|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FOLLOW-UP ON MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY: VETOED BY PRESIDENT
Islam Online, Washington, D.C.
How hard can it possibly be to get two-thirds of the House of Representatives to come together to override a presidential veto? Apparently, it is quite difficult - even when the issue is the controversial marriage tax. The House could not muster up the 16 additional votes they needed to override President Clinton's veto of the marriage tax penalty bill.
If the House had its way, married couples would benefit from a $292 billion tax reduction over the course of ten years.
As reported in the September 10th, 2000 Society section, the marriage tax is, in effect, a penalty being imposed upon married couples. The President's veto of the bill sends a strong signal that America does not value marriage, but rather seeks to discriminate against those who are married
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
