DSCC Calls Out Gordon Smith on Tax Relief

Earlier today, Senator Gordon Smith voted against a tax relief bill for middle class families, and the DSCC has a press release online calling him out for the vote:

Gordon Smith today voted against tax relief for middle class families, objecting to a bill which would have prevented over 220,000 Oregonians from being forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The legislation would provide AMT relief for 23 million American families, and included tax credits for college tuition, tax relief for members of the armed forces, and deductions for school teachers buying supplies for their classrooms out of their own pockets. As has become his practice, Smith followed the Republican leadership in voting to block the measure.

"Gordon Smith is always first in line to give tax breaks to special interests and big corporations, but when it comes to tax relief for middle class families, he's nowhere to be found," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. "When thousands of Oregonians find themselves subject to the AMT or see their tax returns delayed next year, they'll know exactly who to blame – Gordon Smith. By voting against this important tax relief for Oregon families, Smith showed today that his priorities are clearly in the wrong place."

The release details the effect the bill would have had on Oregon families:

Smith Voted Against Providing AMT Relief to Over 220,000 OR Families. The bill Smith blocked today would extend for one year relief for families that would be impacted by the alternative minimum tax. This relief would benefit 23 million American families, including 220,800 in Oregon. [Citizens for Tax Justice, 11/15/07]

Smith Voted Against Extending Tuition Tax Credit That Benefits Over 53,000 OR Students and Families. The bill Smith blocked today would extend for one year a federal higher education tuition tax credit that allows lower- and middle-class families paying for college to deduct up to $4,000. In 2003, 3.6 million Americans benefited from this tax cut, including 53,264 in Oregon. [Democratic Policy Committee, 9/26/06]

Smith Voted Against Extending Deduction for Teachers' Out of Pocket Expenses That Benefits Over 33,000 OR Educators. The bill Smith blocked today would extend for one year a federal provision that allows school teachers to deduct up to $250 a year for money that they spend out of their own pockets to buy supplies for their classrooms. In 2003, 3.3 million Americans benefited from this tax cut, including 33,171 in Oregon. [Democratic Policy Committee, 9/26/06]

Read the rest. Discuss.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gee, Schumer, did you write that press release yourself? Gonna call Gordo out for voting with you on Mukasey? SCHUMER, GET OUT OF MY STATE. We can pick our own Democratic challenger.

  • andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm lost on this one. Why do the Dems want to reduce AMT taxes? They are the ones who put the AMT in place. The whole idea of the AMT is to make sure that rich people pay taxes. It is working, the AMT is bringing in billions of taxes. Why would the Dems want to give up that revenue?

  • AnonMe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A bit off topic - does anyone recall this story about Smith back in 2002:

    Smith urges Perry Atkinson to resign But a Gordon Smith spokesman denies that the U.S. senator made a veiled threat against the state GOP chairman’s son By DAMIAN MANN Mail Tribune Perry Atkinson was floored by U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith’s attempt to muscle him out of the Oregon Republican Party leadership and shaken by a veiled threat that if he didn’t leave, it could hurt the political career of his son, state Sen. Jason Atkinson. "I was told it was best for my son’s political future if I took a victory lap and stepped out," said Atkinson, Oregon GOP chairman and Medford Christian radio broadcaster. Smith, who won the November general election by 20 percentage points over his opponent, is backing former state House speaker Lynn Snodgrass’ campaign for chairwoman of the Oregon GOP in February, while asking his political ally Atkinson to step aside. ... The telephone conversation ended, Perry Atkinson said, with the implication that it would be beneficial to Jason Atkinson’s political career if his father stepped aside quietly. "To imply that was just cheap," Perry Atkinson said

    MailTribune

    Does anyone know any more about this?

  • (Show?)

    Apparently the AMT is inadequately indexed so that increasing numbers of people who were not its intended targets are coming under its purview. The reform of the AMT will not exempt the rich & loophole-happy shirkers of collective responsibility at whom it aimed.

    Another reason Dems are behind this is that D failure to deal with "bracket creep" in the high-inflation mid-1970s to early '80s had a huge role in setting up the "tax revolts" of the '80s & Reagan's victories.

  • andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well something about this story doesn't make much sense. According to Smith's website, he is trying to elminate the AMT. So why would the DSCC send out a press release saying that Smith is voting against tax relief? Sounds to me like Smith is for tax relief. Here is the quote from Smith's website.

