Kendrick Meek on Tax ReformDemocratic Representative (FL-17) |
Meek defended Obama's economic strategy, including the stimulus of 2009, as "dealing with the cards we were dealt" by the previous administration and the economic crisis that reached its peak in the fall of 2008. He said the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were designed to be temporary and shouldn't be extended for the most-well-off Americans. "There were surpluses," he said. "There are no longer surpluses. So we're digging a deeper hole. And what Rubio and also Crist are representing, let's continue to dig, and trickle-down economics will work for the middle class in creating jobs."
Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. RANGEL: We have the opportunity to provide relief to upward of some 25 million people from being hit by a $50 billion tax increase, which it was never thought could happen to these people. Almost apart from this, we have an opportunity to close a very unfair tax provision, that certainly no one has come to me to defend, which prevents a handful of people from having unlimited funds being shipped overseas under deferred compensation and escaping liability. Nobody, liberal or conservative, believes that these AMT taxpayers should be hit by a tax that we didn't intend. But also, no one has the guts to defend the offshore deferred compensation. So what is the problem?
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Rep. McCRERY: This is a bill that would patch the AMT, and then increase other taxes for the patch costs. Republicans are for patching the AMT. Where we differ is over the question of whether we need to pay for the patch by raising other taxes. The President's budget includes a 1-year patch on the AMT without a pay-for. That is what the Senate passed by a rather large vote very recently, 88-5. The President has said he won't sign the bill that is before us today. Republicans have argued against applying PAYGO to the AMT patch. In many ways PAYGO has shown itself to be a farce.
Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes—every vote that significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers. NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote’s effect. NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All Members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score. The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden on taxpayers. The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the Member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring Members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower. A Member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the Member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CTJ scores as follows:
Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws. Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
| |||
Other candidates on Tax Reform: | Kendrick Meek on other issues: | ||
FL Gubernatorial: Rick Scott FL Senatorial: Bill Nelson Marco Rubio Retiring as of Jan. 2011: CT:Dodd(D) DE:Kaufman(D) FL:Martinez(R) FL:LeMieux(R) IL:Burris(D) IN:Bayh(D) KS:Brownback(R) KY:Bunning(R) MO:Bond(R) ND:Dorgan(D) NH:Gregg(R) OH:Voinovich(R) PA:Specter(R) UT:Bennett(R) WV:Goodwin(D) Unseated as of Jan. 2011: AR:Lincoln(D) UT:Bennett(R) WI:Feingold(D) |
Newly elected, Nov. 2010: AR:Boozman(R) CT:Blumenthal(D) CO:Bennet(D) DE:Coons(D) FL:Rubio(R) IL:Kirk(R) IN:Coats(R) KS:Moran(R) KY:Paul(R) MO:Blunt(R) ND:Hoeven(R) NH:Ayotte(R) NY2:Gillibrand(D) OH:Portman(R) PA:Toomey(R) UT:Lee(R) WI:Johnson(R) WV:Manchin(D) |
Re-elected, Nov. 2010: AK:Murkowski(I) AL:Shelby(R) AZ:McCain(R) CA:Boxer(D) GA:Isakson(R) HI:Inouye(D) IA:Grassley(R) ID:Crapo(R) LA:Vitter(R) MD:Mikulski(D) NC:Burr(R) NV:Reid(D) NY6:Schumer(D) OK:Coburn(R) OR:Wyden(D) SC:DeMint(R) SD:Thune(R) VT:Leahy(D) WA:Murray(D) |
Abortion
Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings |