U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

79–011 2000

106th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 106–291

VETO MESSAGE OF H.R. 4810, THE MARRIAGE TAX

RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

HIS VETO OF H.R. 4810, THE ‘‘MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF

RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000’’

SEPTEMBER 6, 2000.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed

(1)

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 4810, the

‘‘Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000,’’ because it is poorly targeted and one part of a costly and regressive tax plan that

reverses the principle of fiscal responsibility that has contributed

to the longest economic expansion in history.

My Administration supports marriage penalty relief and has offered a targeted and fiscally responsible proposal in our fiscal year

2001 budget to provide it. However, I must oppose H.R. 4810. Combined with the numerous other tax bills approved by the Congress

this year and supported by the congressional majority for next

year, it would drain away the projected surplus that the American

people have worked so hard to create. Even by the Congressional

Budget Office’s more optimistic projection, this tax plan would

plunge America back into deficit and would leave nothing for

lengthening the life of Social Security or Medicare; nothing for voluntary and affordable Medicare prescription drug benefits; nothing

for education and school construction. Moreover, the congressional

majority’s tax plan would make it impossible for us to get America

out of debt by 2012.

H.R. 4810 would cost more than $280 billion over 10 years if its

provisions were permanent, making it significantly more expensive

than either of the bills originally approved by the House and the

Senate. It is poorly targeted toward delivering marriage penalty relief—only about 40 percent of the cost of H.R. 4810 actually would

reduce marriage penalties. It also provides little tax relief to those

families that need it most, while devoting a large fraction of its

benefits to families with higher incomes.

Taking into account H.R. 4810, the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts

passed by the House Ways and Means Committee this year provide

about as much benefit to the top 1 percent of Americans as to the

bottom 80 percent combined. Families in the top 1 percent get an

average tax break of over $16,000, while a middle-class family gets

only $220 on average. But if interest rates went up because of the

congressional majority’s plan by even one-third of one percent, then

mortgage payments for a family with a $100,000 mortgage would

go up by $270, leaving them worse off than if they had no tax cut

at all.

We should have tax cuts this year, but they should be the right

ones, targeted to working families to help our economy grow—not

tax breaks that will help only a few while putting our prosperity

at risk. I have proposed a program of targeted tax cuts that will

give a middle-class American family substantially more benefits

than the Republican plan at less than half the cost. Including our

carefully targeted marriage penalty relief, two-thirds of the relief

will go to the middle 60 percent of American families. Our tax cuts

will also help to send our children to college, with a tax deduction

2

or 28 percent tax credit for up to $10,000 in college tuition a year;

help to care for family members who need long-term care, through

a $3,000 long-term care tax credit; help to pay for child care and

to ease the burden on working families with three or more children; and help to fund desperately needed school construction.

And because our plan will cost substantially less than the tax

cuts passed by the Congress, we’ll still have the resources we need

to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit; to extend the life

of Social Security and Medicare; and to pay off the debt by 2012—

so that we can keep interest rates low, keep our economy growing,

and provide lower home mortgage, car, and college loan payments

for the American people.

This surplus comes from the hard work and ingenuity of the

American people. We owe it to them to make the best use of it—

for all of them, and for our children’s future.

Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return

of H.R. 4810 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of

the Constitution, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929).

In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my

constitutional power to ‘‘power veto’’ bills during an adjournment of

the Congress, to avoid litigation, I am also sending H.R. 4810 to

the House of Representatives with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I have vetoed the measure.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 5, 2000.

3

4

5

6