[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H223-H226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        PRESIDENT'S BUDGET RETURNS TO THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the Majority Leader.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, last week, we heard in the President's State 
of the Union address some of his priorities and his agenda for this 
next year. And, interestingly enough, when the budget came out this 
past week, we got a more detailed description about some of his ideas 
for new Washington spending.
  I harken back to 1994 and what happened at that point in time and 
after the big government agenda was annihilated at the polls in 1994. 
In the State of the Union address in 1995, the President came forward 
and said, the era of big government is over. I think a lot of people in 
this country took consolation in that statement. That was just a few 
short years ago.
  Well, now a couple of years later, we are talking about a potential 
surplus, which is something that is remarkable--the first in our 
country's history in some 30 years. Yet I am reminded of the fact I 
think about whenever we start talking about a surplus in this 
particular environment in Washington, D.C. It is like a liberal 
politician's dream, but a taxpayer's nightmare.
  Mr. Speaker, I think as we look at the statement in 1995 about the 
era of big government being over and then look at where we are today in 
terms of potential surplus and what that means for the future of this 
country and what that means for our country's budget, I think we have 
to make some important decisions. We are truly at an historic 
crossroads in terms of the future of this country.
  Now, when the President laid out his budget, I think there were some 
$150 billion in new Washington spending included in that budget; and, 
with respect to his goals, I think most of us probably were in 
agreement, on the importance of priorities like caring for and 
educating our children as well as providing health care for an aging 
population. These are important issues and on that I think all of us 
agree.
  However, the differences are very clear in trying to determine how 
best to achieve those goals and particularly in the context of a 
potential revenue surplus.
  The President's programs are an incredibly expansive reach by the 
Federal Government into the lives of most Americans. It is remarkably 
inconsistent on the one hand to talk about using a potential surplus to 
pay down the debt and to pay back Social Security and, on the other 
hand, to talk about increasing the size and reach of the Federal 
Government by some $150 billion in new Washington spending and bigger 
government.
  Many people, myself included, have been very confused by the mixed 
signals that the President is sending. Now I happen to believe that 
there is a responsible public policy approach to dealing with a 
potential surplus. For that reason, I am cosponsoring legislation 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) which is 
consistent with a number of important policy objectives.
  Simply put, the Neumann legislation would apportion any potential 
surplus in three ways. First, it would allocate two-thirds of any 
surpluses to paying off debt and restoring the governmental trust 
funds: Social Security, transportation, environmental. The final third 
would go toward reducing taxes on hard-working Americans.
  It goes a step beyond that in a very important way, by putting a 
systematic plan in place to retire our country's $5.5 trillion debt in 
the course of the next 30 years, spending 1 percent less than what we 
take in in revenue every year, and applying that 1 percent to paying 
down the debt. Again assuming modest or moderate economic growth rates, 
we can be completely debt free by the year 2026.
  In addition to winning the war on drugs, I cannot think of anything 
else that would be more important for the future of our children and 
our grandchildren. It would also free up the $250 billion annually that 
the Congress appropriates every year just to pay the interest on our 
$5.5 trillion debt.
  That is an important point. We go through the budgetary process every 
year. Before we spend anything on roads and bridges or highways, before 
we spend anything on any other social programs, we have to appropriate 
the $250 billion in round numbers that is necessary and essential to 
pay for the interest on the $5.5 trillion debt.
  Just as important, the Neumann legislation would allow us actually to 
give something back to the taxpayers. After all, it is their money. I 
happen for one to believe that if the President is able to build $150 
billion into his budget for new Washington spending, in the 
alternative, he ought to be able to come up with that amount of money 
to give back to the taxpayers.
  I believe that the best way that we can help working families deal 
with tough issues like child care is to give them some money back and 
to allow them to make the best decision about how to address this very 
important need.
  The President's proposal tends toward installing Uncle Sam as your 
nanny. His plan would have Washington determine which children and 
which child care providers get Washington's assistance.
  The bottom line question I think we have to ask ourselves as members 
of this country is, who would we rather have raising our kids? Would we 
rather have the Federal Government do it, or would we rather have the 
American family? For me, that is a no-brainer.
  But if we give people inside the Washington Beltway long enough, they 
will try to create a risk-free society. Big government will eventually 
guarantee you child care, education, health care, guarantee a job, 
probably guarantee a fixed income, guarantee a retirement, possibly a 
big screen television, and the list goes on and on.
  But the cost will be high. Because, in doing all that, there will be 
a corresponding decrease in the freedom that we enjoy in this country 
and more and more taxes to pay for all that security. Ultimately, we 
end up with a bureaucrat in the crib, a bureaucrat at day care, a 
bureaucrat in the classroom, a bureaucrat in the workplace, and a 
bureaucrat in your living room. We may, in fact, even have a bureaucrat 
in the coffin with us just to make sure that we do not, in fact, take 
anything with us.

