[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 123 (Wednesday, August 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   LIMITED TAXES, LIMITED GOVERNMENT

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Congress should rethink and reshape the 
role the Federal Government plays in the daily lives of the American 
people. If we do not act decisively soon to scale back the runaway 
growth of wasteful and unnecessary Government spending--paid for with 
exorbitant taxes that punish people for being responsible--our Nation 
will find itself in dire straits. It is time for the representatives of 
the people to vote for measures to lower our national debt, and lower 
the overall tax burden that has been placed on the shoulders of the 
American people.
  In 1917, this body passed the Second Liberty Bond Act, which 
authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow money up to a 
specifically designated legislative limit in order to finance 
Government activities in times of war. In those days, the initial debt 
ceiling was $11.5 billion. Twenty years ago, the national debt had 
grown to $486 billion. Today it exceeds $4.6 trillion.
  Annual interest on the debt is an astronomical $300 billion. To put 
this $300 billion interest payment into perspective, the Committee on 
Appropriations recommended $244 billion in new budget authority for 
fiscal year 1995 Defense appropriations. When a nation spends more on 
interest payments on its debt than it does for defense, it is taking 
the wrong course. We need to remember that the system the Founding 
Fathers envisioned for America was one of limited government with 
limited power. Mr. President, we should return to those roots. We must 
attack wasteful Government spending financed by confiscatory tax rates 
which penalize our citizens for working hard and staying married.
  To deal with this debt, some have called for tax increases, some for 
spending cuts, and some for both. It should be obvious to everyone that 
the huge growth of Government and its accompanying entitlements, 
mandates and regulations is the main reason for our huge deficits. This 
Government is involved in far too many aspects of its citizens' lives. 
The Tax Foundation has calculated that when State and local taxes are 
added to Federal taxes, governments take 37.6 percent of the income of 
the average family with children. For this reason calls for tax 
increases are flawed. Our Government already demands enough of its 
citizens when it comes to taxes.
  Thanks to the Heritage Foundation's analysis, the people I represent 
in South Dakota can now see how much the 1993 Clinton tax increases 
will cost our State. South Dakota taxpayers will pay a total of $520.2 
million more to Washington over the next 5 years because of the Clinton 
tax law. That is money transferred to the Government that otherwise 
could have been used for investment in job-creating activities in South 
Dakota and elsewhere. The so-called soak-the-rich taxes contained in 
this tax package will cost South Dakotans an extra $225.8 million. My 
home State's retirees can expect to pay an estimated $42.7 million more 
in increased Social Security surtaxes. The gas tax increase will take 
$116.3 million more, and other revenue raisers including higher 
business, estate, and gift taxes, will take an additional $135.3 
million from the pockets of South Dakotans. Taxes that discourage 
everything from investment and job growth, to getting and staying 
married, have become an excessive burden on the citizens of this 
Nation.
  As experts have studied the new tax rates, it has become evident that 
the new system created by the 1993 tax bill unfairly soaks two-earner 
married couples. It penalizes these families, putting an undue burden 
on couples trying to make a living. A story concerning the marriage 
penalty printed in the Sunday, July 10, 1994, Washington Post, states 
that:

       Combined with changes in the earned income tax credit, the 
     [1993] tax law brings back the so-called ``marriage penalty'' 
     with a vengeance.

  According to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic 
Research [NBER], in some circumstances, a married couple with two 
children and earnings totaling $20,000 will pay $3,000 more in income 
tax than if they were single. Economists Daniel R. Feenberg of NBER and 
Harvey S. Rosen of Princeton University state in a recent study, ``The 
size of the marriage tax is now quite extraordinary.'' Their study 
indicates the tax rate for some lower-income couples this year will be 
as high as 18 percent of their income.
  Feenberg and Rosen calculate that a married couple who earn $10,000 a 
year with two children, after figuring their standard deduction, 
personal exemptions, and earned income tax credit, would get a refund 
of $359 if they filed jointly. If they would divorce, each take a child 
and file as heads of households, they would each receive a refund of 
$2,038, or $4,076 between them. This makes their penalty for being 
married $3,717.
  In a time when family values and concerns over the State of the 
middle class are at the forefront of the national agenda, penalizing 
our citizens for entering into and strengthening the family bond of 
marriage stands as a brutal irony. Consider how much of their wealth we 
ask the average American family to give up so we can spend it for them 
in Washington, DC. In 1950, the average American family with children 
paid only 2 percent of its income to the Federal Government in taxes. 
Today that family pays 24.5 percent.
  Charles Adams warns in his latest book, ``For Good and Evil: The 
Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization,'' ``In any conflict 
between liberty and taxes, liberty will give ground.'' The average 
family now loses $10,060 per year of its income due to the increase in 
Federal taxes as a share of family income. This tax loss now exceeds 
the cost of the average annual home mortgage. It is plain to see that, 
in America, liberty has been giving ground under the constant onslaught 
of taxes. This trend must be reversed. The whole notion of just what 
government should or should not be responsible for has been twisted 
beyond recognition.
  Many people today argue that Americans want expanded government 
services, but they don't want to pay for them. The result is a national 
debt that has grown from $1.8 trillion in 1985 to $4.6 trillion today. 
I think the tide has turned. I am convinced Americans believe it is 
time for Members of Congress to start making the tough, and sometimes 
politically painful, decisions that will begin reducing the overall 
debt. We must not settle for a reduction merely in the overall growth, 
but a real reduction in the $4.6 trillion principal which is dragging 
on our Nation's economy.
  We should realize our constituents are sick and tired of a government 
that invades every aspect of their lives with mandates and regulations. 
Americans are more than ready to start seeing their Government live 
within its means, just as they must do every single day.
  In order to avoid a fiscal emergency, our Government must rethink how 
it approaches issues that clearly should be assigned to the personal 
responsibility of the average citizen. Americans have made it clear 
they would like to be paying the Government less of what they earn. We 
should oblige them and also cut back on doing for our citizens what 
they clearly can accomplish for themselves. Our tax policy must return 
to the ideal outlined by Sir William Blackstone, who said, ``taxes are 
a portion which each subject contributes of his property to secure the 
remainder.'' What we are asking people to contribute now is being 
misused for purposes that have gone far above and beyond merely 
securing the remainder of our constituents' hard-earned wealth.
  It clearly is time for Congress to begin giving back to the people 
the responsibility for ordering their daily lives. If we don't take 
decisive action now, the penalty for inaction truly will fit the crime.

                          ____________________