|
<snip> Senator Clinton voted against the tax cuts introduced by President Bush, including the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit. At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Clinton had called for maintaining a budget surplus to pay down the national debt for future generations. At a fundraiser in 2004, she told a crowd of financial donors that "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you" but that "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."<35><snip> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_ClintonHillary Clinton on Tax Reform Democratic Jr Senator (NY) Want to restore the tax rates we had in the '90s It's important we recognize how people feel in Iowa and across America. They're one pink slip, one medical diagnosis away from falling through. I want to restore the tax rates we had in the '90s. That means raising taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals. I want to keep the middle-class tax cuts, and I want to start making changes that will save us money, save money in our Medicare budget, save money for the average American. During the '90s the typical Indiana family's income rose $7,000. I want to go back to a question. You all campaign on fairly significant new programs in education, health care, and the like that will cost Billions of dollars. At the same time, many of you have said that even if we start pulling troops out of Iraq now, it will take some time to do that in a safe and orderly way. So if we assume that we'll continue to have some military expenses in Iraq for many months, how will you pay for your new ideas in the short term? Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate Dec 13, 2007 Freeze estate tax at 2009 level of $7 million per couple I'm in favor of doing something about the AMT. How we do it and how we put the package together everybody knows is extremely complicated. I want to get to a fair & progressive tax system. The AMT has to be part of what we try to change when I'm president There are a lot of moving pieces here. There are kinds of issues we're going to deal with as the tax cuts expire. I want to freeze the estate tax at the 2009 level of $7 million for a couple. I'm not going to get committed to a specific approach. Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007 Why cut off payroll contribution at $95,000? Q: Do you agree that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes? A: Middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income. Warren Buffett pay about 17%, because don't forget, it's the payroll tax plus the income tax. And when you cut off the contribution at $95,000, that's a lot of money between $95,000 and the $46 million that Warren Buffett made last year. We've got to get back to having those with the most contribute to this country.
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007
Cut alternative minimum tax, not billionaire tax cuts
I'll tell you something that we are going to have to deal with, the alternative minimum tax, which falls heavily on a lot of you and your families. You know, for six years I've been saying, with all due respect, do the billionaires in America need more tax cuts? Don't you think we ought to cut the taxes of middle income people, in particular those who are going to be hit by the alternative minimum tax?
Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007
End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good
When Hillary spoke at a private San Francisco fundraiser in 2004, an A.P. reporter caught a particularly illuminating comment by Clinton about the 2001 tax cuts. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short not give it to you," she said. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Her uncharacteristic frankness perhaps reflected the liberal audience , or her possible ignorance of a reporter's presence there. But it allows for a penetrating view into Clinton's thinking on economic policy. In Clinton's eyes, government redistribution--not private entrepreneurship--is the key to economic growth.
1. Votes against the Bush tax cuts5/26/2001: NO on Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
2. 5/23/2003: NO on Jobs and Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
3. 11/17/2005: YES on raising capital gains taxes on wealthy individuals
4. 2/13/2006: YES on allowing capital gains tax cuts to expire
Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p. 52-53 Oct 11, 2006
NY share of federal taxes is too high
I will be on your side for a fair share for New York. It is wrong that New York sends $15 billion more in taxes each year to Washington than New York gets back. That’s a big reason local property taxes are so high. We can change that working together.
Source: Announcement Speech, SUNY Purchase Feb 6, 2000
Just Say No to GOP tax plan
The is a risky, short-sighted tax scheme. I call on the people of New York to let Congress know that what they are doing is just wrong. I want to make it clear that New York will not stand for this kind of irresponsible behavior out of Washington.
Source: Remarks to United Federation of Teachers Headquarters Sep 15, 1999
GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students
The will cut education in New York by more than $1.5 billion. And that will translate into fewer teachers, fewer children in Head Start, and fewer college opportunities for New Yorkers trying to afford college.
Source: Listening event at the School of Arts in Rochester Aug 6, 1999
Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Amendment would accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, preventing 23 million families and individuals from being subject to the AMT in 2007, and millions of families and individuals in subsequent years.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This amendment repeals the AMT. Except for the telephone tax, the alternative minimum tax is the phoniest tax we have ever passed. The AMT, in 1969, was meant to hit 155 taxpayers who used legal means to avoid taxation, under the theory that everybody ought to pay some income tax.
