Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Ginny Brown-Waite on Tax Reform

Republican Representative (FL-5)


Voted NO on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
  1. increase and extend through 2008 the alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts;
  2. extend through 2008 the offset of personal tax credits against AMT tax liabilities; Reference: Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act; Bill H.R.6275 ; vote number 2008-455 on Jun 25, 2008

    Voted NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes.

    H.R.4351: To provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), via an offset of nonrefundable personal tax credits. [The AMT was originally intended to apply only to people with very high incomes, to ensure that they paid a fair amount of income tax. As inflation occurred, more people became subject to the AMT, and now it applies to people at upper-middle-class income levels as well. Both sides agree that the AMT should be changed to apply only to the wealthy; at issue in this bill is whether the cost of that change should be offset with a tax increase elsewhere or with no offset at all. -- ed.]

    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.

    Reference: AMT Relief Act; Bill HR4351 ; vote number 2007-1153 on Dec 12, 2007

    Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification.

    Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
    • Extension of Family Tax Provisions
    • Repeals the scheduled reduction (15 to 10 percent) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005, of the refundability of the child tax credit.
    • Extends through 2005 the increased exemption from the alternative minimum tax for individual taxpayers.
    • Extends through 2005 the following expiring tax provisions:
      1. the tax credit for increasing research activities;
      2. the work opportunity tax credit;
      3. the welfare-to-work tax credit;
      4. the authority for issuance of qualified zone academy bonds;
      5. the charitable deduction for donations by corporations of computer technology and equipment used for educational purposes;
      6. the tax deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers;
      7. the expensing of environmental remediation costs;
      8. the designation of a District of Columbia enterprise zone
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Bill Rep Thomas [R, CA-22]; Bill H.R.1308 ; vote number 2004-472 on Sep 23, 2004

    Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit.

    Vote to pass a bill that would permanently extend the $1,000 per child tax credit that is scheduled to revert to $700 per child in 2005. It would raise the amount of income a taxpayer may earn before the credit begins to phase out from $75,000 to $125,000 for single individuals and from $110,000 to $250,000 for married couples. It also would permit military personnel to include combat pay in their gross earnings in order to calculate eligibility for the child tax credit.
    Reference: Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act; Bill HR 4359 ; vote number 2004-209 on May 20, 2004

    Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty.

    Vote to pass a bill that would permanently extend tax provisions eliminating the so-called marriage penalty. The bill would make the standard deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers. It would also increase the upper limit of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice that of singles. It also would make permanent higher income limits for married couples eligible to receive the refundable earned-income tax credit.
    Reference: Marriage Penalty Relief; Bill HR 4181 ; vote number 2004-138 on Apr 28, 2004

    Rated 56% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes.

    Brown-Waite scores 56% by NTU on tax-lowering policies

    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.

    Source: NTU website 03n-NTU on Dec 31, 2003

    Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation.

    Brown-Waite scores 0% by the CTJ on taxationissues

    OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CTJ scores as follows:

    • 0% - 20%: opposes progressive taxation (approx. 235 members)
    • 21% - 79%: mixed record on progressive taxation (approx. 39 members)
    • 80%-100%: favors progressive taxation (approx. 190 members)
    About CTJ (from their website, www.ctj.org):

    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:

    • Fair taxes for middle and low-income families
    • Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share
    • Closing corporate tax loopholes
    • Adequately funding important government services
    • Reducing the federal debt
    • Taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets
    Source: CTJ website 06n-CTJ on Dec 31, 2006

    Taxpayer Protection Pledge: no new taxes.

    Brown-Waite signed Americans for Tax Reform "Taxpayer Protection Pledge"

    Politicians often run for office saying they won't raise taxes, but then quickly turn their backs on the taxpayer. The idea of the Pledge is simple enough: Make them put their no-new-taxes rhetoric in writing.

