Connie Mack: “I wanted to put some information in the Record. It is unfortunate that all Members did not have the information as to…”

“I wanted to put some information in the Record. It is unfortunate that all Members did not have the information as to what the cost of this amendment would be. It is nowhere near what was implied by my friend who just concluded his comments. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated the amendment will reduce taxes by only $7 million over 10 years. That is point one. Point two, the reason that is the case is because the individuals who would be affected by this already have the option to use prepaid tuition plans. Now, there seems to be agreement with respect to tuition tax plans of people of high income, as Senator Reid indicated a moment ago. We have all agreed it was fair to them. Why is it not fair to allow the same benefits to derive to them under the education savings accounts as under the prepaid tuition plan? So, again, the cost is $7 million over 10 years. Roughly 2 million families would be affected, not 20 percent of potential families. It is narrowly focused and it is addressing the issue of a marriage penalty; there is no place in our proposal, the education savings plan, for discriminating against those who are married.”