Obama On Taxes Views, Fact, Voting Record

[sixdogsmom]

  Barack Obama on Tax Reform
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)




Under Bill Clinton, rich people didn't feel oppressed
Q: Is McCain going to go after you as another classic liberal tax and spender?
A: Well, I'm going to go right back at McCain, because look at his tax proposals. He not only wants to continue some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, he actually wants to extend them, and he hasn't told us really how he's going to pay for them. It is irresponsible. And the irony is he said it was irresponsible. When George Bush initiated these tax cuts in 2001, McCain said, "This is shameful." He said that it offended his conscience, he said, for us to give tax breaks to the wealthy, particularly at a time of war. If you look at my approach to taxation, what have I said? I said I would cut taxes for people making $75,000 a year or less. I'd cut taxes for seniors who are making $50,000 a year or less. It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008

No tax increase if earning under $250K; tax cuts under $75K
Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?
CLINTON: I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were paying in the 1990s.

Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?

OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief.

Q: You both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and $200,000.

OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Raise capital gains tax for fairness, not for revenue
Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%." It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Tax cut for seniors and those making $75,000 a year or less
Everywhere you go, you meet people who are working harder for less, wages and incomes have flatlined, people are seeing escalating costs of everything from health care to gas at the pump. In some communities, they have been struggling for decades now. This has to be a priority of the next president. We have to restore a sense of fairness & balance to our economy. We've got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and invest those tax breaks in companies that are investing here in the US. We have to end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and to provide tax breaks to middle-class Americans and working Americans who need them. If you are making $75,000 a year or less, I want to give an offset to your payroll tax that will mean $1,000 extra in the pockets of ordinary Americans. Senior citizens making less than $50,000, you shouldn't have to pay income tax on your Social Security. We pay for these by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008

I'm not bashful about it: wealthy will pay more taxes
Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That's right.

OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.

CLINTON: Absolutely

OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.

CLINTON: It's just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 30, 2008

Stimulus package: $500 tax cut, & Social Security supplement
Q: How much money would your stimulus plan put in the pockets of the average citizen?
A: It is absolutely critical right now to give a stimulus to the economy. We've got to get tax cuts into the pockets of hard-working Americans right away. And it is important for us to make sure that they are not just going to the wealthy. They should be going to folks who are making $75,000 a year or less, and they should be going to folks who only pay payroll tax, but typically are not paying income tax.

Q: Do you agree with Sen. Clinton that $650 is a good number for a tax rebate?

A: Well, I think that we are going to have to get some immediate money. What I say is, $500 for a tax rebate per typical family. But also, for senior citizens, a supplement to their Social Security check, because they get that every month. That would provide seniors all across the country right away some money to help pay for their heating bills and other expenses that they've got right now.

Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Restore progressive tax; close loopholes; relief to seniors
There has to be a restoration of balance in our tax code. We are going to offset some of the payroll taxes that families who are making less than $50,000 a year get a larger break. I want to make sure that seniors making less than $50,000, that they get some relief in terms of the taxes on their Social Security. Those kinds of progressive tax steps, while closing loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the top 1 percent, simply restores some fairness and a sense that we're all in this together.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007

Trillion dollar giveaway: the Paris Hilton Tax Break
Obama said, "Domestically, our national debt and budget constrain us in ways that are going to be very far-reaching. And I think whoever is elected in 2008 is going to be cleaning up the fiscal mess that was created as a consequence of the president's tax cuts." Obama opposed repealing the estate tax: "Let's call this trillion dollar giveaway what it is--the Paris Hilton Tax Break. It's about giving billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses as a time when American taxpayers just can't afford it." Obama has proposed to "reverse some of those tax cuts that went to the wealthiest Americans." As Obama put it, "It's not as if rich people were suffering under Bill Clinton."
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.155 Oct 30, 2007

Reduce Bush tax cuts to pay for health care & other programs
Q: Do you agree that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes?
A: There's no doubt that the tax system has been skewed. And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.

But I think this goes to a broader question, and that is, are we willing to make the investments in genuine equal opportunity in this country? People aren't looking for charity. We talk about welfare and we talk about poverty, but what people really want is fairness. They want people paying their fair share of taxes. They want that money allocated fairly.

One of the distressing things about Katrina was the fact that we have not made systematic investments. And the only way we're going to make it is by making sure that those of us who are fortunate enough to have the money actually make a contribution.

Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007

Estate tax only affects the wealthiest 1/2 of 1%
We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.
Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of 1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.191-192 Oct 1, 2006

Specific tax relief for families making $75,000 or less now
I have proposed specific tax relief now, immediately, so that we would offset some of the payroll tax, that we would immediately put some additional dollars in the pockets of American families, making $75,000 a year or less, to not only stimulate the economy, but also to balance out a tax code. I would pay for it specifically by closing tax loopholes & tax havens. What we've had is a top-down agenda that is skewed toward the wealthiest Americans. It is making worse some of the trends of globalization
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006

Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class
Middle class families are getting squeezed. The new jobs being created in Illinois pay an average of $15,000 less than the jobs that we've lost - and fewer offer real benefits. Health insurance premiums and the cost of a college education have skyrocketed since the beginning of the Bush Administration. In the past three years, corporate profits have increased more than 60%. Workers are being paid just 3% more.
It wouldn't be fair or accurate to blame all of this on the Bush Administration. It is fair, however, to say that they haven't done much to help. The tax cuts they've offered have barely made a dent in reducing the burden on middle class families, while driving our nation trillions of dollars deeper into debt. They continue to support tax breaks for corporations who export jobs overseas, and have refused to enforce provisions within existing trade agreements against countries who engage in unfair trade practices.

Source: Press Release, "Middle Class Being Squeezed" Jun 26, 2004

Tax incentives to create jobs at home instead of offshore
Obama today said companies creating jobs in America should be rewarded with tax cuts rather than giving tax incentives to companies that move jobs offshore. "Right now, we have a tax code that gives incentives for companies to move offshore. Instead, we must have a tax code that rewards companies that are doing the right thing by investing in American workers and investing in research and development here in the United States," said Obama. "Our government has to be looking out for these people who are working hard everyday trying to make ends meet and right now we've got a set of policies that are not reflective of that." Obama's plan to create quality jobs in Illinois will:
Close loopholes that encourage companies to move jobs abroad.
Reward companies that create quality jobs in America.
Ensure fair trade by enforcing existing trade agreements and strengthening future trade agreements.
Provide needed assistance for displaced workers.
Source: Press Release, "Creating Jobs in America" Jun 21, 2004

Last thing we need now is a permanent tax cut
We heard the President say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them. What we need is a middle class tax cut, and that's exactly what I will provide as President.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008

Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To put children ahead of millionaires and billionaires by restoring the pre-2001 top income tax rate for people earning over $1 million, and use this revenue to invest in LIHEAP; IDEA; Head Start; Child Care; nutrition; school construction and deficit reduction.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. SANDERS: The wealthiest people in the country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Their incomes are soaring, while at the same time the middle class is shrinking, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. The time is now to begin changing our national priorities and moving this country in a different direction.

This amendment restores the top income tax bracket for households earning more than $1 million a year, it raises $32.5 billion over 3 years, and invests that in our kids, including $10 billion for special education. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. KYL: The problem is we are spending the same dollar 3 or 4 times, it appears. The Sanders amendment is paid for by raising taxes another $32.5 billion, ostensibly from the rich; that is to say, by raising taxes on people who make over $1 million a year. Here is the problem with that. The budget on the floor already assumes the expiration of the current tax rates; that is to say, the rates on the highest level go from 35% to 39.6%, and that money is spent. If you took all the top-rate income, you would come up with $25 billion a year, not even enough to meet what is here, and that money has already been spent. The reality is somewhere or other, somehow, more taxes would have to be raised. I don't think the American people want to do that, particularly in the current environment. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 43-55

Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4218 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S064 on Mar 13, 2008

Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:To exempt from pay-as-you-go enforcement modifications to the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) that prevent millions of additional taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. GRASSLEY: The Senate voted to make sure that middle-class America didn't pay the AMT, and we did it without an offset, by a vote of [about 95%]. So here we are again with an opportunity to say to middle-class America that we are not going to tax the people who were not supposed to be hit by the AMT. This amendment gives us an opportunity to get over that hurdle that is in this budget resolution that, under pay-go, you would have to have an offset for the AMT. Unless my amendment is adopted, the 25 million families who will be hit by the AMT increase will get a tax increase of over $2,000 apiece. They deserve a guarantee of relief.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. CONRAD: If you want to blow a hole in the budget as big as all outdoors, here is your opportunity--a trillion dollars not paid for, a trillion dollars that we are going to go out and borrow from the Chinese and Japanese. That makes absolutely no sense. I urge my colleagues to vote no.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 47-51

Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4276 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S078 on Mar 13, 2008

Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:To protect small businesses, family ranches and farms from the Death Tax by providing a $5 million exemption, a low rate for smaller estates and a maximum rate no higher than 35%.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. KYL: This amendment is a reprise of what we did last year in offering to reform the estate tax, sometimes referred to as the death tax. Now, in the budget itself, there is a provision to allow the death tax to be changed from the current law to a top rate of 45% and an exempted amount of $3.5 million, and there are some other features. My amendment would reduce that top rate to no higher than 35% so that if you had more than one rate, at least the top rate could not exceed 35%, and both of the two spouses would have a $5 million exempted amount before the estate tax would kick in. Now, the reason for my amendment is: current law [is] getting up to a high rate of 55% and an exempted amount of either $2 million or $1 million, probably $1 million--a continued unfair burden on primarily America's small businesses and farms.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. CONRAD: This amendment would virtually eliminate the estate tax. Let me say why. Let me first say there is no death tax in the country. Of course, if you poll people and you ask them: Do you want to eliminate the death tax? they will say sure. But you are not going to pay any tax when you die unless you have $2 million. There is no death tax in America. There is a tax on estates. At today's level of $2 million, that affects only 0.5% of estates. When the exemption reaches $3.5 million in 2009, 0.2% of estates will be taxed. If the amendment is agreed to, we would be borrowing money in the name of 99.8% of the American people, borrowing primarily from China & Japan, to give it to the Warren Buffets, the Paris Hiltons, & others of enormous wealth in this country.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 50-50

Reference: Kyl Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.4191 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S050 on Feb 13, 2008

Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Amendment would accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, preventing 23 million families and individuals from being subject to the AMT in 2007, and millions of families and individuals in subsequent years.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This amendment repeals the AMT. Except for the telephone tax, the alternative minimum tax is the phoniest tax we have ever passed. The AMT, in 1969, was meant to hit 155 taxpayers who used legal means to avoid taxation, under the theory that everybody ought to pay some income tax.

This very year, more than 2,000 people who are very wealthy are not paying any income tax or alternative minimum income tax. So it is not even working and hitting the people it is supposed to hit. Right now, this year, 2007, the year we are in, there are 23 million families that are going to be hit by this tax. It is a phony revenue machine, over 5 years, $467 billion dollars. We are going to have to have a point of order this year to keep these 23 million taxpayers from paying this tax. We might as well do away with it right now, once and for all, and be honest about it.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

The reality of the budget resolution is this may not have anything to do with eliminating the alternative minimum tax. The one thing it will do is reduce the revenue of the Government over the next 5 years by $533 billion, plunging us right back into deficit. Look, we can deal with the AMT. We have dealt with it in the underlying budget resolution for the next 2 years. There will be no increase in the number of people affected by the AMT for the next 2 years under the budget resolution, and that is paid for. Unfortunately, this amendment is not paid for. It would plunge us back into deficit. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Reference: Grassley Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.471 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-108 on Mar 23, 2007

Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.
An amendment to raise the death tax exemption to $5 million; reducing the maximum death tax rate to 35%; and to promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:

It is disappointing to many family businesses and farm owners to set the death tax rate at what I believe is a confiscatory 45% and set the exemption at only $3.5 million, which most of us believe is too low. This leaves more than 22,000 families subject to the estate tax each year.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

You can extend all the tax breaks that have been described in this amendment if you pay for them. The problem with the amendment is that over $70 billion is not paid for. It goes on the deficit, which will drive the budget right out of balance. We will be going right back into the deficit ditch. Let us resist this amendment. People could support it if it was paid for, but it is not. However well intended the amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. This amendment blows the budget. This amendment takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit. My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they offset them. This amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be defeated.

Reference: Kyl Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.507 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-083 on Mar 21, 2007

Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.
Increases the estate tax exclusion to $5,000,000, effective 2015, and repeals the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes. Lowers the estate tax rate to equal the current long-term capital gains tax rate (i.e., 15% through 2010) for taxable estates up to $25 million. Repeals after 2009 the estate tax deduction paid to states.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:

The permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55% and the exclusion dropping to $1 million in 2011. It also includes a minimum wage increase, 40% over the next 3 years. Voting YES is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. Voting YES is for that extension of tax relief. Voting YES is for that 40% minimum wage increase. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American family, farmers, & small business owners.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Family businesses and family farms should not be broken up to pay taxes. With the booming economy of the 1990s, many more Americans joined the ranks of those who could face estate taxes. Raising the exemption level and lowering the rate in past legislation made sense. Under current law, in my State of Delaware, fewer than 50 families will face any estate tax in 2009. I oppose this legislation's complete repeal of the estate tax because it will cost us $750 billion. Given the world we live in today, with clear domestic needs unmet, full repeal is a luxury that we cannot afford.

