Gee, Schumer, did you write that press release yourself? Gonna call Gordo out for voting with you on Mukasey? SCHUMER, GET OUT OF MY STATE. We can pick our own Democratic challenger.

I'm lost on this one. Why do the Dems want to reduce AMT taxes? They are the ones who put the AMT in place. The whole idea of the AMT is to make sure that rich people pay taxes. It is working, the AMT is bringing in billions of taxes. Why would the Dems want to give up that revenue?

A bit off topic - does anyone recall this story about Smith back in 2002:

Smith urges Perry Atkinson to resign But a Gordon Smith spokesman denies that the U.S. senator made a veiled threat against the state GOP chairman’s son By DAMIAN MANN Mail Tribune Perry Atkinson was floored by U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith’s attempt to muscle him out of the Oregon Republican Party leadership and shaken by a veiled threat that if he didn’t leave, it could hurt the political career of his son, state Sen. Jason Atkinson. "I was told it was best for my son’s political future if I took a victory lap and stepped out," said Atkinson, Oregon GOP chairman and Medford Christian radio broadcaster. Smith, who won the November general election by 20 percentage points over his opponent, is backing former state House speaker Lynn Snodgrass’ campaign for chairwoman of the Oregon GOP in February, while asking his political ally Atkinson to step aside. ... The telephone conversation ended, Perry Atkinson said, with the implication that it would be beneficial to Jason Atkinson’s political career if his father stepped aside quietly. "To imply that was just cheap," Perry Atkinson said

MailTribune

Does anyone know any more about this?

Well something about this story doesn't make much sense. According to Smith's website, he is trying to elminate the AMT. So why would the DSCC send out a press release saying that Smith is voting against tax relief? Sounds to me like Smith is for tax relief. Here is the quote from Smith's website.

This spring, Senator Smith was one of 44 Senators pushing to permanently repeal the AMT on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The legislation failed to move. Senator Smith has continued his efforts to repeal the AMT.

Here is another quote from Smith's website:

October 17th, 2007 - Washington, DC - Senator Gordon Smith today advocated for Congress to take immediate action to prevent upwards of 230,000 largely middle-income Oregon households from having to pay a major new tax. Senator Smith wants Congress to act before the end of 2007.

“Congress continues to hit the snooze button on reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax,” Smith said. “Oregon families are about to get thumped by this unfair and expensive tax. It is time to wake up and take action.”

So Smith's quote sounds almost identical to what the DSCC say they want. I guess I can't sort out who is on first here.

Or maybe it is the Dems who say they want to reduce taxes but keep increasing them? Maybe Smith voted against the current bill because it wasn't really a tax decrease? After all, he is on the record saying he wants to eliminate the AMT and the Dems don't seem to have that on the agenda.

Remember, it is the Dems who brought us the AMT in the first place. The AMT is all about class warfare and envy which are standard issue Dem platforms. So maybe a little foot dragging by the R's is just pay back?

This would have been a good opportunity for the Dem's to actually discuss the real issue here. But instead, it ended up in an argument about whether or not Smith supports modification of the AMT. And you know what, he does, and this press release is bogus and the Dem's lose this argument by they way they framed Smith's vote.

Here's why Smith and the Rep's oppose the bill.

Under TTRA 2007 hedge fund managers will pay tax on most of their gains at ordinary income rates rather than capital gain rates.

So yes Andy, there is some tax changes included in this bill. And while Rep's an Andy would like to call it a tax increase, in reality its fixing the rules laws that have inadvertently (at least I think it was inadvertant) allowed hedge fund managers to pay a lesser tax rate on their earned income than their receptionists pay. And yes, those changes allow the tax income lost by relief to the middle class to be offset by placing a more equitable (IMO) rate of tax on hedge fund managers.

A cynic may say that the reason the Dem's didn't make more of a political point of the real reason for opposition to this bill is that they don't really want to mess with the wall street either. Maybe they like going to the Hamptons a little too much.

I bet the hedge fund tax rate is a little more tricky of an issue than what you've described. It is really difficult to write a tax law that only impacts one specific industry. Tax legislation is full of unintended consequences, the AMT is a perfect example of that. The AMT was created a few decades back after a news story come out that showed a few rich people weren't paying any taxes. I think they had their savings all invested in tax free bonds or something else that was perfectly legal. So some populist, or progressive, got all bent out of shape and the end result was a completely parallel tax system. But someone forgot to index it for inflation and now it is hitting upper income folks. The really ironic part is that the AMT hits blue states harder than red states since blue states tend to have higher state taxes. So the chickens have come home to roost and nobody seems to know what to do. The Dems appear to be stuck since they don't want to give up the revenue but they also don't like all the nasty phone calls they are getting from their voters back home. I think the R's are just content to block change in order to make the D's squirm some more in their own trap. The R's have offered to repeal the entire tax but the D's aren't willing to give up on their lust for rich people's money.

The whole thing is really a waste of time and energy. There is no reason to have two tax systems. If the income tax isn't bringing in enough money then just adjust the rates a little bit or change some of the adjustments, loopholes, deductions, etc. Eliminate the AMT and be done with it.

Also...the other big hangup for R's was the pay as you go rule that the D's are trying to re-institute, which would require that the tax modification to the AMT be offset by some tax increase or spending cut. The R's simply said....no.

Now its probable that the tax increase in hedge fund managers included in the bill income was the stick stirring that glass of kool-aid as well. (just try googling a little and you can see that the hedge fund tax change, and the pay-go dispute was exactly what the R's were objecting to.)

And Andy, it's not that difficult. Hedge fund managers, and some other similar investor type's, were in effect converting ordinary income (wages for those of us who work) into "Capital gains" by booking the income as carried forward interest then stashing it offshore. So in effect, they were going from the 35% tax bracket to the 15% tax bracket by simple accounting methods. This was income that was profit from their business activity. Its ordinary income.

Regardless, my original point was...the DSCC press release attacking Smith was silly and off base and shows that whoever wrote it is either inept, or not very analytical, or, and I think this is most likely, not really a lot different than the R's when it comes to rocking the boat with wall street.

Oh...and middle of my post I see a story in NYT. Dem senators cave on AMT bill and agree to remove hedge fund tax and pay-go provisions. D's seem to be saying they'll address that later separately. R's win again. Smith vindicated and can now vote for reduction in AMT.

There was a story about Senate Democrats trying to make progress on this and similar issues and having to dump "pay-go" to get it passed because Republicans didn't want to raise taxes/ end tax breaks to pay for it.

John Thune, that shallow smart aleck who defeated Tom Daschle, had a quote along the lines of "Ha Ha, we made them drop paygo which is one of their most cherished beliefs".

Molly Ivins had a line "breathes there a Democrat with soul so dead that they do not see an issue when it bites them?" or words to that effect.

So why aren't Democrats (esp. the ones who want to replace Gordon Smith in the Senate--the candidates AND their supporters) asking something like this publicly, "Gordon Smith, you have spoken publicly about how proud you are to have succeeded Mark Hatfield in the US Senate. Do you believe Sen. Hatfield would have put up with such sarcasm? And what is your higher priority--solving the AMT problem by finding a way to replace the money that would be lost, or making the life of the opposition party difficult?".