About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

On PBS, Slate's Dickerson claimed GOP can say "Democrats are going to raise taxes" with AMT fix

November 04, 2007 4:28 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On PBS' Washington Week, John Dickerson asserted that there will "perhaps [be] a tax increase to fix the alternative minimum tax," which he claimed "gets the Republicans very exercised and excited" because they "can go around talking about how Democrats are going to raise taxes." In fact, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has authored a proposal that would, according to the accompanying press release, "provide tax relief to more than 90 million working families through a permanent repeal of the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and enhancement of other tax benefits." The press release also stated that Rangel's plan is "entirely revenue-neutral."

12 Comments

During the November 2 edition of PBS' Washington Week, Slate.com chief political correspondent John Dickerson asserted that there will "perhaps [be] a tax increase to fix the alternative minimum tax," which he claimed "gets the Republicans very exercised and excited." Dickerson added that when Republicans "can go around talking about how Democrats are going to raise taxes, their blood gets going again, and so they're excited about that." In fact, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has authored a proposal that would, according to the accompanying press release, "provide tax relief to more than 90 million working families through a permanent repeal of the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and enhancement of other tax benefits."

The press release also stated that Rangel's plan is "entirely revenue-neutral." It added: "[A]n overwhelming percentage of families earning between $200,000 and $400,000 will still receive a net tax cut, since they will no longer have to pay the enormous tax liability of the AMT." Citing "House staffers," an October 26 Los Angeles Times article reported that under Rangel's proposal, "an estimated 23 million [taxpayers] ... would not be forced to pay the alternative minimum tax" and "[f]ewer than 2 million Americans would face a tax hike, predominantly those earning more than half a million dollars a year."

The AMT, enacted in 1970, was originally designed to keep wealthy people from using loopholes and shelters to pay very little income tax or none at all. But because the AMT's exemption level is not indexed for inflation, it has in recent years threatened to affect an increasing number of middle-income taxpayers, as Robert Kuttner explained in an April 7, 2005, "web only" article for The American Prospect:

[N]ow, due to inflation coupled with administration tax policies, the AMT is hitting millions of ordinary families, many earning well under $100,000 a year. Within five years, 37 percent of people earning between $50,000 and $75,000 and 73 percent of those with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the AMT, compared with less than 3 percent three years ago. Nearly all families earning over $100,000 will pay it, according to a Brookings Institution study.

In recent years, Congress has spared many middle-class taxpayers from the AMT by passing temporary relief measures, but, as the Times article on Rangel's plan reported, "all those temporary fixes are slated to expire."

From the November 2 edition of PBS' Washington Week:

DICKERSON: But there are other issues coming up. too. [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY], we talked about immigration and the licenses. There's a question about taxes and perhaps a tax increase to fix the alternative minimum tax, which gets Republicans very exercised and excited. They've been a bit in the doldrums, but when they can go around talking about how Democrats are going to raise taxes, their blood gets going again, and so they're excited about that.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by princeofwheels (November 04, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
         

      Talk about a dull party..Republans blood gets going when talking about tax increases. Now those boys in the Democratic Party, other things get their blood going..   I think the R's need some Vitaxgra.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tman418 (November 04, 2007 4:47 pm ET)
           

        Republican debates in a nut shell:

        "Bomb countries, lower taxes."

        Oh yeah, and Ronald Reagan.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (November 04, 2007 8:36 pm ET)
             

          You left out the most important manta of Republicans:

           

                                        9/11

           

           

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tman418 (November 04, 2007 10:41 pm ET)
               

            Ever seen this?

            [link to www.youtube.com]

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (November 05, 2007 12:05 am ET)
                 

              That's frikkin' terror-ble!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 05, 2007 12:58 am ET)
                   

                I realize that there are a pretty good number of single-issue voters among our fellow Americans, and I live around many of them and try to be polite, but I gotta say that any middle-class working people who vote GOP because they want to not pay taxes and make more money are freakin' boneheads!

                Report Abuse
                • Author by historygeek001 (November 05, 2007 1:16 pm ET)
                     

                  HuntingtonBeach,

                  I agree.  The BEST thing that can be said for anybody who still defends Republicans is that s/he is uninformed. 

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by ecallender (November 04, 2007 8:49 pm ET)
         

      Dickerson is a lightweight.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (November 05, 2007 2:03 am ET)
         

      32 second summary of 1st republican debate [link to www.youtube.com]

      44 second summary of 2nd republican debate [link to www.youtube.com]

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (November 05, 2007 8:07 am ET)
         

      This is so stupid.  The AMT has got to go.  Con's & Lib's alike will say this.  But it's hasn't happened for ONE reason (and agian, both Con's & Lib's agree on this point as well) it brings in a TON of money.  How did it get so big?  Simple. Congress (in their infinite wisdom) never tied the minimum income level (for the AMT to kick in) to inflation.  In 1960, that income level was fairly high.  Now it firmly include much of the middle class.  SO IT'S GOT TO GO!  But you can't just lose all that money without making it up somemwhere.  SOME cuts my be appropriate, but this is a TON of money.  So OF COURSE taxes will go up - ON THE PEOPLE WHO (1) ARE ALREADY PAYING THE TAX ANYWAY!  and (2) THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SHOULD BE PAYING IT, ACCORDING THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE LAW!  But the overall level of taxtion would go up for such a minortiy, and DOWN for so many more that this is utterly ridiculous to use this as a "Dem's Raise Taxes" talking point.  More people will pay less.  Seems like a good democratic/populist position to me.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (November 05, 2007 1:18 pm ET)
           

        Your argument seems to make sense.  Therefore it will be disregarded by most people for reasons beyond my comprehension.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (November 05, 2007 1:59 pm ET)
             

          DARN IT!  Why'd I have to go and use REASON?!  And I've been trying to cut back on that too!

          LOL.  Thanks.

          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.