[[Page H224]]

  The question I think we have to ask is, where does it all end? There 
is a better way, and that is to say to the people of this country that 
we trust their judgment. We believe that they are capable of caring for 
their children and making good decisions about their future. We believe 
that, as a matter of principle, America is infinitely better off when 
families are making decisions rather than bureaucrats. In the same way, 
we believe that America is infinitely better off when parents are 
teaching values rather than bureaucrats.
  I know that may shock the yuppy intellectuals who operate government 
institutions, but that is all part of the debate that we are having in 
this country today. If there is anything in President Clinton's budget 
or in his State of the Union speech that troubles me more than anything 
else, it is this obsession with targeting. From spending Federal 
dollars to providing tax relief, the President desperately wants to 
create winners and losers. Everything is targeted.
  Now since when have we become so differentiated as a culture so as to 
require this sort of governmental micromanagement? I think at times we 
have all been guilty of it. But if we are truly striving, as he said, 
toward a more perfect union, we ought to look for ways in which we 
allow all Americans, irrespective of whether they are married or 
single, with or without children, young or old, whatever their national 
heritage is, to participate in the benefits of greater freedom that 
comes with lower taxes. We should not discriminate among taxpayers 
based upon marital status. We should, on the other hand, strive to make 
all taxpayers equal in the law.

