*Similar releases will be sent targeting vulnerable Senators and Senate candidates in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, Florida and Indiana
Don’t worry, taxes aren’t due for another three days and here’s another silver lining: Ohioans will have a chance to fire Senator Rob Portman this November for his harmful record of voting against tax breaks for middle class families, while protecting millionaires and corporate interests. So, in honor of Tax Day, let’s take a look at that record:
- Rob Portman has supported the Ryan budget, which would cut taxes for millionaires while raising them on working families.
- Portman has voted to protect tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, taking away opportunities for hardworking Americans.
- Portman voted against an amendment that would provide tax relief for child care, opting to protect taxpayer subsidies for CEO bonuses.
“Time and time again, Senator Rob Portman has shown he’s in the pocket of millionaires and corporate interests, and that hurts Ohioans,” said Lauren Passalacqua, DSCC National Press Secretary. “Ohio’s hardworking middle class families deserve a Senator who will fight for the best tax policies for them, and that’s why they will elect Ted Strickland in November.”
BACKGROUND:
ROB PORTMAN VOTED FOR A BUDGET THAT WOULD GIVE MILLIONAIRES A HUGE TAX CUT, RAISE TAXES ON WORKING FAMILIES
2012: Rob Portman Voted For FY 2013 Ryan Budget. In May 2012, Portman voted for a: “Conrad, D-N.D., motion to proceed to the concurrent resolution that would allow $2.794 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal 2013, not including off-budget accounts.” The motion failed 41-58. [CQ, 5/16/12, H.Con.Res. 112, Vote 98, 5/16/12]
- Republican Budget Would Have Given Millionaires A Huge Tax Cut And Raised Taxes On Working Families. Not only does the Republican budget not ask the wealthiest Americans to contribute to deficit reduction, but it drastically lowers their income tax rate from 39.6% to 25%. This is an even larger tax cut for the wealthy than the plan advocated by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan during the campaign, which called for a decrease from 35% to 28%. Analysis of the Romney-Ryan plan by the independent Tax Policy Center found that it is mathematically impossible to provide such large tax cuts to the wealthy without increasing the tax burden on the middle class. In 2012, the Joint Economic Committee estimated that the Ryan plan could have given millionaires an additional $285,000 in tax breaks while hitting the average middle-class family with a $1,300 tax hike. Given that the tax cut in Ryan 3.0 is twice as large as the Romney-Ryan plan, the effects on the middle class are expected to be even worse. Analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that the FY2013 Ryan Plan would increase taxes on lower-income earners. [Joint Economic Committee, 6/20/12; Tax Policy Center, 8/1/12; Tax Policy Center,4/8/12]
ROB PORTMAN VOTED AGAINST ENDING TAX BREAKS FOR COMPANIES THAT SHIPPED JOBS OVERSEAS
2012: Rob Portman Voted Against The Bring Jobs Home Act, Which Would End Tax Breaks For Outsourcers And Incentivize Companies To Bring Overseas Jobs Back To The U.S. In July 2012, Portman voted against a: “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would provide a 20 percent business tax credit to cover the cost of shifting overseas jobs back to the United States and eliminate tax credits for expenses related to moving operations abroad.” The motion failed 56-42. [CQ, 7/19/12; S. 3364, Vote 181, 7/19/12]
2014: Rob Portman Voted Against The Bring Jobs Home Act, Which Would End Tax Breaks For Outsourcing And Incentivize Companies To Bring Overseas Jobs Back To The U.S. In July 2014, Portman voted against a: “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the bill that would give businesses a tax credit for up to 20 percent of the expenses incurred to bring work done in foreign countries back into the United States, if the business also increases its number of full-time employees. It also would prohibit tax deductions for expenses incurred when moving jobs outside the U.S.” The motion failed 54-42. [CQ, 7/30/14, S. 2569, Vote 249, 7/30/14]
ROB PORTMAN VOTED AGAINST EXPANDING TAX CREDITS FOR CHILDCARE AND LIMITING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR CEO BONUSES
Rob Portman Voted Against Expanding Tax Credits For Child Care. On December 3, 2015, Rob Portman voted against a “Casey, D-Pa, motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Enzi, R-Wyo., point of order against the Casey, D-Pa., amendment no. 2893 to the McConnell, R-Ky., substitute amendment no. 2874. The Casey amendment would increase the annual tax credit married parents can claim for medical expenses incurred by their children to $8,000 for a single child, from $3,000, and to $16,000 for two children, from $6,000.” The motion was defeated by a vote of 46-54. [CQ, 12/3/15; S. Amdt. 2893 to S. Amdt. 2874 to H.R. 3762, Vote 315, 12/3/15]
- Amendment Would Have Repealed Performance-Based Exceptions To The $1 Million Cap On Tax-Deductible CEO Bonuses, Singled Out As A Way Corporations Gamed The Tax System To Increase Executive Bonuses Through Use Of Stock Options. “MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION. (a) Repeal of Performance-based Compensation and Commission Exceptions for Limitation on Excessive Remuneration. — (1) In general.–Paragraph (4) of section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (G) as subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively.” According to the Center on Executive Compensation: “Section 162(m) of the tax code limits the amount of deductible compensation that a company can pay to the CEO and top four other most highly paid officers to $1 million annually. While there are other exceptions to the $1 million deduction limitation, e.g. compensation deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan, the performance-based exception is the one that receives the most attention…Interestingly however, stock options have been designated by Congress as being per se performance-based compensation. This designation has drawn the ire of several members of Congress, who have accused companies of trying to game the tax system by increasing option-based compensation for executives.” [Amdt. 2893 to S. Amdt. 2874 to H.R. 3762, Library of Congress, 12/3/15; Center on Executive Compensation, accessed 4/14/16]
