Yesterday the Senate passed legislation providing tax relief for married couples. We passed a bill that basically eliminates the marriage penalty tax for most married couples. The cost of the bill was $55.6 billion over 5 years and over ten years. The cost of the bill was incorrectly reported in several newspapers despite the fact that on the floor of the Senate and in a press conference later, we stated clearly that the bill that we passed was a 5-year bill, and the cost of the bill was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to be $56 billion. You wouldn't know that if you read the New York Times. In today's paper: 'Senate Approves Tax Cut To Help Married Couples. Clinton Threatens Veto.' That much is correct, but the next line says, '$248 billion measure would aid even those who do not pay marriage penalty.' I dispute that claim, because it is absolutely false. The $248 billion cost they attribute to our bill is false. It is not correct. The facts are, the bill that we passed was $56 billion over the next 5 years and the next 10 years. Maybe some people didn't know that. Maybe if some Senators knew that they would have voted differently. I don't know. I want accuracy. I want people to know the facts.
Don Nickles: “Yesterday the Senate passed legislation providing tax relief for married couples. We passed a bill that basically…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing inaccuracies in media reports about the cost of tax relief legislation for married couples.
Share
More from Don Nickles
I have absolutely loved working in the Senate. The Senate is a great institution. It is one of the true pillars of democracy in the world, one which people look to with great respect and admiration. I have always been proud to be called a…
law makers must carefully distinguish between the need for tax credits which may operate as subsidies, compared to more favored tax deductions which are expensed as part of ordinary business operations.
You cannot afford to make fossil fuels' tax equal to the enormous subsidy that wind currently receives.
We should not be giving advantages to our international competitors over our U.S.-based companies.





