[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5296-S5297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 IT MAY BE POPULAR, BUT IT IS NOT RIGHT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not take a great amount of time 
because I made some points here already. I did want to come and speak 
briefly about the action last evening with respect to one portion of 
the Contract With America in the House of Representatives.
  As almost everyone understands, the Contract With America is a 
document that resulted from substantial polling of focus groups that 
the Republican Party did all across this country. They were polling to 
try to understand what is popular, what do people want, what do people 
think we should do, how will they react positively to words and phrases 
and ideas, and they put that together in a contract.
  It is not surprising to me that one would discover the answer to a 
question, ``Would you like lower taxes,'' that the answer ``yes'' would 
be the popular answer. ``Yes, of course, we'd like to have lower taxes. 
We'd like to have a tax cut.'' I understand that. I understand any poll 
in this country would achieve that result.
  But there are times when we have to choose between what is right and 
what is popular. Although I think it may be popular for them to be 
talking about tax cuts, I am convinced it is right only for us to talk 
about how to get this country's fiscal policy under some control. We 
are up to our neck in debt. We are choking on fiscal policy debt, 
budget debt and trade debt, and we must straighten it out.
  Not more than a month or two ago, we had people on the floor of this 
Senate trying to change the U.S. Constitution in order to require a 
balanced budget. Among those who bellowed the loudest about changing 
the U.S. Constitution are some of the same ones who now say what we 
want to do is not balance the budget, we want to cut taxes. This is a 
stew that we have tasted before. This recipe was concocted in 1981, and 
it resulted not in a balanced budget, as was promised by 1984. In fact 
it resulted in staggering massive public debt over the last decade and 
a half. Mr. President, nearly $4 trillion ago in debt we learned the 
lessons of this dilemma.
  Our job is very simple. It is to aggressively cut spending and to use 
the money to cut the Federal deficit. And even to start paying down on 
the national debt and then turn our attention to finding out how we can 
change the tax system; yes, then to give some relief, but especially to 
give relief to middle-income working families who had to bear the 
burden of this Tax Code over all these years.
  But to decide now at a time when we have this staggering debt, to 
decide now that what we need to do is the popular thing to simply 
propose a tax cut of $200 billion or in the next 10 years nearly three-
quarters of a trillion dollars loss of revenue is preposterous. It may 
be popular, but it is not right.
  I had not spoken about the specifics of the tax cut yesterday because 
it will not surprise anybody to learn the specifics. It is the same old 
Republican philosophy: Call it a tax cut for the rest, and give a big 
tax cut to the rich. Call it a tax cut for families, and give a big tax 
cut to rich families.
  Class warfare? No, it is not class warfare to talk about that. It is 
talking about who gets what check in the mail as a result of these tax 
reductions.
  If you are a family that has over $200,000 in income, the bill that 
passed last evening in the House of Representatives is going to give 
you an $11,200 a year average tax cut. If you are a family with less 
than $30,000 in income, you are going to get all of $124 and, in fact, 
a whole lot of folks are going to get nothing. If you make $15,000 a 
year and have three kids, that child tax credit means nothing to you. 
Zero. There is no $500 a child. You get zero.
  The fact is, this tax bill is the same old thing from the same old 
boys that have always proposed this kind of remedy: It gives a very 
large tax cut to the very, very wealthy and gives a few crumbs to the 
rest.
  Why? They believe if we pour in a lot of money at the top that 
somehow the magnificence of the top will spend this in a way that will 
help the rest.
  I happen to think that the American economic engine runs and works 
best when we give working families something to work with. If we give a 
tax cut--and I do not think we ought to until we have solved the 
deficit problem in this country--we ought to provide real tax relief to 
real working families.
  It is interesting to me as I have said, that the very same people who 
have fought the hardest to change the Constitution because they say we 
must balance the Federal budget are the first ones out of the chute who 
say now that we have had this debate about politics and polls over the 
Constitution, we will have another debate about politics and polls 
about our favorite subject: Cutting taxes, or cutting tax now, which we 
know exacerbates the deficit.
  It does not reduce the Federal budget deficit, but expands and 
explodes the Federal budget deficit. Only those who do not care about 
this country's deficit could be proposing something that irresponsible 
at this point in this country's history.
  Yes, I said I know it might be popular but it is not right. We all 
ought to put our shoulder to the wheel and do what is right. We know 
what is right--cut spending and use the money to cut the deficit.
  Those who are off trying to suggest we should give tax cuts to the 
rich when we are choking on Federal debt in this country do no service 
to this country or its future or its children.
