Max Baucus: “I will again outline why I must respectfully oppose the amendment. One, this is not part of the President's package, and…”

“I will again outline why I must respectfully oppose the amendment. One, this is not part of the President's package, and we have resisted including provisions in this bill that are not part of the President's agenda except in very limited circumstances. Frankly, because there are no capital gains provisions in the underlying bill, this amendment is subject to a point of order. It is not germane. Second, the provision is temporary, and that adds complexity to a code that is complex enough. Third, there are many ways to deal with capital gains reductions. This amendment only represents one: to lower the rates for a certain period of time. Another would be to provide for an exclusion of some portion of capital gains income from taxes completely, either as a dollar exclusion or as a percentage exclusion. This particular form, that is, the exclusion from income, will tend to help middle-income taxpayers even more than the provision offered by my friend from New Hampshire, which will tend to benefit the wealthiest taxpayers who deal in stocks. In conclusion, I don't believe this provision represents sound tax policy.”