    This spring, Senator Smith was one of 44 Senators pushing to permanently repeal the AMT on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The legislation failed to move. Senator Smith has continued his efforts to repeal the AMT.

  • andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is another quote from Smith's website:

    October 17th, 2007 - Washington, DC - Senator Gordon Smith today advocated for Congress to take immediate action to prevent upwards of 230,000 largely middle-income Oregon households from having to pay a major new tax. Senator Smith wants Congress to act before the end of 2007.

    “Congress continues to hit the snooze button on reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax,” Smith said. “Oregon families are about to get thumped by this unfair and expensive tax. It is time to wake up and take action.”

    So Smith's quote sounds almost identical to what the DSCC say they want. I guess I can't sort out who is on first here.

  • (Show?)

    Andy... the simplest explanation is also the most obvious one: Gordon Smith says one thing, and does another.

  • andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Or maybe it is the Dems who say they want to reduce taxes but keep increasing them? Maybe Smith voted against the current bill because it wasn't really a tax decrease? After all, he is on the record saying he wants to eliminate the AMT and the Dems don't seem to have that on the agenda.

    Remember, it is the Dems who brought us the AMT in the first place. The AMT is all about class warfare and envy which are standard issue Dem platforms. So maybe a little foot dragging by the R's is just pay back?

  • Robert Harris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This would have been a good opportunity for the Dem's to actually discuss the real issue here. But instead, it ended up in an argument about whether or not Smith supports modification of the AMT. And you know what, he does, and this press release is bogus and the Dem's lose this argument by they way they framed Smith's vote.

    Here's why Smith and the Rep's oppose the bill.

    Under TTRA 2007 hedge fund managers will pay tax on most of their gains at ordinary income rates rather than capital gain rates.

    So yes Andy, there is some tax changes included in this bill. And while Rep's an Andy would like to call it a tax increase, in reality its fixing the rules laws that have inadvertently (at least I think it was inadvertant) allowed hedge fund managers to pay a lesser tax rate on their earned income than their receptionists pay. And yes, those changes allow the tax income lost by relief to the middle class to be offset by placing a more equitable (IMO) rate of tax on hedge fund managers.

    A cynic may say that the reason the Dem's didn't make more of a political point of the real reason for opposition to this bill is that they don't really want to mess with the wall street either. Maybe they like going to the Hamptons a little too much.

  • andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I bet the hedge fund tax rate is a little more tricky of an issue than what you've described. It is really difficult to write a tax law that only impacts one specific industry. Tax legislation is full of unintended consequences, the AMT is a perfect example of that. The AMT was created a few decades back after a news story come out that showed a few rich people weren't paying any taxes. I think they had their savings all invested in tax free bonds or something else that was perfectly legal. So some populist, or progressive, got all bent out of shape and the end result was a completely parallel tax system. But someone forgot to index it for inflation and now it is hitting upper income folks. The really ironic part is that the AMT hits blue states harder than red states since blue states tend to have higher state taxes. So the chickens have come home to roost and nobody seems to know what to do. The Dems appear to be stuck since they don't want to give up the revenue but they also don't like all the nasty phone calls they are getting from their voters back home. I think the R's are just content to block change in order to make the D's squirm some more in their own trap. The R's have offered to repeal the entire tax but the D's aren't willing to give up on their lust for rich people's money.

    The whole thing is really a waste of time and energy. There is no reason to have two tax systems. If the income tax isn't bringing in enough money then just adjust the rates a little bit or change some of the adjustments, loopholes, deductions, etc. Eliminate the AMT and be done with it.

  • (Show?)

    Robert seems to be on the right track, but my understanding is that the GOP wants the bill; they just don't want to pay for it. The cost of the AMT change is $50bil, and the hedge fund change is the pay as you go mechanism. Smith wants AMT reform; he just wants his kids (and yours) to pay for it.

  • (Show?)

    Except that Smith voted AGAINST fixing the AMT. Just like Smith SAYS to Oregonians he now wants to get us out of Iraq, but yet VOTES the other way when it counts.

    More DSCC bashing from Novick boasters and you might just cost Steve a supporter and fundraiser.

  • Robert Harris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Also...the other big hangup for R's was the pay as you go rule that the D's are trying to re-institute, which would require that the tax modification to the AMT be offset by some tax increase or spending cut. The R's simply said....no.

