Yesterday afternoon the House passed H.R. 8, a bill to permanently repeal the estate tax by a vote of 272 - 162. Forty-two Democrats supported the bill. This total was similar to the vote in 2003 to repeal the tax, which had 41 Democrats supporting it. 2005 estate tax repeal roll call vote 2003 estate tax repeal roll call vote Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) offered a substitute to this bill that would have immediately increased estate tax exemption levels to $3 million ($6 million for couples). The Pomeroy substitute would have eventually raised estate tax exemption levels to $3.5 million ($7 million for couples) after 2009 . The Pomeroy substitute would cost less than a fourth ($72 billion) of the cost of full repeal ($290 billion) over the next ten years. The vote on this amendment to reform rather than repeal the tax was closer, but failed 194 - 238, with all but 9 Democrats voting to support it. 2005 Pomeroy amendment roll call vote 2003 Pomeroy amendment roll call vote A few details of the votes:

• Democrats Bean (IL), Cramer (AL), and Gordon (TN) voted against the Pomeroy amendment but for H.R. 8.
• Pomeroy had the support of one Republican on his amendment - Michael Castle of DE.
• Jim Leach of IA was the lone Republican to vote against H.R. 8.

Read more...

The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform announced today that they will hold their next meeting in Washington, D.C. on April 18th. Details on the location will be provided in the near future, but the meeting will definitely be open to the public. This specific meeting will focus on how the federal tax code interacts with state and local tax systems. The panel will also look at the impacts of the tax code on business investment, including the effect of cost recovery and depreciation rules. For information on the panel's previous public hearings, click here. The panel also recently announced that they will be accepting proposals to be submitted to them on reforming the tax code. For more information on this, see the panel's web site.

It was reported this morning in The Hill newspaper that Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has been tapped to lead an effort to find a permanent compromise on the estate tax. The current law includes a gradual phase-out of the estate tax - only to have it re-emerge in 2011 at 2001 levels. This structure makes estate planning difficult and both Democrats and Republicans have commented that the issue of uncertainty needs to be addressed. You can read The Hill article here.

Congress returned from recess this week, during which House Republicans alone held 550 events on Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security. Despite all this talk of privatization accounts, even White House aides are saying that perhaps other reforms should be considered. On April 5th, Chuck Blahous, an economic advisor to Bush and the administration's top aide on Social Security policy, said that raising the $90,000 cap on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax would delay the onset of the long term Social Security shortfall. Blahous did not rule out White House support for proposals to raise the cap, but many GOP congressmen are opposed to the idea, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Others such as Sen. Graham (R-SC), have been criticized for supporting such an idea. Also yesterday, the President continued his push to "educate" the public on the need for Social Security reform. On his visit to West Virginia, he commented, "There is no 'trust fund,' just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs." The full transcript of his comments can be found here. Comments such as these are unnecessarily misleading about the health of our Social Security system, which can pay 100% of benefits for years to come. It is rather the administration's expensive tax cuts and the general decrease of available national revenue that will cause future generations to pay in terms of reduced social benefits and cuts in critical government programs. In response to Bush's comments, Democratic Congressional leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), submitted the following comments: "It is simply wrong to suggest that the Social Security Trust Fund does not exist, or that the securities held by the Trust Fund are merely pieces of paper. For a President to even suggest that the federal government might, for the first time, default on a security backed by the full faith and credit of the United States unnecessarily misleads American workers about the health of the Social Security program." For the rest of their comments, click here.