Correcting the earlier links, which went to the House version. This appears to be the text of the Senate substitute amendment to H.R. 1424. (See, it originated in the House, just as the Constitution requires.)
We’ve also downloaded the text here. Inclusion of the tax extenders language makes it a much longer bill than the House version of the financial rescue legislation.
UPDATE: The Senate Finance Committee has the tax text and a staff summary.
UPDATE: Many conservative websites are screaming about “earmarks” being added to the legislation. In the process, they’re redefining “earmarks” from the traditional definition — a legislator’s personally requested appropriations identifying specific beneficiaries or projects and insulated from hearings or oversight — into the broader, “anything we don’t like that smacks of special interest.” They’re dumbing down and confusing a legitimate debate. If you’re going to attack tax incentives, attack them as tax incentives.
As a Hill friend e-mailed to Rich Lowry of the National Review:
Those “earmarks” (none of them are spending, they are all tax relief) are not part of the underlying economic recovery bill; they’re part of the tax relief bill that will be attached to the economic rescue bill. The same tax relief bill, by the way, that the Senate passed 93-2 (two Democrats, Carper and Conrad, were the only ‘no’ votes) a couple weeks ago with the same, exact provisions and that the House refused to take up because it didn’t raise taxes to “pay for” the tax relief. Here’s the Senate roll call.
Also, those provisions, while providing tax relief, have not been defined as fitting the guidelines of a “limited tax benefit.” And I don’t recall a single person objecting to the bill or defining any earmarks in the bill when it passed the Senate with the vote of every Republican (and all but two Democrats) that was present for the vote.
UPDATE (1 p.m.): Related commentary at the Friends of ATR blog (ATR being Americans for Tax Reform):
Calling tax cuts “earmarks” is very unhelpful and completely wrong from a fiscal conservative perspective. There is no such thing as a “tax earmark.” Earmarks are spending. There are appropriations earmarks. There are authorization earmarks. There are no “tax earmarks.” To claim that there are puts tax deductions and credits (which is what we’re talking about here) on the same par as bridges to nowhere. Was the creation of HSAs a “tax earmark?” How about the home mortgage interest deduction? One might call for lowering the rates and broadening the base, but we should not fall into the trap of equating tax cuts and spending increases. That’s how some Senate Republicans got in such massive trouble over health care last year and energy this year vis-à-vis taxes.
UPDATE (3:50 p.m.): From Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:
Democrats are continuing to work around the clock in a bipartisan way on legislation to address the economic crisis. The House will be back in session tomorrow for legislative business. Members of the House leadership on both sides of the aisle are talking to our colleagues, and if there is bipartisan, majority support for the Senate package we will likely bring it to the Floor on Friday.
Latest posts by Carter Wood (see all)
- Farewell from a Blogger - May 25, 2011
- Activist Ignore Evidence to Back Shakedown Suit Against Chevron - May 25, 2011
- More than a Lawsuit: A Circle of Political Pressure Against Chevron - May 25, 2011