I voted aye because I knew that a vote against it would be construed wrongly as a statement in favor of dipping into the Social Security trust fund. Factual inaccuracies in the amendment deserve to be noted. It states that "permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal would cost, according to the administration's estimate, approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of which would further reduce the Social Security surplus." This statement is factually incorrect. In fact, the confiscatory inheritance--or more accurately, the estate or death tax--will be repealed for 1 year in 2010. In 2011, the death tax is resurrected and at the potency of 2001 rates. I support making permanent the repeal of the death tax. This would in no way endanger the payment of future Social Security benefits. Over the next 10 years, from 2003 through 2012, the President's budget projects a baseline surplus of $463 billion. That amount does not include any Social Security funds.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Senate's vote on an amendment related to Social Security and the inheritance tax.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
let me speak a moment about this act. The sponsors, as you have just heard, and supporters like Senator Portman have proceeded with very good intentions. As you just heard, a compelling case for finding ways to help people who have made a…
The first thing we've got to do is have a conventional capability which is so dominant that no party would ever consider a nuclear attack against the United States.
I just want to thank my colleague, the majority leader, for his comments about me. He asked if there were differences between the time that I served before and this most recent time, and I must say that the thing that I have noticed most…
I know that the Democratic leader is scheduled to speak next, but if there is a minute that I could take in between, I just wanted to comment on my colleague who spoke yesterday, Senator Collins. I had wanted to come to the floor to speak…





