[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12322-12323]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE VS. INVEST, BUILD, AND GROW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Cut, cap, and balance--that's the Republican 
economic vision. Democrats should have a different economic vision for 
America--invest, build, and grow.
  Invest: Conservatives say the Federal budget should be like families 
and businesses, and I agree. But families and businesses don't balance 
their budgets as Republicans pretend. Families and businesses go into 
debt by investing rationally in their future. Families go into debt by 
purchasing homes and cars and sending their children to college. 
Businesses go into debt to grow their companies. We should invest in 
things that will put Americans to work in a full employment economy and 
make America's future bright with balanced economic growth.
  Build: We need to put America back to work by building America. The 
New Deal did not pull us out of the Great Depression; World War II did. 
The government--not the private sector--the government's conduct of the 
war and the government's role in steering the economy won World War II 
and pulled us out of the Great Depression. Government did that. 
Government stimulated the public and the private economy. If we 
rationally invest a similar amount of money in our domestic economy as 
we did to win World War II, we can pull America out of this Great 
Recession just like we pulled America out of the Great Depression.
  Grow: We need to grow the economy in a balanced fashion. Two large 
tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 to the wealthy and big corporations--the so-
called ``job creators''--didn't create jobs in the private sector. 
Indeed, only 1 million net new jobs were created between 2001 and 2009, 
all government jobs. The private sector reported minus 600,000 jobs. So 
much for giving tax breaks to the ``private job generators.''
  Some argue against all debt, but all debts aren't bad because all 
debts are not the same. A $50,000 gambling debt is bad because it has 
no return. The last decade showed that gambling on tax cuts for the 
rich to create jobs was bad. Gambling on two wars and not paying for 
them was bad. Gambling on a new prescription drug law that was unpaid 
for was horrible. And gambling on unregulated financial institutions 
that failed was bad. They resulted in a housing market collapse, slow 
economic growth, high unemployment, and huge deficits and debts--all 
bad.
  So I think we've gambled enough on the theory that budget cuts and 
tax cuts generate private sector jobs and more taxes. The Laffer Curve 
is truly a laugher.
  One more point, however, Mr. Speaker, where Republicans are right. We 
do have a spending problem. We spent too

[[Page 12323]]

little in the economic stimulus package of 2009 and we spent it on the 
wrong things, one-third of which were tax cuts for the rich that 
conservative Republicans insisted be included, even though they still 
voted against it. Rather than spending to create jobs by directly 
investing in things we need--new schools, new hospitals, new water and 
sewer systems, public transportation, high speed rail, bridges, ports, 
airports, and more--Congress passed an economic stimulus package that 
kept us from falling into a Great Depression. But it was not enough to 
generate the growth necessary to create the number of jobs that we 
need. But too many in Congress drew the wrong conclusion.
  It reminds me of a man whose house caught on fire, and when he tried 
to put it out with a garden hose, he concluded that water does not put 
out fires. Water does put out fires, Mr. Speaker, but you have to have 
enough of it to fit the size of the fire. You have to put it in the 
right place.
  So, there you have it, Mr. Speaker, two choices for America: Cut, 
cap, and balance or invest, build, and grow. That's the choice before 
the American people. Both visions offer constitutional amendments.
  Cut, cap, and balance offers a balanced budget amendment that 
guarantees slow growth and few jobs. But a different vision of invest, 
grow, and build can be enhanced with a different set of constitutional 
amendments--education, health care, and the environment, just to name 
three.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, over 51 percent of 
all jobs in America are tied to the First Amendment--television 
networks, radio stations, the recording industry, wire services, 
Facebook, Google, iPad, movie studios, the Internet, newspapers, 
magazines, and more. In fact, most corporate activity in America is 
defined as First Amendment activity.
  How many jobs would be created if we added an amendment to the 
Constitution that gave every American student the right to a public 
education of equal high quality? How many new elementary schools would 
have to be built? How many old schools would have to be rehabilitated 
and made modern?

                              {time}  1010

  How many teachers and counselors would have to be hired? How much 
wire installed for the Internet? How many computers built and 
purchased? How many desks built and bought? That's what H.J. Res. 29, 
an education amendment, would demand.
  How many jobs would be created if we added an amendment that 
guaranteed every American the right to health care of equal high 
quality? how many new hospitals built? how many doctors, nurses, 
dentists, administrators, and technicians trained?
  Mr. Speaker, a different vision of America is possible. I am not 
giving up on our country, and neither should we.

                          ____________________