[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 69 (Friday, May 9, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3966-H3967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  TAX CUT AIMED AT COFFERS OF THE RICH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hensarling). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, the first tragedy of today is we 
did not have democracy at its best. Democracy at its best would have 
called for a debate on this great floor of the House of Representatives 
so that the Democrats and Republicans would have had an opportunity to 
roll out their respective plans so that the people of America would 
have known what the Republican plan was and what the Democratic plan 
was.
  However, it must be out of fear that the majority had decided that 
they were going to completely silence the minority by not allowing them 
to debate the issues on the floor so that the American people can see 
what is happening here in this House of Representatives.
  Therefore, I am compelled to come to make a statement in Special 
Orders as opposed to debating with my colleagues on something that is 
so fundamental and so important to our great Nation. It is important to 
its future, and it is important for our children and our children's 
children. So I have to rise today to express my concern and opposition 
to the huge, unfair, and illogical tax cut which the majority just 
propelled through the House of Representatives today.
  I listened to the debate this morning, and I had to wonder how long 
it would take, if you would call that a debate. Because it was only an 
hour and we did not have an opportunity to do anything else on our 
side, I had to wonder how long would it take before we, as a body, 
realize that this tax cut is nothing more than the 2001 tax cut in 2003 
clothes.
  In May of 2001, we, those of us who are Democrats, made a passionate 
plea to the administration to temper and equally disburse its 10-year 
tax cut which did not protect the Social Security trust fund, did not 
include funds for much-needed domestic priorities, and was almost 
totally based on projected revenues barring any catastrophic event. A 
modest tax surplus meant that Americans had earned some tax relief.
  My Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, led by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), proposed a fair and 
responsible tax cut, job creation and economic stimulus plan. Most 
importantly, we tried to convince the administration that should some 
major national emergency require us to draw on emergency funds, there 
would be none if we spent it all then. The media and many called us 
pessimists and naysayers. But then sad for all of us, September 11 
happened; and on September 12, 2001, we found ourselves poised to 
expend the greatest amount of personal, monetary, and political 
resources in our history.
  The debt ceiling has now become a ballistic missile, and it is 
unguided at that. Most importantly, we are now faced with the largest 
deficit in the history of this great country. This does not sound like 
fiscal responsibility to me. What this $550 billion fiscal monster does 
effect is another round of tax cuts tilted toward the affluent and 
deficits that will become a future tax on the rest of us and our 
children.
  The Social Security trust fund surpluses will be misused every year 
for at least 11 years to mask the even larger deficits. Estimates are 
that by 2012 the resulting debt load will be about $50,000 per American 
household. This is a travesty, and we should not be a part of it. Some 
say, what about some tax relief? I agree with providing some tax 
relief. I agree with not allowing marriage to be a discriminating tax 
category. I believe people should be given incentives to save more for 
their retirement, especially when they live longer, and the Republican 
policies that we see will make us live longer, but without Social 
Security.
  I cannot agree with leveraging Social Security, earned income and 
child tax credits, food stamps, family support, student loans, public 
housing, drug elimination programs, section 8 housing opportunities, 
and the virtual zeroing out of all unemployment compensation in order 
to make the rich richer and the real people the holders of a budget-
busting, loose-cannon tax cut promissory note.
  So, as I conclude, we sought then, as we do now, to provide tax 
relief that is fair, responsible, and immediate.
  This tax cut is aimed at the coffers of the rich. We all know that 
tax cuts for the rich and affluent will not help the economy. The 
people who will spend the money are those who need it the most! Let's 
keep in mind that 2.6 million private sector jobs have been lost since 
the end of 2000! It is 2003 and we are still paying for unintended 
consequences, ill-conceived tax

[[Page H3967]]

cuts and growing domestic obligations. This is not the time for 
``country store'' give-aways!! and if we give anything away--we should 
at least give everyone something to spend and not just those who have 
it already. We should seek to do something that is fair, responsible 
and immediate.
  Economists nation-wide are in agreement that this type of tax cut 
will do little or nothing to crate jobs or stimulate the economy. More 
than 400 professional economists, including ten Nobel Laureates agree 
that: ``Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, 
there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the 
tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near 
term.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that such comments are not 
politically driven. They do not reflect some partisan attempt to 
dismantle sound and effective fiscal policy. The in-coming Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office, a Republican appointee, has testified 
to the skepticism of these tax cuts either stimulating the economy or 
paying for themselves.

  Mr. Speaker we sought then--as we do now--to provide tax relief that 
is fair, responsible and immediate. Throughout the day's debate, 
extension of remarks, special orders and other comments, my colleagues 
have eloquently highlighted the Democratic alternative: fair, 
responsible, and immediate have been our cry. I won't repeat the 
details--Mr. Speaker you know what they are. We were unable to even 
bring a Democratic alternative up for debate and that, Mr. Speaker, is 
the real tragedy of this debacle.

                          ____________________