[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 149 (Wednesday, October 3, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12476-S12477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 TAXES

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, more than 1 month ago, I spoke on the 
floor regarding the need for the Senate to confirm Jim Nussle as the 
head of the Office of Management and Budget and about my constituents' 
concerns that are regularly voiced to me about the runaway Federal 
spending in Washington, DC, and its impact on their ability to earn a 
living or run a business, and their concern about the direction of the 
economy for the future if the Federal Government continues to occupy 
more and more space when it comes to their hard-earned tax dollars.
  I mentioned my fear that the tax-and-spend season was upon us here in 
Washington, DC, and there seemed to be some early indications that some 
of the progress we have made as a result of progrowth, low-tax policies 
was going to be reversed under the new management in Washington.
  In my State of Texas, to give you a snapshot, unemployment is near 
its lowest level in 30 years, while more than a quarter of a million 
new jobs have been created over the past year. That is out of the 8.3 
million new jobs created in this economy since August of 2003. Instead 
of talking about how we can preserve these hard-won gains for the 
American people and my constituents back home in Texas, we hear more 
and more talk about raising taxes and expanding the size of the Federal 
Government. Instead of talking about how can we help support and 
nurture the entrepreneurial spirit in America, we are hearing more 
folks talking about how can we grow the bureaucracy and Federal 
programs and the size of the Federal Government.
  Unfortunately, we are beginning to see a trend when it comes to 
raising taxes. Yesterday's suggestion by some members of the House is a 
disturbing example of that. Yesterday, the chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee unveiled a proposal that would

[[Page S12477]]

require taxpayers to add anywhere from 2 percent to a 15-percent 
surcharge to their income tax bill.
  In the Senate, the majority leader declared that nothing should be 
off the table. I am glad to see that the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives quickly voiced her disagreement with this tax surcharge 
proposed by Congressman Obey. His proposal would amount to an annual 
tax increase of $150 billion a year, or three-quarters of a trillion 
dollars over the next 5 years--a bad idea, in my view.
  At the same time, with this chart, I will document some of the 
proposals that have been made, because it helps to see them in one 
place and add them up because you only then begin to understand the 
full impact of these discrete proposals that are being made, all of 
which would result in increased taxes.
  First, the budget that was passed earlier this year, of course, is 
where the Federal Government says how much it intends to spend and 
where that money is supposed to come from.
  The disturbing thing to me was that it contemplated the spending 
levels in that budget that passed--without my support, by the way--
contemplated an increase of $916 billion in additional revenue. The 
problem is, my concern is, frankly, that the revenue they are talking 
about--in other words, increased tax revenue--would come from not 
making the tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 permanent. In other 
words, it would result in a huge tax increase if allowed to go into 
effect without actually having Congress vote on increasing taxes by the 
mere expiration of those taxes.
  Then there are some who say we want to tax the rich and don't worry 
about it because we are only going to tax the rich. I ask how many 
times we have heard that before. The alternative minimum tax is the 
latest example. We know that from roughly 4 million taxpayers who will 
be hit by this so-called alternative minimum tax this year. According 
to the Wall Street Journal, that number in 2007 could soar to 23 
million Americans, from 4 million to 23 million Americans. In other 
words, the tendency all too often of the Federal Government is once a 
tax is created to see that tax expand and grow and to gobble up more 
and more taxpayers' dollars.
  Certainly, that is the case where we see new Government programs 
created to provide for a larger and larger Government which, of course, 
has to be paid for, and guess where that money comes from. It comes 
from the beleaguered American taxpayers.
  In a counterintuitive mood, this second provision of $70 billion, 
actually rather than tax the rich, what my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle who recently voted for this new State children's health 
insurance expansion of 140 percent over the current program, they have 
actually targeted a regressive tobacco tax to fund expansion of 
Washington-run health care.
  The President has vetoed the so-called SCHIP bill not because any of 
us disagree about the core mission of the SCHIP program, which is to 
provide health coverage for low-income kids, but the fact is that 
program has been hijacked and used as a Trojan horse to take an 
additional step, a huge incremental step toward a Washington-run health 
care system, which I believe is bad for the American people.
  Three things one can say about Washington-controlled health care: No. 
1 is, free health care isn't free because it is going to have to be 
paid for by the American people. No. 2, we can say Washington-
controlled health care will be inevitably bureaucratic and some 
bureaucrat will be deciding what kind of health care you get and what 
kind of health care you don't get. And No. 3, we can be assured the way 
the Federal Government will control cost, to the extent it can, in this 
new program will be as a result of rationing and deciding who gets 
access to care and who does not, and that means more care programs, as 
we see currently underway in Canada, where people have to wait months 
and years for the kind of diagnostic care and treatment they get in a 
matter of days in America.
  The third item, $11.4 billion, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have proposed a massive increase on energy producers in the 
United States. We recently had a so-called Energy bill on the floor. 
The only thing was it didn't produce one drop of additional energy. 
What we saw happen was a proposal that actually would have increased 
taxes on domestic energy producers which would have made us more 
dependent on imported energy, something we have all said is a bad idea. 
We know it is a bad idea for us to be as dependent as we are on 
imported energy. So why in the world would we want to raise taxes and 
increase the burden on domestic producers in a way that would make us 
more dependent on that imported energy?
  We see there are additional proposals about which we have heard: $6.1 
billion in additional taxes on oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico, 
additional taxes on investing and creating jobs in America by foreign 
businesses that want to invest in the United States, that we benefit 
from, that actually creates jobs here, but our friends on the other 
side of the aisle have proposed an increased tax on that as well. We 
can see the other proposals that have been made.
  This is a disturbing chart, at least to me. When we look at the cost 
for the average American taxpayer and how many days a week they have to 
work to pay their Federal taxes, that will invariably go up. Right now, 
American taxpayers have to work 79 days out of the 365 days in the year 
to pay Uncle Sam, to pay their taxes. That is more than 1 out of every 
5 days of the year, and that is more than the average that taxpayers 
will spend on food, housing, health care or any other category.
  Of course, working parents face challenges every day when it comes to 
making sure their children get what they need and deserve in terms of 
health care and education. So why would Congress continue to increase 
and add to their burden by increasing taxes?
  I ask: Is this how Washington should be working for the American 
taxpayer? To me the answer is clearly no. We should not force American 
citizens to work even more days each year for Uncle Sam. I am sad to 
say, disappointed to say that the tax-and-spend season is indeed upon 
us in Washington, DC.
  Our country faces a number of challenges when it comes to the war on 
terror, making health care more accessible to more Americans, and 
making sure we remain competitive in a global economy. But it seems 
that every day that passes, some spend their time thinking about more 
ways to raise taxes and grow the size of Government. I wish we would 
reconsider and not do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________