Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Explanation of non-binding Senate votes to reduce estate tax and repeal medical device tax
Senate Budget Debate Shows Support for Increased Revenue, Sales Taxes on Internet Purchases, and More
<...>
Votes taken on amendments during the Senate budget debate are generally not binding. Their greatest significance is that they show whether or not enough votes can be gathered to pass a given proposal in the Senate. For example, the vote on allowing states to require remote retailers to collect sales taxes demonstrates that there are more than the 60 votes needed in the Senate to approve that proposal when it comes to the floor as an actual bill.
But other amendments are not as helpful in determining support for actual legislation, and can be best described as posturing with little real meaning.
For example, the Senate rejected a Republican-sponsored amendment to repeal the estate tax, but then approved by 80-19 an amendment sponsored by Democratic Senator Mark Warner “to repeal or reduce the estate tax, but only if done in a fiscally responsible way.”
The Senate’s approval of this amendment does not indicate that an actual bill to reduce or repeal the estate tax would get 60 votes because an actual bill would either have to include specific provisions to offset the costs, or the bill would clearly increase the deficit. There have been votes on such bills in the Senate many times and they have never received the needed 60 votes, much less 80 votes.
To take another example, the Senate voted 79-20 to repeal a tax on medical device manufacturers that was enacted as part of health care reform. This was one of the taxes enacted with the idea that companies that would benefit from health care reform should share in its costs. The budget amendment says that legislation should be passed to repeal the tax “provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit.”
- more -
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2013/03/senate_budget_debate_shows_sup.php
<...>
Votes taken on amendments during the Senate budget debate are generally not binding. Their greatest significance is that they show whether or not enough votes can be gathered to pass a given proposal in the Senate. For example, the vote on allowing states to require remote retailers to collect sales taxes demonstrates that there are more than the 60 votes needed in the Senate to approve that proposal when it comes to the floor as an actual bill.
But other amendments are not as helpful in determining support for actual legislation, and can be best described as posturing with little real meaning.
For example, the Senate rejected a Republican-sponsored amendment to repeal the estate tax, but then approved by 80-19 an amendment sponsored by Democratic Senator Mark Warner “to repeal or reduce the estate tax, but only if done in a fiscally responsible way.”
The Senate’s approval of this amendment does not indicate that an actual bill to reduce or repeal the estate tax would get 60 votes because an actual bill would either have to include specific provisions to offset the costs, or the bill would clearly increase the deficit. There have been votes on such bills in the Senate many times and they have never received the needed 60 votes, much less 80 votes.
To take another example, the Senate voted 79-20 to repeal a tax on medical device manufacturers that was enacted as part of health care reform. This was one of the taxes enacted with the idea that companies that would benefit from health care reform should share in its costs. The budget amendment says that legislation should be passed to repeal the tax “provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit.”
- more -
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2013/03/senate_budget_debate_shows_sup.php
Here are the roll calls on the two amendments.
To repeal or reduce the estate tax, but only if done in a fiscally responsible way.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00066
NAYs ---19
Baldwin (D-WI)
Brown (D-OH)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
King (I-ME)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Udall (D-NM)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
To promote innovation, preserve high-paying jobs, and encourage economic growth for manufacturers of lifesaving medical devices and cutting edge medical therapies.
Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00047
NAYs ---20
Baucus (D-MT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Carper (D-DE)
Coons (D-DE)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
