[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1642-1643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PRESIDENT'S TAX CUT NOT FAIR, NOT BASED ON REALITY, AND NOT AFFORDABLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today is a big day on Capitol Hill. The 
President is sending a $1.6 trillion tax cut plan to Congress. A very 
big day. A big day for the White House, a big day for Congress. The 
only three problems that I can discern with the President's plan thus 
far, despite the huge size of it: it is not based on reality, it is not 
fair, and it is not affordable. Other than that, it is a pretty good 
idea.
  Now, the plan is based on an economic scenario that does not exist. 
The plan is based upon a rosy economic scenario. Even as the country is 
sliding into recession, and on the one hand, they use the excuse of a 
projected future tax cut, particularly favoring those at the top, as a 
rationale for rushing it through Congress, they say, the economy is 
actually going to grow at 2.4 percent this year, so we will have a 
surplus to spend, and more than 3 percent every year thereafter.
  Mr. Speaker, they are defying the reality of the current economy. 
Others are saying, in fact, that growth has slowed to near zero and, in 
fact, that we may even slide into negative growth. So first off, it is 
not based in the reality of our current economy or current economic 
assumptions. So we are spending money we might not have, or forgoing 
income that would drive us back into periods of deficits and add to the 
national debt.
  Secondly, it is not fair. It is very heavily slanted toward people at 
the top. The top 1 percent, those who earn over $320,000 per year and 
up, will average $46,500 in savings under this legislation. So if one 
earns over $320,000, one gets $46,000 back, on average.
  Now, if one is in the lower 40 percent of American families for 
income, they will get an average of $110. So what does that translate 
to? Well, the family that earns over $320,000 a year can go out and buy 
a nice new Yukon Denali XL with heated leather seats; not bad, nice 
ride, and the average American family can take and invest their $110 in 
a lube, oil change and minor tune-up for their 8-year-old family 
jalopy. That is not fair. That is not fair.
  Finally, it is not affordable. It is a lot like a very honest man, 
David Stockman, told us at the beginning of the Reagan administration. 
He said he knew we could not cut taxes, dramatically increase military 
spending, and balance the budget; that, in fact, it was a Trojan horse 
to get at all those social programs and to make Congress reduce funding 
for or eliminate those social programs, because they knew they could 
not defeat them frontally.
  The American people support Social Security and Medicare and more 
funding for education and help with our kids getting a higher 
education. They know they cannot take those things on frontally, so we 
are back to the Trojan horse scenario, locked in tax cuts projected out 
over 10 years with the huge tax cuts coming toward the end of the 10 
years, projected on a rosy scenario that does not exist. Then, when we 
go into deficits or we are threatened with deficits, they say, oh, my 
God we have locked in the tax cuts and people have planned their 
estates and things around it, so we cannot change the rules now. We 
will just have to cut spending, cut Medicare, cut Social Security. We 
cannot afford those increases in education.
  Mr. Speaker, that is where this is really headed. People just need to 
know that when they support it.
  Now, it is not fair to criticize if one does not have an alternative, 
and I have an alternative which has been put together by the 
Progressive Caucus. Our alternative is fair, it is based on reality, 
and it is affordable, and it is very simple. Every American would share 
in the surplus, from the tiniest, teeniest baby to the oldest senior 
citizen in a nursing home, all would share and share alike, because all 
have played a role in building the prosperity of this Nation. The 
American people's dividend.
  This year, it would average about $300 per person, a family of four, 
$1,200, no matter what their income. So for that family of four who 
falls into that lower 40 percent who would only get $110 under the Bush 
plan, they would get $1,200. They could afford more than a lube and the 
oil change on the family jalopy and the minor tune-up. Of course it is 
a little disappointing to the family who earns over $320,000 a year. 
They would only get $1,200. One cannot buy a Yukon Denali for $1,200; 
but I think that they could probably finance

[[Page 1643]]

one, and it would be a couple of months' payments on a 6-year payment 
plan. So it is fair.
  I hear so much from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
we should go to a flat tax; that would be fair. Somehow, to extract 
money from the American people on a flat tax is fair, but they will say 
it is not fair to give it back in an equitable way.
  Mr. Speaker, my plan is fair, affordable, based in reality, not 
spending money we do not have. A better plan.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  1030