[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 162 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15319-S15320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PROMISES TO VOTERS

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, in the closing months of the first 
session of this 104th Congress, I rise to remind my colleagues of some 
promises which were made to voters last November.
  You may ask why I should be addressing this issue when we have so 
much work that remains to be done on the budget, but I do so because I 
am surprised that we have forgotten some fundamental principles about 
economic growth which we so clearly articulated last year.
  Those who embrace these basic truths are now in the majority. The 
consequence of abandoning that message of hope and opportunity could be 
profound for the American people.
  Many of our colleagues are hard at work trying to balance the Federal 
budget. This is a necessary and a difficult job. The American people 
rightly expect us to balance the budget and we must not disappoint 
them.
  In our zeal to put our financial house in order we must not forget 
why we are doing this in the first place.
  I offer this reminder: We are balancing the budget because deficits 
are a tax on the American people. Today's debt is a tax levied not only 
on taxpayers, but it is levied on future generations.
  We do not usually speak of budget deficits as taxes, but they are. 
That is very simply what they are. Deficits are taxes.
  Who among us would support imposing taxes on our children and 
grandchildren? Yet every time we vote for deficit spending, we do very 
simply that.
  If the deficit is a tax, then the solution is not an additional tax. 
The problem is that we are spending money that we do not have on 
programs we do not need.
  The answer is simple. That is, to stop the spending.
  Who among us is really convinced that we need to raise taxes to 
balance a budget? None of us. President Clinton supported the largest 
tax increase in American history and he now admits that it was wrong.
  Yet our national debt continues to grow out of control. While 
President Clinton has been focused on new ways to take hard-earned 
money away from the American taxpayers, I believe that we in Congress 
should focus on ways to drastically decrease spending and allow 
taxpayers to keep more of their money. The answer is to cut spending.
  I regret that I have begun to hear some of my colleagues in both 
bodies and on both sides of the aisle talk about raising taxes. I 
regret even more the manner in which they talk about raising them. Just 
as the deficit is a tax which we do not dare call a tax, a new term, a 
new euphemism has been invented to hide a new tax increase. The new tax 
is hiding behind the call to end corporate welfare, a term whose 
meaning has been distorted.
  When the Government levies a tax and then uses that revenue to 
subsidize certain industries or such activities, it is accurately 
described as corporate welfare.
  Unfortunately, we are now using the term ``corporate welfare'' to 
describe instances where we have simply chosen not to levy a tax. In 
other words, a tax we have not voted on. The corporations of this 
country are now being called corporate welfare simply because we have 
not levied the tax.
  Have we been here in Washington so long that we have forgotten the 
difference between a subsidy and a tax? It is not a subsidy to allow a 
corporation to keep more of the money it has earned so that it can 
reinvest that money, which creates jobs, pays dividends to all 
shareholders, including large institutional investors responsible for 
protecting the pension funds of America.
  The Federal Government does not own the American people's money. It 
does not own their land, their homes or their income. Failure to tax is 
not corporate welfare.
  For us to say we are doing the American people some sort of favor by 
not taxing some aspect of their livelihood is the very height of 
political and governmental arrogance. We should not hide behind 
Washington doublespeak and call it corporate welfare.
  It we decide to raise the tax, let us call it what it is--a plain and 
simple tax increase. Let us not say that we are ending corporate 
welfare when we are, in fact, raising the taxes on the corporations of 
America.
  I find nothing noble in raising taxes. It misses the point of what we 
are trying to do in the first place.
  I campaigned on spending cuts and tax cuts. Closing certain corporate 
tax breaks certainly increases taxes. The time to address these tax 
breaks is when we are engaged in comprehensive tax reform such as a 
flat tax. Now is not the time to rewrite the corporate Tax Code. Now is 
not the time to impose an arbitrary retroactive tax increase on 
companies and, more importantly, on their employees who participate in 
a corporate-owned life insurance policy purchased after 1987.
  The only reason some are discussing tax increases now is because we 
failed to make serious cuts in Government spending and in corporate 
subsidies. We failed to downsize, eliminate, or privatize boondoggles 
such as the Export-Import Bank, the International Trade Administration, 
and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
  The CATO Institute has identified more than 125 corporate welfare 
subsidy programs which cost taxpayers over $85 billion in subsidies 
this year alone. This is true corporate welfare. These are subsidies 
which we should be attacking. We need to make clear and distinct the 
difference between a subsidy and a tax increase. We should not be 
talking about tax increases until we have eliminated indefensible 
corporate cash subsidies.
  As you know, I strongly support dramatic reform in our Social 
Security social welfare programs. The worst of these programs simply 
uses tax dollars 

[[Page S 15320]]
to subsidize and promote self-destructive behavior.
  In the same way, I oppose corporate welfare which uses tax dollars to 
subsidize companies in a manner inconsistent with free market 
principles. Taking money away from individual taxpayers and giving it 
to businesses is simply wrong, and I support my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle who call for an end to that practice.
  As we continue our effort to balance the budget, I would hope that we 
not forget the following:
  The deficit is a tax on the American people and on future 
generations.
  To end this tax, we must balance the budget.
  Our problem is that we have been spending money that we do not have 
on programs we do not need.
  We need not and should not raise taxes to balance the budget. Raising 
taxes will not balance the budget. It never has. It only leads to 
increased spending.
  I will not vote for a tax increase, no matter what it is ultimately 
called.
  In ending deficit spending, we are doing the right thing--the honest 
thing. Let us not stray back into hidden taxes and double-talk about 
Medicare before we reach our goal of a balanced budget. Let us not give 
in to the defenders of the status quo whose political bankruptcy has 
led them to frighten our youth and senior citizens with false and 
negative rhetoric. I implore my colleagues to abandon the rhetoric of 
tax increases and embrace spending cuts and tax cuts--to embrace 
smaller Government and greater individual freedom. As this Congress 
changes the size and cost of the Federal Government, it is only right 
that taxpayers share in the dividends. That is why spending cuts, 
deficit reduction and tax cuts must go hand in hand.
  I am a proud cosponsor of legislation to provide tax relief to 
America's families in the form of a $500 per child credit. I am also a 
sponsor of a bipartisan bill to provide a capital gains tax cut which 
we all know is essential and necessary for economic growth and new job 
creation.
  Tax cuts and spending cuts are two ways of putting more money into 
the hands of America's taxpayers who will invest that money in our 
children and in our economy and in our country as a whole. Both 
investments contribute to long-term fiscal responsibility. This is the 
path to real and sustained deficit reduction. It is what the voters 
expect and deserve. And, it is what we in Congress owe them.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] is 
recognized.

                          ____________________