[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 182 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H9310-H9311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX EXTENDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, within the next few days, the House could
take up a tax package that extends a number of tax breaks permanently.
The cost of such a package runs in the $600 billion to $800 billion
range--none of which is paid for--ballooning our deficits in a way that
reinforces a misguided double standard that investments in the growth
of jobs and opportunities must be offset, but tax cuts are always free.
Tax cuts, like everything else, have a cost. If we fail to pay for
them, we will
[[Page H9311]]
once again increase deficits and debt, which in turn will be used as
the catalyst for another round of cuts to the very programs I believe
are vital to our economy and to our people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I
will oppose an unpaid-for tax extenders package like this that is
proposed, should it come to the floor.
Before going through my concerns about this deal in greater detail,
let me say that the package being discussed has a number of tax
preferences that I and many others support. These include making
permanent expansions of the earned income tax credit, the child tax
credit, and the American opportunity tax credit launched under the
Recovery Act in 2009. It would also provide incentives to businesses
and individual filers for investment, research, charitable
contributions, and teaching expenses, among others. Most of us support
those efforts.
In many ways, this would be a bill where everyone gets something they
want. But, Mr. Speaker, our children and grandchildren will get the
bill.
What concerns me most about this deal is that it further entrenches
the false notion that offsets only matter when it comes to spending
priorities. The direct consequences will be providing Republicans with
the ammunition they need to propose even deeper cuts to the very
investments that help grow the economy and create jobs both in the
short term and in the long term.
Frankly, I am surprised that we haven't heard more of an outcry that
the roughly $800 billion in lost revenue from this package is nearly
the same amount as the $813 billion in discretionary cuts Republicans
insisted upon in the sequester. It would appear that we are setting
ourselves up for Republicans demanding the next round of severe cuts
that harm our economy and our people, both on the nondefense side and
on the national security side. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we must move away
from this dangerous pattern.
Republicans have continued to argue that tax cuts pay for themselves
by spurring economic growth, a theory that has been proven wrong, and,
sadly, as I said, our children will pay the price for the deficits that
have resulted. Others will argue that the effect on our deficits and
debt of another $700 billion in unpaid-for tax expenditures over the
next 10 years can be ignored because we would extend them every year
anyway. While convenient, neither of these is a responsible position
for governing.
In a Wall Street Journal piece last Monday, Maya MacGuineas,
president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--asked: ``How do we explain
to our children that we borrowed more than $1 trillion--counting
interest--not because it was a national emergency or to make critical
investments in the future but because we just don't like paying our
bills?''
Our answer has to be not to justify the irresponsible behavior, but
to correct it. And this tax extenders package will make that much more
difficult. First, this package undermines Congress' ability to invest
in creating jobs and opportunities that make the American Dream
possible for millions of families.
When we cut taxes without paying for them, there are consequences.
Every dollar in lost revenue is a dollar that must be made up somewhere
else in the budget. As I said earlier, these unpaid-for tax extenders
will set the table for further Republican attempts to slash critical
investments in our Nation's future.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it will hinder our ability to restore fiscal
stability by making it less likely that we will be able to protect the
future sustainability of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social
Security.
In order to appear balanced, recent Republican budgets proposed
trillions of dollars in cuts to health programs for seniors and the
most vulnerable in our society. Worsening our deficit outlook by
passing this bill invites them to continue that tack.
While we face a challenge to our most critical retirement and health
programs--a challenge driven by the retirement of the baby boom
generation and the looming effect of compound interest on our debt--my
Republican friends continue to offer budget proposals that severely cut
benefits for seniors and the most vulnerable Americans and they try to
justify doing so because our deficits are too high. Their proposal
would exacerbate that by about $1 trillion, as Maya MacGuineas said.
Here we are, though, about to consider proposals to raise the deficits
even higher.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, this type of unpaid-for, permanent extension
will undercut our economic competitiveness by making comprehensive tax
reform more difficult to achieve, not easier. We need comprehensive tax
reform, and this will make it more difficult. Locking in preferences
while lowering the revenue baseline by more than half a trillion
dollars will ensure a plunge into further debt.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the business community would
much prefer to see rates go down through comprehensive reform than
simply an extension of individual preferences. This bill promises them
both--more preferences and lower rates--at the cost of deficits, debt,
and diminished investment in our economic competitiveness.
There are certainly components of this tax extenders package that I,
as I said before, would like to make permanent. I wish we could make
them even better, in fact. For instance, the child tax credit should be
structured to keep up with inflation so those working the hardest to
get by don't continue to see their resources dwindle year after year.
Again, let me quote Maya MacGuineas when she highlighted this
important point in her op-ed when she said: ``Most of the extensions
under consideration are sensible enough policy--and their merit is an
argument for paying for them.''
I couldn't agree more. This tax extenders package, itself, serves as
a powerful argument for Democrats and Republicans to come together to
achieve that which we really need: comprehensive tax reform.
So, in closing, Mr. Speaker, while I agree we need short-term
certainty for tax filers before the end of the year, I believe the
price this package would have us pay is too steep and too irresponsible
in the short term and in the longer term. Instead, we could provide
that same immediate certainty with a simple 2-year extension. That is
what we ought to do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the long-
term impact and consequences of this tax extenders package on the
ability to create jobs and opportunities, grow our economy, invest in
strengthening our security, reduce our Nation's debt, and balance our
budget.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Congress and our people
expect us to do better. We have a responsibility to our country and to
our children to do better. Let's do it.
____________________