    In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. While ATR has the role of promoting and monitoring the Pledge, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is actually made to a candidate's constituents, who are entitled to know where candidates stand before sending them to the capitol. Since the Pledge is a prerequisite for many voters, it is considered binding as long as an individual holds the office for which he or she signed the Pledge.

    Since its rollout with the endorsement of President Reagan in 1986, the pledge has become de rigeur for Republicans seeking office, and is a necessity for Democrats running in Republican districts.

    Source: Americans for Tax Reform "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" 10-ATR on Aug 12, 2010

    2010 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Tax Reform: Ginny Brown-Waite on other issues:
    FL Gubernatorial:
    Charlie Crist
    FL Senatorial:
    Alexander Snitker
    Bernard DeCastro
    Bill Nelson
    Charlie Crist
    George LeMieux
    Jeff Greene
    Kendrick Meek
    Marco Rubio

    Special elections
    in 111th Congress:


    GA-9:Deal(R)
    Jun.2010:Graves(R)

    PA-12:Murtha(D)
    May 2010:Critz(D)

    HI-1:Abercrombie(D)
    May 2010:Djou(R)

    FL-19:Wexler(D)
    Apr.2010:Deutch(D)

    CA-10:Tauscher(D)
    Nov.2009:Garamendi(D)

    NY-20:McHugh(R)
    Nov.2009:Owens(D)

    CA-32:Solis(D)
    Jul.2009:Chu(D)

    IL-5:Emanuel(D)
    Apr.2009:Quigley(D)

    NY-20:Gillibrand(D)
    Mar.2009:Murphy(D)


    Senate races in 2010:
    AK:Miller(R) vs.McAdams(D)
    AL:Shelby(R) vs.Barnes(D)
    AR:Lincoln(D) vs.Boozman(R)
    AZ:McCain(R) vs.Glassman(D)
    CA:Boxer(D) vs.Fiorina(R) vs.Lightfoot(L)
    CO:Bennet(D) vs.Buck(R)
    CT:Blumenthal(D) vs.McMahon(R)
    DE:Coons(D) vs.Castle(R) vs.O`Donnell(R)
    FL:Rubio(R) vs.Crist(I) vs.Meek(D) vs.DeCastro(C) vs.Snitker(L) vs.Bradley(V)
    GA:Isakson(R) vs.Thurmond(D)
    HI:Inouye(D) vs.Cavasso(R)
    IA:Grassley(R) vs.Conlin(D)
    ID:Crapo(R) vs.Sullivan(D)
    IL:Giannoulias(D) vs.Kirk(R)
    IN:Ellsworth(D) vs.Coats(R)
    KS:Johnston(D) vs.Moran(R)
    KY:Conway(D) vs.Paul(R)
    LA:Vitter(R) vs.Melancon(D)
    MO:Carnahan(R) vs.Blunt(D)
    MD:Mikulski(D) vs.Wargotz(R)
    NC:Burr(R) vs.Marshall(D)
    ND:Potter(D) vs.Hoeven(R)
    NH:Alciere(R) vs.Ayotte(R) vs.Hodes(D)
    NV:Reid(D) vs.Angle(R)
    NY6:Schumer(D) vs.Townsend(R)
    NY2:Gillibrand(D) vs.DioGuardi(R)
    OH:Fisher(R) vs.Portman(D) vs.Deaton(C)
    OK:Coburn(R) vs.Myles(D)
    OR:Wyden(D) vs.Huffman(R)
    PA:Toomey(R) vs.Sestak(D)
    SC:DeMint(R) vs.Greene(D)
    SD:Thune(R) vs.Berry(D)
    UT:Lee(R) vs.Granato(D)
    VT:Leahy(D) vs.Freilich(D)
    WA:Murray(D) vs.Rossi(R)
    WI:Feingold(D) vs.Johnson(D)
    WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R)
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families/Children
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Infrastructure/Technology
    Jobs
    Principles/Values
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    War/Iraq/Mideast
    Welfare/Poverty

    Main Page
    Profile
    FL politicians

    Page last updated: Sep 15, 2010