House approves permanent tax relief to married couples

AP Special CorrespondentWASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans pushed through legislation Thursday granting permanent tax relief to married couples, overriding Democratic complaints they were draining Social Security trust funds to gain election-year advantage.

The 271-142 vote sent the bill to the Senate, where Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., gave it a tepid reception.

"We don't want to have a $42 billion annual tax increase that goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011, because people are married," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said as Republicans advanced the latest in a string of bills designed to keep last year's tax cuts from expiring.

"The way to do that is to make the marriage penalty relief permanent."

But Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the bill was part of a "fiscal irresponsibility rampage" by Republicans, coming on the heels of last week's bill making estate tax repeal permanent.

"An election-year ploy," snapped Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.

Passage would send the bill to the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Tom Daschle showed scant enthusiasm for debate on the issue this year.

"With all the work we've got to do, I think it would be difficult to anticipate another tax debate. My sense is, we've been there and done that," said Daschle, D-S.D.

It was the second day in a row that congressional Republicans used debates in the Capitol to criticize Democrats on tax-cutting issues.

The Senate refused Wednesday to make the estate tax repeal permanent, bottling the bill up on a vote of 54-44, six short of the 60 needed for approval.

The measure on the House floor was part of a GOP plan to advance permanent tax relief on the installment plan in the weeks leading up to the fall campaign.

Because of Senate rules, the tax-cut legislation that President Bush pushed through Congress last year was drafted to expire on Dec. 31, 2010. Barring further action by Congress by 2011, some taxes would rise to their prior levels and some forms of relief would fade.

Bush asked Congress earlier this year to make all of last year's tax relief permanent, but Daschle has refused to schedule a vote on a House-passed bill to accomplish that.

In response, House Republicans have begun passing a series of bills to make portions of last year's measure permanent.

Thus far, bills have cleared the House making permanent the estate tax repeal, an adoption tax credit and tax-free treatment for Holocaust restitution. Debate is expected this summer on a measure to make permanent certain breaks for retirement accounts, and possibly other bills, as well.

Aware they are voting on politically appealing legislation, Democrats in the House and Senate have fashioned a series of alternatives designed to show they support tax relief at the same time they showcase support for Social Security and Medicare.

Under the legislation that House Republicans pushed, tax relief targeted to married couples beginning in 2005 would be extended permanently.

Couples who do not itemize their tax returns would receive the same deduction as two single people. Other changes in the tax brackets would benefit all married couples, and additionally, eligibility for a low-income tax credit would be liberalized.

In all, Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Ill., said 36 million couples would benefit if the so-called "marriage penalty" tax relief were made permanent, at a savings of $42 billion annually.

Without passage of the measure, added Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., "We will be in essence putting a tax back on the backs of" working couples in 2011, at an average of $1400 a year.

Democrats took turns lambasting Republicans.

Matsui said the bill would cost $460 billion for the first decade it was in effect. "We're going to break the bank for senior citizens when it comes to retirement benefits that they expect to get" he said.

"When are you going to be honest with people that you have to pay for stuff?" asked Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., looking across the House chamber to the Republican side of the aisle. "When are you going to be honest?