[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5297-S5298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TAX FAIRNESS

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I cannot add or detract from what the 
Senator from North Dakota has just eloquently said.
  I do have some charts that perhaps are a little more graphic, but I 
also want to say that one of the things that my wealthier friends not 
only back home but across the country say to me is, ``The thing I do 
not like about Democrats is they promote class warfare.''
  The Senator from North Dakota alluded to that. I do not believe in 
class warfare. I believe in fairness, justice, and the judicial system, 
as well as in our economy.
  What happened in the House last evening is one of the most bizarre 
things I have witnessed in my 20 years in the U.S. Senate. A tax cut--a 
tax cut--of about $180 billion over the next 5 years but which balloons 
to about $600 to $700 billion for the 10-year period.
  In other words, $180 billion for the first 5 years, and between $400 
and $500 billion for the next 5 years.
  They say they will identify cuts to pay for it. We see in the House 
they can do that because they only have to project 5 years out. Our 
budget in the Senate requires the Senate to come up with a 10-year 
projection.
  To get on with the story, I do not like class warfare but how do we 
say to the American people that the tax bill that passed last evening 
provides a tax cut for people who make over $200,000 a year, provides 
them a tax cut of $11,266--and that is per year--and provides an 
average for those who make zero to $30,000 a year, gives them $124 a 
year.
  Mr. President, for the people who make less than $30,000 a year, the 
tax cut last night will not even buy a 13-inch pizza for the family to 
enjoy on Friday nights. Are we engaging in class warfare to bring up 
this fact? Is it class warfare to point out the unbelievable unfairness 
of this situation? I ask the American people and my colleagues, if you 
are going to provide a tax cut, how do you say to the American people 
that those who make over $200,000 a year are going to get a $11,000 tax 
cut and people who make $30,000 or less get a $124 tax cut? Class 
warfare? It is utterly the most bizarre thing I have ever seen.
  Who do you think needs the tax cut most, the guy making $200,000 a 
year or the guy with a wife and two kids making $30,000 a year?
  Let's discuss the capital gains part of the tax bill. Capital gains 
occur when you buy and sell stocks or other property. I agree with 
Felix Rohatyn, who I watched on CNBC yesterday, who said, ``I have 
never understood what economic benefit this country derives when 
somebody sells General Electric and uses the money and buys DuPont 
stock.'' What does that do for the economy, except fatten some broker's 
fees?
  But look at this chart showing who benefits from the capital gains 
tax cut. Who benefits from it? You guessed it. Those who make $100,000 
a year or more are going to get 76 percent of the benefit of this 
capital gains tax cut. What does this poor stiff get who makes only 
$30,000 a year? Only 6.4 percent of the capital gains tax cut. Class 
[[Page S5298]] warfare? Who believes that is fair, Mr. President? Who 
believes that the people making $100,000 a year or more--which includes 
every single Member of Congress--who believes we ought to be getting 76 
percent of this tax cut. How can I believe that this is fair while the 
people of my State--where the median family income is less than $30,000 
a year--will get only 6.4 percent of the cut?
  Mr. President, here is a USA Today poll. It points out what I have 
been saying for months around here. I never lost a friend voting for a 
tax cut. It is so wonderful to be able to vote for a tax cut and go 
back home and say, ``Look what we did,'' and beat our chests. I get 
letters from people who want their taxes cut. But I get more letters 
from people who want the deficit reduced. People who are making $30,000 
a year or less would gladly give up that $124 tax cut in return for a 
balanced budget. Do you know why? Because if we balance the budget, it 
will hold down inflation and interest rates. Mortgage interest will be 
less, interest on car loans will be less, the economy will be more 
stable, the dollar will stabilize. Why in the name of God are we 
considering this tax cut when polls like this one indicate that 70 
percent of the people in this country say they want the deficit reduced 
before they want a tax cut? Only 24 percent of the people in this poll 
said, ``I want the tax cut over deficit reduction.''
