[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24258-24259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      FISCAL NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week the Federal Government 
ushered in a new fiscal year. And as is typical with the start of the 
new year, we look back at the last year and examine our problems and 
resolve to conduct ourselves in a more prudent manner. Unfortunately, 
last year was witness to a long list of physical indulgences, that have 
wreaked havoc on our economy to the tune of a $400 billion deficit.
  The administration will tell you that this deficit is temporary. We 
all know that these tax cuts raise the deficit, but they will tell you 
that the tax cuts will actually stimulate the economy enough to grow 
out of our deficit problems. Unfortunately, the numbers just do not add 
up.
  From 2001 to 2006 the average American will receive about $3,593 in 
tax cuts. That seems like a pretty good chunk of change until we 
realize that these tax cuts increased our individual share of the 
national debt by $13,000 in the same period. Any of my wife's former 
algebra students could tell you that it is not a good deal to get 
$3,600 and in return and have to pay $13,000. To put it another way, 
for each dollar

[[Page 24259]]

we receive in tax cuts, our government is forced to borrow $3.60 to 
finance them and pay for other government operations.
  That is right. Other government operations, including the war on 
terrorism, including everything else we have, an economy that is not 
growing. We hear we are in recovery, but it is a jobless recovery. If 
you are unemployed, it is not a recovery.
  Nearly one quarter of our deficit is going to finance tax cuts, and I 
ask my colleagues, for what? Now, I know that not all deficits can be 
considered indulgent. Running a deficit can actually help the economy 
when it pays for job growth during an economic slump or even in times 
of expansion, deficits may be needed to fund education or research that 
will contribute to future economic growth. But these tax cuts, Mr. 
Speaker, were excessive, and they are contributing only to the 
ballooning deficit that is weighing our country down.
  It just does not make economic sense to try to stimulate the economy 
through tax cuts geared toward the wealthy who are just going to save 
that extra money. The money simply does not get into our economy. And 
to make matters worse, instead of stimulating our economy, these tax 
cuts are increasing the deficit that is going to start worrying 
investors.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that it is bad news when 
investors begin to worry. Interest rates go up, consumer spending 
slows, and then we are in worse shape than we found ourselves before. 
All the tax cuts have done is fatten the pockets of those who need it 
the least.
  Let us take the dividend tax cut as an example. This tax cut was 
designed to encourage companies to increase investor dividends. 
Theoretically, investors would either spend the dividends or reinvest 
them, either option will stimulate the economy. So after the dividend 
tax cut was passed, City Group raised its dividend 75 percent to $1.40. 
That is $140 a year for average investor holding 100 shares of City 
Group stock.
  But for Sandy Weill, the CEO of City Group, that is a whopping $27 
million that he will bring in annually; $27 million, $16 million more 
than he received last year without the dividend tax cut. Of course, if 
you take the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, the numbers start 
soaring.
  Microsoft recently began offering a dividend of 8 cents per share. If 
you own 100 shares of Microsoft, you get an extra $8 this year. With 
that you can buy yourself a pretty good cheeseburger and fries in 
Houston, but what does Bill Gates get? He gets $82 million.
  Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities. We have pressing physical 
needs in our country. We cannot afford to provide adequate prescription 
drugs for our seniors. We cannot afford to rebuild our damaged bridges 
and highways. According to the Defense Department, we can afford to 
bring our troops home for a well-deserved rest and recuperation, but we 
cannot afford to fly them from their point of arrival in the U.S. to 
their hometowns.
  Over the past 3 years, we have had more than 3 million people out of 
work desperately looking for jobs. Yet, the central tenets of this 
administration's job creation program is to make tax cuts permanent, 
reduce government regulation, and allow companies to contribute less to 
their pension plans.
  Moreover, this administration wants to continue the free trade 
policies that have, without a doubt, caused undue harm on American 
workers. To me this plan seems more likely to produce job insecurity 
than job security.
  Mr. Speaker, in 3 straight years, we have had three consecutive tax 
cuts. These tax cuts have led to the dramatic decrease in jobs and an 
inconceivable increase in the debt. If tax cuts help an economy, why 
are we not doing so in Iraq in considering $87 billion on top of the 
$79 billion from last spring.
  I thought a stimulus was supposed to work the other way around. Is it 
not supposed to increase jobs and decrease the debt? Yet, every 
American knows that when your Visa bill gets too high, you are starting 
to indulge in too many things you cannot afford. To the average 
American family, getting a hold on our finances means making priorities 
and tough decisions. Yet, no family forced to cut back on spending 
would neglect to feed their children in order to pay for a Las Vegas 
vacation.
  Similarly, we should not be cutting crucial government services to 
pay for an inflated tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, as we enter this new fiscal year, I hope my colleagues 
will learn from the fiscal follies of the past. And I hope we can 
collectively make a New Year's resolution to put the Federal 
Government's priorities in order, tighten our belts, and get our fiscal 
houses in order for the sake of our country, but more importantly, for 
the American people.

                          ____________________