By Lisa Mascaro

Sat, Mar 8, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Washington — The headline was eye-catching: “Democrats Tax Children.”

Posted on the House Republicans’ budget blog during Thursday night’s long debate over the fiscal year 2009 budget, the “child tax” theme is bound to be repeated throughout the election season. Economic troubles top voters’ minds this year, and each party is working hard to convince voters it is best on pocketbook issues.

Thank Republican Rep. Jon Porter for adding to that debate.

Porter’s legislation sparked the provocative headline. Porter introduced an amendment during the debate that would preserve one of President Bush’s signature tax cuts, the one that allows families a credit of as much as $1,000 per child.

It’s a popular tax cut, and one that both sides of the aisle are intent on renewing before it expires in 2011.

But Democrats built their FY09 budget on the premise that all the Bush tax cuts would expire. Under their scenario, come 2011 the child credit would revert to $500.

Sounds simple enough: Porter was trying to keep a tax cut — and prevent what would essentially be a tax hike on Nevada families. His proposal was shot down along party lines. So: Democrats tax children.

But budget experts on both sides of the aisle say what happened during the budget debate that takes place annually in Washington was more rhetorical than practical.

No family will incur a $500 child tax this year because Porter’s amendment failed, said J.D. Foster, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget.

Congress has a few years to cross that bridge, Foster said. But without retaining the child credit at the higher level in their budget, which is a blueprint for current and future spending, Democrats have given Porter ammunition.

“That’s the whole nature of the give and take of political discourse,” Foster said. “It puts down philosophical markers and sets down differences.”

“If Jon Porter doesn’t offer that amendment, perhaps nobody knows Democrats tried to pull a fast one,” he added.

Yet it also creates the kind of political rhetoric that Adam Hughes, director of federal fiscal policy at the budget watchdog group OMB Watch, believes downgrades discourse.

“It’s all about the sound bite,” Hughes complained.

Hughes said the debate isn’t about whether or not the credit will be kept at $1,000, but how that will be paid for.

Democrats want to offset the lost revenue with taxes elsewhere, part of new rules Democrats have implemented, with mixed results, that require Congress to pay for any new spending in hope of balancing the budget.

Porter and Republicans, however, believe the tax credit — and all the Bush tax cuts — can be paid for by keeping federal government spending flat.

“Why do we have to have all this back and forth ‘they’re taxing kids?’ ” Hughes said. “Everyone knows the child tax credit is going to be extended. The question is how are they going to pay for it?

“Since the Democrats know they’re probably going to do that anyway, they’re not going to adopt Porter’s amendment,” Hughes added. “All that does is give him a rhetorical win.”

The news releases were dashed off, and talking points for the campaign trail established.

“Unbelievable as it may sound,” read the blog entry from the Republican leadership office. “House Democrats just voted to raise taxes on children. Yes, children.”