[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 58 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4611-S4612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CBO'S MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEW

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak first about 
the Congressional Budget Office, which last week released its monthly 
budget projection. And I noticed that this projection, this estimate, 
received prominent coverage in the Washington Post and in other major 
daily newspapers around the country last week.
  Actually, those papers may have mentioned this CBO report twice. 
First there were news stories saying says that the Congressional Budget 
Office now predicts that in this fiscal year --1998--we will have a 
budget surplus, they say, of anywhere from $43 billion to $63 billion. 
And in the next 24 and 48 hours, there was a spate of stories about a 
group of people telling us what they would like done with this alleged 
surplus.
  Just as quick as you can light a candle around here, any discussion 
about a surplus brings people who want to spend it or give it back in 
tax breaks. And very quickly they clustered around that flame of the 
surplus and told us what they thought should be done about this.
  I would like to simply say that the Congressional Budget Office does 
us no service when it gives us half the story. The Congressional Budget 
Office is a fine organization, and I mean no disrespect to the work of 
CBO or the people who do that work. And CBO is right to say that we 
have made substantial progress dealing with fiscal policy, and 
especially the Federal budget deficit in recent years. For a number of 
reasons, our deficits have shrunk dramatically. We have made remarkable 
progress.
  But we are not there yet, and we will not have and do not have a 
surplus this year. We will continue to have a deficit this year, albeit 
a much smaller deficit--shrunk dramatically from its previous size. We 
are continuing to make great progress, and we will have a surplus soon, 
but we will not have a surplus this year. Let me explain why.

  On April 2d of this year, this Senate passed a budget. I might add 
that this House still has not yet figured out what it wants to do on a 
budget. But in the Senate budget resolution, which billed itself as 
providing a budget surplus, on the fourth page, I believe, it admits 
that the actual deficit for fiscal year 1998 is going to be $95.6 
billion.
  That is very much at odds with the Congressional Budget Office, which 
says, ``Gee, things are rosy, and they are getting better. In fact, we 
will have a very significant surplus.'' And we have people slicing up 
this estimate of a surplus, figuring out how to give it back or what to 
do with it when, in fact, our budget resolution says we are going to 
have a deficit this year of $95.6 billion.
  The key to the difference is in the Budget Act. The Budget Act says--
this is law--``The concurrent resolution''--that is, the budget 
resolution--``shall not include the outlays and revenue totals'' of the 
Social Security system.
  In other words, we have enshrined in the law the principle that the 
revenue of the Social Security system is dedicated tax revenue going 
into a trust fund to be used only for Social Security. And the revenue 
will be used for Social Security--because it will be needed in the long 
term. We all understand that. But this provision of law says that you 
can't use that revenue, you can't bring it out of that trust fund over 
here to the budget and say, ``By the way, we have all of this revenue 
we are using over here and the budget looks great.''
  The law says you cannot do that. But the Congressional Budget Office 
report just ignores that law. They don't admit they re using the Social 
Security trust fund, but they, in fact, do it because that is the way 
they report. They say, well, we are going to have a $43 billion to $63 
billion surplus in this year. How do they get that? By taking the 
Social Security trust fund money, adding it in as other revenues and 
saying, wow, we have a surplus. And so we have folks who are going to 
spend this alleged surplus, or create some new tax breaks to give back 
the supposed surplus before a surplus really exists.
  Now, my own vote on the surplus, if one develops, is to say let us 
begin to reduce the Federal debt just a bit. If for 30 consecutive 
years you increase the Federal debt, it seems to me that when times are 
good and you begin to have some significant progress in fiscal policy 
and you begin to run a real surplus, the prudent thing would be to 
begin to reduce the Federal debt. So that would be my vote.
  But we are not there yet. And I certainly do not support those who 
rush to this flame now and say, well, if CBO says there is a surplus, 
here is how we ought to deal with it: Let's provide some more tax 
breaks. Let's provide some more spending.
  What about let's do some honest accounting? What about let's say that 
the CBO, when it reports, if it reports, it must follow budget law and 
report to the American people the facts, not just half the story?
  So I come to the floor not to say there is not a parade going on--I 
guess there is a parade--but they are celebrating the wrong thing. Let 
us celebrate some success. We have had some major progress in fiscal 
policy. That progress is due in no small part, in my judgment, to the 
President's 1993 recommendations on a new fiscal policy. That plan 
required some effort to vote for it, but we did, and things are better. 
I would also say some restraint on spending by the Republicans and 
Democrats here in the Congress and also a growing economy have also 
helped our budget picture.
  All of that contributes to a better story on fiscal policy. But we 
are not at a real surplus yet. And the Congressional Budget Office 
knows better, as do the newspapers that print this. In fact, I sat with 
a reporter last Thursday just briefly just to say hello. We

[[Page S4612]]

happened to see each other accidentally, and I said I read the story 
about the supposed budget surplus. I said, ``You know that's not in 
surplus.''
  Well, that reporter understood about unified budget surpluses and on-
budget deficits. But the fact is that CBO was reporting half the story 
last week, and the press dutifully reports it the way CBO says it, and 
CBO and everybody here knows they are wrong.
  So I hope those who began last week to talk about what they want to 
do with all this alleged surplus, and who will likely waste this week 
trying to figure it out, I hope they will take a look at page 32-33 of 
The Economic and Budget Outlook produced by CBO in January. There--not 
in the monthly review, but in the annual January report--CBO has a line 
that describes what the real deficit is.
  But that line is nowhere to be found on their monthly reports that 
they put on the Internet that resulted in last week's press statements. 
I hope CBO will change that, and put the information about the real 
state of our budget in its monthly reviews. And I hope the press picks 
up on that information and starts reporting it.
  That information will add enormously to our budget discussions this 
summer. Then we might have an honest debate on whether there really is 
going to be a surplus at the end of this fiscal year, a surplus that 
can be used for purposes other than Social Security. I don t think 
there will be, and I look forward to making that point.


