[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 81 (Tuesday, June 18, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H3608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOW BIG SHOULD FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, passing on to my colleagues and
the American people a predicament that Congress is now facing related
to spending. How big should the Federal Government be, how much should
we tax the American citizens in order to accommodate what we think is
important and necessary spending now. And one of the problems with the
overzealousness of Members of Congress to spend is that we either
increase taxes to accommodate that spending or we increase borrowing.
Right now, the debt of the Federal Government is a little over $6
trillion. We have a law, though, that says that we cannot have a debt
that is greater than what is approved by law, passed by the House and
the Senate and signed by the President; and that debt limit now is
$5.95 trillion. Yet the Federal debt actually is now $6.019 trillion.
How does that happen? We are playing political games. There is a
loophole that the last administration and this administration claim
exists in current law to use surplus civil service retirement funds and
pretend that is not borrowing subject to the debt limit. They use those
extra dollars coming in from the deductions of Federal employees to
increase Federal Government spending.
The ultimate problem still is how much should we spend. When I first
ran for Congress in 1992, the percentage of gross domestic product,
spent for the Federal budget was just a little bit over 22.2 percent,
of GDP. Five years later it was 19.6 percent of GDP. Last year we got
it down to about 18.4 percent of GDP. Increased predicted spending for
this year is now starting to go up again at 19.9 percent of what we
produce in this country.
So the question is how much do we borrow that requires interest and
leaves an obligation for future generations? How much do we tax that
takes away from workers. We have got a government, we have a
Constitution, we have a free enterprise system that motivates. Those
that work hard, that try, that learn, that save, that invest, end up
better than those that do not. And what we have been tending to do for
the last 40 years is increase taxes for those who succeed and
redistribute wealth. So we tax at a higher rate everybody that is
willing to take a second job or earn and save and invest, and, we now
tax them when they die.
How much do we tax before we start to take away that incentive to
save, to work harder, to invest?
{time} 1100
We are having a problem now encouraging small business to take the
risk because of high taxes to pay for big government.
I would encourage my colleagues to look at my joint resolution, which
is H.J. Res. 99, that provides we keep budget spending a constant
percent of GDP, and let the budget increase as the GDP, gross domestic
product, increases.
There has to be some limitation. We have proposals for a balanced
budget. That is fine and good, but if we decide simply to increase
taxes or increase borrowing to accommodate a growing budget, it still
leaves a burden on future generations, and it takes away some of that
incentive from current workers that are trying to work and save and
learn and invest to make their life and their families' lives better.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the overzealousness to
spend is what happens in these Chambers, because often Members are
better off politically if they come up with new pork barrel projects to
take home to their district. They often get in the newspaper and on
television if they are willing to start a new social program that
spends more of somebody else's money. It is just important that we
remember that when we spend money, when we come up with these generous
programs, as we approach prescription drugs in Medicare, let us
remember that we are taking away from current workers or putting an
extra burden on future retirees by increasing the debt load to
accommodate what seems at the moment an important spending program.
Taxes and debt are high enough. Let us be frugal on spending.
____________________