[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9918-S9922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX RELIEF PROPOSALS
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I put a little editorial up here, and I
hope I made it big enough that those who photograph what we talk about
here can see it.
I want to read this paragraph in yellow, and I want to speak to Vice
President Gore's constant harping about the 1 percent of the American
taxpayers getting too much of a tax break.
[[Page S9919]]
I would like to do that for about 10 or 12 minutes.
But first, let me suggest to the middle-class American people who
have been waiting for a tax cut that if you elect Vice President Gore,
you can wait perhaps forever because, as this editorial says, he might
say over and over and over--maybe as many times as he said ``1
percent'' the other night--that he is for middle-income Americans
getting a tax break.
But this is the Washington Post--not the Washington Times or the
Albuquerque Journal--that says:
If Mr. Gore believes middle-class people need a tax break,
he might better give them one--and let them decide how to
spend the money. If he believes the Government should do more
to promote education, he could do so more effectively with
truly targeted spending programs rather than with tax credits
that, for example, go to those who could and would pay for
tuition in any case along with those who need the help. But
for political reasons, the Democrats, as in 1992 and 1996,
believe they need to cloak their programs in the language and
form of tax cuts. One result would be an ever more complex
Tax Code.
The truth of the matter is that the Vice President of the United
States spoke the other night about the unfairness of the tax proposals
of George W. Bush.
I just want to start by correcting one thing for sure. There are no
middle-income tax cuts in Vice President Gore's proposal--the last time
he spoke to it, the second time he spoke to it, and the time he sent us
an 81-page budget. There are no middle-class tax cuts. Why? Because he
chooses to say to the American people: If you do this with your money,
you get a credit; if you do that with your money, you get a credit.
But for those who do not do this or that because they don't have any
children to put in day care or they don't have any of the other things
they need that he wants to give them tax credit for, the overwhelming
percentage of the middle class gets zero.
That is maybe what we ought to be talking about whenever he says 1
percent. Perhaps we ought to say middle-class people, zero; middle-
class Americans, zero--maybe 16 times, as he did the other night in
referring to ``1 percent.''
Having said that, I want to talk about the progressive taxes the
American people pay and the progressive system we live under because I
believe there are millions and millions and millions of Americans who
have not been told what our Tax Code is and have not been told what
George W. Bush's tax proposals would do. Let me try that for a few
minutes.
I just told you what the Washington Post said about his tax
proposals. In essence, even when he chooses to help--that is, the Vice
President--the middle-class Americans, he chooses, I say to my friend
from Alabama, to tell them how to spend the tax cut.
That is the essence of the difference between the across-the-board
cut of George W. Bush and the Vice President, although he has much less
on the tax side, in any event--the Vice President--but he chooses to
say: Mr. and Mrs. America, I don't want you to have a $1,500 tax cut if
you are making $60,000 or $50,000. What I want you to do, if you want
to take advantage of what I want you to do, if you do one of these five
or six things as we have said, you will get a tax break.
If you are Mr. and Mrs. America, you might say: I don't need any of
those taxes. Why don't you just give me my money and let me spend it?
That is one of the very big differences between the two parties at
this point, as indicated by this editorial.
In 1992 and 1996, Vice President Gore again chose in behalf of his
colleagues to say: We want to give you a tax cut, but do not
misunderstand; you have to use it our way or you don't get it.
Is there anybody in America who thinks a tax cut should be used only
the way the Federal Government wants them to use it? I don't think they
even understand a tax cut to be that. But you can rest on it, that is
what he is talking about--not a single middle-income tax cut--zero. I
repeat.
I would like to talk a little bit on what has happened to the Tax
Code of the United States.
Mr. President and fellow Senators, we have the fairest and most
progressive Tax Code any country has ever lived under. Let me tell you
what it does today.
If anyone wants one of these, I will gladly give them one. The
Internal Revenue Service gives us the information, and the Joint
Committee on Taxation, which is a combined committee, gave us this
information.
