[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 161 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6799-H6802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1420
                         TAX BURDEN IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate my colleagues for their take on where we 
are, and I wanted to offer kind of an alternative view on that. And 
it's not an alternative view in that it is one that's not commonly 
shared. It's a bipartisan view. But we hadn't heard it much in this 
particular debate.
  I want to take you back, Mr. Speaker, to John F. Kennedy. He's a 
revered President for a whole variety of reasons. I come from a rock-
solid, hard-core conservative district in the State of Georgia, but I 
absolutely see the wisdom of so much of what President Kennedy was 
trying to do for the country. He said this:

       It's a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and 
     tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the 
     revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The purpose 
     of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit but to 
     achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can 
     bring a budget surplus.

  John F. Kennedy, November 20, 1962.
  Those words are as true today as they were then, Mr. Speaker. But we 
have a different kind of budget challenge today than we had then. The 
largest budget deficits in your and my lifetime, Mr. Speaker, were run 
up during the George W. Bush administration. Again, I come from a hard-
core red State, Republican through and through in our part of the 
world, and I can tell you the largest budget deficits in the history of 
this country were run up during a Republican Presidential 
administration. And those record-setting deficits have now been 
surpassed.
  We're not running 100 percent of those deficits today. We're not 
running 200 percent of those deficits today. We're not running 300 
percent of those deficits today. Mr. Speaker, the deficits today are 
almost four times larger than what was formerly the largest budget 
deficit in American history. We've got to get a handle on that.
  There are revenue components, there are spending components, but it 
seems like this town is obsessed with the tax side of that ledger. I 
want to talk about that because, for Pete's sake, I didn't come to 
Congress to be a Congressman; I came to Congress to make America 
better. I came to Congress to solve the problems that plague my family 
and my neighbor's family and the families surrounding us in the 
community. I came to Congress to make a difference.
  So it's whatever we need to do here, Mr. Speaker, to make a 
difference. And I don't mean just to change things. Change for change's 
sake has no constituency with me. I mean to make a difference so that 
our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives are better than they 
would be otherwise.
  Let me go again to John F. Kennedy and how he was trying to make a 
difference. He said this:

       Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity 
     and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as 
     to yield, within a few years, an increased--not a reduced--
     flow of revenues to the Federal Government.

  Mr. Speaker, he was right. He was right then. Ronald Regan was right 
when he said it. President Clinton was right in the tax cuts that he 
presided over, as was President Bush. It's absolutely true. I'll say it 
again:

       Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity 
     and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as 
     to yield, within a few years, an increased--not a reduced--
     flow of revenues to the Federal Government.
       It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and 
     tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise 
     revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

  Why do I bring this up? Is there anybody in Washington, D.C., who's 
talking about cutting tax rates? And the answer is no. There's really 
not. There's not one person in this Chamber who comes to the floor and 
talks about cutting tax rates. We might like to, but we're in a tough 
economic crisis right now and folks are concerned about the revenue 
side of the equation. What folks are talking about, though, is not 
raising tax rates. And for some reason, for reasons that I can't 
understand, Mr. Speaker, the President has gotten wrapped around the 
axle on an insistence that actual rates go up. Speaker John Boehner 
offered him revenue. He said, If you just want the money, we'll find a 
way to get the money through taxes. It doesn't have to be through 
higher rates. We can do it by broadening the base, by reducing 
exceptions and exemptions, by eliminating loopholes and deductions. The 
President said, No, I want actual higher rates.
  President Kennedy talked about the damage of those higher rates, Mr. 
Speaker. It's as true today as it was then. When we're not talking 
about higher rates from the White House, Mr. Speaker, we're talking 
about fairness.
  And I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, you and I are freshmen in this 
body. We came with the largest freshman class in modern times. And we 
came not from folks who had dreams of being a Congressman one day, but 
folks who were from families back home that were struggling and people 
were running for Congress then because they wanted to find a better 
way. Folks did not come to be Congressmen; they came to be agents of 
change, to make a difference for America, to make sure the promise of 
America continues for another generation. And yet we find ourselves in 
this debate about whether now is the right time to raise taxes on 
family-owned businesses, whether now is the right time to raise taxes 
on American job creators.
  Milton Friedman is one of my favorite economists. He's a Nobel Prize-
winning economist. He passed on from this Earth, but his words remain 
with us today. He said this about taxes, and I think it's profound. He 
said:

