[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 70 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4032-H4038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ELIMINATE THE MARRIAGE PENALTY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) is
recognized for 50 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to come before my colleagues
and the American people to talk about an issue that is finally gaining
the attention of policymakers here in Washington, and that is the need
to eliminate the marriage penalty in our Tax Code system.
What is the marriage penalty? Essentially, it is the way in which our
Federal income tax operates that says to more than 21 million couples,
you are going to pay, on average, $1,400 more each year simply because
you are married.
It comes up in a lot of different provisions. Married people have
less of a personal deduction. Married couples pay higher rates on much
of their income. So oftentimes what happens is that when two young
people get married, they are both working, they both earn an income,
maybe receive a little bit of a return on April 15 when they do their
taxes. As soon as they get married, they get hit with this marriage
penalty and suddenly have to pay more taxes.
Then it is carried throughout their lives if, as adults, they start
having children and save money so that they can invest in a savings
account for their children to go to college. When they take that
savings account back out, they get hit with another marriage penalty.
And then, finally, when they retire, many, many senior citizens are
hit with a penalty on their Social Security because they remarry in
their later years of their life.
What our bill does is eliminates the penalty in the Tax Code, and I
have been talking about this issue for the last year. Jerry Weller and
I introduced a bill last fall that would eliminate it, and I have urged
people to contact me at my web site www dot House dot gov slash
McIntosh and talk to me about how the marriage penalty effects them.
We have literally received hundreds of e-mails from people all around
the country saying how the marriage penalty has hurt them after their
wedding.
One person told me that they had postponed their honeymoon and were
expecting to go this year; but when the tax bill came on April 15, they
owed more money because of this marriage penalty, had to once again
forego their honeymoon; and the young lady's husband would not be able
to go to summer school to finish some of his classes, all because the
government punishes marriage in this country.
I first learned about this when two of my constituents wrote to me
last year, Sharon Mallory and Darryl Pierce. Sharon and Darryl,
pictured here in this picture, wrote to me and talked about what the
marriage penalty meant in their lives. Sharon works for about $10 an
hour at a Ford electronics plant in Connersville, Indiana, and Darryl
works there as well, does a little farming on the side. They want to
get married, and they went to H&R Block and asked the accountant,
``What will happen to us if we get married?''
{time} 1815
The accountant explained to Sharon that not only would she have to
give up her $900 tax refund, together they would be penalized $2,800,
just because they got married.
Sharon went on in her letter and told me, ``We can't afford it. It
breaks our heart, but we can't afford to get married. I urge you,
Congressman, to eliminate this marriage penalty.''
Well, it broke my heart when I received her letter, and I started
researching exactly how comprehensive is this marriage penalty. I found
out that 21 million families in America pay on average $1,400 extra
taxes just because they are married.
Now, many of the people in this country are saying we need to
strengthen families, we need to be on the side of families, families
are the organization in our society that are raising our children,
teaching them the moral values they need in order to become future
citizens. And today families truly are under assault. You not only have
the marriage penalty, you have problems with drugs and gangs, problems
with different images that are exposed to the families being broken
down, and too often we see families where there is no father involved
with the children.
I am not saying that a single mom is not loving her children as much
as possible. My mom was a single mom, and I know all the sacrifices she
made for me, but we were always hoping we would have dad there.
The consequences of not having an intact family can be tremendous.
Studies show that children who come from split homes or single parent
homes are more likely to divorce themselves. They are four times as
likely to die at an earlier age. Their health is worse.
Sadly, many of them pass on these problems to the next generation.
Seventy-two percent of juvenile murders come from divided homes. Sixty
percent of rapists grew up in broken
[[Page H4033]]
homes. They are more likely to use drugs, more likely to commit suicide
and more likely to drop out of school.
We have to reverse that, and we can start by putting the Federal
Government on the side of families, eliminating the marriage penalty,
saying to parents, we are going to give you a break. We know it is
tough when both mom and dad have to work just to pay all the bills and
make ends meet. We do not want to make it worse for you by having the
government every April 15 take out $1,400 more in your taxes.
So, as Congress considers the budget, which will be coming up later
this week, we have received a commitment from the Committee on the
Budget that we will put eliminating the marriage penalty at the top of
our priorities for tax cuts. $100 billion of tax cuts are written into
that budget, and this tax cut will say to those families, we are
finally going to be on your side. We are going to eliminate the
marriage penalty; we are going to make it our number one priority.
Now, the way to do this is through legislation that the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Weller), the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger),
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) and I introduced. It is H.R.
3734, the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act.