                              {time}  1900

  Furthermore, we ought to consistently look at ways to make the Tax 
Code simpler and less complicated for the American people. Almost every 
tax relief proposal that I have heard of to date further complicates 
the Tax Code. This is the absolute wrong direction in which to head if 
our underlying objective is making government less intrusive and more 
user-friendly.
  It is for these reasons that I am proud today along with my friend, 
the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), to be introducing two 
pieces of tax relief legislation that I believe will serve as 
alternatives to the new Washington spending in the President's budget, 
and at the same time these bills are consistent with the dual goals of, 
one, distributing tax relief broadly and evenly and, secondly, of 
simplifying an already inordinately complicated Tax Code.
  Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, if they are 
sincere about helping to lower the tax burden on working families, 
should be 100 percent behind these bills. There is no targeting. There 
is no gimmickry. There are no loopholes, just plain and simple common 
sense.
  The first bill, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 1998, addresses 
the issue of bracket creep by allowing working families to make more 
money before they fall into the higher tax bracket. It lowers taxes by 
raising the income threshold at which the 28 percent tax bracket would 
apply. Very simply put, more and more of the income of working 
Americans would be subject to the 15 percent tax bracket rather than 
the much higher 28 percent tax bracket.
  This legislation will help Americans who are doing better and 
therefore making more and as a consequence have graduated from the 15 
percent tax bracket to the higher 28 percent tax bracket. Due to 
bracket creep, 28 cents of each additional dollar they earn now goes to 
the Federal Government. Talk about a disincentive to improving your lot 
in life. Under our legislation, many of these hard-working people will 
have an incentive to continue to be hard-working people because they 
will have been liberated from the higher tax rate on each additional 
dollar that they earn.
  Now, the real beauty in this legislation is it gives no preference 
based upon status, marital or otherwise. Presently the higher 28 
percent tax rate begins to apply to a single person making $25,350. Our 
legislation would raise that threshold to $35,000. For heads of 
household, the 28 percent rate starts at $33,950. We would raise that 
to $52,600. For married couples the 28 percent rate starts at $42,350. 
We would raise that in our proposal to $70,000.
  According to the Tax Foundation, over 29 million filers in this 
country would see their taxes lowered under this proposal, with the 
average savings of nearly $1,200 per filer. In fact, over 10 million 
filers would actually move out of the 28 percent bracket, the higher 
tax bracket, into the lower 15 percent bracket.
  Once again, let me say and repeat that this is an infinitely better 
approach to assisting families with their child care needs than is the 
discriminatory Washington knows best approach embodied in the 
President's plan. A $1,200 tax cut could pay for 16 weeks of child 
care, 4 car payments and up to 3 months of housing bills, or 14 weeks 
of grocery bills. That is real help for working families.
  Our other bill, the Taxpayer Choice Act of 1998, would raise the 
personal exemption from the current $2,700 to $3,400. Again, this 
simple change will help hard-working Americans by allowing them to 
reduce their taxable income by an additional $700 per dependent, 
thereby lowering their overall tax burden.
  This legislation will deliver broad-based tax relief to taxpayers in 
the lower and middle-income ranges. In fact, under this legislation, 95 
percent of the people, particularly those in the lower income 
categories, would benefit. It really delivers relief to low and middle-
income taxpayers, and that is something I think we desperately need. 
That is helping people who are your W-2 wage earners, the people that 
oftentimes get left out of many of the discussions. Furthermore the 
change is straightforward and easy to calculate. For someone in the 15 
percent tax bracket, the bill would result in a savings of $100, or for 
a family of four, when you multiply that, $400 or the possible 
equivalent of 5 weeks of child care, a car payment, housing payment or 
5 weeks of grocery bills.
  Again, I would restate that this is real relief. For someone in the 
28 percent tax bracket, that would amount to $200 in tax savings per 
individual or $800 per family of four. That again is the possible 
equivalent of 10 weeks of child care, almost 10 weeks of grocery bills, 
three car payments or a couple of housing payments, and, as is true 
today, the deduction would phase out for wage earners whose incomes 
exceed $124,500.
  Let me again reiterate one point. That is that we agree with the 
President that working families in America need relief. However, the 
President, to coincide with his need for a relevant agenda, has 
mistakenly interpreted that need as a request for more Washington 
spending. We, on the other hand, know that what working families are 
really asking for is not more Federal Government, but relief from more 
Federal Government.
  We have heard American families. We agree with you that your family 
should not have to sacrifice one more dime of your hard-earned money to 
build new government bureaucracies that will further undermine your 
ability to care for yourself and your family. We will stand with 
American families, and the bills that we have introduced today make it 
abundantly clear that no surplus government revenue should go to more 
Washington spending. Rather, they should go into your pocket--through 
tax relief and restoring the trust funds. That is common-sense 
government.
  The legislation we have introduced today also should fit in nicely 
with what I believe ought to be a reality before the turn of the 
century, and that is a brand new Tax Code that is simple and fair.
  Americans waste too much time and money filling out tax returns. It 
is a dream for lobbyists, for lawyers and for tax preparers. It is a 
nightmare for the American taxpayer. Ultimately the only way we will 
get real reform is to kill the beast and start all over. Every time 
Congress starts chipping around the edges like we did last summer, we 
make the Code even more complicated than it is today, some 480 
different forms, 6,000 pages and 34\1/2\ pounds. It is time to say, 
enough already.
  It will not be easy because there is a lot of internal resistance in 
this city to changing the status quo, but it has to be done. I had some 
accountants from South Dakota in my office just this last week. They 
agreed. They are probably in the best position to benefit