       There is all the difference in the world, however, between 
     two kinds of assistance through government that seem 
     superficially similar.

  Two kinds, superficially similar.

       The first, when 90 percent of us agree to impose taxes on 
     ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent.

  That happens all the time. It happens all the time. I love the 
generous spirit of the United States of America. And I've got to tell 
you I know, Mr. Speaker, folks are from all parts of the world--I'm 
from Georgia and you're from California--but the people in Georgia, 
their generosity is second to none, and I love being part of that 
community. And Milton Friedman says it's one thing when 90 percent of 
us in America agree to tax ourselves, agree to bear the burden 
ourselves in order to help 10 percent who are struggling, that's one 
thing. Or, second, he says:

       The other thing is when 80 percent vote to impose taxes on 
     the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent.

  Hear that. It's one thing when 90 percent of us agree that we need to 
bear the burden such that the least fortunate among us can prosper--
that's the American way, and I love that about this Nation--but it's 
something else altogether, Milton Freidman says, when 80 percent decide 
they want to tax the top 10 percent so that they can help the bottom 10 
percent. That is not who we are in America. That is not who we have 
ever been in America, where we let someone else carry the burden.

[[Page H6800]]

  What makes this country great is the shared burden. I heard the words 
``shared burden'' from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I 
hear the words ``shared sacrifice'' from my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, and I see proposal after proposal after proposal that 
exempts most of America from bearing any part of that burden and 
continuing to place the burden on someone else.
  Milton Friedman goes on to say this: ``The first way may be wise or 
unwise''--talking about the 90 percent of us taxing ourselves to help 
the 10 percent--``that could be unwise, it just depends on why you're 
doing it and what the purpose is you're doing it for. It could be 
effective or ineffective as a way to help the disadvantaged. But it is 
consistent with the belief in both equality of opportunity and 
liberty.''
  The second way, Milton Friedman says--that's the way where 80 percent 
of the folks agree that they're going to tax the top 10 percent so that 
they can help the bottom 10 percent--that second approach seeks 
equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty. When we 
all come together to agree to help one another, that is consistent with 
a belief in equality of opportunity and liberty, but when we try to 
amass enough votes in this Chamber or enough votes across the Nation so 
that we can take from one group to give to another group, that is 
entirely antithetical to liberty.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today not as a defender of 
the 1 percent. I'm not in the 1 percent. I do hope one day I'll be 
fortunate to have those opportunities. I think that's what all kids do 
in America; you try to work hard, apply yourself, good work ethic, good 
ideas, you want to be successful one day. But I'm not in the 1 percent. 
But I recognize the immorality of passing on bills to our children and 
our grandchildren in the form of debt because we, the 80 percent, 
refuse to take on that burden and, instead, we try to thrust that 
burden off on someone else.

                              {time}  1430

  We have burdens in this country, and it falls to every citizen of 
this country to shoulder those burdens.
  Mr. Speaker, because I do think it's a moral case, I think folks need 
to understand what it is the President is proposing and why he's 
proposing it. I have two sets of figures here, Mr. Speaker. One is the 
percent of the income that each kind of strata of American income 
earner earns. I've got the lowest 20 percent of income earners, the 
second 20 percent, the middle 20 percent, the fourth 20 percent, and 
the highest 20 percent--in fact, I have the top 1 percent pulled out on 
the side because they seem to attract so much attention these days.
  I also have the share of the individual income tax burden that each 
of these groups are paying. How many times, Mr. Speaker, have you heard 
the President of the United States say he just wants the top 1 percent 
to pay a little bit more; he just wants the top 1 percent to do their 
fair share? How many times have you heard ``fair share,'' Mr. Speaker? 
I've heard it more times than I can count.
  This is what I see: For the most recent year for which the 
Congressional Budget Office has numbers, the top 1 percent of all 
income earners earned 13.4 percent of all the income in America. I'll 
got to tell you they're doing well, there's no doubt about it. They are 
1 percent of the population and they are earning 13 percent of all the 
income in America. That's impressive. They can afford to pay. They can 
afford to pay. You won't get any argument from me.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, again, with the most recent numbers the 
Congressional Budget Office has available, that top 1 percent--that's 
earning 13.4 percent of the income in this country--is paying 38.7 
percent of all the burden. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what incarnation of 
fairness leads you to believe that when you earn 13 percent of the 
money and you're paying 38 percent of the bills that you need to do 
more to do your fair share? Mr. Speaker, if you think for a moment that 
you might fall into that category let me take you to the other end of 
the spectrum, where the ``we'' are. I'm not trying to put the burden on 
someone else, I'm trying to take the burden on myself.
  Mr. Speaker, we passed a bill in this Congress that gave a payroll 
tax break to every single Member of Congress--well, in fact, it gave it 
to every single member of America. Every citizen in America got this 
payroll tax break. This was a payroll tax break. As you know, payroll 
taxes are dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. All they do is 
fund those important programs. Every man, woman, and child in America 
knows those two programs are going bankrupt, but this President and 
this Congress, in their wisdom, passed a bill to give every American a 
tax break in that category, reducing the amount of tax dollars going 
into that trust fund. I voted no, but I lost and I got a tax break--
didn't want one, didn't need one. I have obligations to contribute to 
the survival of this economy and this Republic, but I got one anyway.
  Look at what's happening here, Mr. Speaker. If you're in the bottom 
20 percent of all income earners, we want you to succeed. Mr. Speaker, 
if you're in the bottom 20 percent of all income earners, we develop 
every single Federal program around the idea that if you apply 
yourself, if you put your ideas to work, if we can give you enough of a 
helping hand here, a hand up there, that you will be able to change 
your economic future, you will be able to improve your income lot 
tomorrow relative to today.
  In the Tax Code, Mr. Speaker, today, if you're in the bottom 20 
percent of all income earners--in fact, if you're in the bottom 40 
percent of all income earners the Tax Code pays you money. You get 
every penny of your pay back. It pays you money. I ask you, Mr. 
Speaker, what's becoming of our Republic? How are we defining ``fair 
share?''
  There is no, no, no constituency in this Nation that wants to extend 
a helping hand more than my constituency does back home. And you know 
where that comes from--and you see it right now in the tax rates, Mr. 
Speaker--folks are saying let me give away all the money I can right 
now because the Tax Code is going to change. I'm not going to give away 
money next year because I'm going to get punished for it; I'm going to 
give away money this year instead. Folks who can give do give. Folks 
who can support this country do support this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the top 20 percent of all income earners in this country 
earn 50 percent of all the income. The top 20 percent of all income 
earners earn 50 percent of all the income. We can talk about whether or 
not that's right, we can talk about where those jobs come from, we can 
talk about why we can't get more high-paying jobs, why the highest 
corporate tax rate in the world is driving all those high-paying jobs 
overseas, we can talk about all of that. But the fact is that 20 
percent of Americans earn 50 percent of all the money. So, what's a 
fair burden of the bills for them to pay, Mr. Speaker? Top 20 percent 
earn 50 percent of the money, so they should certainly pay 50 percent 
of the bills. In fact, they should pay more than their fair share, 
right? They should pay 60 percent of the bills--maybe even 70 percent 
of the bills.
  Mr. Speaker, the top 20 percent of income earners today in America 
pay 94 percent of all the bills--94.1, in fact. What that means, Mr. 
Speaker, then is that the other 80 percent of us, the other 80 percent 
of us, families here in this Chamber, 80 percent of America is only 
paying six percent of the bills.
  When you're in a Republic, Mr. Speaker--a lot of folks say democracy; 
of course we're not a democracy, we're in a Republic--but when the 
people rule, what becomes of you when 80 percent of the people are only 
paying 6 percent of the bills. What kind of decisions do I make? I know 
the answer to that, Mr. Speaker, because I love things that are free 
with rebate. I don't know if you read the CVS and Walgreens ads on 
Sunday like I do, Mr. Speaker--in fact, I look them up online on 
Saturday night just so I know what to pick up on the way home from 
church. If toothpaste is free with rebate, I don't care if I have 12 
tubes of toothpaste in the closet at home, I'm going to go by and pick 
it up because it's free. We make decisions based on how much things 
cost us.
  Right now, if you think government is too big in this country, if you 
think we waste government dollars in this country, if you think we tax 
you too much in this country, understand that

[[Page H6801]]

when we go to the voting booths, I get to vote for 100 percent of 
government benefits and I only have to pay for 6 percent of it. That's 
true for everybody in the 80 percent, Mr. Speaker. Is it American, is 
it who we are as a people that 80 percent of us who all get to vote are 
not asked to shoulder the burden of today's bills?
  The thing is, Mr. Speaker, it's not as if they're getting a free 
ride, it's not as if we're getting a free ride. We are passing the 
burden on to our children and our grandchildren. You may not have to 
pay the bill today, your family might not have to pay the bill today, 
but your children and your grandchildren are going to have to pay that 
bill tomorrow. It's immoral. It's immoral.
  I say that to my conservative colleagues back home in Georgia. I say 
if someone is willing to spend your money and they're not willing to 
raise your taxes, don't you dare applaud them because you're just going 
to have to pay those taxes later when the debt comes due. We either 
need to stop the spending or we need to pony up the money to pay the 
taxes. But Mr. Speaker, don't you dare let it be said, the top 1 
percent, they earn 13 percent of the income, they're paying 40 percent 
of the bills, and the President of the United States thinks that's not 
enough, they need to pay more.
  Be very careful, Mr. Speaker, about changing who has skin in the game 
in this country. When we don't have skin in the game as voters, we make 
bad decisions. What has always made America great is there has been 
more that unites us than that divides us, and one of the things that 
has always united us is that we all have skin in the game. The changes 
that have been made to the Tax Code are changing that, Mr. Speaker.
  You know, I'm not the first one to come up with this idea. A man much 
wiser than I am, much earlier in this country's history, Benjamin 
Franklin, observed that very same thing. He's cited to have said this: 
``When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will 
herald the end of the Republic.'' One of the great thinkers of his 
time, Mr. Speaker. What he observed is not rocket science, it's common 
sense, but it's worth restating. That is, when you're in a Republic, 
when you're in a democracy, 51 percent of the people can get together 
and say I don't want to shoulder any of the burden, I want to put it 
all on the 49 percent and let's live life that way. That signals the 
end of the Republic. It's always been true, it always will be true. 
What unites us as a country is that we are not shirkers of 
responsibility, we are acceptors of responsibility, and we want skin in 
the game.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to let it be said that the President today, 
President Obama, is the first President to have ever come up with the 
idea that wouldn't it be neat if none of the voters have to pay for 
anything except for the top 1 percent, wouldn't that be a good plan.
  That has actually been the plan of every American President in my 
lifetime and every Congress in my lifetime. Why? Because folks want to 
get elected. Folks want the voters back home to think nice things about 
them. And guess what. When I go home and I tell people they have to 
actually pay for government, they're less excited than when I tell them 
it's free.
  In 1979, the last President from the great State of Georgia, Jimmy 
Carter, when he took office, the bottom 80 percent, most of us, 80 
percent of Americans paid 35 percent of the bills. Eighty percent of us 
paid 35 percent of the bills in 1979. The top 1 percent at that time 
were paying 18 percent of the bills.
  Look what's happened in my adult lifetime, Mr. Speaker. This red line 
represents the burden that we placed on the 1 percent. The blue line 
represents the burden that we placed on the 80 percent. And it is so 
changed today that, again, the bottom 80 percent of us, middle class 
America, the bread and butter of this country, are paying 6 percent of 
the bills.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe America better than that. Folks need to make 
informed decisions at the voting box, and government isn't free. We 
spend $3.8 trillion--trillion dollars--a year in this government. When 
you are paying 6 cents out of every dollar, you may think you're 
getting your money's worth, but if you were paying 10 cents out of 
every dollar, or 50 cents out of every dollar, or even $1 out of every 
dollar, you begin to view your responsibilities for ensuring that 
government dollars are spent wisely differently.
  I just asked you, we are in control of our own destiny. I tell the 
kids I talk to in schools all the time that what's so great about this 
country is they're going to run it one day, and it's going to look 
however it is they want it to look within the bounds of the United 
States Constitution.
  Is this the kind of country you want to live in where, when times get 
tough, when burdens have to be carried, when bills have to be paid, 
more and more often we say, Do you know what? Don't tax me; tax him. 
He's the one who should shoulder the burden.
  It's a dangerous, dangerous precedent.
  There's no question that the wealthy should pay more in this country. 
They earn more; they should pay more. They have more disposable income. 
I've never had a wealthy man or woman come to me and say, Rob, I don't 
want to pay my fair share. In fact, folks come to me all the time and 
say:
  Rob, I'm willing to pay more, except I think you're going to throw it 
down a rat hole like you threw the last bit I sent to you down a rat 
hole. And if you guys in Congress ever get your act straight and put us 
on a path to a balanced budget, I'll be happy to pay a share in order 
to make that happen. I love this country--love this country.
  This is not the country that you and I grew up in, Mr. Speaker. So, 
why is it, then, if we're talking so much about taxes, why aren't taxes 
the problem or the solution? The truth is, and you know this, Mr. 
Speaker, if we tax everything in America not at 10 percent, not at 20 
percent, but at 100 percent, if we took everything from every family in 
America, if every man, woman, and child had all of their income 
confiscated, if we sold your clothes, your house, and your possessions 
on the auction block, if we liquidated every single company in America 
and we put all that money into a bank account in present value, we 
still wouldn't have enough money to pay for all the promises that this 
Congress, past Presidents, past Congresses, and this President have 
made.
  This is what I have here, Mr. Speaker. I have a chart of revenue 
versus spending. This green line is revenue in this country. As a 
percentage of the size of our economy, it turns out that wealthy people 
are pretty smart. And so if you start taxing part of their income at 90 
percent and part of their income at 20 percent, they just move all 
their income from the 90 percent category to the 20 percent category. 
That's what happens here. No matter what the tax rates have been over 
the history of this country, the modern history of this country, 
Americans are willing to give about 18 percent of GDP in tax revenue. 
It's just the way it's been. Tax rates have been as high as 90 percent; 
we were only paying 18 percent. Tax rates have been as low as 28 
percent; we were paying 18 percent.
  The red line represents spending. And that's what I want to point 
out, Mr. Speaker. Spending, historically, has been flat, as well. The 
red line comes up above the green line, which shows you all the budget 
deficits that we've been running. It's been a common occurrence in the 
history of this country. But we are spending today--these are the 
promises. If we close Congress today, Mr. Speaker, if we never make one 
new promise, not one new promise in this country, this red line 
represents the costs of all the promises we've already made.
  Spending, not taxes, is the problem. We are in a spending-driven 
crisis. If you don't believe it, Mr. Speaker, I have another chart 
here.
  The green line, again, this one only goes from 2006 out to 2041, but 
the green line represents the current taxes that are on the books. The 
red line represents the spending that we've already promised out of 
this body. And the blue line represents the tax increase that the 
President is proposing, the tax increase on small businesses, on 
family-owned businesses, a tax increase that economists agree is going 
to lead to slower growth in the jobs market and less hiring. This blue 
line represents the sum total of that tax increase.

