[Editor’s note: This article was revised to include an e-mail response from 4th District candidate B.J. Lawson, which was sent on July 14 but was diverted temporarily by a spam filter.]

RALEIGH — On Dec. 31, the federal tax cuts passed from 2001 to 2003 are scheduled to expire. They include an increase in every personal income tax rate, higher taxes on marriage and family, the return of the inheritance tax (which was eliminated for this year only), and higher taxes on personal savings and investment. Allowing the taxes to expire would constitute the largest tax increase in American history.

Carolina Journal editorial intern Bill Flanigen contacted the North Caroilina candidates running for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives Districts 1-6, asking each the following questions:

Would you vote for legislation that extended the tax cuts indefinitely? For a set period of time? Would you instead propose and support a different tax policy? Or would you allow the tax cuts to expire as scheduled?

The unedited replies from the candidates or their spokesmen for Senate and House Districts 1-6 follow. The responses from the candidates for House Districts 7-13 can be found here.

• U.S. Senate

Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican, is running for his second term. Press Secretary David Ward replied:

“Senator Burr supports a permanent extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Letting these cuts expire amounts to nothing more than a massive tax increase which is the last thing American families, and our economy, need.”

Michael Beitler, Libertarian:

“I believe allowing the tax cuts to expire will be very destructive to our already weak economy.

“I would vote to extend the tax cuts indefinitely.

“I am a supporter of the FairTax. I am in support of abolishing the income tax and IRS, and then replacing the income tax with the FairTax.”

Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, a Democrat, did not respond.

• House District 1

Neither Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a Democrat who has served in Congress since winning a special election in 2004, nor Republican Ashley Woolard responded.

• House District 2

Renee Elmers, Republican:

“I would vote to extend the tax cuts, while at the same time seek ways to rein in this out of control borrowing and spending. I certainly favor eliminating the death tax and have signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge [to vote against legislation increasing federal taxes].”

Tom Rose, Libertarian:

“I support extending tax cuts indefinitely until such time that we can get a new tax system in place. I support the ‘Fair Tax’ plan (H.R. 25, S. 296).”

Rep. Bob Etheridge, who was elected to Congress in 1996, did not respond.

• House District 3

Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican, was elected to Congress in 1994:

“I have long advocated replacing the current tax system with either a national sales tax or a simplified flat tax system, and I regret that the Republican Party did not act on any such proposal while we were in the majority. I hope we get the opportunity to correct that mistake.

“To let all of the cuts expire in the midst of the current depressed economic environment would be a terrible mistake. The current Democrat majority will bring a tax bill of some sort to the floor later this year, and it is my hope that they will recognize that.

“I personally believe that the nation’s debt has reached the level of being an existential threat, and that as such any debates about tax policy cannot and should not take place without a simultaneous debate about spending. I would support extensions of all of the tax cuts, but we need to also support spending cuts — even in programs that we conservatives believe to be very important. The Bush/Obama ‘borrow and spend’ era needs to end before it is too late.”

Johnny Rouse, Democrat:

“The expiring tax cuts pass during the Bush Administration have been maybe the most talked about legislation in the last decade. The tax cuts to all but the top income earners would be allowed to continue in full. The top bracket earners or “the rich” would see their break expire, however they would have an opportunity at an opt-in investment opportunity to protect part of their tax liability.

“The Securities and Exchange Commission would be required in a joint endeavor with the Treasury and IRS to outsource a small business secondary financial market. The Security and Exchange Commission would be responsible for contracting out the administration of the market to the investment firm(s) which have the highest consumer protection and ethics rating. The IRS would collect the money and the Treasury would transfer and provide oversight of the accounts of the private firm(s) that win the contracts.

“This secondary market would be capitalized by a one-percent tax cut option available to all tax payers. There would be a required time period of 7 years before the asset could be liquidated after which the asset and all capital gains could be pulled out tax free. There are many reasons why this is a good plan.

“Modern tax cuts to top income earners and investors do not have the same benefit to the US Domestic job market as was the case in the 1980s. Today we have NAFTA and CAFTA and “most-favored” trade agreements all over the world and rightly so. There are both economic and global security justifications for increase trade and lowering of barriers to market entry and ensuing cultural exchange. But, it does lead to a problem when we seek economic stimulus through fiscal policy.

“The trend towards “jobless” economic recovery over the last twenty years is concerning and we need to change this. Small business is the most sure-fire and cost efficient way to stimulate domestic job growth. By using targeted tax cuts to capitalize a small business secondary market, we could stimulate strong job growth and small-business investment. This takes away the need for additional guarantee programs from the Small-Business Administration that merely bails out poor loans and leaves the government holding the bill.

“This would mean an addition tax break to most Americans in addition to the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The top bracket having their break expire would have the 1% tax-cut option for the small business investment. I would also allow inheritance exemptions to remain as well as restrict any capital gains rate increases.”

