51 votes against -I didn't hear the pros count
The Bunning Amendment (Jim Bunning R-Ky.) has been put up many times and it always fails. It would have cut the tax on Soc.Sec. benefits and wages over $34,000 for single and $44,000 for couples FROM 85% back to the 50% it was before being raised in 1993. Soc.Sec. benefits were originally taxes in 1983 (Reagan signed it).
The Bunning Amendment would have "cost" $200 Billion in lost tax revenue.
http://www.cincypost.com/2005/03/25/edita032505.htmlUntil 1993, the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation was limited to 50 percent. That year Congress -- struggling to shore up the Medicare health care program for seniors -- raised the cap to 85 percent. That doesn't mean seniors pay an 85 percent tax rate on their benefits. It means that, at most, 85 percent of their Social Security benefits are subject to the income tax at whatever rate they pay on their other income.
The Bunning amendment would re-establish the cutoff at 50 percent for Social Security recipients with income of more than $34,000 or couples making more than $44,000.
IT was on C-Span2