Let me talk about the 1 percent.
Fellow Americans, 1 percent of the taxpayers of America--1 percent--
currently pay a shocking 33 percent of the taxes.
Let me repeat, Mr. President. On the income tax side, the top 1
percent of Americans pay 33 percent of the taxes that America collects
from income. They are rather wealthy. They make $250,000 and over, and
1 percent pays 33 percent of the taxes.
Let me right off the bat give you an astonishing number. If you are
to adopt George W. Bush's across-the-board tax cut, guess what percent
the top 1 percent will pay then? Remember I said, right now under our
very progressive code, they pay 33 percent of all the taxes we collect.
I say to my friend from Alabama, it is a startling revelation. After
we cut everybody across the board, as George Bush suggests, the top 1
percent will pay 34 percent total taxes. In other words, their portion
of the total taxes will go up 1 percent, not come down. Isn't that
interesting?
So everyone understands who is rich and who isn't and who pays a lot
of taxes and who doesn't, let's talk about the top 10 percent of
taxpayers. Most people watching and most people visiting are in that
bracket because the top 10 percent of the taxpayers are people earning
$79,000 or higher. How much of the total taxes collected by America
from income does the top 10 percent pay? I am sure, unless someone has
studied it, in your wildest guess you will not conclude this. Sixty-
seven percent of the income taxes collected come from the top 10
percent of the people in this country who are earning $79,000. Imagine.
Can anyone imagine a fairer system if you want to tax people who earn
money than to have 1 percent of the population that makes substantial
money pay 33 percent of the taxes, and the top 10 percent of 79 and
higher pay 67 percent? Frankly, it is obvious to me our Vice President
is, once again, running on an issue that has been tried before, and we
are very grateful as a nation that it has never worked. He is
practicing the art of class warfare. He wants to make sure Americans do
not trust the capitalist system where people might make more money, one
versus another, depending on what they are doing, what they have
invested in, and for what they have taken a risk. He wants to make the
issue that the top 10 percent, which pays 33 percent of the taxes, does
not deserve to be looked at when we look at cutting taxes for
Americans.
I am quite sure that sooner or later the American people are going to
catch on that everybody who pays taxes gets a tax break. So nobody will
have a misunderstanding, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get a tax
break. I think that is pretty fundamental. There are many millions of
Americans working for a living who do not pay any U.S. income tax.
Right off the bat, when you speak about giving other people who are
earning less tax breaks, we have to understand a very large percentage
of Americans don't pay any taxes. They may think they are paying a lot
because they are paying Social Security taxes, and neither candidate is
recommending, from what I can tell, that we dramatically reduce the
Social Security--other than George W. Bush saying let's investment 2
percent. Otherwise, I haven't heard anybody saying that onerous Social
Security tax is the one that ought to be fixed.
Let me repeat, when the tax plan is in place under Mr. Bush, the top
1 percent will pay $4 trillion in taxes when we have finished the tax
across-the-board cut. Let's give that again: That top 1 percent will
pay $4 trillion in income taxes, and it will be 34 percent of the new
income taxes that we are taking in.
What will that $4 trillion buy that 1 percent of Americans are paying
in taxes? It will buy all of the following: All of our defense
programs, welfare, food stamps, child nutrition, State child health
insurance. We just picked some programs. That top 1 percent will pay
for all of that out of what they pay in income taxes.
[[Page S9920]]
If Mr. Gore continues to refer to this top 1 percent as public enemy
No. 1, then I can only say that the top 1 percent are high-income
folks; the top 10 percent earn $79,000 and above. One group pays 33
percent of the taxes; and the other group pays 67.
What should we do? Should we say because they pay 67 percent of the
taxes but they make $79,000 or more they should get no tax reduction?
If you are going to have a tax reduction because you have a giant
surplus, let's be fair and say the American Tax Code is fair. We ought
to continue to be fair, leave it as fair as it was, but make sure we
understand the top 10 percent deserve some tax relief, since they are
paying 67 percent of the tax.
