[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      THE TAXPAYER EMPOWERMENT ACT

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, tomorrow is tax day--the infamous April 
15. Millions of Americans will be working through the night today and 
tomorrow working through the annual rite of preparing their taxes. For 
most Americans, it is a day they would rather do without. Nobody likes 
paying taxes. And filling out your tax returns is often not only time 
consuming and annoying but frustrating. People are frustrated not just 
over the amount of taxes they pay--they know we need to fund education, 
training, health, defense, and other things--but more because they feel 
they do not have any real control over how their tax dollars are spent.
  Well, legislation I plan to introduce will begin to change that.
  The Taxpayer Empowerment Act will put power directly in the hands of 
the American people by giving them a real say over how their tax 
dollars are spent. It says to the American taxpayer it is your money 
and you deserve to participate directly in how and on what it is spent.
  Certainly today people have a voice in how tax dollars are spent 
through the democratic election process. If they are unhappy with the 
actions of their representatives, they can vote their Congressman or 
Senator out of office, and that is the way it ought to be. But the 
people's control over the budget is at best indirect and often really 
nonexistent.
  Elected officials like to talk about mandates they have from the vote 
of the people who elected them. In fact, Mr. President, campaigns are 
often without a great deal of substance. At the congressional level and 
the senatorial level, they can come down to opposing 30-second TV ads 
with all too few voters actually understanding the positions of the 
candidates. Even where there is understanding, the voters in the system 
face two real choices and only two, of the two major parties. Assuming 
a vote is made with full knowledge there is considerable likelihood any 
elected official's view is not going to be the full embodiment of the 
views of the people that elected that official.
  Of course, we live in a representative democracy. In high school and 
college we learned about Athenian democracy and why this kind of direct 
democracy cannot work in a more populated and complex society. 
Certainly it cannot. But I do believe that it would be very beneficial 
if American citizens had a more direct role and a little bit more power 
in deciding some issues, particularly in the budget area.
  Most taxpayers, of course, do not want to spend hours trying to 
develop an in-depth understanding of the complex details of the Federal 
budget. None of us do. But I do believe that people would take the time 
to carefully consider how major parts of the budget are allocated and 
how their tax dollars are spent by those of us here in Washington.
  So, Mr. President, what I am proposing is a departure from the past, 
a change, if you will. I am proposing that every American citizen age 
18 and older be given an opportunity to express their views in a 
meaningful way in how their tax dollars are spent. And this should be 
done at the time they fill out their tax forms every year.
  The Taxpayer Empowerment Act is simple and straightforward. Under my 
proposal, every year, with the tax returns, taxpayers would get one 
additional form, a single page. On it would be four columns. I have a 
mock up here of what that single page might look like.
  First, there would be a listing of all of the various major spending 
areas of the budget, what is called the budget functions here in 
Washington. Again, I want to point out I have taken this from what the 
President sends to Congress. So these are the kinds of areas that the 
President will send to Congress indicating what the President's choices 
are in terms of where money should be allocated.
  The next column over here would be the spending in billions of 
dollars in each one of those categories for that year. In the third 
column over here would be the percent of the budget, the total percent 
of the budget that each one of these functions is allocated to. And the 
last column would be what counts, a blank column. In that blank column 
we would like taxpayers to fill out what she or he believes we ought to 
be spending within each of these areas in the next year's budget.
  Again, the taxpayers would get this. He or she would be able to see 
that national defense was $263.7 billion. It was 16.68 percent of the 
budget. And they are asked how much do you believe we ought to be 
spending in a percent of the budget? Should it be 16 percent? Should it 
be 17 percent? Should it be 15 percent?
  Here is national resources and environment; 1.37 percent of the 
budget. We ask the taxpayers do they believe that is where the money 
ought to be? Do you think it ought be lower? Let us have the taxpayers 
vote every year when they fill out the tax returns to find out how they 
would like to have their tax dollars spent.
  Now, a few of the categories where people have been investing their 
own funds and which are in trust funds are listed here: Medicare, 
Social Security, Government, and other separate pensions like railroad 
workers pensions. I have included veterans pensions here as well. We 
filled these columns out to show how much money is spent and what 
percent of the budget it is. We have not left those blank because those 
are things that we should not adjust.
  So Social Security should not be part of the budget anyway because 
that is the trust fund that people pay into. Of course, pensions are 
contracts we made with people. We cannot reduce people's pension 
because that is a contractural agreement. Nor can we decrease the 
interest on the national debt and say we are just going to cut it and 
not pay the interest that is due to bondholders.
  So we set these out as an indication of what we spend and what the 
percent is. But obviously we cannot leave that up to being changed.