[[Page H225]]

from the complexity of the Code as it exists today. They agree that the 
current Code is an abomination.
  The two bills that we have introduced today are consistent with a 
simpler, fairer approach to the Tax Code. I hope they will serve as the 
beginning of a discussion about replacing the Code with a view of 
taxation that finds its foundation and its basis in the policies of 
former Presidents John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, and that is a policy 
and a view that invites all Americans to participate in the benefits of 
a growing economy that will spur investment and create jobs by limiting 
taxes and by minimizing the burden of tax compliance.

  These are our goals. I look forward to working with this Congress to 
making them become a reality. To that end I would ask the Members of 
this body on both sides of the aisle to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THUNE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I overheard the beginning of your speech, 
and I thought it was very important that you pointed out that 2 years 
ago the President said that the era of big government is over. And yet 
the other day, yesterday, he said, we are now at the end of an era. So 
apparently the era of big government being over was only a 2-year 
period of time, a 24-month little spurt in United States history. What 
the President is now saying is that the era is over, and here is how I 
want to spend the surplus.
  Now, I do not know how the good folks in your district are, but I 
know the good folks in coastal Georgia, if they have a credit card debt 
and they go 1 month without using the credit card, that does not mean 
that the bank calls them up and says, hey, last month your credit card 
balance was zero, go out and buy some new clothes and a new stereo, and 
go on a nice vacation and take your family out to eat. What they say 
is, hey, I am glad you finally quit spending on the damn credit card. 
Now start paying down your credit card debt.
  The position we are in as a country, just because for the first time 
in 30 years we are going to have no deficit, it does not mean that we 
have paid down our $5.1 trillion debt. And what we need to do is have a 
sensible approach that you have outlined in terms of paying down the 
debt and having not increased government and not gone out and spent on 
a lot of new programs and so forth.
  I really appreciate your class taking the leadership on this and 
common sense tax reforms, targeting to put values back in the system 
and reward people who are out there working and not the folks who want 
to take advantage of it.
  Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Georgia. I 
happen to agree that in the course of the last couple years, somehow we 
have gone from the era of big government is over, to it is back.
  In the current proposals that are pending before Congress right now, 
which we will have an opportunity to evaluate and act upon in the 
months ahead, clearly the discussion was had with the pollsters as to 
what are the most popular things, the most attractive things that we 
can talk about in terms of policies, and yet at the same time, without 
telling the taxpayers of this country that ultimately you are the 
people who are going to have to pay the bill on this. I think in 
fairness we have to make clear that inasmuch as these different things 
sound very attractive on the surface, the bottom line is they are an 
incredible, enormous expansion of big government; an incredible 
expansion into the lives of most Americans. As the people in my State 
of South Dakota would probably tell you, that is something that they 
would rather not see, because when I came here, I told them that I 
would work to make government smaller, more responsive, and more user-
friendly. And in fact, what we are talking about is a bigger preemption 
and government usurping more authority, and more of the decisionmaking 
and control that parents and families and individuals ought to have.
  I might add, again, in reemphasizing something that I said earlier, 
that so much of what the President has proposed over the course of his 
tenure is to identify or isolate specific groups and make them either 
winners or losers under his proposals. The things that we are talking 
about here in terms of tax relief do in fact provide it in an evenly 
distributed and broad way that allows people, whether you are married 
or not, whether you are single, to participate in the benefits of lower 
taxes, and that ultimately is where we want to go. I know that the 
gentleman from Georgia has a keen interest in that subject.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think that the gentleman has raised a good point that 
taxes are an indication of the size of your government. One of the 
things that when we talk about a balanced budget, if we had government 
the size that we do today, if we had the same size government or budget 
years and years ago, we would have always had a surplus.
  The fact is our budget is overgrown. We are like the 300- or 400-
pound fat boy who has finally quit gaining weight. And we are saying, 
oh, yes, now you are in great shape because you are not gaining weight 
anymore.
  The fact is we have a huge, massive government, as the President has 
proposed it, $1.7 trillion government. That is a whole heck of a lot of 
bureaucrats, a whole heck of a lot of rules, regulations and Washington 
busybodies who have nothing to do in this world but to stick their nose 
into your family, your household, your bedroom, your kitchen table, 
your refrigerator. They are going to give us rules for this and that, 
labeling laws, restrictions and so forth. If you go out and talk to 
businesses, I do not see how they stay in business anymore, small or 
large or mid-sized businesses, just too much bureaucracy.
  One of my favorite stories, and it is not hard to get one on OSHA, is 
a plumbing contractor in my district was installing a P-trap in a 
kitchen or bathroom sink. The P-trap is a little pipe that goes like 
that. Most of these days one uses PVC pipe. This is just like your 
bathroom cabinet and probably 80 percent of the houses in America, your 
typical middle-class ranch house. The plumbing contractor was using 
glue, PVC pipe underneath this sink in a bathroom.