This very year, more than 2,000 people who are very wealthy are not paying any income tax or alternative minimum income tax. So it is not even working and hitting the people it is supposed to hit. Right now, this year, 2007, the year we are in, there are 23 million families that are going to be hit by this tax. It is a phony revenue machine, over 5 years, $467 billion dollars. We are going to have to have a point of order this year to keep these 23 million taxpayers from paying this tax. We might as well do away with it right now, once and for all, and be honest about it.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The reality of the budget resolution is this may not have anything to do with eliminating the alternative minimum tax. The one thing it will do is reduce the revenue of the Government over the next 5 years by $533 billion, plunging us right back into deficit. Look, we can deal with the AMT. We have dealt with it in the underlying budget resolution for the next 2 years. There will be no increase in the number of people affected by the AMT for the next 2 years under the budget resolution, and that is paid for. Unfortunately, this amendment is not paid for. It would plunge us back into deficit. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Reference: Grassley Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.471 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-108 on Mar 23, 2007
Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.
An amendment to raise the death tax exemption to $5 million; reducing the maximum death tax rate to 35%; and to promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
It is disappointing to many family businesses and farm owners to set the death tax rate at what I believe is a confiscatory 45% and set the exemption at only $3.5 million, which most of us believe is too low. This leaves more than 22,000 families subject to the estate tax each year.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
You can extend all the tax breaks that have been described in this amendment if you pay for them. The problem with the amendment is that over $70 billion is not paid for. It goes on the deficit, which will drive the budget right out of balance. We will be going right back into the deficit ditch. Let us resist this amendment. People could support it if it was paid for, but it is not. However well intended the amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. This amendment blows the budget. This amendment takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit. My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they offset them. This amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be defeated.
Reference: Kyl Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.507 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-083 on Mar 21, 2007
Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.
Increases the estate tax exclusion to $5,000,000, effective 2015, and repeals the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes. Lowers the estate tax rate to equal the current long-term capital gains tax rate (i.e., 15% through 2010) for taxable estates up to $25 million. Repeals after 2009 the estate tax deduction paid to states.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
The permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55% and the exclusion dropping to $1 million in 2011. It also includes a minimum wage increase, 40% over the next 3 years. Voting YES is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. Voting YES is for that extension of tax relief. Voting YES is for that 40% minimum wage increase. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American family, farmers, & small business owners.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Family businesses and family farms should not be broken up to pay taxes. With the booming economy of the 1990s, many more Americans joined the ranks of those who could face estate taxes. Raising the exemption level and lowering the rate in past legislation made sense. Under current law, in my State of Delaware, fewer than 50 families will face any estate tax in 2009. I oppose this legislation's complete repeal of the estate tax because it will cost us $750 billion. Given the world we live in today, with clear domestic needs unmet, full repeal is a luxury that we cannot afford.
To add insult to this injury, the first pay raise for minimum wage workers in 10 years is now hostage to this estate tax cut. We are told that to get those folks on minimum wage a raise, we have to go into debt, so that the sons and daughters of the 7,000 most fortunate families among us will be spared the estate tax. We must say no to this transparent gimmick.
Reference: Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act; Bill H.R. 5970 ; vote number 2006-229 on Aug 3, 2006
Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.
A cloture motion ends debate and forces a vote on the issue. In this case, voting YES implies support for permanently repealing the death tax. Voting against cloture would allow further amendments. A cloture motion requires a 3/5th majority to pass. This cloture motion failed, and there was therefore no vote on repealing the death tax.
* Proponents of the motion say:We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.
* In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax was repealed. But that changed in the last century. The death tax was imposed and has never been lifted.
* The death tax tells people it is better to consume today than to invest for the future. That doesn't make sense.
* Opponents of the motion say: Small businesses and farms rarely--if ever--are forced to sell off assets or close up shop to pay the tax. Under the current exemption, roughly 99% of estates owe nothing in estate taxes. By 2011, with a $3.5 million exemption, only two of every 100,000 people who die that year would be subject to the estate tax.