Let me also suggest that the bottom rung of wage earners and
taxpayers in America--so there is no misunderstanding about my
progressivity comment that we have a progressive code--the bottom 50
percent pay 4 percent; the bottom 50 percent of our earners pay 4
percent of the taxes of America.
I think we have a pretty fair system. In fact, it is very heavily
skewed towards those people making $79,000 or more. But George Bush,
from what I can analyze, intends to leave it the same. It will come out
like it is in terms of progressivity, excepting that those in the top 1
percent, by a coincidence of reducing the total tax take, will end up
paying 34 percent instead of 33--even if we give them a tax break.
I do believe it is rather authentic when the Washington Post says to
Vice President Gore, if you want to give the middle income a tax cut,
give it to them. Don't tell them what they must use it for in order to
get a tax credit or tax break. That is not very American. Why should
the Government tell wage earners, people who are making money in the
American system, what they must do with their income if they want a tax
break? I thought if you were going to give it back, you would give it
back to them so they can spend it.
I will discuss another issue, Mr. Vice President. I don't come today
to the floor to talk about the case of the schoolgirl in Florida who
had to stand for one of her first days of classes this fall because
$150,000 worth of computers had yet to be unboxed. That is one of the
statements made by our Vice President in his debate. It is now, today,
authentic, that is not a true statement. The people from that school
and that school district have denied it. I think by this hour the Gore
campaign has said it is a mistake.
The Vice President said essentially in his own words that the
analysis of his budget from the budget experts who work for this
Senator, the chairman of the Budget Committee, although they happen to
work for me, what they produced as the estimate of the cost of his
budget ideas would use up the entire surplus and $700 to $900 billion
of the Social Security surplus. He said something like, it is not worth
the paper.
I have analyzed with this same staff many budgets. They have come out
as right as anyone around. They said before the Vice President put his
entire package together, that if every single program he advocates
would get funded--it is 200 or more new programs--there will be between
20,000 and 30,000 new Federal employees.
Incidentally, when the Vice President takes great credit for
shrinking the Government and says we have reduced the number of people
working for the Government, it would be good to note that 90 percent of
the shrinkage of Federal employees is because the military was
reduced. Between 85 and 90 percent of that entire personnel reduction
is from military reductions.
But let's get back to this. That budget staff said there are 200 new
programs in the Vice President's ideas for America. They also suggested
to me it is a new era of big government, excessive government, and
obviously huge increases in what government will do.
I laid that before the Senate in this report. It is as correct today
as it was then. And, indeed, we have now seen Vice President Gore's
plan all in one package. They reanalyzed it and said their original
estimate is right, that he would have to spend the surplus to pay for
his entire budget. We will have that report next week in an edition
similar to this one, in which each program is analyzed and we tell the
American people either the Vice President is suggesting myriad programs
he does not intend to do or intends to do less than he said because if
he is going to do what he says in his last written proposal, you cannot
do those programs without spending all of the surplus and part of--not
all of it but part of the surplus that belongs to Social Security.
I close by saying the Vice President Tuesday night talked a lot about
the lockbox. Isn't it amazing that Democrats, including the Vice
President, talk about the lockbox as if they invented it; they pursued
it; they are the ones who really advocated it and kept it alive. I want
to say this is one time when Senator Domenici has to say: That is not
true. It came out of the Budget Committee and I was the first Senator
to suggest it. The proposal I suggested has never been voted on to this
date because it is a real lockbox. It really makes it tough to spend
either Social Security--and if you want to use the same format for
Medicare, that is fine. But let's get it straight. We have been trying
to get a lockbox passed up here from our side. Whatever we propose is
either too strict, too rigid, doesn't have enough flexibility for the
Treasury Department, or something. But let's make sure everybody
understands we started the idea; we pursued it with great vigor. It is
now part, I believe, of what we believe. Whether we get it passed or
not, in our form, I believe everybody around here is going to be
frightened to death if a Budget Committee says: Hey, this budget is
spending Social Security surplus money. I believe we have that
ingrained in our minds because the public expects it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Nevada takes the
floor, I ask unanimous consent following the Senator from Alabama,
Senator Durbin be recognized for a half hour in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post features an
article entitled ``Iverson's Bad Rap Is Well-Deserved.''