                        A Return-Free Tax System

  Mr. President, one additional point. Last week we passed a major IRS 
reform bill. I voted for the bill because I think it has many 
provisions that ought to be very helpful for taxpayers dealing with the 
IRS. I have some continuing concerns about other parts of the bill. For 
example, I m concerned about the method used to pay for it. It was a 
sleight-of-hand kind of method and needs to be changed in conference.

  Having said all that, in this Chamber last week I complimented 
Senators Roth, Moynihan and others for their leadership in writing some 
of these provisions. I want to point out a significant provision in the 
bill that requires the Treasury Department to study and develop 
procedures for implementing a return-free tax system beginning after 
the year 2007.
  I have described to my colleagues a piece of legislation that I have 
worked on for many months that could provide a return-free tax system 
for up to 70 million Americans. While I am very encouraged by what 
Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan have done and fully support it--and 
think they have advanced this issue some, I have also visited with 
both, encouraging them to work with us in conference to move up this 
2007 date.
  The fact is we could much more quickly go to a return-free income tax 
filing system for anywhere from 50 to 70 million Americans. It is not a 
very complicated thing to do. It would be relatively easy to say to 
most Americans with incomes mostly from wages and salaries--and who 
have only a modest amount of non-wage income such as interests, 
dividends and capital gains--that they could decide never to file a 
federal income tax return again. These taxpayers would make a few 
simple adjustments on their W-4 form at work, and their employers would 
withhold their precise tax liability over the year using a table 
provided by the IRS. This withholding now becomes their exact tax 
liability for the year. No return needs to be filed. They don't have to 
go looking for records. They don't have to rush to the post office on 
the night of April 15 to get a postmark. It becomes the exact tax 
liability. And, in most cases, these taxpayers won't have to worry 
about an audit.
  Two additional adjustments would be put on the W-4, which all 
employees now file with their employer, to capture the per child tax 
credit that Congress adopted last year and a tax deduction for home 
ownership. These adjustments are provided by the IRS on a table. These 
adjustments would be no more difficult for the employer.
  But from that process, I believe that 50 to 70 million people could 
be relieved of the obligation to file an income tax return. Some 365 
million hours of work now done by taxpayers to prepare returns and get 
them filed could be eliminated. How much paper for 70 million tax 
returns and supporting materials gone? And we could do this in the next 
year or so.
  I rise today only to say I am very pleased that Senator Roth and 
Senator Moynihan included this return-free approach in the Senate s IRS 
restructuring bill. I would just commend to them that a piece of 
legislation I have written would advance that very quickly. We could do 
it in a year or so. More than thirty countries around the world use 
some form of return-free filing system--no paper. Employees do not have 
to file a return. Some of the countries, incidentally, have a 
reconciliation by the taxing agency, while others mirror my approach 
where you simply retool the W-4 form to make it slightly more accurate. 
It isn't much longer and is no more difficulty for the employer, but my 
plan relieves probably 50 to 70 million people from having to file an 
income tax return.
  I think if we did that, it would be a giant step towards real tax 
simplification for millions and millions of Americans. There are others 
in Congress who say, well, what we want to do is get rid of the entire 
tax system, which is fine. If one believes we should do that, then with 
what do you replace it? They say, well, a flat tax so that Donald Trump 
pays the same tax rate as the barber in my hometown.
  I don't happen to share the belief that would be a fair system. I 
think maybe Donald--maybe I shouldn't use his name, but he seems to 
have his name on everything. He probably would not mind my using it. I 
think Donald might want to pay a slightly higher rate than the barber 
in my hometown; or others say, well, let's have a national sales tax.

  A study by a tax expert at the Brookings Institution says if you have 
a national sales tax, the rates would probably be over 30 percent, and 
then add the State and local taxes, and that would be on almost 
everything. So say you would like to buy a house and here is the price 
we have agreed on, and then have someone tell you, oh, yes, you have a 
37-percent sales tax applied to that price, 30 percent Federal, 7 
percent State and local.
  Others say a value-added tax. There are all kinds of ideas for how to 
change the tax system. I would say it is unlikely that we are going to 
see the current income tax system completely obliterated. I expect that 
in some form it will be around for some while, and if it is, I would 
very much like to see it radically simplified for most of the American 
people. It is hard to have a one-size-fits-all. I understand that some 
people have very complicated income situations; they have a lot of 
income from different areas and a lot of expenses from other areas. I 
think in some cases those are very complicated; it is very hard to 
simplify that. But for the vast majority of the American people, 
working families whose main income comes from a wage or salary and who 
have very little other income, this income tax system need not be a 
headache. It could be radically simplified. It could be done very 
quickly.
  We could move to a return-free system, as I indicated, for up to 70 
million Americans and we could do it in a year. I very much hope--with 
the cooperation of my friend, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, 
and Senator Moynihan--we can make some progress on that.
  As I close, let me also say, as I did last week, they have provided 
significant leadership, I think, to pass the legislation we did through 
the Senate last week. I once again commend both of them for that 
leadership.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I make a point of order a quorum 
is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________