[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8904-S8906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE BUDGET OUTLOOK

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on July 20 the senior Senator from the 
great State of North Dakota made a series of thought-provoking comments 
on the

[[Page S8905]]

floor of the Senate. Many of those comments related to a speech Larry 
Lindsey, President Bush's economic advisor and a distinguished public 
servant, delivered in Philadelphia on July 19.
  In his statement my colleague alleges that Dr. Lindsey misrepresented 
his views on raising taxes at a time of economic slowdown. In fact, on 
page 12 of his speech, Dr. Lindsey said, ``In recent hearings conducted 
by Senator Conrad at which Budget Director Daniels testified, the 
Senator agreed that raising taxes this year might not be a good idea 
given the economy. But he went on to be clear that next year might be 
different. He hinted at a tax increase in 2002, just as the economy is 
recovering.''
  If, when he made his remarks on the floor of the Senate, Senator 
Conrad had not seen a copy of Dr. Lindsey's speech, I can well 
understand that he may not have realized that his allegation on the 
matter of his favoring a tax increase this year was false. As to 
Senator Conrad's views on the advisability of a tax increase next year, 
I must say that the transcript of his floor statement on July 20 only 
reinforces the view that he might support a tax increase next year when 
the economy is growing more robustly. Independent observers have drawn 
the same conclusion about Senator Conrad's views from his public 
statements. Robert Samuelson, in the July 11 Washington Post wrote, 
``To protect on-budget surpluses, Conrad says the Bush administration 
has `an affirmative obligation to come up with spending cuts or new 
revenue (tax increases).''' If this is not the case, and Senator Conrad 
is opposed to tax increases next year, I can assure you that I would 
applaud his decision.
  In his Philadelphia speech, Dr. Lindsey provided compelling reasons 
why we should not even be talking about the possibility of raising 
taxes next year. First, a tax increase next year would undermine the 
sense of permanence associated with this year's tax cut. That sense of 
permanence is key to the success of this year's tax cut. Talk of 
increasing taxes, or of repealing the tax cut next year, thus reduces 
the effectiveness of this year's tax cut. Furthermore, you need only 
look at Japan's experience when it increased taxes early in an 
expansion. It wasn't pretty.
  A second point of concern in this dialogue involves the timing of the 
tax cut. I am pleased to discover the amount of agreement between the 
administration and Senator Conrad on the need for a fiscal stimulus 
this year. When he announced his tax program in December, 1999, the 
President said that the country may need an insurance policy. Thus, 
while he proposed a basic plan involving a 5-year phase-in, the 
President left flexible the actual timing of his tax reduction, 
explicitly letting it depend on macroeconomic circumstances. In January 
he indicated a need to work with Congress on an acceleration of the tax 
cut. And in his formal proposal in February, the President said 
explicitly, ``I want to work with you to give our economy an important 
jump-start by making tax relief retroactive.'' That was a full month 
before the distinguished senior Senator from North Dakota proposed his 
$60 billion tax cut proposal for this year.
  Fortunately, Congress did pass a fiscal stimulus for 2001. Senator 
Conrad's floor statement indicates support for a $60 billion tax 
reduction this year. That figure is very close to the $74 billion 
figure that actually passed and was signed into law. I don't believe 
that the $14 billion difference in these figures could be the basis for 
Senator Conrad's assertion that the administration is ``driving us into 
the fiscal ditch,'' especially given a $2 trillion Federal budget and 
the Senator's apparent support for cutting taxes during an economic 
slowdown.
  Furthermore, the spending side of the fiscal year 2001 budget was 
determined last fall under President Clinton. At that time, the 
President and the Congress increased discretionary spending by more 
than 8 percent. Had that rate of spending increase been sustained, we 
certainly would have deficit problems later this decade. Fortunately 
President Bush proposed a budget, and Congress adopted a budget 
resolution, with a sharp deceleration of that rate of spending 
increase.
  Looking forward, a comparison of the Democratic alternative that 
Senator Conrad referred to in his remarks and the bill that actually 
passed is instructive. For example, in fiscal year 2002 the bill that 
passed the Congress and was signed by the President was scored at $38 
billion. By comparison, the Democratic alternative was scored at $64 
billion. Would the Democratic alternative tax proposal have driven us 
into the ``fiscal ditch'' deeper and faster than the President's 
budget?
  In fiscal year 2003, the relevant scoring by Congress' Joint 
Committee on Taxation shows the bill that actually passed cost $91 
billion while the Democratic alternative cost $83 billion. In fiscal 
year 2004 the figures were $108 billion for the bill that actually 
passed and $101 billion for the Democratic alternative. In fiscal year 
2005 the actual legislation cost $107 billion while the Democratic 
alternative cost $115 billion. Surely this $7 billion difference 
between the two bills over a three year period cannot plausibly be 
labeled ``driving us into the fiscal ditch'' either.
  One must assume that Senator Conrad's assertions are based on the 
long-term revenue effects of the President's proposal. Yet, in fiscal 
year 2006 and later no one is forecasting anything but a large budget 
surplus. Thus, it is hard to find any factual basis for claims that the 
President's tax plan is ``driving us into the fiscal ditch'' by any 
definition of that term that does not also apply to the proposals 
Senator Conrad and his Democrat colleagues advanced during the budget 
debate.
  It is apparent from Senator Conrad's remarks that he and Dr. Lindsey 
differ on the proper measure of fiscal tightness. Dr. Lindsey asserted 
in his speech that the best measure of the Government's effect on the 
financial markets is the Unified Budget Surplus. This was a concept 
created by a special commission appointed by President Lyndon Johnson 
and has been in use for more than 30 years. It has long been the 
standard for non-partisan analysis of the budget. For good measure, on 
page fifteen of his speech, Dr. Lindsey quoted Robert Samuelson 
regarding the usefulness of alternative definitions.
  As to the appropriate size of the unified surplus, I concur 
wholeheartedly with the administration's view that the unified surplus 
should be at least as large as the Social Security surplus. Dr. Lindsey 
outlined in his Philadelphia speech why this is appropriate. But, 
Senator Conrad and Dr. Lindsey disagree fundamentally regarding the 
right term to apply to Medicare. As Dr. Lindsey stated in his speech, 
every dollar of Medicare premiums paid by beneficiaries and every 
dollar of Medicare taxes paid by workers and their employers is spent 
on Medicare. In addition, Medicare receives $50 billion in extra money 
from the rest of the Federal budget. Frankly, the ``surplus'' concept 
does not make much sense under the circumstances.
  In his floor speech Senator Conrad made an analogy to ``defense,'' 
noting that all of its funding is paid for from the rest of the Federal 
budget. But no one talks of a ``defense surplus.'' Indeed, the concept 
of a ``surplus'' in a program that requires net inflows from the rest 
of the budget seems to make little sense. I therefore do not see why 
references to the budgetary funding of defense conceivably supports the 
assertion that Medicare has a ``surplus.''
  Finally, Senator Conrad and Dr. Lindsey also seem to disagree on the 
extent to which the Government should control the fruits of our 
Nation's labor, saving, and risk-taking. Over the last 8 years, the 
share of GDP taken in Federal receipts has increased from 17.3 percent 
to 20.3 percent. Even if the President's original campaign proposal on 
taxes were to have been enacted, the tax share of GDP would have been 
rolled back only modestly, and would still have been above the post-War 
average. I believe that I am on firm ground stating that Senator 
Conrad's opposition to even this modest rollback means that he supports 
something close to the current record-setting tax take.
  As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I urge my colleagues to 
consider these facts as they consider the appropriate course for fiscal 
policy in the months and years ahead.

[[Page S8906]]



                          ____________________