What it does is it says, quite simply, in two areas we are going to
redress the penalty. If you are a single person and you get a deduction
of $4,100, when you marry you are going to continue to get that same
deduction and your wife is going to get the same deduction. So when you
file married, you do not end up being penalized on that personal
standard deduction.
The second way in which we help families is to say if you are making
$24,000 and are taxed at the 15 percent rate, and your wife is making
$24,000 and is taxed at that 15 percent rate, today when you get
married, suddenly part of that income, about $8,000 of it, is taxed at
the higher rate, at 28 percent. Our bill would eliminate that and say
when you are single, the cutoff in the brackets is $24,650. For married
people, it is going to be exactly double that. We eliminate the
inequity that says just because you are going to get married, you are
going to slip into a higher tax bracket.
It is time that we pass this bill as part of our budget and move
forward next fall in the tax bill that we send to the American people,
and that this Congress comes squarely on the side of the American
family and says, once and for all, we are going to eliminate the
marriage penalty, so Sharon and Darryl can get married and not have to
worry about how to make ends meet on their family budget.
Tonight, many of us wanted to come forward and talk about this issue
and what we plan to do with it in Congress. I would like to recognize
one of my colleagues, a Member who came to us in the class of 1994, who
has done a great job of representing Florida, (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I want to commend the gentleman not only for convening this
special order on this very important issue, but as well for being one
of the leaders in the Congress and introducing H.R. 3734, the
legislation to repeal the marriage tax penalty.
I believe the institution of marriage was ordained by God. If you
travel all over the world, it is very obvious that it is a universal
institution, and its obvious primary function is to be the place where
new citizens, future citizens, are nourished and raised up and learn to
become contributors to society. I am talking, obviously, there about
our children.
To have provisions within our Tax Code, to have provisions within the
law of the Government of the United States that discourage marriage and
encourage people to live outside of wedlock, to me is almost criminal.
To allow the very existence of this marriage tax penalty to develop in
our Tax Code to me is an offense, not only to the American people, but
as well to common sense.
Prior to getting elected to Congress I practiced medicine. I am a
physician by training. I was able to see this firsthand, and I remember
it very well, seeing people, particularly senior citizens, often who
were widowed and living together out of wedlock, setting a terrible
example for their children and their grandchildren. But like the couple
in your district that you mentioned, they were doing so primarily
because of the tax burden that they would face if they were to walk
down the aisle and get married.
I have to say it literally breaks my heart that we have to actually
fight here in Washington, D.C. for these kinds of common sense reforms.
To me, the people back home described this to me as being a no-brainer,
but yet we have to struggle and fight and argue.
But I am very, very pleased that we have a commitment from the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, we have the vast majority of
our Republican Conference strongly behind this, and we even have some
of the Democrats getting behind this, which is always refreshing when
you are talking about reducing taxes and we see Democrats standing up
for that, and I want to commend the gentleman again.
Let me just add, the points that the gentleman made about the impact
on children, this is another reason why this is so critical, because if
you look at what is the primary indicator for health in a community in
terms of issues like drug abuse, issues like illiteracy, juvenile
crime, the liberals will tell you, oh, it is income, and in reality it
is not income. The thing that correlates most with problems like drug
abuse, declining educational scores and juvenile delinquency, it is
actually the amount of fatherlessness in that community. It is actually
an intact family that is the best indicator of the health of that
community.
To have a Tax Code that is actually encouraging people not to get
married, to me it is crazy. I strongly commend the gentleman, and I do
hope that all of our colleagues will support this effort.
Now, it will come at a price. It will cost us, the Federal
Government, money to get rid of the marriage penalty. But, amazingly,
as I understand it, it will mean a reduction in spending of 1 percent
over the next 5 years, which to me is a price well worth paying. That,
might I add, is just discretionary spending. I am not including
entitlement spending in that mix.
As I understand the numbers on this over the next 5 years, it means
the difference between Washington spending $9.1 trillion versus $9.0
trillion. It is a $100 billion difference. A lot of money, $100
billion, but, in my opinion, this is clearly the right thing to do. I
think Washington can tighten its belt a little bit so that the American
families can have a little bit more money.
The gentleman was talking about a couple that wants to take a
honeymoon. I will tell you what this boils down to for a lot of couples
in my Congressional District. It boils down to things like being able
to afford braces for the kids; being able to set money aside for
college or not; it means new tires for the car or not.
So I say, let us put Washington on a little bit of a diet, and let us
give married couples a little bit of a break, and let us pass this. I
do commend the gentleman for, again, convening this special order.
Twenty-one million American families will be affected by this. That is
not a small number of people.
