[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 188 (Tuesday, October 26, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7352-S7353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Government Spending
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Democrats continue to negotiate with each
other on their reckless tax-and-spending spree. Democrats are currently
working to lower the bill's top-line number in an effort to meet some
of the demands of the few moderate Democrats who have reservations
about unchecked government spending.
Now, you might think that lowering the top-line number would involve
deciding what programs and spending to eliminate to bring the bill in
at a lower cost. Well, not exactly. Yes, Democrats are reportedly
eliminating some spending, but the word is that, under pressure from
progressives, who are dead set against curtailing their plans for
expanding government, Democrats are planning to keep a lot of their
most expensive proposals, but simply shorten the funding window to make
the costs of these programs seem lower.
Take Democrats' fantastically expensive child allowance. Democrats
have every intention of turning their child allowance into a permanent
government welfare program, but in order to bring the top-line number
of their spending bill down, the word is that Democrats are now
planning to officially extend the allowance for just 1 year.
This is, in fact, a budget gimmick on top of a budget gimmick, as
Democrats were already attempting to disguise the true cost of the
child allowance by officially extending it for just 4 of the 10 years
in the bill's 10-year budget window.
They were never, of course, planning to eliminate the child allowance
after 4 years, and they are certainly not planning to eliminate it now
after 1 year, but by officially extending it for just a year in their
tax-and-spending spree, they can manage to make the program look as if
it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars less than it will actually
cost.
And they are apparently repeating this strategy with a number of
their other spending measures.
That paid leave program? Apparently, the White House has proposed a
smaller version that would supposedly expire after 3 or 4 years.
Those childcare subsidies? Apparently, those may also now,
ostensibly, expire.
The ObamaCare subsidies Democrats want to extend permanently? Well,
once again, it sounds like they are going to try shrinking the apparent
cost with a short-term extension.
But, again, let's be very clear here. These short-term extensions and
short-term programs are nothing more than a budget gimmick to disguise
the true cost of the Democrats' plan. There isn't one program that I
have named that Democrats don't fully intend to make permanent.
Don't believe me? Just ask the Congressional Progressive Caucus,
which outlined the strategy the Democrats are currently adopting in a
letter to Speaker Pelosi.
I quote from that letter:
If given a choice between legislating narrowly or broadly--
the caucus wrote--
--we strongly encourage you to choose the latter, and make
robust investments over a shorter window . . . This will help
make the case for our party's ability to govern, and
establish a track record of success that will pave the way
for a long-term extension of benefits.
So the plan is to make these programs permanent and to permanently
and massively expand the size of government. Democrats hope to get
Americans hooked on the government benefits they are offering while
hiding the true costs of those benefits from the American people until
it is too late.
Frankly, it is not a bad strategy if your aim is to permanently
expand the size of government because the truth is it is pretty hard to
eradicate even the most inefficient and ineffective Federal program
once it has been put into place.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, the nearest thing to eternal life that
we will ever see on this earth is a government program.
That, of course, is what the Democrats are counting on. They believe
that, once they put these programs in place, no one from either party
will be able to get rid of them.
What is less clear is how Democrats believe these programs are going
to be funded in the long term, if, in fact, they have given any thought
to that issue at all. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't.
It is important to note that the short-term programs and program
extensions in the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree will be paid for by
10 years of taxes. That is right. It will take 10 years of taxes and
other revenue-raising measures to pay for programs that are scheduled
to last as little as 1 year.
So what happens when Democrats want to extend that child allowance
again next year or extend those childcare subsidies for the long term?
Well, that is a really good question, and one for which I would love
to hear the Democrats' answer.
Are Democrats going to trot out more tax hikes to pay for extending
the child allowance or making the childcare subsidies permanent? Or are
they going to just suggest that we add hundreds of billions--and
eventually trillions--to our already dangerously large national debt?
And, if they opt for tax hikes, just who is going to be facing those
tax hikes?
The Democrats are eventually going to run out of money from
millionaires and billionaires, and then they are going to start coming
after the wallets of the middle class.
Of course, when I say that the programs in the Democrats' tax-and-
spending spree will be paid for with 10 years of taxes, I mean that
Democrats are claiming--claiming--that those programs will be paid for,
because it is by no means clear that Democrats' tax hikes and revenue-
raising measures will actually result in the revenue they are claiming.
Democrats, for example, are claiming that their proposal to increase
IRS enforcement measures, including a new requirement that would allow
the IRS to look into the details of Americans' spending, will allow
them to collect $700 billion in revenue; but the Congressional Budget
Office hasn't confirmed that estimate, and there is substantial reason
to doubt that Democrats will be able to collect anywhere even close to
that amount even with a doubling of the IRS's budget, a massive
expansion of a number of IRS employees, and a number of audits of
everyday Americans.
Even if Democrats do manage to rake in every dollar they are
claiming, the tax hikes and revenue raisers they are proposing would
have long-term costs beyond the dollar amount of the tax hikes.
More than one of the Democrats' tax proposals would have a chilling
effect on investment and economic growth, which would mean a less
vibrant economy with fewer jobs and opportunities for American workers,
and the IRS proposal I mentioned could put the details of Americans'
ordinary bank activities into the hands of the IRS, an agency that we
have seen repeatedly mishandle the taxpayer data it already has, as
recently as earlier this year.
Democrats may be able to come up with a smaller top-line number by
hiding the true costs of the government programs they are
contemplating, but their ``buy now and pay later or pay never''
approach to government spending is going to have serious consequences
for our economy and for the American people.
Unfortunately, by the time the full costs of Democrats' massive
government expansion are felt, it may be too late to do much about it;
and that, apparently, is what Democrats are counting on.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S7353]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). Without objection, it is so
ordered.