                              {time}  1915

  And OSHA fined him for using a hazardous substance in a confined 
space without a gas mask. And that is the kind of government that we 
have, when we have a $1.7 trillion dollar debt. They are not really 
worried about worker safety as much as they are concerned about 
bureaucratic job security, and they are going to come in and tell us 
how to run our lives or our offices because they have to justify their 
own existence.
  But I think that what the gentleman is talking about with his 
targeted tax reductions does start the very important process of 
rolling back the size of government and the government regulations and 
interference with our lives and commerce.
  Mr. THUNE. Well, the gentleman's experience is not unlike that of 
many, I would submit, around the country. And clearly we have come a 
very long way in this country from the concept I think that we had at 
our foundation, the conception that our forefathers had of this 
country, that government would only do for people those things that 
they cannot do for themselves. And somehow along the way we have 
complicated and convoluted and confused that concept to the point where 
today, as the gentleman knows, there are just enormous amounts of red 
tape and regulations and burdens that are placed upon citizens living 
in our society and a commensurate loss of the freedoms, the personal 
freedoms, that they used to enjoy in America.
  I cannot help but recollect something I was reading the other day 
about the number of words that we have in government which is a good 
illustration. In the Lord's prayer there are some 66 words. In the 
Gettysburg address, 286 words, and the Declaration of Independence, 
some 1,326 words. And yet we have 26,940 some words governing the sale 
of cabbage in America today. So it has crept into, I think, all aspects 
of our lives.
  And clearly it is something that we all recognize as a legitimate and 
vital role for the government to play, but what this administration, 
what this budget, what the proposals that we are going to be looking at 
over the course

[[Page H226]]

of the next few weeks would purport to do is to grow and expand that 
role into new areas of American life and create an even bigger 
dependence upon the Federal Government. And, again, what people have to 
realize is ultimately they have to pay for that, and they will pay for 
it in the form of higher taxes and they are also going to be giving up 
a good amount of freedom in the decision-making process, because when 
we marry ourselves to the government and when we become the so-called 
partnership with government, we end up being the junior partner.
  I thought it was interesting a while back in the Washington Post that 
there was a senior administration official that said because we had 
gotten our fiscal house in order we could afford to be a little more 
generous. That was an interesting comment because it reflected a 
mentality that I think permeates this entire city, and that is that it 
is their money. I realize, and I think what the gentleman from Georgia 
realizes, is that ultimately it is the money of the taxpayers of this 
country. And that is a concept, that is a truth, that is a principle 
that I will never forget in representing the people of my good State of 
South Dakota, and I would suspect the gentleman from Georgia will never 
forget in representing the people of his district as well.

                          ____________________