    Now its probable that the tax increase in hedge fund managers included in the bill income was the stick stirring that glass of kool-aid as well. (just try googling a little and you can see that the hedge fund tax change, and the pay-go dispute was exactly what the R's were objecting to.)

    And Andy, it's not that difficult. Hedge fund managers, and some other similar investor type's, were in effect converting ordinary income (wages for those of us who work) into "Capital gains" by booking the income as carried forward interest then stashing it offshore. So in effect, they were going from the 35% tax bracket to the 15% tax bracket by simple accounting methods. This was income that was profit from their business activity. Its ordinary income.

    Regardless, my original point was...the DSCC press release attacking Smith was silly and off base and shows that whoever wrote it is either inept, or not very analytical, or, and I think this is most likely, not really a lot different than the R's when it comes to rocking the boat with wall street.

    Oh...and middle of my post I see a story in NYT. Dem senators cave on AMT bill and agree to remove hedge fund tax and pay-go provisions. D's seem to be saying they'll address that later separately. R's win again. Smith vindicated and can now vote for reduction in AMT.

  • (Show?)
    Except that Smith voted AGAINST fixing the AMT. Just like Smith SAYS to Oregonians he now wants to get us out of Iraq, but yet VOTES the other way when it counts. More DSCC bashing from Novick boasters and you might just cost Steve a supporter and fundraiser.

    I was explaining WHY Smith voted against fixing AMT--because it would require taking the money from somewhere else. He'd rather borrow it and let our kids and grandkids pay instead. Without the hedge fund offset, he'd have been a Yes.

    I have not the first clue what your non sequitur reference to Novick is here. The DSCC deserves the criticism; they are meddling and doing the same thing that cost them races in CT and TN last year, and almost cost them in places like MT. They need to take a page from DNC and stay out of it until the general, when Democrats reunite. And on top of it all--they picked the wrong guy, a traditional politician for an untraditional need.

  • (Show?)
    Oh...and middle of my post I see a story in NYT. Dem senators cave on AMT bill and agree to remove hedge fund tax and pay-go provisions. D's seem to be saying they'll address that later separately. R's win again. Smith vindicated and can now vote for reduction in AMT.

    Now we have to count on Steny Hoyer to fight for it in conference. Ugh.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There was a story about Senate Democrats trying to make progress on this and similar issues and having to dump "pay-go" to get it passed because Republicans didn't want to raise taxes/ end tax breaks to pay for it.

    John Thune, that shallow smart aleck who defeated Tom Daschle, had a quote along the lines of "Ha Ha, we made them drop paygo which is one of their most cherished beliefs".

    Molly Ivins had a line "breathes there a Democrat with soul so dead that they do not see an issue when it bites them?" or words to that effect.

    So why aren't Democrats (esp. the ones who want to replace Gordon Smith in the Senate--the candidates AND their supporters) asking something like this publicly, "Gordon Smith, you have spoken publicly about how proud you are to have succeeded Mark Hatfield in the US Senate. Do you believe Sen. Hatfield would have put up with such sarcasm? And what is your higher priority--solving the AMT problem by finding a way to replace the money that would be lost, or making the life of the opposition party difficult?".

  • (Show?)

    TJ, the cries of meddling by you and everyone else in the Webwonks for Novick group are a hairs breadth of losing Steve my support.

    The anti-DSCC/anti-Schumer jihad is going to cost Novick and by extension the state should Steve get the nomination. You guys are burning bridges lots of bridges that will doom Novick even if he does win the nomination.

  • (Show?)

    lestat, last night I got a call from a DSCC canvasser, and that actually put the whole thing a new light for me.

    Basically I realized that if I give them money before the primary I would in effect be donating resources against my own preferences in terms of who I think has the best chances of beating Gordon Smith, who's likely to be the best advocate for my values &c. And I realized that I'm pissed off enough that after the primary I won't be using the DSCC as a vehicle either, because I don't want to put more resources into the hands that are acting in this undemocratic fucking manner and who want the Democrats to be that kind of party.

    And I'm grateful to Darrel & others on this thread because I had not adequately understood who and what Chuck Schumer is before.

    For me those issues are independent of Jeff Merkley. They won't affect my intention to support Novick in the primary and work for whoever wins.

    <h2>But the divisiveness starts with the DSCC meddling, nowhere else.</h2>
in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon