Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 108 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 108 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4649-S4651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TAX INCREASES

Mr. KYL. Madam President, first, let me reassure my friend and
colleague, the leader of the Senate, that it is our view that the debt
ceiling will be extended, and Leader McConnell wanted to make that
crystal clear in his discussions with Leader Reid, so the two of them
could work together on a plan that the Senate could pass and send over
to the House, to ensure that our debt ceiling would be increased and,
thus, assure the markets they need not be concerned about that fact. As
I have said many times, Republicans are not going to be the ones who
would throw us into default.
Yesterday, I spoke on the floor about the reason Republicans are
opposed to raising taxes. The President himself, last December, said
raising taxes in a time of economic downturn would be a mistake, the
wrong thing to do. We are still in that economic downturn. In fact,
things are worse now than they were then. It is similar to a doctor
treating a patient. When we diagnose what is wrong, we deal with what
is wrong. We don't try to fix something else. Our problem is spending;
it is not taxes. That is why we need to focus on spending rather than
taxes. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent to
put an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal into the Record. It is
written by Michael Boskin, who makes the point very clearly that our
problem is spending, not taxes, and that we should be focused on
reducing spending growth, especially in entitlements. He is a professor
of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution and he chaired the Council of Economic Advisers for the
first President Bush. I will refer to that in a moment.
Yesterday, I said there were three reasons why Republicans were not
willing to raise taxes at this time. The first was that the problem, as
I said, is spending, not taxes. Spending has increased under President
Obama from 20 percent of GDP--the historic average--to 25 percent in
just 3 years. That has been the reason we have had a deficit of $l.5
trillion each of those years, and we will see deficits in that order of
magnitude for as far as the eye can see.

The second reason not to raise taxes is that when we talk about whom
the taxes actually apply to, it turns out they don't just apply to
millionaires and billionaires. I pointed out that there were 319,000
households that reported over $1 million in income tax. Again, that is
319,000. But the tax the President is talking about would apply to 3.6
million taxpayers--more than 10 times that many. So the point is,
frequently, Democrats like to aim at the rich--the so-called
millionaires and billionaires--and they end up hitting a whole lot of
other folks who aren't in that category of millionaire and billionaire.
It has happened before with the alternative minimum tax, which was
originally to apply to 125 people, I think, and now it hits between 20
million and 30 million households. That is the second reason.
I might add, by the way, my friend, the majority leader, said a
moment ago there is nothing wrong with taxing yachts or airplanes and
that he would, in fact, rather have an airplane than a yacht. I
remember the experience we had with that. We were going to hit the
millionaires. In 1990, we raised the tax on yachts and other luxury
items. All the people who made boats in Maine, Massachusetts, and other
States lost their jobs. I think it was something over 9,000 jobs that
were lost in the boat building industry. Congress quickly repealed
that. Within 3 years, we had to repeal that big luxury tax. We weren't
hitting millionaires and billionaires; we were hitting the people who
actually made the yachts.
Right after 9/11, Congress passed an accelerated depreciation
provision for the general aviation industry. The idea there was to make
sure 9/11 didn't hit that industry too hard and jobs would be saved. In
the President's stimulus bill, that accelerated depreciation provision
for business jets was reauthorized. That is the thing we are talking
about here, when we talk about business jets.
The President has said business jets should not receive that kind of
tax treatment. The people who he said would be benefited by the
stimulus package with jobs created or saved are the people who will
lose their jobs if that particular tax treatment is taken away.
Maybe we should look at that. I am not against looking at that tax
treatment. If we should look at it and decide it is not appropriate,
maybe people will lose their jobs, but we may want to get rid of it; we
should use whatever reduction there is in that to create lower rates
for corporations across the board, as the President indicated, because
then we can be more competitive with corporations abroad that have much
lower corporate tax rates than the United States.
That gets me to the third reason we should not raise tax rates:
because it will kill jobs, hurt the economy. If we want to put people
back to work, we cannot impose more regulatory or tax burdens on the
very businesses that create the jobs. Two-thirds of the jobs coming out
of a recession are created by small businesses. Fifty percent of the
income of the small businesses is reported in these top two income tax
brackets that would be affected by the President's proposal to raise
taxes. They would be hit by this and, as a result, they would not hire
as many people.
There are a couple items from today's paper that I will use to
illustrate the point. From the Phoenix Business Journal, it says:
``U.S. small businesses out of gas on job creation.'' They point out:

[[Page S4650]]

Small-business owners continue to be pessimistic about the
economy. . . . New jobs are not to be found on Main Street .
. . Economic uncertainty was cited as the biggest obstacle to
hiring. . . .

One of America's more colorful entrepreneurs, Steve Wynn, in Nevada,
who is one of the majority leader's constituents, a self-described
Democrat, says that ``this administration is the greatest wet blanket
to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime.'' He says in
his report to his company shareholders on the company's quarterly
conference call that ``my customers and the companies that provide the
vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry in the United
States of America, they are frightened of this administration, and it
makes you slow down and not invest your money.'' He goes on.
I have talked to Mr. Wynn. He is very concerned about the regulatory
and tax burdens being imposed upon not just his industry but across the
board. That is what is inhibiting economic growth.
One of the taxes proposed by the administration was evaluated by this
administration's Small Business Administration, the Office of Advocacy
of the SBA. They said:

It could ultimately force many small businesses to close.

Why would the administration propose a tax increase on, in this case,
retailers and manufacturers, primarily, that could ultimately force
small businesses to close, according to the administration's own SBA?
It doesn't make sense.
For all three reasons, we should not be raising taxes. The President
was right last December, and the reason is because spending is the
problem, not taxes; that we end up aiming at the millionaires and
billionaires, but we hit a broader swathe of our economy; and, third,
because it would kill job creation and inhibit economic growth to
enable us to get out of this recession.
The final point I would make here relates to that. It is the Wall
Street Journal op-ed of July 18 by Michael Boskin.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record this op-ed piece at the conclusion of my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. KYL. The point he makes here--and I will quote a couple of
points--is regarding the President's demand that we raise taxes, and he
says, ``His timing couldn't be worse.'' Let me quote from this.

The second point he makes is that as tax rates rise, the tax base
shrinks, and ultimately you have a much smaller group of people paying
at those very highest levels. He goes on to point out some examples of
somebody in the upper brackets in the State of California, which is a
high-tax State. When you add in the California taxes, the payroll taxes
to fund ObamaCare, ultimately the President's idea of uncapping Social
Security payroll taxes, the combined marginal rates would rise to a
stunning 58.4 percent. Then, if you added in the requirements to pay
for the additional costs of the excess spending the administration has
proposed, the taxes could drive the combined marginal rate to more than
70 percent by 2035 and 80 percent by 2050. I mean, there is a point at
which people will stop working for that next marginal dollar because
most of it goes to Uncle Sam.
He also takes the example of a teacher in California earning $60,000,
and when you add in all those other things, the marginal rate goes to
an astounding 71 percent. He says:

At the margin, virtually everyone would be working
primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner
in their own labor.

I will quote one of his conclusions and then conclude.

Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-
capita income, according to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, is about 30 percent lower than
in the United States.

The point is that imposing more taxes on the economy not only
inhibits job creation, but it reduces productivity because Americans
stop working that extra hour or that extra day since most of what they
earn is going to be given to Uncle Sam. That is part of the problem and
one of the reasons the European standard of living is 30 percent lower
than here in the United States. Do we want to get to where Europe is? I
think the answer is no.
So we have to deal with extending the debt ceiling. We should try to
reduce spending so that we don't have this future cloud hanging over
our head and, frankly, to prevent having to come back to increasing the
debt limit every few months or years. But the way to do that is not by
raising taxes, which will not raise the revenues--it will inhibit
economic growth--but, rather, by focusing on the real problem, which is
spending, which has increased from 20 to 25 percent of GDP in just 3
years, and getting spending under control.
I mentioned yesterday, for example, that the President had taken a
lot of things off the table. My friend the majority leader said a
moment ago that the President has decided he is willing to compromise
about reducing spending. I don't think he is. I have been sitting in on
those negotiations. I haven't seen that.
We proposed three things--just three things--that wouldn't touch
beneficiaries: Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured benefits going to
people who aren't supposed to get them, or overpayments. You can save
over $100 billion a year by simply not paying people what the law says
they shouldn't receive, just stopping the overpayments, or paying
people who aren't eligible for one of those three services. You are not
touching anybody who is currently eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, or
uninsured benefits. You are not touching them. They receive their full
benefits. But let's simply watch out for taxpayer dollars.
The problem is, it is like renting a car. Has anybody here ever
washed a rental car? When you rent a car and you go home, is washing it
the first thing you do? If it gets a little dirty, do you wash it
before you turn it back in? No. This is someone else's money, and
people aren't watching it. It is taxpayer money that is now
administered by the Federal Government through Medicare, Medicaid, and
unemployed insurance, and the reality is that people aren't trying to
stop the waste, fraud, and abuse.
All that is taken off the table. No, the administration says, we
don't want to talk about that because we don't want people who receive
those benefits to have to sacrifice. Well, the people who are receiving
the benefits aren't sacrificing. The taxpayers are the ones who are
sacrificing by contributing money to the government that is then
wasting.
There is plenty of reform out there to stop wasteful Washington
spending. If the administration would be willing to do those things,
then I think we could find enough savings so that we wouldn't have to
even be talking about tax increases, which for the three reasons I
mentioned are so harmful to our society, to our families, to our
businesses, and to our economy.
So I hope we will continue this debate on the so-called cut, cap, and
balance legislation that does require cutting spending, constraining it
over time, and ensuring that over the long term--over the next 5, 10,
15, 20 years--these savings don't all evaporate because we go back to
our big spending ways. At least a balanced budget amendment would
prevent us from doing that. So I fully support the legislation that
will be brought forward. I presume it will pass the House of
Representatives this evening, and I am looking forward to the debate
here in the Senate so that we can try to adopt that same legislation.