Mr. McINTOSH. Let me reemphasize the gentleman's last point. When
President Clinton was asked what does he think about eliminating the
marriage penalty, he agreed that there is no justification for
penalizing married people with this marriage tax. But, he said, I am
not sure we can find the revenue to be able to do that.
So that has been the prevailing worry in Washington for 30 years.
They have let the penalty grow and grow and grow, so that now it is a
huge impact on many working families, because they do not want to give
up the money.
Our message is, let us do it. Let us eliminate the marriage penalty.
Nobody will stand up on the floor of this House and say yes, I like
penalizing married couples and they should pay more taxes, because they
know it is wrong, but they will not give up the money.
As the gentleman pointed out, it is one cent on the dollar. All we
have to did is hold a little bit back. It is not even a cut, because
the budget continues to grow at the rate of inflation. It is only a
little bit of restraint, and every family in America knows if you are
doing something wrong, you have to change your budget priorities, you
have to save a little bit here and not spend everything, that you can
do that. A 1 percent savings in order to protect families in this
country is tremendous.
[[Page H4034]]
Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman would yield for a question,
now, if I understand the gentleman correctly, we can pass this marriage
penalty while actually letting the government continue to grow. The
issue just is, how quickly will the Federal budget increase? In other
words, are we going to increase at a rate of the inflation rate, or are
we going to increase government spending? Am I correct?
Mr. McINTOSH. That is exactly right. The President's budget, and he
said I am not sure we give up the money, increases the rate of
government growth at twice the rate of inflation, about 3.5 percent
each year. By holding it down to a little bit more than the rate of
inflation, which is the Committee on the Budget's proposal, we can have
$100 billion in that budget to eliminate the marriage penalty. I think
that is exactly what we need to do.
I had hoped to be able to share with you some of my E-mails, but
apparently my computer is not working and we cannot get them printed
out. Angie keeps track of all of them in my office for me, but was not
able to get them over to me. I would like to emphasize with everybody
watching how important this is to average working families in this
country.
Now I would like to recognize one of our new Members, a freshman from
Pennsylvania who has served many years on the appropriations committee
in that chamber, in the Pennsylvania legislature, and he knows you can
get the job done in saving money on these appropriations bills if you
put your mind to it.
So let me introduce now the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts),
and recognize the gentleman for a comment on this.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues. I
want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for his
eloquence. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh)
for his leadership on this issue. It is a real honor to join the
gentlemen this evening to discuss really one of the number one 1998
budget goals for many Members of this Congress, and that is the repeal
of the marriage penalty tax.
As many of us have realized, and most Americans I think recognized
long ago, the marriage penalty tax works against the very fundamental
institution that we claim is the center of our social fabric, the
family.
How paradoxical that marriage, the very foundation of our social
structure, is currently undermined in our Federal Tax Code. Our current
Tax Code, instead of being fair to a husband and wife who both work
full-time, places an unnecessary burden on married couples solely for
the fact they are married. Under the current code, had this man and
woman chosen to live together and file separately, they would not be
punished by the Tax Code.
{time} 1830
This is just plain wrong, and it is warped.
For instance, in my office alone, within 1 year, I have four staff
members getting married. None of these individuals is living with his
or her fiance before they get married.
All eight of these young people are young professionals. All eight of
them are paying individual income taxes to the Federal Government. But
when these eight individuals choose to wed, when each one of them
chooses to become a husband or a wife, automatically, by the very
virtue of that decision, they will suffer under the tax status by which
they file because they are choosing marriage. They are doing the right
thing.
But our Tax Code, in effect, tells them to do something else. If our
Tax Code can speak, it would tell them that it is financially better
for them if they refrain from making that marriage commitment. Our Tax
Code essentially encourages two professional individuals to remain
unmarried.
What is the financial cost here? Couples such as those I mentioned
will pay an average of $1,400 a year in higher taxes due to the
marriage penalty. In 1996, 21 million married couples were affected.
And this must come to an end. So we must press for this budget
agreement that includes $100 billion in tax relief for our married
couples.
It is time that our Tax Code reflects this Nation's emphasis on the
social virtue and the value of marriage. It is inconceivable that our
tax policy should discourage the very fundamental unit of society,
family and marriage, but that is what it does.
As our budget negotiations continue, as we seek continued and lasting
tax relief for the American people, a repeal of the marriage penalty
tax must be part of that mix. What may appear to be a seemingly small
penalty hidden within the Tax Code harms in a very large way the
institution on which we have based our society, the family.
