Hill official corrects item on income-tax cut legislator backed

LITTLE ROCK — The 2017 federal tax cuts, which U.S. Rep. French Hill championed, eliminated the top income tax bracket, the Little Rock Republican’s campaign said Thursday.

A claim to the contrary, contained in a campaign news release earlier in the day, was erroneous, said J.R. Davis, a media consultant working on the three-term incumbent’s reelection bid.

Titled “Hill Calls Out Elliott for Making False Claims in Latest TV Advertisements,” the release accused Democratic challenger and state Sen. Joyce Elliott of misrepresenting Hill’s record.

“Repeatedly, Elliott has falsely claimed that Congressman French Hill voted to cut Medicare and Social Security to pay for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), and there is no basis for this untrue statement to central Arkansans,” the release stated.

Hill never voted to cut Medicare and Social Security to “fund a tax break for the wealthy,” it said.

“The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivers tax relief at every income level — while maintaining the top 39.6% tax rate on high-income earners,” the release said.

But the Hill campaign’s tax bracket portrayal is contradicted by contemporary news accounts, as well as subsequent IRS publications.

Asked Thursday afternoon whether the campaign’s description of the legislation was accurate, Davis said he would look into the matter, later acknowledging that the Republican-backed plan had lowered the top income tax bracket from 39.6% to 37%.

The cut hadn’t been included in the House version initially supported by Hill, Davis said.

“I think the final product, you’re right, it was 37%. But the one that he voted for and supported was the one that kept it at 39.6%,” Davis said.

The provision benefiting high-income filers, inserted into the bill shortly before final passage, applied only to those earning roughly $425,000 or more per year, according to IRS publications.

Hill went on to back the final version, with rates topping out at 37%. President Donald Trump signed it into law days before Christmas 2017.

On Thursday, Davis declined to say which of the two rates Hill believed was most appropriate for those in the upper tax bracket.

“Congressman Hill supported both versions of the [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] because both versions accomplished his primary objective, which was to provide substantive tax relief for middle-class Arkansas families, and neither version cut Medicare or Social Security and, in fact, according to Congressional Budget Office figures, it improved both,” Davis said.

Nothing in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 calls for cuts in either program.

Asked about claims that Hill wanted to cut Medicare and Social Security, the Elliott campaign pointed to previous House Republican votes that it said would increase the deficit and deprive entitlement programs of sufficient funding.

Elliott also portrayed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a tax increase on the middle class.

An early analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated that the law would allow Americans to keep more of their money, at least in the short term.

After-tax income, on average, would increase by 1.9%, with those in the top 1% of income seeing an increase of 2.5%.

But most of the individual tax cuts are set to expire in December 2025, the foundation noted.

Hill and other Republicans say the cuts should be extended. Under the law as currently written, Democrats argue, the short-term tax cuts would be followed by long-term tax raises, resulting in a net tax increase overall.

In a written statement, Elliott argued that her ads are accurate.

“Congressman Hill enacted a lifetime middle class tax increase and a huge tax giveaway for his fellow millionaires, and he wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for it. His claiming otherwise is as ridiculous as photoshopping a picture of me in the winter standing for students and pretending it was me at a riot in the summer — which he did,” she said.

“Unlike Congressman Hill, I’m running on my positive record of improving the quality of life for Arkansans. I’m proud to have worked across the aisle to expand access to quality health care, lower taxes for working families, and create what became the #1 state pre-K program in America,” she said.

In the news release, Hill campaign chairwoman Judith Goodson denied that the Republican would raid entitlement programs in order to fund tax cuts.

“Not only is this claim completely baseless and false, but it is Joyce Elliott, not Congressman Hill, who supports the government-takeover of health care that would bankrupt Medicare. She’s even stated publicly that she would ‘prefer a single payer option,’ if elected,” Goodson said.

“The truth is that Congressman Hill’s vote for the [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] cut taxes for Arkansas families and small businesses across Central Arkansas. If elected, Joyce Elliott will be a vote for Joe Biden’s repeal of those tax cuts, meaning low- and middle- income Arkansans will pay more in taxes,” she said.

“And it was Congressman Hill who voted to end the burdensome Obama-era tax increases that Elliott says she would have voted for and now wants to expand.”

The highest marginal income tax rates were raised to 39.6% during the presidency of Barack Obama, matching the top rate under President Bill Clinton, according to the Tax Foundation.

Under President George W. Bush, they were cut to 35%.

On Thursday, while the Hill and Elliott campaigns were arguing about tax policy, the National Republican Congressional Committee was critiquing Elliott’s personal financial disclosure form.

“Curious thing in Joyce Elliott’s financial disclosures — she reports owning no assets whatsoever, not even a checking account. So unless Elliott is being paid her state senate salary in cash by the State of Arkansas, it’s clear there are some omissions here. What exactly is Joyce Elliott hiding?” wrote committee spokesman Bob Salera.

If the allegations raised by Salera are true, Goodson said, “it is yet another example of Congressman Hill’s opponent trying to obfuscate the truth.”

An Elliott campaign spokesman said the candidate had inadvertently omitted her Simmons National Bank checking account on her initial filing.

In an amended filing late Thursday, Elliott noted the account, listing it as an asset worth between $ 1,001 and $15,000.

Under federal law, candidates aren’t required to list their personal residence or automobile, among other assets.