What I am proposing here, or have been prepared to propose, is we have a vote on the Gramm penalty tax amendment, the Durbin look-back provision, the Coverdell drugs provision, and a Daschle or others marriage penalty provision. That is Republican-Democrat, Republican-Democrat; it is a way to deal with this thing. But let's set that aside. You know, there is concern that has been expressed about the cost of the marriage penalty. How about the American people who are paying that tax? A penalty for getting married? They cannot help it, if it is so unfair a tax, that young couples all over America are getting hit with this tax just because they got married? So what we are saying is, 'Oh, well, to eliminate this unbelievable tax that is in the Tax Code it costs too much money, so we want to squeeze down what Senator Gramm is proposing to less and less and less.' What we ought to do is eliminate the marriage penalty tax altogether. Right away. Flat out. Whatever the cost is.
Trent Lott: “What I am proposing here, or have been prepared to propose, is we have a vote on the Gramm penalty tax amendment, the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the marriage penalty tax and proposing amendments during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Trent Lott
I also think this is a classic chicken-and-egg deal. We tell Amtrak we want them to do better, but yet we don't offer any reforms, challenges, responsibilities to do better. We throw rocks and say: Why aren't you providing better service…
with regard to Senator Reid's comments, I don't see any problem with vitiating cloture on the so-called CHIP bill, H.R. 3963. If the leader would like to do that, I assume after consultation with Leader McConnell there wouldn't be any…
We are going to start doing things a little differently. We are going to go back and do some of the things that worked.
I do think that the congestion problem is going to continue to grow until we begin to make tougher decisions.