Porter: OK tax for GI Bill I support? I’ll see

By Lisa Mascaro

Thursday, May 15, 2008 | 2 a.m.

A month ago, Rep. Jon Porter crossed party lines as one of three Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee who voted for extending unemployment benefits for those out of work.

About the same time, he signed on to an enhanced GI Bill, a popular initiative to help returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans adjust to civilian life by paying their way to any state school.

Now Porter faces a tough choice. The two provisions are lumped together as an amendment to the Iraq war spending bill that President Bush has vowed to veto because it strays above the $108 billion he has requested.

But perhaps even more troubling than the veto threat is the “millionaire’s tax” Democrats have tacked on as a way to pay for the extra veterans benefits.

Porter must decide: Would his Henderson-area voters accept a surtax of a half-percent on couples’ adjusted incomes of more than $1 million a year — $500,000 for single filers — to pay for vets benefits? Or would they prefer he say no?

Porter’s office declined to comment on his position until the final version of the legislation is presented today.

But the congressman’s spokesman said the tax increase “changes the debate.”

“It’s certainly something that wasn’t included in the GI Bill he signed on to,” Porter spokesman Matt Leffingwell said. “Now there are strings attached.”

Porter has proved over the past year he is increasingly willing to take positions at odds with Bush and party leadership as he tries to move past 2006, when he narrowly won reelection after his opponent tried to paint him as in lock step with Bush.

Rank-and-file Republicans must certainly be thinking more seriously about their own fortunes after a bruising week in Washington.

The party suffered a serious election year setback when a Democrat won a special election in a Republican stronghold in Mississippi — the third Democratic victory this spring in a Republican-favored district and a sign of voter moods heading into the fall.

One party leader conceded during a conference call with reporters Wednesday that voters had a “loss of confidence” in the Republican Party, and he advised lawmakers to carve their own way this fall rather than rely on the Republican brand.

Today’s scheduled votes in the House represent what one senior Democratic aide called a “fork in the road” at which Republicans will have to decide whether they will “keep following Bush.”

But perhaps more difficult than breaking with Bush would be a vote by Porter to raise taxes.

Originally, the GI Bill would not have been paid for, much as war spending is not budgeted each year. Democrats had argued that taking care of vets once they return home is no different from the price paid sending them to war.

But conservative Democrats balked, and party leaders devised the tax to appease their fiscally prudent flank.

Now Porter must vote for the tax if he wants the unemployment benefits and the GI Bill.

The congressman was one of the earliest co-sponsors of the unemployment benefits expansion, as Nevada’s 5.8 percent unemployment rate has been well above the national average of 5 percent.

Nevada offers a maximum of 26 weeks of benefits, but the state labor office says more claimants are exhausting their benefits. Last year, one-third of all claimants used up their benefits, but today that number is closer to 40 percent — a sign of the difficulty workers face in finding new jobs, a labor economist said.

The bill would offer an additional 13 weeks of benefits, and for states whose unemployment rate is 6 percent or higher it would provide 26 more weeks.

“With the slowing economy in Southern Nevada the congressman believes it is critical to provide for an extended insurance period for individuals who, through no fault of their own, have lost their job,” Porter’s spokesman wrote in an e-mail.

Porter also signed on as a co-sponsor of the GI Bill, and veterans groups have been lobbying hard for the enhanced education benefits, saying a country that sends young men and women to war should be willing to pay for their readjustment to society.

But the new tax, which is also being called a “patriots’ tax,” is troubling to Republicans, who say it would hurt small-business owners who make $500,000 annually.

“Democrats always claim to tax only ‘the rich’ but hardworking Americans and small-business owners always wind up footing the bill,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Still, at least some Republicans are expected to cross over in support.

“In certain districts, it will certainly play out as so-and-so is bucking the Republican Party and the administration,” one Republican staff member said. “I do think you will see bipartisan support.”