare and foster children can be villified.

I hate the way the media makes Delay out to be, but thank god he is in congress.

[Pukin Dog]

Delay gives Bush cover and vice versa. The issue doesnt hurt Bush, and Delay increases his power and influence. Nice trade off, and the Dems are on the defense once again. Do they want their issue bad enough for more tax cuts? If so, we win. If not, we win.

Therefore, we win. (again)

[11th Earl of Mar]

GoTomGo!

[Pubbie]

Terrific!

Now the House, The Senate, and the White House can claim that they all extended "tax cuts" to low income workers (who don't really pay much taxes) and when the bill dies in conference, the Republicans can say "we did everything we could, but the Democrats refused to budge, and killed the bill in the Senate".

Oh how sweet it is...

[Unknown Freeper]

bump for later...and for tax cuts

[colorado tanker]

I like the way DeLay thinks.

[Petronski]

Delay is like the Republican goaltender. everyone can BS around him, but it won't get by him.

We're relying on him to play the same role to stop the "assault weapons" ban renewal.

[Libloather]

"It's a question of what we can afford," he said.

Meanwhile, single folks don't get any credit and end up paying for other people's kids. This crap hasta stop...

[CatAtomic]

Great point, Pukin Dog(that's one heckuva handle you've got, must be a story in there somewhere).

It wouldn't be the least bit surprising if GW's political conscience, in the form of Karl Rove, has him and Delay playing good-cop-bad-cop,,, I'm just hopeful that Delay can turn this welfare bill into something like a one time rebate.

[Pukin Dog]

Pukin Dog(that's one heckuva handle you've got, must be a story in there somewhere)

Are you saying you have never heard of the World Famous, heart breakin' life takin' widow makin' Pukin Dogs of Fighting 143? Surely you jest, son!

We forgive you this time.

[ikka]

The reality is that there is social engineering going on: we penalize smart (higher-earning) people who have kids, while rewarding the dumb (lowe-earning) people who have kids.

[Dog Gone]

It feels just great to have this man as my congressman.

[hchutch]

The way I see it, take the opportuniy and run with it. Turn that bill (and any other bill) into a Christmas tree with all sorts of tax cuts attached.

[Pukin Dog]

As often as Bush uses the "good-cop, bad-cop" against the Dems, you would think they would catch on.

Rumsfeld-Powell
Norton-Whitman
Ashcroft-Gonzales
Rice-Tenet

Seems clear to me.

[Myrddin]

Meanwhile, single folks don't get any credit and end up paying for other people's kids. This crap hasta stop...

I'm married with 3 kids, but I don't get squat either. My FIT was over $28K. I get to pay for my kids AND other people's kids.

[b4its2late]

Thanks for Fighting For U.S.(Taxpayers) Congressman Tom Delay!!!!:-)

Yep. Nice to see someone stand up to the dems...

[WOSG]

"Delay is like the Republican goaltender. everyone can BS around him, but it won't get by him."


Hear, Hear! Delay is brilliant!

If we are going to 'fix' these tax laws, fix the nutty cutoffs dates on the tax cuts. This for one is nuts: " Under both the Senate bill and the tax cut Bush signed last month, the credit would fall to $700 in 2006. "

[altura]

I'll bet it does (I have Eddie Bernice Johnson).

[mikeb704]

The president gets snookered and we pay the price

[WOSG]

"I'm married with 3 kids, but I don't get squat either. "

Dittos on that, taxpayers dont *get* anything, they only get to pay less ... to LibLoather: dont be so upset with the child tax credit. I for one think it should be even bigger and should go up to $150,000 a) it costs a lot to raise kids, families need it and if it was less, the Dems would just be using it as an excuse to socialize medicine, since middle-class families have tight budgets b) we are raing the next generation that will support your retirement, so hang tight, help is on the way.

[WOSG]

Whoa nelly!!!!

I an extremely infomed individual was snookered too! Through all the articles on this, I was wondering if indeed they were allowing non-taxpayer to get a refund, just as was done in the 'tax cut' (ie welfare program expansion) of Clinton's 'tax cuts' ... lo and behold, this article is saying that indeed the tax credit is going to folks who dont pay taxes.

Color me confused: A tax credit cannot exist if there is no tax payment to be credited against. So this is really as --- welfare payment.

Funny how none of the articles mention it properly.

[WOSG]

"The reality is that there is social engineering going on: we penalize smart (higher-earning) people who have kids, while rewarding the dumb (lowe-earning) people who have kids."

