[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7683-S7685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I had an interesting presentation here 
this morning, built around what apparently is going to be a 
Presidential campaign theme, putting families first. Mr. President, we 
cannot but be reminded of a book written by President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore which was a prelude to the 1992 Presidential campaign. 
The book, Mr. President, was entitled ``Putting People First,'' very, 
very familiar to this new theme we have heard here this morning, 
putting families first.
  I will read from this publication, ``Putting People First,'' now 
almost some 4 years old, a very interesting piece on page 15 of 
``Putting People First.'' It says, ``Middle-class tax fairness.'' Now, 
this was the President's ``contract with America,'' putting people 
first.
  He says, ``Middle-class tax fairness: We will lower the tax burden on 
middle-class Americans by asking the very wealthy to pay their fair 
share.'' I repeat, ``We will lower the tax burden on middle-class 
Americans * * * Middle-class taxpayers will have a choice between a 
children's tax credit or a significant reduction in their income tax 
rate.''
  It goes on to say, on page 101 ``Treat families right,'' in this book 
entitled ``Put People First.'' It says, ``Grant additional tax relief 
to families with children.''
  Mr. President, since the publication of the book and the election of 
President Clinton, the average American family is paying somewhere 
around $2,000 to $2,600 in additional taxes out of their checking 
account as a result of the election of President Clinton. Corporate 
taxes are up 55.4 percent and personal taxes are up 25.3 percent. In 
other words, the exact opposite has occurred since the publication of 
the President's book, ``Putting People First.''
  It does begin to raise some pretty serious questions as to what do 
they mean when they say ``Put families first.'' If they mean the same 
thing

[[Page S7684]]

they meant when they published ``Putting People First,'' every American 
taxpayer better duck, because the promise to lower taxes became an 
action of increasing taxes to the highest level in American history.
  I read from an editorial published by Bruce Bartlett: ``Last week I 
disclosed that total taxes, Federal, State, and local, as a share of 
gross domestic product were the highest in U.S. history in 1995 at 31.3 
percent. In 1992, total taxes as a share of GDP equaled 30 percent. In 
other words, it is up 1.3 percent.'' That is just a huge, huge sum of 
money.
  Mr. President, the Federal tax take is expected to shoot up this year 
by another 5.4 percent. Mr. President, the book ``Putting People 
First,'' promised to lower taxes, and resulted with the election. The 
American people elected President Clinton based on these promises, and 
what happened to them was that they were confronted with the highest 
tax increase in American history.

  Over a 7-year period, it was almost $500 billion. That translates to 
an individual family, since President Clinton has been elected, in 
having to pay another $2,000 of Government costs. The cost of 
Government has been pushed out another 3 days. American families, 
today, work from January 1 to July 3, giving July 4 in America today an 
extraordinary meaning.
  Mr. President, in 1992, we were promised, in ``Putting People 
First,'' that taxes would be lowered. As I have said here over and 
over, as have others, taxes were raised and the effect was to reduce 
the amount of income in families' checking accounts. Now we come 
forward this morning with a promise to put families first, and an 
outline of a series of programs that represent and policy goals that 
purport to say what putting families first means.
  Mr. President, according to the House Budget Committee and the 
Congressional Budget Office, this new agenda of putting families first 
could cost another $500 billion. So if you combine putting people first 
with Families First, you are going to end up with families finding 
themselves with less and less resources in their own checking accounts 
to do the kinds of things they are supposed to do. Putting people first 
lowered their checking accounts by about $2,500, and now we are told we 
will put families first, and we are going to have another $2,500 out of 
your checking account.
  Mr. President, you know, if you really want to put families first, or 
people first, it really is not all that complicated. Mr. President, 
what is a very simple and clean cut goal for everybody in the Congress, 
whether you are Republican, Democrat, or an Independent, it is pretty 
simple. We ought to set as a goal trying to leave in the neighborhood 
of around $7,000 in the families' checking accounts instead of pulling 
it and shipping it off to Washington. The Balanced Budget Act, which 
was passed by this congressional majority, went a long way toward 
accomplishing that goal. That act would have put between $2,000 and 
$4,000 into the checking accounts of every family, lower interest 
rates, lower payments, and tax savings. It would have accomplished 
about half of a meaningful goal. If we want to put families first, we 
ought to leave the money with the families who earn it. We ought to 
leave them the ability to do the kinds of things they want to do to set 
their own priorities.
  Mr. President, let us take a look at this average family. I have a 
pretty good idea in the State of Georgia, and I think that is probably 
about the case all across the country. Mr. President, the average 
family in Georgia makes about $45,000 a year. Today, by the time they 
have paid their Federal taxes, by the time they have paid their State 
and local taxes, by the time they have paid their Social Security and 
Medicare taxes, by the time they have paid their share of the higher 
interest rates on the national debt, by the time they have paid their 
share of the cost of Government regulation, they end up with less than 
half the total income that they earn to take care of their families.
  Mr. President, that is inexcusable--the fact that we have come to the 
point in the United States that the Government takes over half of the 
hard-earned wages of a working family.
  Now, I argue that that policy has had a very negative effect on the 
American family. I argue that there is no force in America, including 
Hollywood, that has so affected the average family as their own 
Government. It is not complicated. If the Government is going to take 
half of everybody's paycheck and move it to Washington to be 
wonderwonked by the wizard bureaucrats here to decide what the 
priorities are, you have pushed the family to the wall. So the 
suggestion we are hearing from the other side is let us take more out 
of that paycheck, let us design a group of new programs that we will 
plan here in Washington to manage your family. I think families first 
needs a little asterisk that says, ``as designed by the Federal 
Government.''

