By Daniel Malloy from Post-Gazette Washington Bureau: The tax, returning after a one-year hiatus, would apply only to individual estates worth $5 million or more, and for estates of couples worth $10 million, at a rate of 35 percent. Previously, the tax had been 55 percent on individual estates valued at $1 million and above, $2 million for couples.
"Egregious," Mrs. Dahlkemper called it.
"It's about $1 trillion in spending money that we don't have," said the outgoing freshman, who was a victim of the anti-Democratic tide in November in her loss to Butler Republican Mike Kelly. "The voters said, 'Stop the spending.'"
Though it wasn't enough to mollify Mrs. Dahlkemper, House Democrats constructed a path to bring the bill through by allowing members to vote for a change to the estate tax provision that would have changed the rate to 45 percent and the exemption threshold to $7 million for a couple.
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., drafted the new language and estimated that it would save $23 billion and affect about 6,600 estates.
After the Rules Committee put it together Wednesday night, the arrangement was yanked from the floor and altered again Thursday afternoon -- setting up the late-night votes -- because members wanted a vote to back the estate tax change without voting for the bill itself.
Still, the amendment failed, 194-233, with Mr. Critz and Mr. Altmire joining a bloc of centrist Democrats and a united Republican caucus voting against the measure.
House leaders were striking a delicate balance with a bill they didn't particularly like, but Democrats acknowledged the importance of getting the best deal they could before the House changes hands in January. And any effort to alter the bill could have sunk GOP support in the Senate.
Democrats balked at the deal's total price tag, which was higher than Mr. Obama's controversial stimulus bill. Not raising the rates on the top tax brackets had been built into budget projections as President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are scheduled to expire Jan. 1. Mr. Obama and Senate leaders negotiated the plan to extend the current tax rates indefinitely for most earners and for two years for couples making $250,000 or more per year, while also extending long-term unemployment benefits for another 13 months. In addition, a host of other tax cuts and credits that the White House and economists insist will stimulate the stagnant economy are stuffed in the bill, including a payroll tax cut that will result in larger paychecks for workers early next year and a provision allowing businesses to write off the full value of their equipment purchases. "With passage of this legislation we can provide the certainty these businesses have sought, enabling them to make the long-term strategic and hiring decisions they were reluctant to do before knowing what the playing field was going to look like," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, said in a floor speech before the vote. Mr. Altmire joined Reps. Mark Critz, D-Johnstown, Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, Bill Shuster, R-Blair, and Glenn Thompson, R-Centre, in backing the deal. Among local members, only Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Erie, voted no.
The midnight vote elicited no cheers from the floor.
"If we changed it, the Senate was going to say, 'No deal,' " Mr. Doyle said, explaining his reluctant yes. "It's the best we can do under the circumstances. ... I had to swallow the bitter part to get the part I wanted."
On Wednesday, the deal sailed through the Senate on an 81-19 vote. But the House -- largely shut out of the negotiations -- was reluctant to adopt the measure. House Democrats had passed a deal to extend tax rates for earners below $250,000 only, but the deal stood no chance of getting the necessary 60 Senate votes to end debate.
Some expressed their distaste with the payroll tax cut since it would drain Social Security funds. But Democrats primarily were irked at the estate tax provisions.
The whip count by the meticulous House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also was made more difficult by the bipartisan nature of the vote: It was hard for each side to know how many members across the aisle would back the bill, which formed an unlikely coalition of conservative and liberal "no" votes.
Mr. Shuster said he would like to see the tax rates extended indefinitely for everyone, the unemployment extension offset and a lighter estate tax, but he was pleased with the outcome.
"We got 88 to 90 percent of what we wanted," he said in an apt summation of what got the Democrats angry enough to nearly block the deal.
Source via: post-gazette.com
Advertise
No comments:
Post a Comment