The solution to that is: a) larger tax credits for kids for people who pay taxes and b) quit calling welfare payments for people who do *not* pay taxes a 'tax credit'.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I like Delay, but politically he's messing this up. You don't want to extend the credit this year. You want to run on extending it next year and have the Rat nominee have to come out against it or for it. For it and he's toast with his base. Against it and he's toast with 75% of the electorate.

[PhiKapMom]

Was sure hoping that Tom DeLay would be right there to save the taxpayers again! And here he comes! Only my two Oklahoma Senators voted against this welfare in the Senate and they sure received my thanks as a taxpayer!

The following editorial was in The Oklahoman this morning:

Credit Check
2003-06-10
The Oklahoman



FRANKLY, it's amusing to hear a number of Democrats in Congress say that the recently passed tax cut didn't go far enough. After all, they're the same folks who were the tax cut's strongest opponents!

These new "friends" of tax relief now say a provision in the bill increasing the per-child federal income tax credit from $600 to $1,000 excludes low-income families. Late last week the Senate passed a separate bill extending the child tax credit to millions of American families who pay no federal income tax.

There's a word for such a proposal: welfare. "It's not a tax rebate," says U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Warr Acres, "it's public assistance."

Istook is right, because these new beneficiaries won't be getting a refund against taxes they've paid in but, rather, a check straight from the U.S. Treasury. Pure and simple, it's a new federal spending program, an entitlement.

As the Wall Street Journal editorialized last week, only in Washington can people talk about cutting taxes below zero.

In the Senate just two members voted against this new drain on the treasury, one that can be expected, like most entitlements, to grow over time. We salute Sens. Don Nickles, R- Ponca City, and Jim Inhofe, R- Tulsa, for resisting the stampede. They will be excoriated for their vote, but they should be hailed as friends of the average taxpayer.

We hope the House of Representatives shows better sense than the Senate, but it's under new pressure from the White House to go along to stop Democrats from accusing Republicans of being hard-hearted.

On this one we think the White House is wrong. Politically it may make some sense to give in, but the cost, literally, to taxpayers will be considerable.

Instead, the House should just say no. Some of its leaders want to use the Senate bill to bargain for more tax cuts, but we doubt any new cuts would equal the spending that will occur by expanding the child tax credit.

The fact is, the tax cut passed last month does a lot for lower- income Americans. As the Journal noted, the 10 percent bracket was expanded, meaning more income is taxed at the lowest rate before the 15- and 25- percent rates kick in. The package also included $20 billion to the states, $10 billion of it to help with Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor.

Unfortunately, some Republicans are falling for the argument. We hope Istook and others in the House, who've held the line against creating new, uncontrollable entitlements in the past, will stop this bad idea in its tracks.

[glory]

I'm sorry you don't get a "credit", but I assure you, you are not paying for my two children. These boosts in credits still don't make much of a dent in our tax burden so rest assured we are getting more of our OWN money back, not taking any of yours. Oh and although this does not effect you--this will not mean anything for us because a levy will likely pass for the schools here in August essentially marking out anything we would get back with this credit. This credit, thankfully, will put us even once that goes through and that's a big deal for us since we homeschool and provide our kids with the materials for education.

[Libloather]

I'm sorry you don't get a "credit", but I assure you, you are not paying for my two children.

If you don't pay income taxes and are getting BACK money that I paid in, I sure am paying for your children.

Oh and although this does not effect you--this will not mean anything for us because a levy will likely pass for the schools here in August essentially marking out anything we would get back with this credit.

Oh, but it does effect me. Ya see, I also pay taxes to make sure other people's kids go to public school.

I get shafted - twice, maybe three times. I've lost count...

[victim soul]

I agree:

I hate the way the media makes Delay out to be, but thank god he is in congress.

[goldstategop]

The White House should get off its liberal hobby horse. If there's going to be a gift to the non-taxpayers, I think its only fair those who do pay taxes get more relief. I commend Tom De Lay for resisting the Administration's misguided pressure. The White House and the Senate RINOs can take a package deal or forget about it. This is the only way it will fly.

[OldPossum]

I will amen that and add that neither do married couples without children. My wife and I never had children (by choice) and both of us had long careers during which we paid substantial amounts of taxes. So, you can see that we too have been subsidizing others' children. From my viewpoint, the tax codes should be neutral on this issue, i.e., no credits or deductions for children. If you choose to have them, fine, but don't expect any accolades in the form of tax relief.