  Our argument would be to leave the wages earned by a family in the 
checking account of that family, and let them decide what the 
priorities of that family ought to be. A meaningful objective would be, 
if you really want to put families first, to leave the wages they earn 
in their checking accounts.
  Now, Mr. President, the efforts on the part of the congressional 
majority, the Republican Congress, were to do just that. We did put 
families first. We did have tax credits for children. We did remove the 
tax penalty for being married. We did help people on Social Security. 
Every action we took was to leave more resources in the checking 
accounts of the families. That is how you put families first--leave the 
resources with them so that they can manage their affairs.
  We read over and over that the American family is anxious today, that 
there is a deep anxiety in the families. Even at a time when we have a 
reasonably decent economy, they are still very worried, nervous, and 
bothered. Mr. President, it is because we are not leaving enough 
resources in that family. We are not leaving them the resources to do 
the things they are supposed to do. America counts on the American 
family to get the country up in the morning, to house it, to school it, 
to feed it and shelter it, to take care of its health, to provide for 
the spiritual growth necessary to take on and lead the country, and we 
have made it virtually impossible for the family to do the job that 
America asks of it.
  The other side has come forward, as a follow-up of putting people 
first, which really meant we are going to tax you more. That is what 
this book ended up doing. It ended up reducing the resources in the 
average family by about $2,600. Now we get families first. We are told 
by the Congressional Budget Office that all that array of Government 
management of the American family will cost them yet another $2,500 to 
$3,000. That is going in the wrong direction. Every proposal we have 
had from the other side, whether it is under the label of putting 
people first, or the label of families first, the bottom line is that 
Washington is first. Washington is first. We are going to design the 
way you run your family. We are going to design a program that manages 
your health care. We are going to design a program that manages the 
relations between you and your employer. But most of all, we are going 
to tax you more. So we have come to the point, between putting people 
first and families first, of the highest tax level in American history, 
and the highest tax burden on families in American history.
  So if you are going to put the family first, it is pretty simple: 
Lower their taxes, and leave more resources in their checking accounts. 
Look at the comparison, Mr. President. Just look at the comparison. 
They come up with putting people first, and every family pays an 
additional $2,500 in taxes. The Republican majority came up with the 
Balanced Budget Act. The Balanced Budget Act would have lowered the 
pressure on that family between by about $2,000 and $4,000, depending 
on who the family was. Lower interest payments and lower tax levels 
across the board, more resources in the family. We are coming to a new 
election. We have a new program entitled ``Put Families First,'' and we 
look at the tab of what that is going to cost--another $2,000 to $3,000 
for each American family. I argue, Mr. President, that that has the 
exact reverse consequences.

  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, in conclusion, I just wanted to 
underscore

[[Page S7685]]

that the only way we are going to relieve the burden on the American 
family today is to lower the tax level and allow them to keep the wages 
they earn, which allows them to fulfill the duties and responsibilities 
that they have.
  I argue that both putting people first, which resulted in the largest 
tax increase in America history, and now followed by putting families 
first, which will call for yet another tax increase, is not the 
prescription for the American family.
  If you look at the last 25 years and what has happened to the 
American family, as its tax level has pushed upward and upward, you 
have seen increasing behavior and increasing conditions in the American 
family that are the exact opposite of that which we would like to 
achieve.
  If you really want to say put families first, then lower the economic 
burden, lower the economic pressure, and let the wage earner keep their 
wages, and let the wage earner and family do that which they set as 
their own priorities of the American family.
  Mr. President, I yield back any remaining time.

                          ____________________