  There is nothing we can do about interest. We have to pay it.
  Again, Mr. President, what I am saying under the Taxpayers 
Empowerment Act I believe every year when the taxpayer fills out his or 
her form they ought to give us their idea of how they wish their hard-
earned tax dollars are spent.
  Now, accompanying this chart would be a detailed explanation of what 
programs and activities are funded so people would have some basic 
information. This could be an informational sheet, for example, saying 
what is Commerce, what are the programs funded under Commerce, or what 
are the programs funded under education, income security, or veterans 
benefits. There could be separate informational sheets that could go 
out so they could have that kind of information. And I would hope that 
newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio would all increase their 
discussion of these budget issues recognizing that Americans would be 
facing this issue and that Americans would have a real say in how their 
taxpayers' dollars are going to be spent and, therefore, I think it 
would engender a broader more in-depth public debate.
  I think using the main budget functions with some adjustment is a 
good starting point for discussion. The division of the budget should 
be sufficiently detailed to give people a real say. But again, we 
should not make the list so minute that a taxpayer would have to hire 
an accountant to figure it out.
  Obviously, under each one of these divisions there are subdivisions. 
We can get into hundreds, probably thousands of different programs.
  There are those that might say, ``Well, I do not want to spend 
anything on national defense, I want to zero it out, I want to spend 
zero percent,'' we all know too well we cannot do that. We cannot make 
huge changes in 1 year, in defense or energy or transportation or any 
of these. We can make changes, but obviously we could not zero out a 
program or make a 50-percent increase or 50-percent decrease. The 
dislocation would be too great. What I suggest is that the maximum 
amount any one of these could be shifted either up or down in the 
single year would be 10 percent. Again, it is difficult to do more than 
that without causing some serious dislocation. Some areas of the budget 
could, let us say, over a 5-year period be greatly expanded or reduced 
if the taxpayers indicated by a great preponderance that they want 
these decreased or increased by 10 percent a year for 5 years. It is an 
indication from the taxpayers where they want us to start spending the 
money.
  People should also have the opportunity, Mr. President, to reduce or 
increase the total amount of spending as well. Again, the amount would 
be a maximum of 10 percent of the budget subject to the people's 
choice.
  So what I am saying is they would fill out the percent. If it was 
less than 100 percent that would indicate they want the budget reduced. 
They say I want 90 percent--I want 90 percent of my tax dollars 
allocated a certain way, and 10 percent not allocated. That would be 10 
percent for deficit reduction. In other words, reduce the overall 
budget subject to the people's choice by 10 or 5 or 3 percent, or 
whatever they might suggest.
  Mr. President, some might suggest that it is not reasonable that 
these types of decisions be left to the people as a whole. Some would 
say they do not have the knowledge or the understanding to do this. I 
think that is just the kind of inside-the-beltway thinking that has led 
to the deterioration in public confidence in Government. I believe that 
Americans would take the responsibility seriously. I think the 
existence of the process would create a substantive broad public debate 
about how public funds are really spent.
  Some have told me that if we use such a system some crucial areas of 
the budget like the funds we use for what is called general Government, 
the money for IRS, some parts of the General Services Administration, 
the Congress--our salaries and pay--some say that these would be 
slashed to a point that the Government could not function. Others might 
say foreign aid is very important to the international standing of our 
Nation and fear that international affairs would be drastically cut 
because people are opposed to foreign aid. If that happened it would 
undermine our position in the world and would hurt various important 
humanitarian efforts abroad. Well, let us just take a look at that one 
function, international affairs, listed as the second item up here. The 
estimated obligations of the Government in that area is $18.8 billion 
for 1995. That translates into 1.19 percent of the total budget.

  Now, the common view is that the public would really slash spending 
in that area. That is what I have heard. But last year, the Harris poll 
asked people what percent of the budget was foreign aid. The median 
person asked said it was 20 percent. Well, 20 percent, I think, would 
be outrageous. How would taxpayers react if they saw it is 1.2 percent 
of the total budget? Well, I trust them with this knowledge. I trust 
the taxpayers with this knowledge. If they saw that, they might want to 
increase it or decrease it, but I do not think they would slash it to 
zero and pull us out of the world community.
  Again that is sort of inside-the-beltway thinking. I think the more 
power we give people and the more information they have on which to 
act, the more responsibly they will act.
  So I believe that people will seriously read the summaries that would 
be provided. As I said before, the existence of this system would 
result in considerable increases in both printed and media discussion 
of the pros and cons of spending in various areas. People will look at 
the percentage devoted to each budget area. And I expect people will, 
overall, make a reasonable set of choices.