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2011]

Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate

(By Michael J. Boskin)

President Obama has been using the debt-ceiling debate and
bipartisan calls for deficit reduction to demand higher
taxes. With unemployment stuck at 9.2% and a vigorous
economic ``recovery'' appearing more and more elusive, his
timing couldn't be worse.

[[Page S4651]]

Two problems arise when marginal tax rates are raised.
First, as college students learn in Econ 101, higher marginal
rates cause real economic harm. The combined marginal rate
from all taxes is a vital metric, since it heavily influences
incentives in the economy--workers and employers, savers and
investors base decisions on after-tax returns. Thus tax rates
need to be kept as low as possible, on the broadest possible
base, consistent with financing necessary government
spending.
Second, as tax rates rise, the tax base shrinks and
ultimately, as Art Laffer has long argued, tax rates can
become so prohibitive that raising them further reduces
revenue--not to mention damaging the economy. That is where
U.S. tax rates are headed if we do not control spending soon.
The current top federal rate of 35% is scheduled to rise to
39.6% in 2013 (plus one-to-two points from the phaseout of
itemized deductions for singles making above $200,000 and
couples earning above $250,000). The payroll tax is 12.4% for
Social Security (capped at $106,000), and 2.9% for Medicare
(no income cap). While the payroll tax is theoretically split
between employers and employees, the employers' share is
ultimately shifted to workers in the form of lower wages.
But there are also state income taxes that need to be kept
in mind. They contribute to the burden. The top state
personal rate in California, for example, is now about 10.5%.
Thus the marginal tax rate paid on wages combining all these
taxes is 44.1%. (This is a net figure because state income
taxes paid are deducted from federal income.)
So, for a family in high-cost California taxed at the top
federal rate, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013,
the 0.9% increase in payroll taxes to fund ObamaCare, and the
president's proposal to eventually uncap Social Security
payroll taxes would lift its combined marginal tax rate to a
stunning 58.4%.
But wait, things get worse. As Milton Friedman taught
decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government
spending; government borrowing requires future interest
payments out of future taxes. To cover the Congressional
Budget Office projection of Mr. Obama's $841 billion deficit
in 2016 requires a 31.7% increase in all income tax rates
(and that's assuming the Social Security income cap is
removed). This raises the top rate to 52.2% and brings the
total combined marginal tax rate to 68.8%. Government, in
short, would take over two-thirds of any incremental earning.
Many Democrats demand no changes to Social Security and
Medicare spending. But these programs are projected to run
ever-growing deficits totaling tens of trillions of dollars
in coming decades, primarily from rising real benefits per
beneficiary. To cover these projected deficits would require
continually higher income and payroll taxes for Social
Security and Medicare on all taxpayers that would drive the
combined marginal tax rate on labor income to more than 70%
by 2035 and 80% by 2050. And that's before accounting for the
Laffer effect, likely future interest costs, state deficits
and the rising ratio of voters receiving government payments
to those paying income taxes.
It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative,
cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will
leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in
California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a
9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined
income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the
CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%.
Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings
the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer
to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would
keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone
would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a
minority partner in their own labor.
Nobody--rich, middle-income or poor--can afford to have the
economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason
why European per-capita income, according to the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower
than in the United States--a permanent difference many times
the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic
recovery.
Some argue the U.S. economy can easily bear higher pre-
Reagan tax rates. They point to the 1930s-1950s, when top
marginal rates were between 79% and 94% or the Carter-era
1970s, when the top rate was about 70%. But those rates
applied to a much smaller fraction of taxpayers and kicked in
at much higher income levels relative to today.
There were also greater opportunities for sheltering income
from the income tax. The lower marginal tax rates in the
1980s led to the best quarter-century of economic performance
in American history. Large increases in tax rates are a
recipe for economic stagnation, socioeconomic ossification,
and the loss of American global competitiveness and
leadership.
There is only one solution to this growth-destroying,
confiscatory tax-rate future: Control spending growth,
especially of entitlements. Meaningful tax reform--not with
higher rates as Mr. Obama proposes, but with lower rates on a
broader base of economic activity and people--can be an
especially effective complement to spending control. But
without increased spending discipline, even the best tax
reforms are doomed to be undone.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________