It is a story about one of the Nation's high-profile National
Basketball Association stars who is about to release a rap CD that
encourages gun violence, degrades women, and blatantly bashes people
because of their sexual orientation. The National Basketball
Association, the Philadelphia 76ers, his team, Mr. Iverson's record
label, his coach, and every fairminded person should condemn this kind
of so-called entertainment for the trash that it is. Clearly, these are
not the kind of messages that one of the NBA's leading and most
talented players should be sending to tens of thousands of kids who
watch him play and may idolize him.
I fully respect Mr. Iverson's first amendment rights, but clearly the
message he is sending encourages violence and implicitly condones it,
hardly the kind of conduct one would expect from a celebrity whose
conduct is admired by many of the Nation's youth.
What makes this particularly objectionable is the fact that Mr.
Iverson and many of his other incredibly talented colleagues in the NBA
are specifically marketed by the NBA itself as superheroes to our kids.
The NBA is ultimately in a business to make money, and that is fine.
They use their stars to promote their teams. But one would hope the NBA
would exercise good judgment in choosing the athletes they select to
promote because many of these athletes use their stardom to, again,
promote themselves and to use that same kind of marketing appeal. And
when the message, as in this case from Mr. Iverson, is both hateful and
dangerous and is absorbed by all too many of our Nation's youth, it is
a vicious cycle that the NBA should end immediately.
The NBA has the power to pick and choose which athletes they are
going to market and promote. They should exercise sound judgment and
discretion before encouraging this kind of promotion and the
reprehensible message it sends.
A few weeks ago I joined with many of our colleagues, both in
committee and on the floor, in condemning some of the media produced in
Hollywood, some of the videos, some of the violence that so often
invades the Nation's television audience. We should also condemn this
kind of conduct as well. When the NBA promotes these
[[Page S9921]]
questionable athletes, they assist them in their quest to become
wealthy media darlings, and that only helps other media outlets such as
record companies and movie studios to exploit their now already famous
personalities. In fact, Mr. Iverson's record company is apparently
planning to use the NBA's very well publicized All-Star weekend to
release the uncensored--and one could only conclude even more
objectionable--version of his soon-to-be-released CD.
Again, it is ultimately going to have to be up to the NBA as to who
they promote and market and who they do not. But they need to realize
if they continue to promote and market athletes who use their league-
endorsed celebrity to promote or incite violence or the degradation of
more than half the Nation's population, they will continue to bear a
great deal of responsibility for the consequences of these actions.
I find it somewhat incredible that the Philadelphia 76ers' own coach
has said, according to the Washington Post article, that he does not
have a problem with Mr. Iverson's CD. That is nothing more than a cheap
copout, and the NBA, the Philadelphia 76ers, and his coach should
immediately condemn this outrageous, dangerous, and hateful message.
Let me give an example of one of the lyrics that is on this CD. Mr.
Iverson says on his CD if someone is ``man enough to pull a gun/Be man
enough to squeeze it.''
In addition, he also advocates the murder of gay men on his new CD.
I am told that a wire report has been circulated this afternoon
indicating that Mr. Iverson has apologized to gay men and to women for
the hateful language contained in his CD. I call upon Mr. Iverson to do
more than that; to ask, as a responsible American, as a role model,
which he styles himself to be: Let's not issue this CD. Let's recall
it. That would be the kind of conduct we should ask and expect of Mr.
Iverson.