  We are seeing a bill come out of the House of Representatives that 
has the same old proposals. I mentioned to the Senator from Wisconsin a 
proposal to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. I could bring names 
of companies--I will not, but I could bring names of companies to the 
floor--that every single American would recognize immediately, 
companies that made $1 billion, $500 million, $3 billion, $6 billion, 
and paid zero in Federal income taxes. Paid less money in Federal 
income taxes than some person out there working for $14,000 a year, 
struggling, working 10 hours a day, working hard all year, and they end 
up paying a tax.
  An enterprise making $6 billion over a few years ends up paying zero. 
So we change that and said, ``You cannot end up paying zero any more. 
You have to pay an alternative minimum tax at the very least.''
   [[Page S5297]] It is called fairness. What did the House of 
Representatives do? They passed a bill that says we do not care about 
fairness. We will abolish alternative minimum tax and go back to the 
good old days of zero tax obligation for some of the biggest special 
interests in this country.
  At the same time, they are saying, ``Let's give away the store in 
those circumstances,'' and just that provision--the one provision on 
the alternative minimum tax--gives away $4 billion to 2,000 companies. 
Mr. President, $4 billion washed away to 2,000 companies. That is $2 
million a company.
  I do not know how that is justifiable in the circumstances of the 
fiscal policy problems and deficit dilemma problem we have in our 
country. How is it justifiable? How will the proponents justify coming 
to the floor of the Senate and saying, ``We don't have enough money 
anymore to provide an entitlement to a school hot lunch to a poor kid. 
We will eliminate the entitlement status to a hot school lunch,'' 
because we frankly cannot afford it.
  But we can afford to give somebody with a $400,000 or $200,000 annual 
income a check for $11,200 a year and say, ``Partner you are lucky. 
Here is a big tax break for you.''
  We are running this big deficit and we have to cut back on dozens of 
programs dealing with issues of nutrition, issues of child abuse on 
Indian reservations, just name it, cutting back all of them, because we 
cannot afford it.
  They say, ``But we can afford to hand over a very large tax refund to 
some of the biggest economic special interests in this country.''
  I know when I finish speaking, and when the Senator from Arkansas 
finishes speaking, there will be people who say, ``Well, it is the same 
old complaint: Class warfare.'' You should not stand up and talk about 
who actually gets the benefit. Because if we talk about who gets the 
benefit, and you describe someone with $200,000 income getting an 
$11,200 check, and someone with $30,000 income getting $124, somehow 
you are being unfair.
  It is unfair to point that out to the American people. That is not 
class warfare. That is a discussion of what is real about the proposals 
to change our revenue system.
  I will support substantial changes in our whole revenue base when we 
are through this process of honestly trying to get this budget deficit 
under control.
  Frankly, our revenue system does not work as well as it should. Our 
revenue system ought to be changed in a wholesale way to encourage 
savings. Our revenue system ought to be changed in a substantial way to 
tax more consumption than we tax and to encourage savings.
  We ought not keep taxing work every chance we get. We hang every 
social good on a payroll tax. Frankly, our payroll taxes are too heavy. 
I bow to no one to my interest and desire to try and change our tax 
system. I do not believe it is right at this time, given the problems 
our country faces, to propose as a matter of public policy, very large 
tax cuts to very big special economic interests, and then come to the 
floor of the Senate and the House and crow about how Members want to 
change the Constitution to eliminate the Federal budget deficit.
  Anybody who wants to eliminate the Federal budget deficit can do it 
honestly. The honest way is to aggressively reduce Federal spending in 
areas where we ought to reduce Federal spending, and continue to make 
investments where we ought to make investments, especially in the lives 
of children and then use the savings from reducing Federal spending to 
reduce the Federal budget deficit.
  When we have set this country on a course in a constructive path to 
solve that problem, we ought to turn to the Tax Code. When we turn to 
the Tax Code, we should not have middle-income families turn out to be 
the losers.
  Every single time somebody monkeys with the Tax Code, especially the 
majority party, somehow middle-income families end up getting less or 
end up paying the bill to provide tax cuts and big tax rebates and big 
generous refunds to the wealthiest Americans.
  We ought to have learned in the last 50 years what works and what 
does not work. What works is to give working families something to work 
with. The biggest advantage we can provide working families in this 
country today is to reduce the Federal budget deficit.
  We do that by cutting spending and using the savings to reduce the 
deficit. When we finish that job, then I think we can turn to the Tax 
Code. And I think we will do a substantially different job than was 
done over in the House of Representatives for fair tax cuts, for a fair 
tax system, for those people in this country who work hard and who have 
borne the cost of Government for far too many years.
  Mr. President, I will have more to say about this subject along with 
some charts tomorrow. I notice my friend from Arkansas, a man noted for 
charts, has brought charts to the floor, so I am anxious to hear what 
he has to say. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
proceed for up to 10 minutes as in morning business
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________