[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11472-S11473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                TAX CUTS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are nearing the end of the 104th 
Congress, a time when many will review the accomplishments and the 
failures of the last 2 years.
  Though the dramatic budget disputes have dominated much of the brief 
history of the 104th Congress, there have in fact been a number of 
bipartisan successes that have not been as publicly noted. These 
bipartisan efforts have included congressional compliance, unfunded 
mandates legislation, lobby and gift reform, modest, but helpful, 
health insurance reform, and the promising beginnings of campaign 
finance reform.
  But, Mr. President, perhaps the biggest achievement of this Congress 
has been something that was not done. This Congress did not enact any 
of the massive, fiscally irresponsible tax-cut proposals that Members 
of both parties have proposed.

  Mr. President, a recent headline in the Washington Post read, 
``Dole's Tax Cut Centerpiece Has Yet To Strike a Chord With Voters.'' 
It is a telling story about the inability of the Dole campaign to gain 
significant political benefit from his proposal to cut taxes by nearly 
half a trillion dollars.
  To a certain extent, I think the same kind of story could be written, 
in fairness, about President Clinton's tax-cut proposals. The bulk of 
the success that the President has enjoyed--I believe will continue to 
enjoy--clearly comes not from his tax-cut plans, but from his handling 
of the economy and his record on deficit reduction.
  So, Mr. President, I think neither candidate has benefited in any 
significant way from proposing tax cuts. The reason is straightforward. 
Voters understand we simply cannot afford to

[[Page S11473]]

cut taxes if we are to balance the Federal budget within the next 6 
years. Mr. President, do Americans want lower taxes? Of course they do. 
But given the choice between cutting taxes and balancing the budget, 
the American voter wants to balance the budget.
  Make no mistake, Mr. President, that is the choice we have before us. 
We have to do one or the other. You cannot do both. Anyone who claims 
you can do both is either blowing smoke or simply does not understand 
the huge problem we have in this country with our deficit and the debt 
which underlies it.
  Mr. President, we saw how politically unsustainable a budget package 
becomes when it attempts to provide a major tax cut while it also 
claims to be eliminating the deficit. The political developments of 
this past year are testimony to this fact.
  Indeed, any budget package that eliminates the deficit will be 
difficult enough to sustain over the next few years that it would take 
to fully implement its provisions even without the added burden of 
funding a significant tax cut.
  The failure of the tax-cut plans offered by either party to gain 
political momentum is, of course, not due to a lack of effort. Millions 
of dollars are being spent on carefully crafted television commercials 
advocating these tax-cut proposals. These plans are not new nor are the 
efforts to promote them.
  The President's plan that we have heard about recently is similar, in 
many ways, to the one he proposed in December of 1994. The Dole plan 
clearly has its roots in the massive tax cut proposed as a part of the 
now famous Contract With America. In fact, many in this body will 
recall that the Speaker of the other body pronounced that the tax-cut 
proposal, of all the proposals in the Contract With America, was the 
``crown jewel'' of the Contract With America, in his words.
  Mr. President, the Speaker's characterization was notable. Of all the 
provisions in that political document, it was the tax cut that he, the 
leader of that charge, gave the privileged position. Yet, despite the 
considerable political inertia that is conferred by being singled out 
as the crown jewel of the Contract With America, the tax cut has not 
been enacted.
  Mr. President, does anyone doubt that, if there had been strong 
broad-based support for that tax cut, it would have been enacted by 
now? Clearly it would have been. If the American people truly preferred 
tax cuts to deficit reduction, we would have seen an inevitable 
bipartisan rush to enact them. But that has not been the case.

  In the Washington Post story on the failure of the Dole tax-cut plan 
to attract voter support, a gentleman named Ralph Miller, of 
Greencastle, IN, a self-described independent, is quoted as saying 
this:

       When I hear all that talk about how they're going to cut 
     taxes and balance the budget, it turns me against the both of 
     them.

  He added:

       I don't believe anybody can do that * * * I have respect 
     for Bob Dole, but this seems ridiculous to me.

  Mr. President, despite the lost opportunity to make even more 
progress to reduce the deficit during the 104th Congress, the deficit-
reduction package passed in 1993 continues to lower the annual budget 
deficits below where they otherwise would have been.
  As many have noted, in the last 4 years we have seen deficits come 
down from nearly $300 billion to an estimated $117 billion. That 
progress, of course, has come only with great difficulty. Finishing the 
job will be even tougher, but it is something that absolutely must be 
done.
  Mr. President, proposals to provide large tax cuts jeopardize that 
effort by pirating the savings generated by spending cuts away from 
deficit reduction in order to fund tax cuts.
  They also undercut deficit reduction by providing an alluring 
alternative to the often painful and unpopular work of balancing the 
budget.
  It is much easier it is to talk of cutting taxes than it is to focus 
on where to cut spending.
  The American people have not been swayed by the talk of cutting taxes 
by the Presidential candidates.
  In fact, if President Clinton wins, as I hope and expect he will, it 
will in large part be because of his success in reducing the deficit, 
not because of his tax cut proposals.
  Mr. President, in 1994, the first time many voters became aware of 
the Contract With America, including its crown jewel, was after the 
election.
  But that fact was conveniently ignored when the new congressional 
leadership sought to advance their agenda.
  The contract's provisions were held up as an electoral mandate, 
though I doubt 1 voter in 10 was in any way familiar with the real 
specifics of the Contract With America.
  There will be no comparable, after-the-fact, document this year, Mr. 
President.
  The differences between the two candidates are well known.
  And despite the efforts of some in both parties, and the political 
and media specialists in both campaigns, the outcome of this election 
will rest in large part on whether voters choose reducing the deficit 
or cutting taxes as the higher economic priority of this Nation.
  Mr. President, despite the loudly trumpeted promises made at the 
beginning of this Congress, and despite the significant political 
pressure brought to bear by well-funded special interests, we have 
succeeded in avoiding significant damage to the deficit, and to the 
goal of a balanced budget, that a huge tax cut would have meant.
  If, in the 105th Congress, as I very much hope, we are finally able 
to enact a bipartisan budget plan that will balance the Federal books, 
it will be in large part because we did not enact a fiscally 
irresponsible tax cut in the 104th Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized to 
speak for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. D'Amato pertaining to the introduction of S. 2136 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________