[[Page H6802]]

  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know enough to know that if I'm bringing in this 
much money and I'm spending this much money, when I add this blue line 
to it, I still don't have enough money.
This chart is labeled #SpendingIsTheProblem, Mr. Speaker. Folks can 
tweet it out. Spending is the problem. It's not a revenue problem. 
We're bringing in about the same revenue that we've always brought in 
in this country. The President can raise taxes all he wants to; he'll 
never be able to pay for the spending promises that he has made--never. 
There is not enough money to do it. Spending is the problem.
  Current taxes, the President's tax increase and the President's 
spending plan don't come to balance.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. In fact, here's the President's 10-
year budget plan, Mr. Speaker. The President raises taxes by $2 
trillion in his 10-year budget plan, and he doesn't lower the projected 
debt by one penny, not by one penny from its projected levels in 2013 
or 14 or 15, not in 16 or 17 and 18, not in 19 or 20, but just a little 
bit--and I blew it up so everybody could see it because you can't see 
it, Mr. Speaker, as it is on the chart. If you raise--if you agree to 
the President's budget and you raise taxes by $2 trillion, he predicts 
that way out in 2021, things will be just a little bit better for 
America--just a little bit better. Not $2 trillion better, just a 
little bit better.
  It's not the right plan, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what is the right 
plan? The one that we've passed here in the House. And by the one that 
we've passed here in the House, I mean the one we've passed here in the 
House in a bipartisan way. And by the one that we passed here in the 
House in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, I mean the only budget in the 
entire city of Washington, D.C., that has been passed. It doesn't just 
make a little bitty change that you can't see 10 years from now, Mr. 
Speaker. It takes us from this red path, our current spending path, our 
current debt and deficit path, and it puts us on the road to balance, 
on the road to balance; not just on the road to eliminating our annual 
deficits, but on the road to finally paying all the bills back.
  Taxes can't do it, Mr. Speaker. They can destroy the economy, but 
they cannot pay the bills.
  Spending is the problem. We can take that challenge on, Mr. Speaker. 
We have, in this House, with our budget, passed in a bipartisan way, we 
have taken on those tough challenges.
  I say to the President again, Mr. Speaker, I know he wants to raise 
taxes. He's been talking about it for 2 years. Where are his spending 
cuts? They asked the folks in the Presidential debate, Mr. Speaker, 
Republicans, would you agree to a $1 tax increase if we'd cut spending 
by $10, and everybody said no.
  Mr. Speaker, I challenge the President to give that a whirl. Take all 
these tax increases he wants to create, the ones that have absolutely 
no chance at all of solving the problem, take those tax increases and 
couple them 10 to 1 with spending cuts, couple them 9 to 1 with reforms 
and programs, couple them 8 to 1 with things that will actually matter 
to American families and send that bill to the Congress. Send that 
bill. Call our bluff. Are we serious about solving the problem or are 
we not? The budget that we passed in this United States House says that 
we are, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge the President to be equally 
serious.
  In 4 years of his budgets, we've never once seen him introduce one 
that was balanced. We've never once seen him introduce one that ever 
comes to balance. We've never once seen him introduce one that pays 
back even a penny of our national debt.
  The bipartisan budget we passed in this House does all of those 
things. And I would love to see the President's proposal for achieving 
that very same goal, which is absolutely critical for the American 
economy, for American families, and, I dare say, Mr. Speaker, for the 
American way of life.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________