There are many athletes in America who do provide the kind of role
model all Americans can endorse--the Cal Ripkens and the Tiger Woods in
the World. These are the kind of people who send a very positive
message about the value of the work ethic and the commitment to
standards. All of us admire that kind of conduct. If Mr. Iverson is
deemed to be a role model for America's youth, I suggest that the youth
of America is in serious trouble.
Michael Wilbon also had a very interesting response to this subject
in the Post this morning. I commend it to my colleagues as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Iverson's Bad Rap Is Well-Deserved
(By Michael Wilbon)
Like a lot of other folks who care about basketball, I keep
waiting for Allen Iverson to grow up. I keep waiting for him
to lift some weights and get stronger so that he can better
withstand the pounding he takes. I keep waiting, hoping for
him to realize that games are often won at the previous day's
practice, which he may or may not have attended. I keep
hoping that he is old enough now--25--to understand there's a
world of difference between being a great talent and a great
player, between somebody who's got game and a champion. I
keep waiting for Iverson to understand that the notion of
being a role model goes way beyond a lot of people walking
around town wearing your jersey.
But here we are, at the start of NBA season No. 5, and
Iverson seems no closer to getting any of this than he did
four years ago. Maybe he's further away. My vigil appears to
be in vain.
NBA camps have just opened, and Iverson is in the news
already, again for the wrong reasons. The story with sizzle
is the controversy over a soon-to-be-released rap CD on which
Iverson does what the majority of thug rappers do: He
demonstrates that he, too, can bash gays, degrade women and
talk about shooting somebody. That's the genre. It's pretty
clear how this breaks down; if you're under 30 (regardless of
race, nationality, gender), chances are overwhelming you're a
lot more open to thug rap than if you're over 40. I'm 41, and
most rap doesn't speak to me, doesn't move me whatsoever. But
I do listen to it enough to know that lyrics Iverson's
spewing on ``Non-Fiction'' are fairly common.
That doesn't mean people won't be offended, and
legitimately so. Iverson's rap on gays, as reported
earlier this week in the Philadelphia Inquirer: ``Come to
me with faggot tendencies/You'll be sleepin' where the
maggots be.'' He also raps, ``Man enough to pull a gun/Be
man enough to squeeze it.''
This is a young man who in the same breath will tell you he
is a role model? Sadly, he is probably right on the mark. And
sadly, the hip-hop community seems to get a pass on gay-
bashing and misogynist behavior.
Given what this kid has been through in his life, and that
the present environment existed long before he came along,
many of us have extended Iverson the benefit of the doubt.
He's about used it up. It's not about his twisted lyrics,
specifically. It's about squandering talent, it's about being
a self-absorbed egomaniac whose position in the culture isn't
nearly as big as he thinks it is. It's about never listening
to anyone, and having no regard for anything that doesn't
revolve around him and his. Kinda like the very dead
Notorious B.I.G. and Tupac, which I'm sure Iverson would take
as a compliment.
I thought Iverson was getting somewhere when he said
earlier this week, ``The whole time I've been in the NBA, I
haven't been professional at all. I always looked at it like
it was just basketball. This year will definitely be the best
season I've had since I've been in the NBA. I owe it to
myself and my family and my teammates to be a better player.
``I'm concentrating on basketball. I haven't been working
on my game as serious as I should've. I have the raw talent.
this is going to be the most important year of my career
because all eyes are on me this year. Everybody's wanting to
see if I can be the captain, if I can be a leader, if I can
be professional besides playing basketball, and if I'm up to
the challenge. I'm ready for it because it's something I can
do.''
But the longer you listen to Iverson, the more you realize
he's disconnected from the world we live in, even the world
he lives in. The attitude is: I can be late or miss practice
whenever I want because I'm Allen Iverson, The Answer, and
the team don't have nothin' if it ain't got me. And if you
make a big deal out of me cussin' the coach and standing up
my teammates and getting fined 50 times in one season, then
you must be a punk 'cause I'm tough and you ain't.