  My proposal specifically calls for the President's budget sent to 
Congress to incorporate the people's choices within this limit of a 10-
percent shift in each functional area. The President would propose the 
precise account-by-account modification within the broad budget area to 
reach the decreases or increases determined by the people. If the 
President desires, alternative options could be displayed by the 
President, if he wanted an alternative. A point of order would stand 
against the Congress passing budget spending that would not meet the 
people's choice, as indicated on their tax returns.
  Now, of course, that point of order could be overturned by the 
Congress. And, again, Members of Congress who vote to overturn that 
would have an opportunity to make their point at that time and in the 
next election campaign.
  Taxpayers, as I said, Mr. President--and I want to make this point 
very clearly--could call for an overall increase or decrease in 
spending, as well. Again, if they set their priorities and it added up 
to 90 percent of the spending, then the total budget would be cut by 
that much. If on average, taxpayers called for spending of 97 percent 
of last year's level, that would mean that there was a call for a 
reduction in projected spending for the following year of 3 percent. 
But, like the change in the amount that could be spent on a budget 
function, there would be a limit of a 10-percent shift, 10 percent of 
the amount subject to the people's choice.

  This week, when income taxes are due, it is the appropriate time to 
begin the drive to give Americans a direct say at how their money is 
spent and towards the passage of a Taxpayers Empowerment Act.
  I ask that those who are interested in this proposal to please 
contact me, contact my office. Please let me know your thoughts and 
your specific ideas on how to make this proposal better.
  This is an initial proposal. It is subject to change. There may be 
others who have different views, other better thoughts than I have come 
up with on how to delineate this and how better to do it. But I do 
believe it ought to be incorporated in our tax returns every year.
  The taxpayers, when they file their tax returns, ought to be able to 
indicate to us how they want their tax dollars spent. I believe we have 
an obligation to pay attention to that.
  So I am going to try to incorporate new ideas into my proposal prior 
to introduction. I hope to be introducing this legislation within the 
next few weeks. I hope that those who are interested in this effort 
will please let me know and give me the benefit of their advice and 
their consultation and their suggestions.
  Mr. President, tomorrow is tax day, the day when the American 
citizens stand up in line and pay their taxes to keep our country 
running. I say it is time to give them a little bit more power and a 
little bit more choice in saying how those taxpayer dollars are spent.
  Finally, I would like to note some miscellaneous points that I think 
should be included in legislation that I am developing.
  The decisions will be based on a one-person, one-vote basis. The vote 
will be done through a form to be attached to the Federal individual 
income tax form. Filing of the form would not be mandatory. But, there 
would be a requirement that a certain percentage of the eligible 
population fill out the forms in order for the process to be used.
  Those who do not otherwise need to file a tax form may file this form 
without filing a 1040. They would need to list their Social Security 
number.
  The IRS would not be allowed to make any use of the informational 
forms submitted under this legislation except for the purposes of doing 
the calculations and cross checking of Social Security numbers to 
assure that there is not double voting.
  Forms by those who are less than 18 years of age on April 15 of the 
year the tax form is due would not be counted. Similarly, those who are 
not citizens, have been deemed to be mentally incompetent or who are 
convicted felons would not be able to have their ballots counted.
  In order to reduce costs, the development of a listing of who is 
mentally incompetent and who is a convicted felon will only be 
determined by the acquisition of computerized records, the providing of 
which would be of minimal cost to State and local governments.
  For purposes of calculations, I believe that budget authority should 
be used. The chart I have been using is in budget authority. That is 
the amount that the Government can obligate, not actually how much is 
spent. Money might be obligated to build a bridge in 1995. For example, 
money might not be paid out for several years. The numbers in the chart 
are not precise because I have not shown offsetting receipts, 
allowances and other factors in creating the numbers because the chart 
taxpayers would receive would not need to list those technical points. 
OMB would accurately prepare the chart.
  Areas of the budget that are paid for by trust funds would be 
included in the calculations. Those that equal more than $1 billion in 
a year would be noted in the explanatory materials.
  The Congress could consider a bill that would overcome the budget 
allocation requirements. But, it would be subject to a point of order 
in each House.
  The timing would be such that forms filled out in 1995 would use 
numbers based on fiscal year 1995 budget estimates made on the latest 
date in 1994 that would allow the smooth printing of the forms. The 
President's budget request using the people's choices would be made in 
early 1996. The Congress would consider the details through 1996. And, 
the people's priorities would be in the fiscal year 1997 budget 
starting in October 1996. That is a very tight time line. Some would 
argue that it needs to be more drawn out. But, I believe that the 
Congress could meet the goal.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Kansas.
  Mr. DOLE. Was leader time reserved?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dole, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Biden pertaining to the 
introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________