Mark Udall: “when we considered a basically identical bill in February, I voted for it, although I was very reluctant to do so. I was…”

“when we considered a basically identical bill in February, I voted for it, although I was very reluctant to do so. I was reluctant because that was not the best time for this bill, and that was not the best bill for the job. It wasn't the right time because we had not yet adopted a budget resolution and so a tax bill--or a spending bill, for that matter-- should not have been considered then. Now, of course, we have a budget resolution in place. So, today at least the time is right. But this still is not the best bill for the job because in some areas it does too little, and in others it does too much. It does too little because it does not adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax. That means it leaves many middle-income families unprotected from having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken away. The Democratic substitute would have adjusted the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is one of the reasons I voted for that better bill. The Republican leadership's bill does too much in another area. Because it is not carefully targeted, it does not just apply to people who pay a penalty because they are married. Instead, a large part of the total benefits under the bill would go to married people whose taxes already are lower than they would be if they were single.”