[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10234-S10235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  TAX CUTS AND SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I also wanted to discuss another matter 
of significance. We are going to technically have a budget surplus this 
year. Nobody knows how much it will be. The CBO has estimated the 
surplus will be somewhere between $50 and $63 billion. They have 
projected $1.4 trillion in surpluses over the next 10 years. We need to 
keep in mind that estimates are just that--estimates. When you consider 
the fact in the last 60 days, $1.9 trillion has been lost on the stock 
exchanges of this country, you tell me how you would evaluate that 
study that was made about 4 months ago that we are going to have a $1.4 
trillion surplus over the next 10 years. The surplus may hold up this 
year and we may get a surplus next year, because an awful lot of people 
are bailing out of the market.
  But when we talk about a surplus, it has been said time and time and 
time again on the floor of this Senate, it is not really a surplus. I 
don't know why in the name of God we keep calling it a surplus when it 
isn't. But for the sake of argument, because this is the way we do it 
here, let's assume we will have a $50 to $63 billion surplus this year. 
But let me add this caveat: $100 billion of that is the excess in the 
Social Security Trust Fund. You take the Social Security excess out and 
we will have a $40 to $50 billion deficit.
  Now, having set the stage for whoever may be listening to this 
argument, we are effectively looking this fall for a surplus, and every 
dime of it will come from the Social Security Trust Fund. Then I pick 
up the paper this morning and I see where there is a move in the U.S. 
Senate to go ahead with a tax cut after all. I don't know whether what 
I read this morning is true or not, but I have applauded our Budget 
Committee chairman in the past because he has steadfastly been opposed 
to tax cuts this year. But this morning I read that maybe he is about 
ready to sign off on an $80 billion tax cut. I want to say this: There 
is an unassailable argument that can be made, that we are cutting taxes 
for some of the wealthiest people in America and it is coming right out 
of the Social Security Trust Fund.
  If you put $100 billion that we collected in Social Security this 
year, in excess of what we paid out, if you take that surplus and take 
it off budget and put it in the Trust Fund where it is supposed to be, 
you have a deficit. If you leave it in, you have a surplus. It is a 
phony surplus. And this tax cut will come out of the phony surplus, 
which means it is coming right out of the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Now, I would not presume to give political advice to the people on 
the other side of the aisle, and I can tell you that nobody ever lost a 
vote--normally--voting for a tax cut. In 1993, we lost control of the 
Senate because we voted for a tax increase on the wealthiest of 
Americans which brought about our current economic prosperity and 
renewed fiscal soundness. I said time and time again, if the Democrats 
had to lose control of the Senate for casting a very courageous vote 
that brought this country 7, 8 years of economic vibrancy, it was worth 
it.
  I lost two of the dearest friends I had in the election of 1994 
because they voted for the 1993 budget bill. We have been benefiting 
from it ever since, and we now find ourselves in this very happy, 
euphoric state. Why cannot we enjoy and leave it alone? Why do we

[[Page S10235]]

have to keep tinkering with it? If you don't want the Social Security 
Trust Fund to be a vibrant fund, something that gives people who are in 
the workforce at the age of 25 or 30 some degree of assurance that it 
will be there for them, if you don't want to do that, say so.
  Mr. President, do you know that under current estimates--and these 
estimates, as I say, are just what I say they are; they depend on the 
economy and they depend on a lot of things. But the Social Security 
Administration estimates by the year 2020, the Social Security trust 
fund will have a $3.7 trillion surplus. The only problem with that is 
12 years later it is bankrupt. If we don't fix Social Security--we are 
not going to do it this year--if we don't get at it soon, and we allow 
ourselves to squander a $3.7 trillion trust fund, it will be one of the 
most callous, irresponsible acts ever taken by the U.S. Congress.
  If you don't want it to go to the Social Security Trust Fund, then 
you just tell your constituents you are not for a tax cut; you want it 
to either stay in the Social Security Trust Fund or you want it to go 
on the national debt, which now stands at about $5.2 trillion.
  We still have a vibrant economy. When you start taking money out of 
the Social Security trust fund to funnel into the economy, you have the 
remote chance of increasing inflation. You increase inflation, you 
increase interest rates. You increase interest rates, the buying of 
cars and houses goes ``kerplunk.'' Those are simple economic 
principles. They are just as certain to happen as the night following 
the day.
  Why cannot we be grateful for our prosperity? Mr. President, I vented 
my spleen on one of my favorite subjects this morning, and that is that 
I think tinkering with the phony surplus in order to provide a tax cut 
is not only bad economic policy, it is bad politics for those who 
propose it. In 1981--I am not sure I would have had the courage, except 
I had just been reelected, had 6 years in front of me to rectify 
whatever sins I committed--in 1981, I stood right here--I think I have 
been sitting at this desk for about 18 years--and I made the point just 
before we voted that if you passed Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and doubled 
defense spending, you were not going to balance the budget in 1984, you 
were going to create deficits big enough to choke a mule.

  There is nothing more fun for a politician than to be able to say I 
told you so, so that is what I am saying. Eleven Senators voted against 
that. There were only three Senators who voted against the tax cuts and 
for the spending cuts, which would have balanced the budget in 1984; it 
was yours truly, Bill Bradley from New Jersey, and Fritz Hollings from 
South Carolina. But 11 of us voted against that tax cut and said you 
are going to get the deficit out of control. My precise words were: 
``It will be big enough to choke a mule.'' You will find that in the 
Congressional Record. And we did it. I don't know whether we choked a 
mule or not, but the consequences were absolutely horrendous, and 
remained horrendous until 1993 when we were looking at $300 billion in 
annual deficits as far as the eye could see.
  So I am pleading with my colleagues to think about it. My voice is 
not persuasive on the other side of the aisle, and I know that. It is 
very presumptuous of me to even make this speech, and I don't intend to 
lecture. I am simply saying that despite what is going on here in this 
traumatic time in the history of this country, let's not compound that 
by making a terrible economic mistake. And, as I say, for some, in my 
opinion, it is a terrible political mistake.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. Brownback addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.

                          ____________________