  Do you know who the House agreed with when they passed the tax cut 
last night? Not with the 70 percent of the people who say, ``Deficit 
reduction first.'' And, actually, not with the 24 percent of people who 
say they want a tax cut more than they want deficit reduction. No, the 
House agreed with this 5 percent of people who say, ``We want both.'' 
That is what the House is saying. ``We are going to cut your taxes and 
balance the budget, too.'' Think about it--5 percent of the people in 
this country saying we want both--and that is where the House comes 
down.
  We tried that $3.5 trillion ago in 1981. Here is a graph that shows 
pointedly and precisely what happened. In 1981--and I remember it 
well--Ronald Reagan's press conference, after Congress passed his tax 
cut plan. He said, ``You have given me the tools. Now I will do the 
job. We will balance the budget by 1984 and with a little luck we will 
balance it in 1983.'' Those were Ronald Reagan's words.
  Well, it did not happen. Instead the deficit shot up to record 
levels. I want it put on my epitaph that I was 1 of the 11 U.S. 
Senators who voted against those 1981 tax cuts. I said, ``You will 
create deficits big enough to choke a mule.'' They turned out to be big 
enough to choke an elephant.
  Look at this chart. Here was our deficit in 1981 and here is how the 
Reagan administration said they would reduce the deficit. That was the 
promise. That was the siren song that an irresponsible Congress bought 
into.
  But what happened? The deficit did not go down as promised. Look 
where it went. By the time we were supposed to have a balanced budget 
in 1983, we had $200 billion deficits and we have never had one less 
than that since.
  Ironically, I can remember the last year Jimmy Carter was President, 
the deficit was $65 billion and people were threatening to impeach him. 
Unthinkable.
  No, Mr. President, I am not voting for a tax cut. I am going to vote 
the way 70 percent of the people of this country want me to vote. When 
it comes to fairness, the tax cut, even if desirable, is hopelessly 
inequitable and unfair. The greatness of this Nation, the greatness of 
the Constitution, is it says each one of us counts. We are all 
somebody.
  Whether you like Jesse Jackson or not, I always like it when he has 
those kids say, ``I am somebody.'' The soul of America is that each one 
of us counts. And no one of us should count for $12,000 or $11,000 a 
year more than the people who did not happen to be born quite so 
wealthy.
  This chart shows where the deficit has been going since Bill Clinton 
became President. There it is in 1995. Here are his projections for the 
outyears and here is the projection the American people want. They want 
that deficit to continue going down. They do not expect miracles, but 
they do expect a responsible, thoughtful Congress to give this Nation a 
chance. Give our children a chance. You are not ever going to achieve 
the greatness of this Nation by cutting student loans, or AmeriCorps, 
where people can pay off their student loans.
  When the families of America sit around the dinner table in the 
evening and talk about what they love most, it is not the tax cut. It 
is not that Mercedes out in the driveway. It is not that nice big 
split-level home. It is not the farm out back or that posh office 
downtown. What they talk about most is loving their children. In light 
of that, what do you think the ordinary American person with a family 
believes--that he or she should get a few dollars more in spendable 
income or that this Nation ought to start living within its means so 
that those children have a real opportunity, not a saran-wrapped 
opportunity, but a real one.
  I come down on the side of all of those American families. My 
children are all grown. I have two grandchildren. They deserve better 
than they are going to get if we do not reverse our overspending ways; 
if we do not show the kind of responsibility they have a right to 
expect of us.
  Mr. President, I believe the Senate will show a great deal more 
discretion in dealing with this, and if we do not, if we do not, the 
chart you saw a moment ago of what happened from 1980 to 1995 will just 
be compounded.
  Mr. President, I have taken more time than I really intended to take. 
I feel very strongly about it and will speak again on the subject and 
again and again. My side may lose just as 11 of us lost in 1981. But I 
am absolutely certain without intending to be arrogant or self-serving 
that it will be one of the greatest travesties ever to befall this 
Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________