[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3326-S3327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT

 Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, as American taxpayers are well 
aware, today is Tax Day, and it is a most appropriate time to express 
my strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 49, the tax limitation 
amendment. This resolution proposes to amend the Constitution to 
require a two-thirds super-majority vote to increase tax rates or to 
impose new taxes.
  It offers the American taxpayers a source of protection from a 
Federal Government that often sees their checkbooks as an unlimited 
line of credit. For too long, the Federal Government has lacked the 
restraint that the Founding Fathers surely envisioned, and it has 
consistently grabbed an increasing share of the taxpayers' money.
  The American people have sent some $14 trillion to Washington since 
1980. This is an enormous amount of money.
  I think that it is sufficient to run the Federal Government. I 
believe that most taxpayers think that it is sufficient to run the 
Federal Government.
  However, it is apparently not enough for the big spenders in 
Washington. There are bills on the calendar to boost taxes ever higher. 
There are those still eager to grab yet more money from the taxpayers.
  This amendment will stop the big spenders.
  It is far too easy to raise taxes. The largest tax increase in 
American history--the Clinton tax bill of 1993--is a case in point. The 
Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress, and, yet 
the Clinton budget passed the other Chamber by a mere six votes. In 
this Chamber, the Vice President was forced to bring out the motorcade, 
and he rode to the Capitol to cast a tie-breaker vote. The President, 
just months after his election, could not even muster a majority of the 
elected Senators.
  The tax limitation amendment, however, would have stopped that tax 
bill, and, if it is adopted, it will prevent other ill-considered 
congressional raids on constituents' checkbooks.
  Its opponents decry the supermajority requirement as ``anti-
democratic.'' However, the Constitution includes 11 supermajority 
provisions, and these hurdles were engineered to further safeguard 
important processes. Indeed, the procedures used to govern this Chamber 
include super-majority requirements, and I see little restraint in 
their use on the other side of the aisle. These supermajority 
requirements compel the development of a broad consensus for action. 
These procedures often serve this Chamber well. However, I find it 
impossible to believe that the taxpayers do not deserve similar 
protection.
  It is no surprise that the tax limitation amendment is seen as a 
revolutionary measure in Washington. However, it is a time-tested 
procedure in 12 States, and one-third of all Americans live in States 
with supermajority tax requirements.

[[Page S3327]]

  Maybe this amendment scares people in Washington because it is so 
effective. Just look at the numbers. Between 1980 and 1993, the 
taxpayers in States without supermajority tax limitations faced a 2 
percent rise in taxes as a share of personal income. However, taxpayers 
in States with super-majority tax limitations enjoyed a 7 percent drop 
in taxes as a share of personal income.
  President Clinton bragged in the 1992 campaign that he held the line 
on taxes in Arkansas as governor. Well, he tried to raise taxes, but 
Arkansas adopted a three-fourths supermajority requirement to raise 
most taxes in 1934, long before President Clinton was born.
  The tax limitation amendment will impose some real and necessary 
restraint on the Congress. For too long, Washington lawmakers, 
unwilling to pare the scope of the Federal Government, simply embarked 
on pirate-style raids on their constituents' checkbooks. Consequently, 
the Federal tax burden on the average family has grown from 3 percent 
in 1948 to some 25 percent today.
  Chief Justice Marshall long ago wrote that the power to tax involves 
the power to destroy. The power to tax is indeed an awesome power. The 
history of the United States includes chapters of revolution and 
rebellion rooted in issues of taxation.
  The tax limitation amendment is a moderate response to the escalating 
bite of the Federal Government. It merely requires a little additional 
deliberation in the exercise of the power of taxation. In a democracy, 
I believe that we owe the people at least that.

                          ____________________