Proposing A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding.

The previous speaker said that we really shouldn't have to do this, and the answer is that we don't have to do this. Bill Clinton proved on four occasions that you can balance the budget. It has only been done five times since the end of World War II. So what we really should be calling this legislation that is in front of us today is the ``Jesse James Seeks Clemency Act.''

We are here because of their tax cuts: Invade Iraq, let's have a tax cut. Invade Afghanistan, let's have a tax cut. The tax cut is the answer to everything.

The last round, let's borrow $2.3 trillion over 10 years before the Federal Reserve Board, by the way, has a chance to raise interest rates three times this year, as they predicted, for the purpose of providing a tax cut.

Oh, by the way, how about that old song, ``Don't Worry Because Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves''? This is what we have heard here, and this is what has put us in this predicament that we are in: $20 trillion worth of debt.

Now, here is the caveat that they always attach to these arguments, by the way: If there is a Democratic President, you need to balance the budget. If there is a Republican President, you don't need to balance the budget.

Their spending priorities are keen. It is borrowed money to provide tax cuts for people at the very top, further concentrating wealth.

Let me give you some numbers here that I have paid a lot of attention to over the years.

On January 19, 2001, when Bill Clinton said good-bye, we were staring at a $5.6 trillion surplus, four balanced budgets, and record economic growth, the greatest economic growth spurt in the history of America, and a surplus of, again, $5.6 trillion.

So what happened? We cut taxes over the objections of many of us in 2001 by $1.3 trillion. Then we had a recession where we were losing 800,000 jobs a month.

Oh, by the way, in 2003, we came back and cut taxes again here by $1 trillion, plus the bonus. Then they decided to do a repatriation tax holiday, and now they are here like this.

My father used to have a great line. He used to say: At least Jesse James had enough respect to wear a mask.

This is unbelievable that they would come in with a balanced budget amendment after what they have done repeatedly all of these years to wreck the budgets all under the guise of, if we simply cut taxes, everything will get better.

The reason that this deficit is ballooning is not because of an increase in spending. Revenue as a percent of gross domestic product remains roughly at 17 percent to 18 percent. That is the postwar norm-- except for the end of the Bush W. years when revenue as a percent of gross domestic product went to 15 cents on the dollar because of the tax cuts and, by the way, increased spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.

So let me remind our Republican friends of this: the priorities have been wrong. We could have reached an accord on these issues. But today, to do this, to bring forth a balanced budget amendment, we are going to disturb the Constitution of the United States to maybe get them through the next round of congressional elections, because that is all this is about.

So the tax cuts are going to reduce revenue.

Here is the footnote that you might want to pay some attention to: 83 percent of this tax cut that they voted for--without one Democrat, incidentally, in the House supporting it--83 percent of the benefit is going to the top 1 percent of the wage earners in America.

Then they found time, by the way, to double the exemption on the estate tax. So we are taking the estate tax from $11 million to $22 million.

Remember this about the estate tax: The estate tax is not a tax on Conrad Hilton. The estate tax is a tax on Paris Hilton. My God, who could be against that?

When you think about how this has been pursued, it is all about concentrating more wealth at the very top for people who have said, ``We don't need it.'' There wasn't anybody beating down our doors in the top percentile of wage earners in America saying, ``Cut my taxes.''

We could have reached an accord on the corporate rate. We could have done some things in a bipartisan manner to address some of these issues in making America competitive internationally. But, instead, they chose to do what they always do: Let's starve the Federal budget, and then say after we starve the Federal budget, ``Oh, by the way, we have got to cut Social Security.'' Let's starve the Federal budget of revenue and say, ``Oh, by the way, we have to cut Medicare''; and, oh, by the way, let's starve the Federal budget and say, ``We have got to get rid of Medicaid for people who need it.'' This is why we find ourselves with a $20 trillion debt.

I will take the Clinton years and the Obama years compared to what they gave us in terms of Federal revenue forecasts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEAL. CBO accountants came back the other day and said: Let us tell you right now what is wrong. They gave us hardcore numbers about economic growth, and they gave us hardcore numbers about debt and deficits.

Do you know what the answer was? Let's not believe what they have to say. Let's not pay any attention to what they have to say because it doesn't square with the philosophy of tax cuts paying for themselves.

So the last point is, if you voted for the tax cuts and you voted for the omnibus spending bill on the Republican side--because I know no Democrat voted for the tax cut--today, when you come in, you ought to wear a mask when you cast your vote because Jesse James would be honored.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source