Iverson is ticked off because the 76ers tried to trade him
because he repeatedly is late to practice, if he shows at
all. You know what his take is? ``That's embarrassing to hear
that an organization is thinking about trading its franchise
player because he's tardy to practice.''
Of course, it never occurred to him that it ought to be
embarrassing for the franchise player to be tardy repeatedly.
That wouldn't cross his mind. ``You're going to send me to
the worst team in the league?'' he asked incredulous at the
possibility of going to the Los Angeles Clippers, apparently
unaware that players a whole lot more accomplished than he is
(Wilt and Kareem to name two) were traded in their prime.
Truth be told, the Clippers don't want Iverson. Several
teams have turned down the chance to trade for him and here's
why: They're afraid he'll never get with the program--
anybody's program. He plays his heart out every time he puts
on a uniform. For those 48 minutes, there isn't anything he
won't do to win a basketball game. He'll sacrifice his body,
he'll do the dirty work some superstars don't want to do. But
the great players in any sport know it only starts there. And
that's what Iverson hasn't grasped. You know what he said
this week about his repeated tardiness, which by the way has
angered his teammates?
``Yeah, I was late to practice, but, believe me, [the
number of] times that I heard nobody would put up with that.
I'm not even brave enough to miss that many practices.''
So how many, Allen? ``I don't know; I wasn't counting.
Don't nobody complain about the effort I give in a game.
[Given the injuries and pounding he takes] it's bad enough I
had to come to the game.''
Iverson went on to say he was ``hurt hearing some of the
things the fans were saying, some of the things people on the
coaching staff were saying. I thought a lot of people in this
organization were my friends and I found out the hard way
that there's no friends in this business besides your
teammates.''
I guess those would be the teammates for whom he won't come
to practice on time. I guess those would be the friends who
have begged him for years to get his act together to try to
realize there are obligations that come with an $80 million
contract. If they're not sucking up to him, they're against
him, they don't understand him, they're not as tough as he
is.
Folks under 30 are tired of people my age wanting Iverson
to be Bird or Magic or Jordan, and that's understandable.
Different time, different place, the world evolves. But I'm
looking at Kevin Garnett now, at Ray Allen, at Tim Duncan, at
Shaq and Kobe Bryant. There is a new generation of players
trying to be all they can be. And they have fully developed
lives outside of basketball.
Iverson, meanwhile, raps one thing, but his actions speak
even louder. It's everybody else's fault, it's the coach's
fault, it's the system's fault. He says he is going to
change. It reminds me of Bob Knight saying he was going to
change. I'm hoping Iverson is different because he's more
than 30 years younger than Knight; he can grow up if he
wants. But maybe it's more important for him to talk loud
while saying nothing.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, again, let me urge the NBA and the
Philadelphia 76ers to step forward and be heard.
[[Page S9922]]
They will say: Look, we cannot control Mr. Iverson's conduct. That may
be true. But they have an obligation, a responsibility to speak out and
to condemn such conduct, even if they are unable to control it. So far,
either they have, by silence, acquiesced, or they have to acknowledge
that they find nothing wrong with the CD.
I find that both troubling and tragic if that is the standard we are
to follow.
Again, the NBA, the Philadelphia 76ers, and their coach ought to
speak out loud and clear and indicate this is not the kind of conduct
they expect from one of their star athletes and to be as critical of it
as I know Americans are in general.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I believe some of our other
colleagues have reserved time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for
sharing those serious concerns. It was not long ago that a group of us
wrote the major department stores in the country asking them not to
sell this violent material to minors, and they responded as good
corporate citizens.
They said: We have a constitutional right to sell it, but we are not
going to do it. Either we are not going to sell it at all, or we are
going to make sure children produce an ID so we know they are old
enough to buy the material. I thought that was a good corporate
response.
Yes, the NBA may not legally be able to stop this stuff, but they
ought to express their concern about it. The Senator makes a valid
point, and I salute him for it.
(The remarks of Mr. SESSIONS pertaining to the introduction of S.
3169 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
____________________