WASHINGTON — Rep. Jim Matheson bucked his own party's leaders to help rival Republicans pass a key part of President Bush's proposed tax cuts: eliminating higher taxes that some couples pay because they are married.

He was among 64 Democrats on Thursday to join all House Republicans to pass the bill 282-144. He was among only 12 Democrats who also opposed their own party's alternative bill, which died on a 231-196 vote.

"I ran all along during my campaign advocating 'marriage penalty' relief. And the Democratic alternative didn't contain as much good as the Republican bill," Matheson explained.

"I came here saying I was going to be an independent voice, and that's what I'm going to do," he added.

Still, he said the Republican version is not perfect. "But it's a good first step" to eliminate some of the 65 different components of the tax code that can tax people who marry at higher rates than if they had remained single, he said.

Matheson in recent days introduced what he said would be a preferable plan — to merely allow married couples to file either as married or as singles, "whichever way works the best for them." He said that would fully eliminate the marriage penalty.

Meanwhile, Reps. Jim Hansen and Chris Cannon, R-Utah, also voted for the Republican bill and praised it, including a provision that also would increase a current $500-per-child tax credit to $600 this year, and to $1,000 in 2006.

Hansen said, "The marriage tax is unfair, immoral and destructive to the fabric of our nation. This bill also recognized that working families need help to raise their children. The best way for the federal government to help is to let these families keep more of their own money."

Cannon said, "It is immoral to penalize Americans for filing as married couples. In the last Congress, we passed marriage penalty relief only to have it vetoed by Bill Clinton. I am pleased that we now have a tax-cutting president in office who will send needed relief to the American people."

Eliminating the marriage penalty is seen as the second phase of $1.6 trillion worth of tax cuts proposed by President Bush. The House earlier lowered tax brackets. (Matheson opposed both Republican and Democratic proposals for that. He said such a cut before adopting a budget was premature. The House passed a budget resolution this week.)

Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday also passed what could be the third phase of the tax cut: eliminating the so-called "death tax" on estates. The full House is expected to consider it next week.

However, House Republicans are pushing cuts that are larger than what the president has advocated. For example, Bush had pushed reducing "penalty" taxes only for couples where both spouses worked. The House extended it also to benefit stay-at-home spouses. Overall, "marriage penalty" cuts would cost an estimated $399 million over 10 years.

View Comments

The first two phases of tax cuts passed by the House would cost more than an estimated $1.3 billion, coming close to the $1.6 trillion target set by Bush, and many of his other tax cut proposals have yet to be considered. They range from extending a business credit for research to increasing adoption tax credits and allowing deductions for charitable donations for taxpayers who do not itemize on returns and instead take the standard deduction.

At a press conference Thursday, Bush said he hopes Congress will stick to his target of $1.6 trillion for tax cuts.

"We've had a lot of discussion here in Washington about whether it's too big or too small," Bush said. "Nothing has changed my opinion about the size of the package I sent. It's just right."


E-MAIL: lee@desnews.com

Join the Conversation
We’re testing some changes to our moderation system. You’ll see two changes:
  1. Fewer comments automatically sent to moderation (we hope).
  2. Lower tolerance for uncivil comments. If you encounter a warning that your comment will be sent to moderation, try revising before you submit for the best chance of approval.
Your feedback is welcome and can be submitted here.
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.