[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 96 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we often hear people stand up in front of
this microphone and start out by saying, ``It is about,'' when they are
going to talk about what it is about. Well, in fact in this body it is
about taxes. No matter what else we say, no matter what else we do
here, it is about taxes. It is the life blood that drives every other
thing we do in this body, and the extent to which we can defend our
country and incarcerate criminals and carry out all the other essential
functions of government depends upon our ability to extract money from
the population and pay for those services.
But when is enough enough? Is it enough, Mr. Speaker, to take 40
percent of the income of the average family in America today for taxes?
Is it enough to take 20 percent of the gross domestic product of this
country every year now in taxes? Is that enough, Mr. Speaker? I suggest
it is not only enough, I suggest it is far too much. That is why today
I have introduced the bill that we refer to here as the 10 top terrible
tax act. This is a bill to actually eliminate, not just reduce certain
taxes, but actually eliminate certain taxes so that they cannot grow
back again. We want to pull them up by their roots.
Mr. Speaker, this is the only way that we can actually begin to
reduce the size and scope of government. We talk about that here on
this floor, and we talk about it in legislative bodies all over this
country, reducing the size and scope of government. How many times have
we heard that phrase? And yet nothing seems to actually accomplish the
task of reducing the size and scope of government. There seems to be a
commitment to that philosophy, but it does not work.
Mr. Speaker, one reason it does not work is because we do not put a
constraint on the life blood of these legislative bodies, and that life
blood, I repeat, are the tax dollars that we extract in the population.
Well, this does begin to put that constraint on that life blood flow,
and it does begin to reduce the size and scope of government and its
intervention into our lives which has grown far too great.
Mr. Speaker, at 40 percent of the income of a family, I repeat 40
percent, and 20 percent of our gross domestic product it is too much.
Something has to give, and if we just simply reduce the rate of
taxation, it is far too easy to come back within a year or 2 years and
simply increase it again. That is easy to do. But it is very difficult
to actually come back and replace a tax that has been eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we have identified 10 taxes that are
legitimate targets for us to attack as being able to be eliminated,
gone, erased from the books, not there any more:
The estate tax, estate and gift tax, more commonly and appropriately
referred to as the death tax; it is currently as high as 55 percent,
and we want to phase that out over a 10 year period and completely
repeal it by December 1, 2099. The E-rate universal tax; that is a
euphemism, E-rate is a euphemism, for a tax. It is a tax that has been
put on phone bills that did not even come through this body as an
actual tax bill. It is a special friend, a special sort of tax of the
Vice President. It is oftentimes referred to as the Gore tax, and
appropriately so.
Next is the excise tax on telephones and other communication
services. My friends, this is the 3 percent tax that was put on
telephones when they were a luxury item in 1898 in order to fund the
Spanish-American war. Let me tell my colleagues it is over, the war is
over, and we do not need this tax any more.
The marriage penalty tax discrepancy in the Tax Code that results in
a higher tax burden for married couples; let us get rid of it.
The capital gains tax, currently up to 20 percent of gain would be
phased out over a 10 year period. Let us get rid of it.
The excise tax on vaccines, on vaccines. Do you hear me? Seventy-five
cents per dose imposed on certain vaccines sold in the United States;
this should be repealed by January 1, 2000. Why are we taxing vaccines,
let me ask.
Excise tax on sport fishing equipment.
The 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits.
The double tax on interest and dividends.
The 1993 increase in motor fuels tax.
Mr. Speaker, all these should be gone, and they can be. We can live
without it, believe it or not. We can live without this.
I want to enter into the Record, if I could, Mr. Speaker, the
comments here from the Americans for Tax Reform and other organizations
that have supported the bill, and I ask my colleagues to do so. It is
enough.
Americans For Tax Reform,
Washington, DC, July 1, 1999.
Hon. Tom Tancredo,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Tancredo: On behalf of its 90,000
members and its 3,000 state and local taxpayer groups across
the nation, Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports your
``Top Ten Terrible Tax Act of 1999.''
As you already know, American families already pay on
average almost forty percent of their income on taxes, be it
federal, state, or local. That is more than food, shelter,
and clothing combined.
The Top Ten Terrible Tax Act of 1999 would eliminate
excessive taxes and provide every American with tangible tax
relief. By uprooting the death and gift taxes, the telephone
universal service charge, the 3% telephone excise tax, the
marriage penalty tax, the capital gains tax, the excise tax
on vaccines, the excise tax on sport fishing equipment, the
1993 income tax increase on social security benefits, the
double taxation on interest and dividends, and the 1993 motor
fuel tax increase, taxpayers will be able to improve their
quality of life and save more for education and retirement.
I thank you for your leadership in taking a step in the
right direction to providing fundamental tax reform.
Sincerely,
Grover G. Norquist.
____
Congress Should Reform Death Taxes
At a Denver Business Journal Family Business conference
earlier this year, Coors Brewing President Peter Coors made
an interesting point about estate taxes.
These so-called death taxes make it much harder for
corporations to pass ownership down from one generation to
the next. They speed the demise of local businesses and the
rise of cookie-cutter consolidations because the
consolidators are able to use stock and cash to buy out
family businesses and address the inheritance tax issue.
Congress is likely to take up the inheritance tax issue in
the next session. Maybe they should hear from Peter Coors and
people like him.
____________________