Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007

Floor Speech

TAX INCREASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - December 19, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman.

What an ironic argument my friend from Wisconsin makes. We said we were going to have a PAYGO rule. We have voted consistently for PAYGO.

We have paid for that which we have bought with 80 percent cuts and 20 percent increases in revenues.

What an ironic argument he makes that somehow now we are not following that because nobody on this floor believes that 19 or 23 million, take your pick, Americans are going to get a tax cut on which President Bush has relied in every budget he has sent to us except the year of that particular budget. But the revenues have always been relied upon in his budget numbers. You didn't change it. You were in charge for 6 years.

Ironic, because the only reason we have to do this tonight in this fashion and not ask the wealthiest in America, I don't mean people making $10 million, I don't mean people making $100 million a year, but people making $500 million a year, don't have to pay their fair share. That is what this is about. That is what we have been forced to on this day on this floor and in the other body. Because what is happening is what traditionally happens, the wealthiest and most powerful in America are protected on this floor from paying their fair share.

This is not about class warfare. This is about once again saying to the middle class, We are not here to protect you. We are here to protect the wealthiest in America from paying their fair share, which is what PAYGO is all about.

My young friend says that the economy is in trouble. The Democrats have not been able to pass one thing in the last 7 years to impact this economy. Not one. It is all on your watch, I say to my friends; all your watch.

And you told us in 2001 and 2003 if we passed your economic program and continue to follow that the economy would grow and expand, and now you say it is contracting and in trouble. I agree, it is. Why? Because your economic program is a failed program that took us from $5.6 trillion of surplus, four budget surplus years in a row, and has taken us deeply into debt and deficit. And yes, facing recession in the eye because your economic program is a failed policy.

And I am angry about it. Why am I angry about it? Because I have a great granddaughter who is 13 months old. I have a granddaughter who is 5 years of age, just starting kindergarten. And I have another granddaughter who is 21. She has a daughter, and I am worried about continuing to pursue this path of debt piled on debt, piled on debt, piled on debt.

The only reason this bill is not paid for is because Republicans, in lockstep almost, in both bodies, have precluded us from paying for this, which everybody wants to do, and that is to relieve the tax burden on those who are confronted with a tax that everybody agrees was not meant for them. It was meant for the wealthy.

So who is being protected by this? The wealthy, whom this tax was intended to hit.

So when you get up here and tell me nobody intended the tax to hit, that is correct. But the people you are protecting are the people it was specifically intended to impact, to pay their fair share, not to run offshore and avoid taxes, not to have their taxes computed at 15 percent while all of us pay 35 percent. That's what this is about.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, what we do tonight I will not support if we do it. I have a lot of people who live in my district who will be confronted with the alternative minimum tax. I don't want them confronted by the alternative minimum tax. But if we are going to continue to buy, if we are going to do what we will do later tonight, part of the $196.4 billion that you're spending of the legacy of those children that I just mentioned of mine, which you are not going to pay for, and you said this enterprise will cost $60 billion.

This administration has been a failed administration economically and a failed administration fiscally. But you continue to pursue these policies, and we are forced today to recognize that we don't have the votes to pursue the pay-as-you-go principle that we adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1990, we reaffirmed with many of you voting for it in 2007, and which you abandoned in 2001. And deep deficits and now economic recession facing us is the result.

I don't urge my colleagues to vote for this bill as I usually do when we bring something to the floor. This is on suspension not because we believe, in my opinion, many of us, that this is good policy, but because we are faced with two stark alternatives: A President who will veto paying for things that we buy, a President who will veto this bill if it is paid for, responsible fiscal policy; and a Senate that will not vote with us and, frankly, House Republicans who won't vote for this. But we can pass it here, as we did twice. Twice we have passed this fix, and we have paid for it.

This is a sad day for America. It is a sad day for my three grandchildren and my great granddaughter, 13 months of age, on whom we will pile an additional $80 billion of debt with this vote tonight if it passes. So $50-some-odd billion and then the interest to follow, she will have to pay that.

We ought to pay our bills. We talk about personal responsibility. We ought to have the personal responsibility in this generation to pay for what we buy. I regret this day and this bill.

* [Begin Insert]

Madam Speaker, I believe that every single Member of this body--on both sides of the aisle--agrees that we must protect middle-income Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to ensure that wealthy Americans pay their fair share.

The question that divides us is this:

Will we enact a fiscally responsible 1-year patch to the AMT that prevents 23 million Americans from paying more in Federal income taxes under the AMT than they otherwise would pay under our standard tax system?

Or, will we take the easy route, the politically expedient route, the fiscally irresponsible route, and enact an unpaid-for, 1-year patch that tacks another $50 billion--yes, $50 billion--onto the deficit and debt, and immorally forces our children and grandchildren to pay our bills?

For months, Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill have fought to do the right thing--to enact a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is paid for by, among other things, closing a tax loophole that permits many of the wealthiest people in our Nation from denominating their income as ``capital gains,'' and thereby allowing them to pay the 15-percent capital gains tax rate rather than the higher marginal income tax rate.

Time after time after time, House and Senate Republicans rejected our ``pay-fors,'' and demanded that we take the fiscally irresponsible route--and enact an AMT patch that adds $50 billion to the national debt.

Madam Speaker, there is no small irony in the fact that the President and his Republican allies in Congress have fought all year long to prevent Democrats from adding $23 billion in funding for domestic priorities while they have no compunction about voting to add $50 billion to the deficit and debt.

No small irony. Only gross irresponsibility.

Let no one be mistaken: The Republican position on the AMT is part and parcel of an almost theological belief in supply-side economics that is demonstrably false.

The Minority Leader, Mr. Boehner, recently stated: ``Tax relief pays for itself.''

And, the President himself has stated: ``You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase.''

The facts, however, show otherwise:

In the last 7 years, the Republican party's economic policies have erased a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, instigated record budget deficits, and added more than $3.4 trillion to the national debt.

As my good friend, Congressman TANNER of Tennessee, recently pointed out: Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has increased by $1.37 billion per day; $57 million per hour; and $948,907 per minute.

This, of course, is the record of a President and Republicans in Congress who pretend that they are ``fiscally responsible.''

And today, they don't bat an eye at adding another $50 billion to the debt.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is on a perilous course.

Just listen to our non-partisan Comptroller General, David Walker, who stated last year: ``Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.''

Democrats recognize the danger of continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path--and in one of our first acts back in the majority, we reinstated the Pay-As-You-Go budget rules that Republicans formerly supported and which are credited with restoring fiscal discipline in the 1990s.

Today, we will protect 23 million middle-income Americans from bearing the brunt of the dreaded AMT--a tax they should not pay, a tax that must be permanently reformed.

And we should also be passing a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is revenue-neutral--a position supported by the President in his budgets.

However, it is regrettable and, yes, shameful that we will not be doing so because the President and his allies in Congress have insisted on political expedience and fiscal irresponsibility.

Source