To add insult to this injury, the first pay raise for minimum wage workers in 10 years is now hostage to this estate tax cut. We are told that to get those folks on minimum wage a raise, we have to go into debt, so that the sons and daughters of the 7,000 most fortunate families among us will be spared the estate tax. We must say no to this transparent gimmick.

Reference: Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act; Bill H.R. 5970 ; vote number 2006-229 on Aug 3, 2006

Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.
A cloture motion ends debate and forces a vote on the issue. In this case, voting YES implies support for permanently repealing the death tax. Voting against cloture would allow further amendments. A cloture motion requires a 3/5th majority to pass. This cloture motion failed, and there was therefore no vote on repealing the death tax.
Proponents of the motion say:
We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.
In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax was repealed. But that changed in the last century. The death tax was imposed and has never been lifted.
The death tax tells people it is better to consume today than to invest for the future. That doesn't make sense.
Opponents of the motion say:
Small businesses and farms rarely--if ever--are forced to sell off assets or close up shop to pay the tax. Under the current exemption, roughly 99% of estates owe nothing in estate taxes. By 2011, with a $3.5 million exemption, only two of every 100,000 people who die that year would be subject to the estate tax.
Today's vote is on a motion to proceed to a bill to repeal the estate tax. Not to proceed to a compromise or any other deal--but to full repeal. I oppose full repeal of the estate tax. Our Nation can no longer afford this tax break for the very well off. Permanently repealing the estate tax would add about $1 trillion to our national debt from 2011 to 2021.
Reference: Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act; Bill HR 8 ; vote number 2006-164 on Jun 8, 2006

Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut.
To strengthen America's military, to repeal the extension of tax rates for capital gains and dividends, to reduce the deficit, and for other purposes. Specifically, a YES vote would appropriate $47 billion to the military and would pay for it by repealing the extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends to 2010 back to 2008. The funds wuold be used as follows:
$25.4 billion for procurement
$17 billion for Army operation and maintenance
$4.5 billion for Marine Corps operation and maintenance
Reference: Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act; Bill S Amdt 2737 to HR 4297 ; vote number 2006-008 on Feb 2, 2006

Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.
Vote to reduce federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by retaining a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as well as.
Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)

Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 66-31
Reference: Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act; Bill HR 4297 ; vote number 2006-010 on Feb 2, 2006

Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.
This large piece of legislation (418 pages) includes numerous provisions, generally related to extending the tax cuts initiated by President Bush. This vote was on final passage of the bill. The specific provisions include:
Extension Of Expiring Provisions: for business expenses, retirement savings contributions, higher education expenses, new markets tax credit, and deducting state and local sales taxes.
Provisions Relating To Charitable Donations, and Reforming Charitable Organizations
Improved Accountability of Donor Advised Funds
Improvements in Efficiency and Safeguards in IRS Collection
Opponents of the bill recommend voting NAY because:
Health care for children (among many other things) should come before tax cuts for the wealthy.
The 2-year cost of the extensions on capital gains tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is $20 billion. So if we defer the tax break the administration is pushing for the wealthiest people in America, we would have enough money to provide basic health insurance for every uninsured child in America, and we would eliminate 20% of the uninsured Americans with that single act alone.
Proponents of the bill recommend voting YEA because:
The largest provision in the bill--about $30 billion of tax relief--amounts to half of the net tax package and is designed to keep 14 million people out of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is terrible and should be repealed.
College tuition benefits for families who send their kids to college -- by definition, this benefit goes to middle-income families.
The small savers' credit -- for low-income folks that save through an IRA or pension plan.
Many small businesses use the small business expensing benefit to buy equipment on an efficient after-tax basis. It is good for small business. It is good for economic growth.
Reference: Tax Relief Act of 2005; Bill S. 2020 ; vote number 2005-347 on Nov 18, 2005

Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.
Obama scores 100% 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

Click here for definitions & background information on Tax Reform.
Click here for a profile of Barack Obama.
Click here for SenateMatch answers by Barack Obama.
Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Tax Reform in The Forum.
Click here for a summary of Barack Obama's positions on all issues.
Click here for issue positions of other IL politicians.

Other candidates on Tax Reform: