Thomas Daschle: “I want to explain this particular amendment because I believe it is very important that everyone understand the…”

“I want to explain this particular amendment because I believe it is very important that everyone understand the juxtaposition of the Democratic amendment and the so-called Gramm amendment. A vote for the Gramm amendment was a vote either to take about $120 billion of budget surpluses away from our effort to shore up Social Security or to drain 80 percent of the money out of the tobacco trust fund, money that would otherwise be going to States' antismoking efforts, medical research and farmers. That is the choice presented by the Gramm amendment from 2008 through 2022. That was the problem we had with the Gramm amendment. In the out years, after 2008, it either took so much money out of Social Security and out of the surplus, or it took 80 percent of the tobacco money. We were not satisfied with this choice. We were not supportive of, first, the overall amount of money to be taken, and, secondly, the pots from which it was to be taken. That is only the first problem--where the money to fund the tax cut would be drawn from in the out years. The second problem is that, in the first ten years, the revised amendment costs 50 percent more than the Democratic alternative; that is, $46 billion versus about $31 billion. But, here is the catch: it actually delivers far less marriage penalty tax relief. So while it costs more, it does far less with regard to the marriage penalty itself.”