* Today's vote is on a motion to proceed to a bill to repeal the estate tax. Not to proceed to a compromise or any other deal--but to full repeal. I oppose full repeal of the estate tax. Our Nation can no longer afford this tax break for the very well off. Permanently repealing the estate tax would add about $1 trillion to our national debt from 2011 to 2021.
Reference: Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act; Bill HR 8 ; vote number 2006-164 on Jun 8, 2006
Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut.
To strengthen America's military, to repeal the extension of tax rates for capital gains and dividends, to reduce the deficit, and for other purposes. Specifically, a YES vote would appropriate $47 billion to the military and would pay for it by repealing the extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends to 2010 back to 2008. The funds wuold be used as follows:
* $25.4 billion for procurement
* $17 billion for Army operation and maintenance
* $4.5 billion for Marine Corps operation and maintenance
Reference: Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act; Bill S Amdt 2737 to HR 4297 ; vote number 2006-008 on Feb 2, 2006
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.
Vote to reduce federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by retaining a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as well as.
* Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
* Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
* Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
* Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
* Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
* Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)
Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 66-31
Reference: Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act; Bill HR 4297 ; vote number 2006-010 on Feb 2, 2006
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.
This large piece of legislation (418 pages) includes numerous provisions, generally related to extending the tax cuts initiated by President Bush. This vote was on final passage of the bill. The specific provisions include:
1. Extension Of Expiring Provisions: for business expenses, retirement savings contributions, higher education expenses, new markets tax credit, and deducting state and local sales taxes.
2. Provisions Relating To Charitable Donations, and Reforming Charitable Organizations
3. Improved Accountability of Donor Advised Funds
4. Improvements in Efficiency and Safeguards in IRS Collection
* Opponents of the bill recommend voting NAY because: Health care for children (among many other things) should come before tax cuts for the wealthy.
* The 2-year cost of the extensions on capital gains tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is $20 billion. So if we defer the tax break the administration is pushing for the wealthiest people in America, we would have enough money to provide basic health insurance for every uninsured child in America, and we would eliminate 20% of the uninsured Americans with that single act alone.
* Proponents of the bill recommend voting YEA because: The largest provision in the bill--about $30 billion of tax relief--amounts to half of the net tax package and is designed to keep 14 million people out of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is terrible and should be repealed.
* College tuition benefits for families who send their kids to college -- by definition, this benefit goes to middle-income families.
* The small savers' credit -- for low-income folks that save through an IRA or pension plan.
* Many small businesses use the small business expensing benefit to buy equipment on an efficient after-tax basis. It is good for small business. It is good for economic growth.
Reference: Tax Relief Act of 2005; Bill S. 2020 ; vote number 2005-347 on Nov 18, 2005
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.
H.R. 2 Conference Report; Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would make available $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states' judgment. The agreement contains a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and planned to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would be raised to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include expanding the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005.
Reference: Bill HR.2 ; vote number 2003-196 on May 23, 2003
Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates.
Vote to expand the standard deduction and 15% income tax bracket for couples. The elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax would be offset by reducing the marginal tax rate reductions for the top two rate bracket
Reference: Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-112 on May 17, 2001
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.
Vote to increase the tax deduction for college tuition costs from $5,000 to $12,000 and increase the tax credit on student loan interest from $500 to $1,000. The expense would be offset by limiting the cut in the top estate tax rate to 53%.
Reference: Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-114 on May 17, 2001
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes.
Clinton scores 21% by NTU on tax-lowering policies
Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes—every vote that significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers. NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote’s effect. NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All Members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score. The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden on taxpayers. The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the Member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring Members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower. A Member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the Member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.
Source: NTU website 03n-NTU on Dec 31, 2003
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.
Clinton scores 80% by the CTJ on taxationissues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CTJ scores as follows:
* 0% - 20%: opposes progressive taxation (approx. 235 members)
* 21% - 79%: mixed record on progressive taxation (approx. 39 members)
* 80%-100%: favors progressive taxation (approx. 190 members)
About CTJ (from their website, www.ctj.org):
Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws. Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:
* Fair taxes for middle and low-income families
* Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share
* Closing corporate tax loopholes
* Adequately funding important government services
* Reducing the federal debt
* Taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Tax_Reform.htm#6 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
