[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3808-3810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer some remarks on President

[[Page 3809]]

Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, some of which was released 
yesterday. As we all know, the release of the President's budget is an 
annual event here in Washington. It sets in motion a chain of processes 
and events that drive much of what we do right here in Congress.
  Unfortunately, with President Obama's budgets in particular, this 
annual chain of events, for the most part, becomes an empty, almost 
meaningless exercise. The first problem with this year's budget is that 
we received it just yesterday, a full month past the statutory 
deadline.
  What budget information we did receive yesterday is certainly 
incomplete. For example, when you look at the appendix of the budget, 
there is often reference to a section called ``analytical 
perspectives.'' But those perspectives are nowhere to be found. I 
assume the rest of the budget information is forthcoming. Still, we can 
only wonder why it is being released a few pieces at a time.
  Of course, the problems with this budget go well beyond the delays 
and the sporadic release of information. Put simply, no one in their 
right mind would say the substance of this budget was worth the wait. 
Despite the fact that they took an extra month to put this budget 
together, the most striking thing about it is how little there is in 
the way of new ideas and proposals.
  Indeed, when you look for the substance of the budget, you will see 
the administration appears to be short on new ideas. President Obama's 
new budget consists largely of proposals from his past budgets, which 
is surprising, given that none of them have received a single 
affirmative vote in Congress. Let me repeat that. None of his past 
budgets have received a single affirmative vote in Congress.
  These proposals center on three familiar themes, all of which we have 
seen in past budgets, and in virtually every policy proposal from this 
President. First, we see the administration's continued insistence that 
we can tax and spend our way into prosperity, and that growing the 
Federal Government is the same as growing our economy.
  Second, there is the effort to further redistribute income and the 
notion that this will, on its own, somehow lead to economic growth and 
job creation.
  Finally, we see another attempt to define ``tax reform'' as a process 
of closing whatever the administration deems to be a ``loophole'' in 
the Tax Code, and using the resulting revenue not to reduce the deficit 
or lower tax rates but to fuel even more Federal spending.
  Using overly optimistic economic assumptions, the administration 
claims this budget will reduce our high debt-to-GDP ratio. However, to 
get there, and to help fulfill its tax-and-spend objectives, the budget 
envisions well over $1 trillion of additional taxes in the face of a 
persistently sluggish economy.
  That bears repeating. President Obama's latest budget contains more 
than $1 trillion in proposed tax hikes.
  No one should mistake the President's intentions. Indeed, this budget 
is the outline of his domestic policy priorities for the future. Once 
again, chief among those priorities is another massive tax increase 
which, if the President had his way, would come on top of all of the 
tax increases we have seen already under this administration. This is 
hardly what our struggling economy needs.
  Let's talk about the economy for a moment. Someone certainly should, 
so I will. If this economy is any indication, President Obama certainly 
is not interested in that conversation. Currently we have an economy in 
which labor force participation has fallen from around 66 percent, 
prior to the financial crisis, to 63 percent with no recovery in sight. 
This is the lowest labor force participation rate we have seen since 
the Carter administration, and it is holding back our country's 
economic growth.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has noted that a decline 
in the growth of the labor force is a principal reason that potential 
growth in the economy will decline in the coming decade. No one 
seriously disputes that there is a problem except, of course, when such 
declines can be attributed to ObamaCare.
  We all remember last month when the CBO found that, as a result of 
the generous subsidies and the not-so-generous taxes in ObamaCare, 
millions of workers would either reduce their hours or leave the 
workforce entirely.
  Virtually every objective observer saw this as a bad thing. Yet in 
response to these numbers, the administration and its supporters took 
to the airwaves to applaud the fact that ObamaCare would ``free'' 
people from their jobs and allow them to, in the words of the White 
House Press Secretary, ``pursue their dreams,'' courtesy of their 
fellow taxpayers.
  While the economists in the administration and liberal pundits might 
applaud the reduced labor supply resulting from ObamaCare, it is, to 
say the least, difficult for me to find merit in the resulting 
reduction in economic growth. Of course, there is nothing in the 
President's budget that would address this issue. If anything, the 
policies contained in this new round of proposals would make all of 
this worse.
  Returning to the latest call for well over $1 trillion of new 
revenue, the administration claims--as it has for years now--that these 
tax hikes are needed to restore fiscal responsibility and reduce the 
deficit as part of a ``balanced approach.''
  However, we need to look at the facts. If we look at the deficit 
reduction that has taken place over the past 5 years, we will see just 
how unbalanced this approach is.
  In fiscal year 2009, we achieved a high deficit watermark of $1.4 
trillion. That number fell to a still high $680 billion in fiscal year 
2013. Of the $736 billion of deficit reduction over that 5-year span, 
$670 billion came from increased revenue or taxes and only $66 billion 
came from reduced outlays.
  In terms of budget realizations, rather than promises for the future, 
less than 9 percent of the deficit reduction between 2009 and 2013 came 
from reductions in spending. The vast majority came from increased 
revenue.
  Yet the mantra from the administration continues--more revenues and 
higher taxes, along with ever more spending. One can only wonder where 
job creation falls into the mix, if it does at all.
  Since President Obama came into office, we have heard a lot of talk 
about his laser-like focus on job creation. However, the record of this 
administration suggests that his focus is more on growing government 
than on growing our economy.
  We have seen the failed stimulus, ObamaCare, and initiatives such as 
Dodd-Frank, all of which have expanded the size and scope of the 
Federal Government without laying any foundation for economic growth.
  Sadly, the budget offered this week does not present a vision for 
such growth in the future. This budget is, instead, a political 
document. Its purpose is to galvanize support from the President's 
left-leaning base in an election year. Nothing more; nothing less.
  This is disappointing, to say the least, particularly when we look at 
the challenges our Nation is currently undergoing and facing. One such 
challenge is our Nation's broken Tax Code. While this budget comes 
close to acknowledging that the Tax Code is a problem, it misses an 
opportunity to actually do something about it. Tax reform, if it is 
done correctly, would promote growth and competitiveness in jobs, the 
economy, and provide greater economic efficiency, simplicity, and 
fairness.
  However--as I said earlier--in the administration's review, tax 
reform is guided primarily by a desire to obtain more tax revenue to 
fund yet more expansion of the Federal Government, along with an 
insistence on unilaterally picking winners and losers. The ``tax 
reform'' outlined in the President's budget uses a corporate-only 
approach.
  In other words, it would amend the business tax system and leave the 
individual Tax Code largely as it is. That approach is different from 
the ideas outlined by the two chairmen of the tax-writing committees, 
both of whom