So elimination of the marriage penalty restores tax fairness. It
increases take-home pay for families. It strengthens marriage and
families. It helps working women. It is the right thing to do, to
repeal the marriage penalty tax.
On the comment in question that the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon) mentioned previously, if we look historically at the growth of
government, the rate of government spending, I think if you will look
back 5 years, we have spent about $7.8 trillion on the Federal
Government. Looking ahead for 5 years, it is proposed that we spend
$9.1 trillion.
All we are doing with this marriage penalty tax is just moving that
$9.1 trillion to $9.0 trillion. In other words, we are just saving 1
penny on the dollar. There is no better way to give tax relief to the
American family than to repeal the marriage penalty tax.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, by the way, I would like to mention that
the new freshman class had a budget proposal this year that included
addressing this marriage penalty problem. I wanted to thank all of the
new Members of Congress for getting behind us.
Oftentimes, the wisdom of some of the new Members gets lost on people
who have been here a long time because they get used to spending that
money. The gentleman has helped us make that point; that is, 1 penny on
the dollar allows us to do what is right for the American family.
One other thing I wanted to point out, I mentioned a letter from my
constituents. Sharon Mallory is the one who wrote it to me. I have also
said that, in many ways, this tax relief is the working woman's tax
relief bill of 1998, because the majority of this penalty ends up going
to women who enter the workforce.
Oftentimes, a young lady will get married. She may have a career, put
that on hold in order to raise her children. Then, when they get old
enough, she wants to have the option of going back into the workforce
or, in many cases, has to go back into the workforce just to make ends
meet and be able to pay the monthly bills.
When that happens, the marriage penalty kicks in; and, for women, it
almost means that they can pay as much as 50 percent or half of the
money that they earn in taxes because all of that penalty comes out of
her additional income.
So it is often the mothers in this country, the wives, the women who
want to work and have a career or need to work to help their family,
who are penalized most by this marriage penalty.
We need to recognize in the modern era that it is wrong to say to
somebody we will give you equal opportunity to enter the workforce, but
we are going to come around and tax you more, as much as 50 percent on
your marginal tax rate for your income just because you are married.
A lot of the e-mails that I have received have been from women,
mothers, young ladies who are getting married, women who are engaged
and looking forward to seeing what will happen once they do get
married. They are the ones who are most concerned, and rightfully so,
because the incidence of this tax and the unfair burden falls most
heavily upon women in this country. We need to eliminate it to allow
them to have a chance to keep more of that money and use it for their
family.
Other people have pointed out to me that, in some ways, it would
allow women to have the choice of maybe working only part-time and
spending more time with their children. If they did not have to pay
that 50 percent tax on that extra income, they could cut back on their
hours and spend more time at home where they would like to spend more
time with their children.
So for women who would like to be at home and with their children but
feel forced to go into the workplace to
[[Page H4035]]
make ends meet and pay the bills, this bill, the marriage tax
elimination bill, will also help them make that choice for their
families.
Let me now recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) again
for another comment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for
yielding.
I just want to stress the point that you were just making, that the
burden of this so often does fall to the women, particularly when
marriages fail. Much of the consequences of that falls to the women
because, frequently, they do end up with the children and they have the
added responsibility of raising the kids.
For the government to be establishing and maintaining tax policies
that discourage marriage, to me, borders on criminal. The people who,
more often than not, pay the real price for this are the wives, the
mothers, and obviously the people who are really paying the price are
the kids.
I was going through earlier some of the statistics on the impact on
children. I have this chart here, and it is really very, very dramatic
if you actually look at the numbers: 72 percent of juvenile murderers
coming out of broken homes or single-parent homes; 60 percent of
rapists; three of four teen suicides; twice as likely to drop out of
school.
It has an impact on the parents. The parents have shorter life
expectancy, poorer health, lower economic well-being.
Let me just say there are a lot of single moms and single dads who do
a great job, and I meet them every day in my district. My hat is off to
them, and I applaud them and their work. Many, many great Americans
have been raised by very many heroic single parents going it alone; but
as any one of them will testify to you, it is much, much harder.
God ordained the two-parent family, and raising kids is just tough.
Anybody who has done that knows that is a fact.
I have done some numbers for the impact that this bill has for people
in my district. What I did is I looked at a schoolteacher, two
schoolteachers. They meet at school in Brevard County where I live in
Florida. If they were making $30,500 a year, they get married, their
combined income is $61,000 a year. So $30,500 single; they get married,
$61,000.
If they file as singles, they would pay $3,592 in Federal taxes, for
a total of $7,184. So they are living together out of wedlock, and that
is their tax burden. When they get married, when they walk down the
aisle, when they go to church and have their marriage blessed, their
tax goes up to $8,563. That is $1,379 that they will pay as a marriage
penalty.
In my opinion, that is obscene to have a Tax Code here in Washington
that would actually apply that kind of a penalty on people who do the
common-sense thing of getting married. It is for that reason that I
have fought for this. I have supported this.
I just wanted to underscore what we were talking about earlier,
because the people who will oppose this will point to all that money
that the Federal Government will not get anymore, and they will make
these arguments that it is going to hurt the environment or it is going
to hurt education or it is going to hurt the elderly or the poor.
The real issue here, the real debate is, is the Federal Government
going to grow at double the inflation rate, or is it going to grow at
the inflation rate? The inflation rate is about 2 percent, 2.5 percent.
There are people here who want to grow the Federal Government at 3\1/2\
and 4 percent per year, and they do not want to pass this marriage
penalty.
I say, let us pass the marriage penalty, that we can manage business
here in Washington with a little less money and give a little more
money to working families.
That is such a critical issue here. These are working families,
working moms. These are the people who are literally the backbone, the
foundation of our country. More often than not, they are trying to
raise kids. We are just trying to make it a little bit easier on them.
Yes, we can have the money to protect the environment. We can have
the money to pay for programs for the poor and the needy. We can have
the money to pay for a national defense and the other needs and still
do this.
I see the gentleman from Indiana is going to go into that in a little
bit of detail. He has a chart that I think demonstrates that very
nicely, so I yield back to him.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, this chart here is something that we
produced to show people the differences in spending levels for the
various budget proposals that Washington is considering right now.
The President's budget that he introduced earlier this year has
government increasing by 3\1/2\ percent for 5 years. That is 3\1/2\
percent each year for 5 years. It is roughly twice what the rate of
inflation is.
By the way, the President did nothing to eliminate the marriage
penalty. He says we need the money. We have got to keep penalizing
married folks, make them pay more taxes so we can spend that 3\1/2\
percent more each year.
The Senate did a little bit better, reduced that down to slightly
over 3 percent. They had about $30 billion from tax cuts. Well, that
eliminates one-fifth of the marriage penalty. But people are still
paying over four-fifths in the marriage tax each year.
The House budget that John Kasich put out is about 2.7 percent, which
is $100 billion in tax relief. That penny on the dollar, that would
allow us to phase out over the 5 years the marriage penalty.
Then the final one is the Conservative Action Team or the CAT's
budget. That holds it just under inflation or about 2.6 each year in
the rate of growth of government. With that, we are able to have $150
billion in tax cuts, totally eliminate the marriage penalty this year
so that next year on their income tax parents will not be penalized
because they are married anymore.
Those are the choices. What is at stake right now is how we are
negotiating with these different parties. But it is very clear the
President is for more government spending and keeping the marriage
penalty. The Senate is for splitting the difference, still having some
marriage penalty, but spending a lot of money for the Federal
Government. The House is for eliminating the marriage penalty, and that
is what we are going to be voting on later this year.
While we were listening to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon),
Angie was able to get the computer to work, and I have got some of
these e-mails that I wanted to share with you just to show exactly what
people around the country are saying about this marriage tax penalty.
The first one is from Christopher Schleifer who is from Fairfield,
Ohio. Christopher writes: One of the biggest shocks my wife and I had
when we decided to get married was how much more we would have to give
the government because we decided to be married rather than live
together. It does not make sense that I was allowed to keep a larger
portion of my pay on Friday and less of it on Monday with the only
difference being that I was married over the weekend.
{time} 1845
Another e-mail came in from Wayne in Dayton, Ohio. He said,
Penalizing for marriage flies in the face of common sense.
This is a classic example of government policy not supporting
that which it tries to promote. In our particular situation,
my girlfriend and I would incur a net annual penalty of
$2,000, or approximately $167 per month. Though not huge,
this is enough to pay our monthly phone, cable, water, and
home insurance bills.
That was from Wayne in Dayton, Ohio.
Then Thomas Smith, from Columbus, said,
I am engaged to be married, and my fiance and I have
discussed the fact that we will be penalized financially. We
have postponed the date of our marriage in order to save up
and have a ``running start,'' in part because of this nasty,
unfair tax structure.
Then I have one from Thana and Emily in Everett, Washington. They
write,
My wife and I support McIntosh's bill 100 percent. I'd like
to use the money that we could save for my 1-year-old
daughter's college fund. My wife and I have made a commitment
to one another that I work to pay bills and she works to pay
taxes. It is not that funny, but we don't have any other
choice but to just laugh it off.
