Paul Wellstone on Tax Reform

Cut taxes forr families, not businesses.

“I believe we should cut taxes for working families, especially when we’re talking about education for our children, for our young people. But I don’t think we need to have tax breaks for large multinational corporations and wealthy people.” Source: www.wellstone2000.com/wellbio.html 12/31/98 Dec 31, 1998

Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years.

Vote to pass a bill that would reduce all income tax rates and make other tax cuts totaling $1.35 trillion over 11 years. The bill would increase the standard deduction for married couples subject to the 15% bracket to double that of singles by 2005 Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-165 on May 23, 2001

Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates.

Vote to expand the standard deduction and 15% income tax bracket for couples. The elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax would be offset by reducing the marginal tax rate reductions for the top two rate bracket Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-112 on May 17, 2001

Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.

Vote to increase the tax deduction for college tuition costs from $5,000 to $12,000 and increase the tax credit on student loan interest from $500 to $1,000. The expense would be offset by limiting the cut in the top estate tax rate to 53%. Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-114 on May 17, 2001

Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'.

Vote on a bill that would reduce taxes on married couples by increasing their standard deduction to twice that of single taxpayers and raise the income limits on both the 15 percent and 28 percent tax brackets for married couples to twice that of singles Bill HR.4810 ; vote number 2000-215 on Jul 18, 2000

Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut.

The Nickles (R-OK) Amdendment would express the sense of the Senate that Congress should adopt an across-the-board cut in all discretionary funding, to prevent the plundering of the Social Security Trust Fund
Status: Amdt. Agreed to Y)54; N)46 Reference: Nickles Amdt #1889; Bill S. 1650 ; vote number 1999-313 on Oct 6, 1999

Voted NO on $792B tax cuts.

This vote was on a motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act against the Gramm (R-TX) amendment which would reduce taxes by $792 billion over 10 years by reducing all income tax rates by 10%, effectively eliminating the so-called "marriage penalty".
Status: Motion Rejected Y)46; N)54 Reference: Motion to waive Congressional Budget Amendment in regards to the Gramm Amdt #1405; Bill S. 1429 ; vote number 1999-230 on Jul 29, 1999

Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes.

Senator Kyl (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the 1999 budget resolution to express the sense of the Senate on support for a Constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass tax increases.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)48; NV)2 Reference: Kyl Amdt #2221; Bill S Con Res 86 ; vote number 1998-71 on Apr 2, 1998

Voted NO on FY99 tax cuts.

Senator Coverdell (R-GA) offered an amendment to the 1999 budget resolution to reduce revenues by $101.5 billion over the next 5 years, to provide middle-class tax reflief
Status: Motion Rejected Y)38; N)62) Reference: Motion to waive CBA Re: Coverdell Amdt. # 2199; Bill S Con Res 86 ; vote number 1998-55 on Apr 1, 1998

American People's Dividend: Give $300 to every person.

Wellstone adopted the Progressive Caucus Position Paper:

The Problem

President Bush argues that upper income people pay a larger share of the taxes, therefore they should get a larger tax cut. We disagree. These people have significantly benefited from the economic boom of the 1990s, while those in the bottom range of incomes have received little benefit. It’s these folks that we must help. President Bush’s plan is “Reaganomics” revisited and it’s fiscally irresponsible. Despite spending $1.6 trillion or more, the President’s tax plan gives little to nothing for those with little income. In fact, anyone below 140% of the poverty line, will get a zero tax cut.

The Solution

The Progressive Caucus believes that tax relief must flow to those who need it the most, the working class and people with limited incomes. We have endorsed an idea called the American People’s Dividend. We’ll give a dividend to every American, because every American is an equal shareholder in America. We estimate the total cost to be about $900 billion over 10 years. The plan will give to every person about a $300 refundable tax credit. A married couple with 3 children will receive $1500, $300 for each member of the family. This plan is simple, easy to administer, and progressive. The plan could provide an economic stimulus since it would put money in people’s pockets immediately. Unlike the Bush proposal, which reserves 40% of the tax benefits for the wealthiest 1% of the population, our proposal gives the wealthiest 1% exactly 1% of the tax relief. This makes the bulk of tax relief available for the bulk of the population. The American People’s Dividend is payable every year the federal budget is in surplus.

Comparison of Progressive Tax Plan & Bush’s Plan
	The Wealthy	The Low Income
Progressive Caucus American Peoples Dividend	$300	$300
President Bush’s Tax Cuts	$$46,000	$0

Source: Progressive Caucus Press Release, "Tax Relief" 01-CPC2 on Feb 8, 2001

Click here for definitions & background information on Tax Reform. Click here for policy papers on Tax Reform. Click here for SenateMatch answers by Paul Wellstone. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Tax Reform in The Forum.
*Other candidates on Tax Reform:*		*Paul Wellstone on other issues:*
*MN Gubernatorial:* Tim Pawlenty *MN Senatorial:* Mark Dayton Norm Coleman Rod Grams Walter Mondale *Presidential:* George W. Bush (Republican for President) V.P.Dick Cheney (Republican for V.P.) Sen.John Kerry (Democratic nominee for Pres.) Sen.John Edwards (Democratic nominee for V.P.) Ralph Nader (Reform nominee for Pres.) Peter Camejo (Reform nominee for V.P.) David Cobb (Green nominee for Pres.) Michael Badnarik (Libertarian nominee for Pres.) Michael Peroutka (Constitution nominee for Pres.)	*2004 Senate Races:* (AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes (AR)Holt v.Lincoln (AZ)McCain v.Starky (CA)Boxer v.Jones v.Gray (CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Randall v.Acosta (CT)Dodd v.Orchulli (FL)Castor v.Martinez (GA)Isakson v.Majette v.Buckley (IA)Grassley v.Small v.Northrop (IL)Obama v.Keyes (IN)Bayh v.Scott (KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo (LA)John v.Vitter (MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin (MO)Bond v.Farmer (NC)Bowles v.Burr (ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig (NH)Granny D v.Gregg (NV)Reid v.Ziser (NY)Schumer v.Mills v.McReynolds (OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich (OK)Carson v.Coburn (OR)Wyden v.King (PA)Hoeffel v.Specter (SC)DeMint v.Tenenbaum (SD)Daschle v.Thune (UT)Bennett v.Van Dam (VT)Leahy v.McMullen (WA)Murray v.Nethercutt (WI)Feingold v.Michels	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators House of Representatives SenateMatch (matching quiz) HouseMatch Senate Votes (analysis) House Votes