[VRWC_minion]

From my viewpoint, the tax codes should be neutral on this issue, i.e., no credits or deductions for children

Here is the problem. The tax rates cannot be higher than the person has cash available to pay. The tinkering with credits and deductions are merely a way to adjust the reality that families with children just don't have as much discretionary cash available as familes without children. The larger chunk that fedral taxes takes from each family unit the more important such adjustments will need to become in the future.

Its not so much social engineering as it is rational collection policy.

[OldPossum]

I understand what you are saying about the tinkering with tax codes and ability to pay, but as I wrote in my original comment, I am speaking of its fiscal impact on my wife and me and others such as us.

People with children should expect to have less discretionary income.

We agree, though, that it would be desirable if federal income taxes were to be lowered.

[Melinas_Man]

The same thing happened in MO. They just raised our property taxes because the schools "need" the money.(It's for the CHILDREN, ya know). This will cancel out some of our tax credit but not all since I have four kids. They snuck this in as it was the only thing on the ballot this time and was kept quiet. There was an 11% voter turnout. We homeschool our kids, too. Other homeschoolers we know didn't even know this was going on. I guess I'll have to make sure others know when this kind of thing comes up instead of just assuming they know about it.

[VRWC_minion]

People with children should expect to have less discretionary income.

First, not all children are planned-our 3rd child wasn't. Second, when they are planned and a couple does budget it only works if the feds leave the tax rates alone. When my wife and I started a family the 1986 tax act just lowered the maximum tax to 28%.

Our 1st two children were born under an those tax conditions. As the feds increased the rates it creates less available cash for everyone but in the case of familes with children their is a floor below families ability to pay the taxes charged. Since 86 the max rate to use as an indicator increase from 28% when we strated our family to 39.6%. Even though Bush has lowered the rates some 35% is still 25% more than it was when we started our family.

[hobbes1]

From my viewpoint, the tax codes should be neutral on this issue, i.e., no credits or deductions for children.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but it is the GOVERNMENT, and by extension society, that has a vested interest in reproduction...No Reproduction, No new taxpayers.

What you want, is other people to bear the price (by reproducing and raising enough children to sustain a tax base) so your assets are not completely confiscated by the government when the tax base shrinks beyond the level necessary to maintain order........

[hobbes1]

Exactly.

[hobbes1]

I sure am paying for your children.

Paying for...Hardly, but Who will be paying for society, when your productive years end....?

[linn37]

I like Tom

[ChewedGum]

I like him too, and have the distinct pleasure of voting for him every two years!

Gum

[jriemer]

Delay is like the Republican goaltender. everyone can BS around him, but it won't get by him.

Keep the Democrats out of the Crease!

[OldPossum]

From your screen name, I can understand your perspective; I know from just observation of my siblings that children are expensive. The other day I read a column in "The Wall Street Journal" in which the author estimates that each child costs in the neighborhood of $100,000 (counting college) to raise.

I concede that children do grow up and provide our continuing "social infrastructure." And that's good. I just don't think that people should be treated differently in the tax code. I think that everyone should pay a flat percentage of their income(no deductions, no exemptions). That meets my definition of a fair tax system.

[OldPossum]

No, I want some degree of fairness in spreading the costs of government, e.g., a flat tax (see my post #44).

If by some miracle the government did away with the child credits and exemptions, do you really believe that people would cease having children? Maybe a bit but not much. To almost all I would bet it is an emotional issue. To the extent that taxes come into the equation, I would think that to most couples--if they think of it at all--getting a tax redution is viewed as a nice side benefit but not the reason.

[Nexus]

From the left today:

[Libloather]

Paying for...Hardly,

But you wouldn't really know what I pay - would you?

...but Who will be paying for society, when your productive years end....?

1) How much does society cost?

2) Should I have to pay for everyone else's crumb crunchers?

3) If I decided to pump out 30 crumb-crunchers, how many people would it take to pay for them?

4) When my productive years end and I'm fertilizer, who gets the loot the gubmint confiscated while I was alive? You? Who are you?

[Libloather]

In my opinion, kids are the only good deduction.

The more kids you plop, the more loot you get to keep? Doesn't really seem fair - does it?

Why not have everyone pay for their own mistakes?

Kids cost a lot of money to raise.

That should be mentioned during the condom purchase. A disclaimer, if you will...

[Libloather]

So, you can see that we too have been subsidizing others' children.

Oh, and what bang and QUALITY you get from your buck. You get to pay for public schools that graduate folks, after 12 years, that can't read, write, or add, but are supposed to pay for your retirement while making minimum wage. Amazing.

I've saved instead. I can't wait for everyone else to determine my future. (Unless, of course, hobbes1 confiscates what I have left in order to pay for 'society'...)