[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 69-70]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             HIGHER TAXES, MORE SPENDING: NOT A COMPROMISE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 3, 2013

  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, as Congress approached the final hours 
before going over the so-called ``fiscal cliff,'' the House was faced 
with a difficult choice. It could amend the controversial Senate plan 
and return it to them or the House could accept or reject it. Amending 
the plan was not a viable option because the Senate had refused to 
consider any changes. Thus it became a ``take it or leave it'' vote. I 
was elected to come to Washington to reduce the size of government and 
decrease spending; therefore, I voted against the flawed Senate plan.


[[Page 70]]

  In summary: although the legislation had certain positive attributes, 
the principal effect of the bill raised taxes, increased spending and 
only promised future spending cuts. It failed to address our long-term 
debt problem and looks nothing like the balanced approach promised by 
President Obama. America is now burdened with more than $16 trillion of 
debt, and Congress has failed to cut spending that it promised the 
public.
  Let's have a splash of reality: America is facing another $1.2 
trillion deficit for this year as it has for the past four years. This 
solution adopted by Congress not only does not reduce this year's 
deficit, but it adds to it. According to the official estimate by the 
Congressional Budget Office, the Senate deal includes more than $330 
billion in new deficit spending over the next decade.
  Additionally, the bill calls for $620 billion in increased tax 
revenues over ten years but incredibly includes only $15 billion in 
spending reductions. That equates to a ratio of $1 in spending cuts to 
$41 in increased tax revenue, even though the President promised $2.50 
in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue during his campaign. The 
highly touted Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended a 3:1 ratio.
  It should be self-evident that the $60 billion in new revenue 
annually is woefully insufficient to pay down the deficit. Where will 
we find the remaining $1.14 trillion to eliminate the deficit? We have 
a spending problem in Washington, not a taxing problem.
  I had been willing to support a compromise that included additional, 
but limited, tax revenue if the plan also had included significant 
spending reductions and commonsense entitlement reforms. However the 
bill lacked that balance.
  These concerns were not limited to conservatives. Senator Michael 
Bennet (D-CO) also opposed the plan on these same grounds, saying, ``We 
want a plan that materially reduces the deficit. This proposal does not 
meet that standard and does not put in place a real process to reduce 
the debt down the road.''
  In a similar statement, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke 
called the current levels of spending ``unsustainable,'' and cautioned 
that ``fiscal policy must be placed on a sustainable path that 
eventually results in a stable or declining ratio of federal debt to 
GDP.''
  This plan does nothing to put us on that sustainable path.
  Americans once again are being promised spending cuts in the future 
in exchange for immediate increases in taxes. We've seen this movie 
before--the spending cuts unfortunately never happen.
  This has played out twice with similar results:
  In 1982, Congress promised President Reagan $3 in spending cuts for 
every $1 in tax hikes but the spending cuts never happened.
  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush reluctantly agreed to $2 in 
spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases but none of those cuts 
occurred either.
  The frustration of this process takes its toll. The final bill was 
presented in the Senate in the early morning hours and hastily cobbled 
together. Senators had only minutes to review the legislation before 
voting on it. According to one Senate aide, their office was emailed a 
copy of the legislation at 1:36 a.m. and the vote began nine minutes 
later at 1:45 a.m. The Senate obviously was not given sufficient time 
to read the bill that was over 150 pages long.
  For the Senate to agree to legislation in the wee hours of the 
morning without a thorough review is not how the process should work. 
It reminds me of the quote from Nancy Pelosi during the debate over 
ObamaCare when she said, ``we have to pass the bill to find out what's 
in it.''
  With more time to review the bill, we found that not only does it 
increase taxes with almost no spending cuts, but it also includes other 
questionable provisions such as:
  $12.1 billion in tax breaks for wind energy;
  $222 million in loopholes for Puerto Rican rum producers;
  $248 million in incentives for Hollywood studios; and
  $62 million in tax breaks for American Samoa businesses.
  America can't afford this.
  As my record reflects, I have already voted to extend the Bush-era 
tax rates for all Americans and $5.5 trillion in spending cuts--both of 
which were opposed by the Senate. I will continue to fight to maintain 
the lowest tax burden for middle class families and small businesses 
and work to stop Washington's addiction to spending.
  The Senate sent us a bill that contained tax increases, no 
significant spending cuts, increased the federal debt and then refused 
to consider any changes from the House. Therefore I had no other 
recourse but to oppose the final plan.
  I am hopeful in the coming months we can move past this end-of-year 
mess and turn our attention to stopping out-of-control spending. 
Congress needs to address the real problem facing our country--
excessive government spending that will be paid for by our children and 
grandchildren.

                          ____________________