Darryl Holloman, Libertarian:

“For a short answer to your questions, I would not support any tax cut or tax cut extension without a corresponding cut in spending. Also, the spending cuts MUST come before the tax cut and must be greater than the tax cut. Tax cuts without spending cuts = more debt.

“Now, for a longer answer. I am afraid that, as a country, our opportunity to reverse course and avoid the pain and stagnation of a socialist society has passed. Instead we have chosen to live in a fantasy world where if we just pretend that reality does not exist it will go away. We are at a point now where pain is inevitable. We cannot get out of this debt situation with the usual politically driven tax “tweaks”.

“Just like the IPCC played “hide the decline”, our politicians continuously play “hide the taxes” in hopes that the American people will not realize what the true cost of this government really is. I will not pander for votes by perpetuating fantasies. I stand on reality. If Americans are going to insist on a cradle to grave nanny state, where you spend half your life as a slave and the other half as a dependant, they should feel the pain and price of that decision. In plain view, without tricks or gimmicks.

“1) I would support repeal of the 16th Amendment and elimination of the IRS completely.

“2) I would support an immediate 50% across the board cut in federal spending along with an immediate 20% across the board tax cut, followed by a 10% tax cut each year for the next 3 years. These are not hard numbers, concept only.

“3) I would support to end the concept of an “employee”, where a company’s’ payroll tax liability was eliminated and everyone gets a 1099. This would not do anything to help our debt problem but it would put the cost of government in plain view.

“I would like to propose and begin discussions on an entirely new way of thinking when it comes to taxes and government revenue in order to avoid the destructive side effects of every tax system that has ever existed. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue further when time permits. I thank you for giving me the chance to vent…errr…respond.”

• House District 4

Rep. David Price, a Democrat, served in Congress from 1987-95. He has held the 4th District seat from 1997 until the present.

“Democrats have no intention of letting the 2001 tax cuts expire for the 97 percent of Americans making less than $250,000. That’s why the 2009 Recovery Act, which we passed without a single House Republican vote, actually reduced individual and business taxes even further. Our country is in this position because President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress wanted to mask the true fiscal impact of the tax cuts with smoke, mirrors, and a variety of budgetary gimmicks. While they claimed to eliminate the estate tax, for example, the legislation they passed actually repeals it for only one year – and then reinstates it in full in 2011. We cannot let that happen.

“The previous administration’s failed economic policies vividly illustrate the need for tax and fiscal policy to reflect both our economic situation and our long-term budget obligations. President Obama’s fiscal commission is bringing together policy advocates from both sides of the aisle to chart a course back to fiscal balance. As a member of Congress who took the tough votes to bring the budget into surplus in the 1990s, I look forward to working with them to return our fiscal house to order.”

B.J. Lawson, Republican:

“I will vote to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 indefinitely. Additionally, I will work to replace the IRS and its punitive income tax system with the FairTax.”

• House District 5

Rep. Virginia Foxx, a Republican, was elected to Congress in 2004:

“I am a proud cosponsor of the Economic Growth Through Tax Stimulus Act which makes the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that benefited every working American permanent. Keeping taxpayers’ money in their hands boosts economic growth — as opposed to sending it to Washington to be squandered in the black hole of federal bureaucracy.

“Of course the best solution is to fundamentally reform our broken and unfair tax code. It’s in need of a long-overdue purge of countless exemptions, ridiculous loopholes and frustrating complexity. We need a tax system that is fairer and more competitive. To that end I’ve cosponsored the Roadmap for America’s Future Act of 2010. This bill lets every American chose between our completely messed up federal tax system and a newer, simpler one that treats workers fairly.”

Billy Kennedy, a Democrat, did not respond.

• House District 6

Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican, was elected to Congress in 1984. Ed McDonald, Coble’s chief of staff and press secretary, responded.

“Congressman Coble supports making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. These cuts included reductions in marginal income tax rates as well as reductions in tax rates for capital gains, dividends and the estate tax. Because these reforms are critical, Congressman Coble would support extending them for a period time if there was not enough support in Congress to make them permanent.

“In addition to continuing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Congressman Coble strongly supports eliminating the Estate Tax, which in effect is taxing people twice on their income. While the Estate Tax has temporarily expired, it will either revert to a 55% with an exemption of $1 million on January 1, 2011, or Democratic leaders are expected to propose a new Estate Tax that may be retroactive and include all of 2010.

“Congressman Coble also supports eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This was an alternative tax system set up in the 1960s to prevent very wealthy Americans from having zero federal tax liability. Since the AMT was not indexed to inflation, it has continued to trap more Americans of modest income. Currently, individuals making more than $46,700 and couples making more than $70,950 are subject to the AMT. One-year patches have been passed during the past several years, most recently in the Stimulus bill in 2009.

“While much of the Fair Tax proposal is appealing to Congressman, he cannot support it because it would eliminate the deductions for home mortgage interest payments and charitable contributions. Finally, Congressman Coble supports eliminating the Capital Gains Tax.”

Sam Turner, a Democrat, did not respond.

Replies from the candidates from Districts 7-13 will be published in a subsequent exclusive.