[[Page 3810]]

have proposed detailed comprehensive tax reform plans.
  While I haven't endorsed either Chairman Camp's or Chairman Wyden's 
plan, they both recognize that the noncorporate business sector, which 
makes up over half of all U.S. businesses, is also in need of tax 
reform.
  This sets them apart from President Obama and the proposals in his 
latest budget. Of course, let's not forget hardworking individual 
Americans, far too many of whom need assistance in filling out their 
tax returns. These people would be left behind under the President's 
proposal.
  The President's proposal looks to raise tax revenue largely to 
increase more spending in what it calls ``investments'' in 
infrastructure. That sounds wonderful.
  However, what is taken to be infrastructure in the minds of the 
Federal bureaucrats--who the President would empower to spend hard-
earned taxpayer money--is sure to be guided more by politics than by 
economic efficiency. The so-called infrastructure bank or 
infrastructure finance authority--or whatever is the label of the day--
that the President has continually called for would surely become the 
next Fannie and Freddie, putting innocent taxpayers on the hook for any 
losses resulting from the large Federal contractors rolling the dice on 
building projects.
  As I said, our Nation and our economy face a number of challenges. 
Ongoing sluggishness threatens to become a permanent fixture on our 
long-term economic path. Indeed, as I referred to earlier, the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has already ratcheted down its 
estimate of the long-run growth path of the economy--partly because of 
the negative effects of the ever-evolving health care law that 
Democrats unilaterally enacted and that the President seems intent on 
unilaterally implementing.
  I don't think that any Member of this body would argue that the 
status quo in our economy is acceptable. We have a lot of work to do 
when it comes to creating jobs, economic growth, prosperity, and 
opportunity in this country.
  Unfortunately, the President's recent budget does not, in my view, 
add to the intelligent discussion. Rather, it returns to already-
rejected ideas and appears to be aimed at the politics more than the 
need for proven private-sector jobs.
  At this critical time in our Nation's history, the American people 
are demanding leadership. Sadly, they aren't getting it with President 
Obama's latest budget, and I think that is a catastrophe.
  We need to change it in Congress. Of course, the Senate seems to be 
slow in wanting to make any changes for the better. In fact, we hardly 
ever really debate legislation anymore--and, by the way, we will 
probably be voting on eight different votes this evening on various 
judges, all of whom would have been passed by unanimous consent in 
December had it not been for the majority breaking the rules to change 
the rules.
  It is pathetic, really. It is pathetic what this body hasn't done, 
and it is time for us to bring it into account.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________