I am hoping, Thana and Emily, that this House will pass the Marriage
Tax Elimination Act so you can have a little bit extra for your 1-year-
old daughter.
[[Page H4036]]
Finally, I wanted to share with Members a part of an e-mail from
Andrew and Connie Barrington from Alexandria, Virginia.
We grew up together and began dating when we were 18. After
dating for 3 years, we decided that the next natural step in
our lives together would be to get married. I cannot tell you
the joy that this has brought, but I must tell you that the
tax penalty that was inflicted on us has been the only real
source of pain that our marriage has suffered. Thank you for
all you are doing to eliminate this horrible punishment for
fulfilling our lives together.
Well, Andrew and Connie, it is my fondest hope that we will act this
year. We will overcome the President's reluctance, we will overcome the
Senate's shyness about eliminating the tax, and we will be able to say
to you next year, no longer are you penalized on your taxes just
because you are married.
I think it is critical that this House also make a resolution in the
budget to hold the line on the spending in order to get there. In 1994
when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and I were first elected,
the biggest difference between a Republican and a Democrat Congress was
that we said we wanted to shrink the size of government. We have worked
hard and we have balanced the budget. We have not shrunk it yet, but at
least we are holding the line on spending.
This year, if we can hold that line to just under the rate of
inflation or just around the rate of inflation, we can eliminate this
unfair marriage penalty, allow everybody to pay the same, whether they
are married or single, strengthen families, give the typical family in
America more money out of their paycheck, so they can make for
themselves the decision on how to spend that money, whether to save it
for their children, for their college funds, whether to pay their cable
bill, whether to get the braces, whether to go on a vacation this year.
All of those decisions should be left to the family. We want to end
the fights that people have because they do not have enough money to
pay the bills each month. One of the biggest reasons is the government
takes more and more and more out of married people's payroll in taxes.
I hope, and I think we have come farther than ever before, that this
House will come together and eliminate this marriage penalty.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), and would ask if
he has any further remarks to make on this.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I just wanted to close out my contribution to this special
order to say how pleased I am to see us moving in this direction, and
that we may be able to pass the repeal of the marriage penalty.
Many people ask me, how did you get into politics? You are a doctor,
and most doctors do not go into politics. The way I got involved in it
is I actually started a community group in the county that I live in
called the Space Coast Family Forum. We call it the Space Coast because
we launch the shuttle there, and as well, the Titan and Atlas rockets,
and many may have seen the shuttle launch we had yesterday. It was a
beautiful launch.
But we formed that group, myself and other people, because of our
concern about the breakdown of the family in the United States. I felt
very strongly, as do the others who helped me join together to form
that group, that the family was the foundation upon which our society
was based. It was really strong families that made for strong
communities that made for strong States and nations. It was not great
policies that emanate from the Capitol in Washington, D.C., but it was
just strong communities that really made a difference.
One of the reasons I went further and ran myself, and became a
candidate, and got elected, is I wanted to be able to come here and
make a difference, and to do something to help families, to help
working families. I am very pleased to see that we are heading in this
direction. The President has made statements to indicate that he will
support this. I am very pleased that the Committee on the Budget has
incorporated provisions to allow for the end of the marriage penalty in
this. I am very pleased to be able to support the gentleman and those
others who have been involved with this effort.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, for the closing portion of our special
order, and I think we have about 10 minutes more, I will yield to one
of my colleagues who has worked tremendously on the CATS budget, the
Conservative Action Team budget.
As I mentioned earlier, using one of the charts of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), the President spends more and does nothing to
eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The Senate spends a little less but
keeps most of the marriage penalty. The House does eliminate the
marriage penalty, and then the CATS budget keeps the budget under the
rate of inflation, so we can totally eliminate the marriage penalty,
plus have some tax cuts to spur job growth and save Social Security.
One of the reasons we have been able to do this is that one of our
colleagues, a fellow who also came in with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Weldon) and me in 1994, has worked tirelessly to study this budget
to find out where we are spending too much money, where we are wasting
taxpayers' dollars, where we can do a better job of holding back on
this rate of growth in order to fulfill our promises of smaller
government, lower taxes, saving Social Security, and returning
our national defense to its proper place.
I yield the balance of the time on this special order to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Mark Neumann), one of the people in this
House who has made a big impact on this budget.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will point to the chart once more,
point to the line of inflation in the President's budget, and then go
up to where he is actually spending. The real question is, would we
rather spend that extra money out here in Washington, in Washington-run
programs, or would we be better off leaving that money in the pockets
and hands of the people who earned the money in the first place? That
is what this really is all about.
