[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4808-S4809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                        TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today is tax freedom day, the day that 
average Americans can expect to quit working for the Government and 
begin working for themselves and their families.
  Mr. President, it has taken the average American 128 days this year--
the 128 days leading up to tax freedom day--to earn enough to pay the 
tax collectors at the Federal, State, and local levels. Had the average 
worker devoted every dollar earned every day for the last 128 days, not 
to food, clothing, or shelter, but exclusively to paying off his tax 
obligations, it would be only now that his tax bill would have been 
satisfied and he could begin working for himself.
  May 7 is the latest tax freedom day ever--6 days later than it was 
when President Clinton took office in 1993. In other words, it will 
take the American people an extra 6 days--nearly a week--to pay for all 
of the additional taxes that have been imposed during President 
Clinton's time in office.
  Mr. President, it is no wonder that Americans are anxious about their 
economic security. The harder they work, the more the Government takes. 
Compared to the 3 percent of income paid in taxes in 1948, the average 
family now pays nearly 25 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal 
Government. Add State and local taxes to the mix, and the burden 
approaches 40 percent.
  That is why Congress passed the tax relief bill last year--to begin 
to roll back the huge tax increase that President Clinton imposed in 
1993. We want to see that the American people can earn more, keep more, 
and do more with their families, their churches and synagogues, and 
their community.
  President Clinton says he wants to help the middle class, too. Why, 
then, did he veto last year's tax relief bill? Seventy percent of the 
tax reductions would have gone to those with incomes under $75,000. 
Looking at the tax relief bill in detail, it included a new deduction 
for interest on student loans, a $500-per-child tax credit, a tax 
credit for adoption expenses, and marriage penalty relief. Those four 
components alone made up 64 percent of the tax relief provided by the 
legislation. In fact, the Heritage Foundation had estimated that 47,552 
low-income taxpayers in Arizona--3.5 million nationwide--would see 
their entire income tax liability eliminated as a result of the $500-
per-child tax credit alone. But President Clinton said no to tax 
relief.
  In fact, the President is still trying to justify his 1993 tax 
increase as a tax on the wealthy. Tell that to the millions of 
Americans who are struggling to cope with the soaring price of gasoline 
made worse by the Clinton gas tax increase. I am sure they would be 
surprised to learn that they are among the wealthy the President talks 
about so cavalierly. They are the ones paying the higher gas tax.
  Young couples working two jobs and earning a combined total of only 
$30,000 would be surprised to learn that they are among the wealthy 
that President Clinton talks about. With two children, they would have 
saved $1,000 on their taxes if the $500-per-child tax credit became 
law. President Clinton vetoed that relief.

  I am sure the older American who has an income just over $30,000 a 
year would be surprised to learn that he is one of the wealthy the 
President is so fond of taxing. He was hit with the Clinton Social 
Security tax increase in 1993.
  According to the Tax Foundation, total Federal taxes on a median-
income family--not the rich, but an average family--increased by more 
than $2,000 during the Clinton years. Just about everyone across the 
country has felt the ill effects of President Clinton's economic 
policies.
  When the President talks about taxes, it is always in terms of what 
it means to the Government--can the Government afford tax relief for 
the middle class? How much more can it squeeze out of working 
Americans? Well, I think we have to begin to consider how taxes affect 
working people's budgets. After all, it is Government that is supposed 
to serve people, not the other way around. A government that 
confiscates nearly half of its citizens' hard-earned income has, in my

[[Page S4809]]

opinion, lost sight of why it was created and just who it was intended 
to serve.
  With that in mind--and recognizing that various levels of government 
already take far too much of a family's income in taxes--I recently 
proposed a constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 49, to 
require a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate to increase 
taxes. Twenty Senators cosponsored the resolution. The House of 
Representatives debated a version of the initiative, known as the tax 
limitation amendment, on April 15.
  Mr. President, according to a recent Reader's Digest poll, the 
maximum tax burden Americans believe a family of four should bear is 25 
percent. That is not just the amount of Federal income taxes, but taxes 
from all levels of government, including Social Security taxes, sales 
taxes, excise taxes, and State and local taxes. As I noted before, 
however, the average family feels a tax bite of nearly 40 percent--
almost twice what the public believes is a fair amount of tax.
  Even though the tax limitation amendment only applies to new taxes, 
it has the tax collectors and the Clinton administration squealing. 
They cannot stand the thought of not being able to take more out of the 
taxpayers' pockets.
  Mr. President, there is no small irony in the fact that the Clinton 
tax increase of 1993 passed only by a simple majority--and not even a 
majority of elected Senators at that. Vice President Gore broke a 50 to 
50 vote tie to ensure passage of the tax increase bill--higher taxes on 
gasoline and Social Security, and job-killing taxes on small 
businesses. Yet, while the largest tax increase in history became law 
with the bare minimum of votes, it will take a two-thirds majority vote 
in each House to enact our tax relief bill over President Clinton's 
veto.
  Well, many of us believe that it ought to be just as hard for 
President Clinton to raise taxes as it is for Congress to cut them. 
That is the very premise of the tax limitation amendment--to make 
government think of tax increases, not as a first resort, but as a last 
resort.
  President Clinton, who always seems to think of tax increases as a 
first resort, not only wants the American people to accept his tax 
increases but believes that his 1993 budget plan helped the economy. 
The facts just do not support that contention.
  A recent report by the Heritage Foundation found that the Clinton tax 
increase has cost the country a total of 1.2 million additional private 
sector jobs between 1993 and the end of 1996. Every household in 
American has lost a total of $2,600 in after-tax income as a result of 
sluggish economic growth. Personal savings are off by about $138 
billion. Some 40,600 new businesses were never started. 1.3 million new 
cars and light trucks were never produced. A total of $208 billion in 
lost economic output.
  What the Heritage Foundation refers to the Clinton crunch--the dual 
effect of declining real wages combined with higher taxes--has cast a 
dark shadow over the economy. Since January of 1994, the number of 
people working more than one job has gone up 17 percent. The number of 
women working more than one job has gone up 21 percent. President 
Clinton talks about the number of jobs created during his 
administration. Yes, there are more, but the fact is that more than a 
third of the new jobs have gone to people taking an extra job in order 
to make ends meet.
  How has the Federal Government fared while people's incomes have been 
stagnating and their jobs are put in jeopardy? It seems to be doing 
pretty well.
  Revenues to the Treasury have increased from $1.15 trillion in 1993 
to an estimated $1.43 trillion this year--up almost 25 percent--thanks, 
in large part to the Clinton tax increase.
  The President just forced Congress to add another $5 billion to the 
Federal budget 2 weeks ago. That is $5 billion more for the government, 
not American families, to spend.
  President Clinton's budget for fiscal year 1997 would even add 13,700 
full-time Washington bureaucrats to the Federal payroll.
  In other words, the era of big government is not over. If President 
Clinton has his way, it will continue to grow and flourish at the 
expense of hard-working taxpayers.
  Mr. President, there is a way to put a stop to this continuing 
assault on taxpayers. It is the tax limitation amendment. It would make 
it harder for Congress to raise taxes any further, requiring a two-
thirds vote of each house on tax increase bills. It would have 
prevented the Clinton tax increase from becoming law in 1993 and 
thereby promoted more vigorous economic growth across the Nation.
  Many of us will try to roll back the Clinton tax increase, or parts 
of it, like the gas tax. With the tax limitation amendment, however, we 
can also make sure that tax freedom day comes no later than May 7 in 
any future year. Hopefully, it will come a lot sooner.
  The time for the tax limitation amendment has come.

                          ____________________