[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 7, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3739-H3740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REJECT UNFAIR REPUBLICAN TAX CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, now that we have declared victory over Iraq, 
the country's attention will turn once again to important domestic 
priorities. Unfortunately, we find our economy in a great slump.
  The President and my Republican colleagues come before you with a 
program that I believe is woefully inadequate, because all they have 
done is trot out their all-purpose solution to domestic problems: More 
tax cuts. I would say to my Republican colleagues that was then, this 
is now.
  In the year 2000, we had a surplus, a $5.6 billion surplus. At that 
time, then-Governor George Bush said he wanted to give the surplus back 
to the taxpayers and invigorate the economy. I would suggest that the 
economy has not been invigorated. Two years later millions have lost 
their jobs and we are looking at deficits of $2 trillion going forth 
over the next 10 years.
  So the question Americans should ask is, why do they want to cut 
taxes now if the rationale for the tax cut in 2001 was that we had a 
surplus? We do not have a surplus today. We have huge deficits today. 
We also have a war against terrorism and a homeland security program to 
fund.
  Reducing government resources at a time of war against Iraq and a war 
against terrorism just does not make sense. It is kind of like George 
Bush said when he was running for President, ``It is fuzzy math.''
  In the year 2001, President Bush passed through his tax cut, $1.3 
trillion, saying it would stimulate the economy. Again, 2 years later, 
economic growth stands at a mere 1 percent, compared to the 4 percent 
growth from 1996 to 2000 during the Clinton administration.
  Additionally, despite President Bush's promise in his 2001 tax cut 
that he would invigorate the economy, 2.7 million Americans have lost 
their jobs. The stock market has lost about 40 percent of its value, 
roughly $7 trillion.
  The tax cut program did not work. Their all-purpose solution just 
does not cut it. But that did not deter my conservative colleagues. 
This week on the House floor we will hear more of the same. We have the 
Bush tax cut, and now we have the tax cut of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Originally the Bush plan would provide a tax cut of $27,000 for 
households earning more than $1 million a year. The top 5 percent would 
receive 64 percent of all the tax cut breaks. That seems pretty bad. 
But along comes the Thomas tax bill that we are going to consider this 
week. It is even more unfair. According to the Brookings Institute 
analysis, the average tax cut offered under the Thomas proposal for 
households earning more than $1 million would be, get this, $43,000 for 
people earning more than $1 million a year. The top 5 percent of 
American households would get 75 percent of the tax cut.
  So when they tell you the tax cut is for everybody, do not buy it. It 
is clearly a tax cut for the rich. When you give the Republicans these 
numbers, they say okay, we are giving a tax cut to the rich, but the 
rich create jobs and the jobs will trickle down. Remember, that was 
then, this is now. The tax cuts in 2001, $1.3 trillion, did not 
invigorate the economy, did not create jobs. People in fact lost jobs. 
Tax cuts for the wealthy do not stimulate the economy.
  Let me talk a little bit about why it is even more unfair. They make 
the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Remember that 75 percent goes 
to the wealthy. Those are permanent. When it comes to the child care 
tax credit that could benefit working Americans, what happens? Well, 
the child care tax credit drops from $1,000 in 2005 to $700 in 2006, 
and after 2006 the child care tax credit is phased out, so working 
Americans get nothing.
  The same thing with small business. My Republican colleagues say, 
well, we will make the dividend tax cut for the very wealthy permanent, 
but the small business tax cuts and tax breaks to provide more 
deductions for small businesses and help them expand and create jobs, 
they phase out after 5 years.

[[Page H3740]]

After 5 years, small businesses get nothing.
  Now, there is another element to this issue, and that is called State 
aid. What is happening here is the Federal Government is just passing 
along tax increases to the States. They say ``we are cutting your 
taxes.'' But what happens when the States do not have enough money, as 
is the case now? They cut Medicaid, they cut child care subsidies, they 
cut education. So that means what, either you lose programs at the 
State level, or you get a tax increase at the State level, while the 
Republicans tell you we are giving a tax cut to the very wealthy at the 
Federal level.
  We Democrats believe that if we want to stimulate this economy we do 
a couple of things. We give money directly to the American working 
class. Second, we give money to the States so they can hire people, 
build roads, improve our infrastructure. That is how you create jobs.
  There is a consensus among economists that this tax plan will not 
work. I think this dog will not hunt. I think we need to reject the 
Republican proposal this week.

                          ____________________