The marriage tax penalty is one of those commonsense issues in this
country that makes people so angry out there in America. It is one of
those issues, when you go to people and say, did you know that if four
people work at the same job, they earn exactly the same money, and two
of them are married to each other and two are living together, that the
two that are living together pay less taxes than the two that are
married to each other? People just go, why would we do that? What kind
of government would allow that to happen? It is a commonsense kind of
thing.
Then we would look at that chart and say, we could continue more
Washington spending programs, have more spending going on in this
community. The President has some ideas on how to start some new
programs. He has laid out a whole list of new spending programs. That
is what the distance from that black line that is the inflationary
level up to where he is actually spending is. That is what that extra
is, new spending programs that are going to be started here in
Washington.
We could do that, if that is what we wanted to do. But we had Kelly
Ann Fitzpatrick, a pollster here in Washington, a well-respected
pollster out here, she went out and asked 2,000 Americans, she said, do
you think government spending should go up faster than the rate of
inflation, at the rate of inflation, or slower than the rate of
inflation? And it was a 90 to 3 question. Ninety percent of the people
said at or below the rate of inflation. Only 3 percent thought that
government spending should go up faster than the rate of inflation.
I cannot emphasize enough what we are really talking about here is
should we spend more of that hard-earned money out here in Washington,
or should we leave that money in the pockets of the American people? I
do not know if the gentleman mentioned earlier in the hour about the
tax cuts that have already passed.
I think there is very little understanding in this country that when
we look at what we have already passed, because of the savings we have
been able to enact so far, things like $400 per child, 550,000
Wisconsin families next April when they figure out their taxes, they
will get down to how much they
[[Page H4037]]
would have paid in taxes to Washington, and subtract $400 off the
bottom line for the $400 per child tax credit.
This is just common sense. Who can spend this money better? I believe
that our Wisconsin families can spend it better than the people out
here in Washington.
Or the college tuition, I have two in college myself. I know a lot of
our middle-income families that are struggling to pay college tuition
bills. When they struggle to pay these college tuition bills, we looked
at this picture and said, they earned $1,500. Would it not be nice if
in the middle-income families, they could keep the $1,500 to help pay
for college tuition, instead of sending to Washington?
I believe those 250,000 Wisconsin families and others like them all
across America can spend that $1,500 better to help their kids go to
college than the bureaucrats could if they got their hands on the money
here in Washington. That is what this is all about.
Take capital gains. I have been having a lot of fun, and I do not
know if my colleague from Indiana has been doing this. I have been
asking when I am out in groups, how many own a stock, bond, or mutual
fund? What I have been finding is that almost every single hand in the
room has gone up. The number of people in America today who own stocks,
bonds, mutual funds, or some sort of retirement plan like that is
astronomical.
Then I say, well, shoot, I hope you earn a profit on it. I really
hope you make a profit on your investment, because this is America.
After all, is that not why you are investing? They all nod their head.
When you make a profit, instead of sending $28 out of every hundred you
now make in profit, you now only send $20, because our government has
reeled in the growth of spending. It is still growing at the rate of
inflation, like that chart shows, but we have reeled it in and stopped
it from growing faster than the rate of inflation, so when you make a
profit you do not have to send as much out here to Washington. That is
just common sense.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, the amazing thing about that is as we have
cut that tax by almost one-third, people are investing more in stocks
and bonds and mutual funds, as the gentleman said, and as a result, the
government is actually receiving more money with lower taxes.
Ronald Reagan was right: If we cut taxes, people will engage in more
economic activity, and the government will actually receive the
revenues it needs to do its business. I am glad the gentleman brought
that up as a key part of what we have been doing here.
Mr. NEUMANN. The other one I like to talk about is the death and
estate tax. We pay taxes on this money once. We go all through our
lives, build up this estate. Would it not be nice if we got to the
point in America again where we could pass this estate to our kids
instead of giving it to the government?
I hope every American has the right to build their estate while they
are living. I hope they are successful. I really do. That is what this
country is all about. When we look forward to the next generation, I
hope there are a lot of successful people out there. I think every
American citizen should have the right to pass their estate on to their
children, rather than to the United States government.
We have a long ways to go on the estate tax, but we did take the
first shot last year. It is better than it used to be, at least. A lot
of progress is being made. When we really look at this picture, it
comes down to the question of whether Washington should spend the
money, or should the people who earned the money keep it in their homes
and families and do a better job of spending?
Mr. McINTOSH. Let us look back at this chart again. I would ask the
gentleman to explain to our colleagues and to Americans watching
tonight, when we hold the line on the spending, and instead of going to
3.5 percent increases each year we just keep it to inflation, which the
CATS budget does, the gentleman was also able to write into that budget
some tremendous help for Social Security.
