[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.