Would the gentleman share for us exactly what the difference is? The
President spends the money on government programs that are supposed to
go into the Social Security trust fund, and the gentleman has been able
to write it so we actually actually put the money aside to be there for
the senior citizens.
Mr. NEUMANN. That is an important part of the CATS budget. It spends
less and it can provide more tax relief. It also provides more money
set aside to preserve and protect Social Security than any of the other
three budgets under consideration out here. We actually set aside all
of the money that is coming in above and beyond what we are actually
paying back out to seniors in benefits. We should be very clear on
this.
Right now, today, with us baby boomers still in the work force, there
is more money coming in for Social Security than what we are actually
paying back out to our senior citizens in benefits. Today the
government takes that money and spends it on other government programs
and puts IOUs in the trust fund.
Under the CATS budget, that extra cash that is coming in for Social
Security this year, over and above what is being paid back out to
seniors, actually gets set aside in real money. We buy negotiable
Treasury bonds and put them into the Social Security trust fund. It is
very different than any other proposal out here at this time. It is
really the right way to make sure that my mother's Social Security is
safe in the near term.
We hear a lot of people talking about Social Security post 2030. The
real problem in Social Security is not 2030, it is 2012. In 2012, we
have more money going out to seniors in benefits. That is when the baby
boom generation reaches retirement, and there are a lot of us racing
towards retirement.
When the baby boom generation gets to retirement, there is more money
going out than dollars coming in. That is when we are supposed to be
able to go to the savings account trust fund, take the money, and make
good on our Social Security promise.
The CATS budget actually puts real money into the savings account, so
when 2012 gets here and we need the money, we can go to the savings
account and make good on Social Security without raising taxes on the
hard-working people in this country.
Mr. McINTOSH. One other important point that I think is so important
to stress on the gentleman's budget is that we have also been able to
take care of the problem in defense.
We now realize, with China developing the technology to deliver
nuclear weapons, not only to Hawaii but all across the United States,
with India testing a nuclear weapon and Pakistan testing a nuclear
weapon, that the world is a dangerous place.
{time} 1900
Now, after the Cold War was over, we held our defense spending even,
which meant with inflation we were actually going down each year in
real terms. But because we held the line on everything else to just
below inflation, we were able to raise defense up to the level of
inflation over the 5 years. And I was going to have the gentleman share
more with people how we were able to do that.
Mr. NEUMANN. Well, this is a reprioritizing of how we are spending
the taxpayers' money. We can spend it on any one of a number of
programs out here. We simply said, look, if the rest of the budget is
going to be allowed to increase at the rate of inflation, we want our
defense spending to increase at the rate of inflation too.
Everybody out here called that an increase. They call it cuts when we
are actually spending much more than the rate of inflation. They call
it an increase when we are only letting it go up at the rate of
inflation. It is a very strange community when we start thinking about
the actual language.
I had this discussion as a matter of fact with a well-respected
reporter from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And I mean it. He is a good
reporter from the community of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and we had this
discussion.
My opponent was talking to me about how we were increasing spending
by $9 billion in defense. I took out the numbers. Our first year here
we spent $272 billion on defense. We are now spending $264 billion. We
spent $272 billion the first year; we are now spending $264 billion.
Now in Wisconsin we would call that a decrease in spending, but that
is not
[[Page H4038]]
what they call it. They call it an increase. Let me explain why that is
an increase in spending, even though spending went down from $272
billion to $264 billion.
The President only requested $255 billion. So when we spent $264
billion, they called that an increase over what the President requested
even though it was a decrease. And if listeners are not confused yet, I
will give more numbers. But the facts are it gets twisted when one
tries to listen to people in this community.
The bottom line in the CATS budget, defense spending is frozen in
real dollars. That is to say, it is allowed to increase at the rate of
inflation, and this is the only budget on the Hill that actually allows
for inflationary increase in defense spending.
There are people out there that bought $75 hammers and $200 toilet
seats. We ought to can those people. We ought to fire those people
today. The people responsible for the waste in the military ought to be
booted out and booted out right now.
But that does not mean that because of those few we should place our
men and women in uniform in jeopardy, and that is what has been going
on out here. They have been demagoguing it based on the few people who
are making the horrible mistakes and wasting the defense dollars, and
the result is that our young men and women in uniform are being put in
jeopardy.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, with that let me yield back the balance of
our time and urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the CATS
budget and support the elimination of the marriage penalty.
____________________