So When We Hear Our Colleagues and Friends on the Other Side of the Aisle

So when we hear our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle talk so boldly about these -- (House of Representatives - March 24, 2004)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes before yielding to others to talk about debt and Social Security because the two, believe it or not, are critically linked.

Every year when the President sends us his budget, the Congressional Budget Office does an analysis of the President's budget and applies the President's budget to its baseline for the economy and extends it over a 10-year period of time. I have a copy here in my hands of the CBO estimate of the President's budget for fiscal year 2005.

If there is nothing else my colleagues read in this rather laboriously written report, I recommend to my colleagues table 1, chapter 1, and I recommend to them the very last column because in the very last column, at the top of it, we have a CBO estimate of how much will be added to the national debt, the statutory debt, if the President's budget, which is basically the same as the Republican budget on the floor now, is implemented and carried out.

The number is $5.132 trillion. That is the estimate of the statutory debt increase that will result from the adoption of the President's budget, $5.132 trillion in additional debt.

What is the consequence of that? We can have tax cuts, but when we have tax cuts and do not have a surplus, the amount of the tax cut goes straight to the bottom line, adds to the deficit, and the deficit adds to the national debt, and sooner or later, the debt has to be paid. The principal has to be paid, and periodically, interest on the debt has to be paid. There is nothing more obligatory than the interest we owe and the principal we owe on the debt backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

So, basically, what my colleagues are electing with these tax cuts is not to pay it, but to shift the cost onto our children.
So the subject we are debating really is a moral subject: How much should we shift onto our children in the way of additional debt? They are going to have to carry Social Security, which is underfunded; Medicare, which is underfunded; and now with this vote, we are shifting off onto them $5.132 trillion in additional debt. If my colleagues do not believe it, come over here and look at this CBO report.

What is the early toll of that debt service? We had worked debt service down from $250 billion a year, interest on the national debt, to $153 billion this year, last year. Within 10 years, debt service will double. It will go up to $374 billion.
That is called a debt tax. We get a tax cut today, but in 10 years, the cost of having the tax cuts today, adding to the national debt, will be $374 billion, doubling of the debt service.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say we cut taxes to generate economic activity. In this budget, we are looking to have no tax increase for the next 5 years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 ½ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I had a point to make, but I just heard the distinguished gentleman right now complain about the size of the debt, and this is what I was saying a little while ago.

Just last week he voted, along with his colleagues, to increase the debt that he is complaining about by billions and billions and billions of dollars. Hey, which one is it? They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to bring up was that we just heard a little while ago a Member from the Democratic Party talk about, I guess my colleagues pretty much heard on the floor, he agreed that the Alternative Minimum Tax increase the Democrats gave us years ago was a mistake because they said it was a tax on the rich. Now we know that it is not, and yet they continue to do the same thing. They complain. They are saying that they only want to raise taxes on the rich.

Let me give my colleagues an idea. The facts are that they want to raise taxes on 52,000 farms. Those are not rich, 230,000 partnerships under S Corporations, which are small businesses, by the way, the job creators in this country; those are not the rich. Seven hundred thirteen thousand who pay self-employment tax and then from that they pay salaries because they have the business; they are sole proprietors of their business.

Just like they were wrong when they said the Alternative Minimum Tax was for the rich, now when they say that they only want to increase taxes on the rich. It is not true. They once again want to increase taxes on every single living American.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like to read a quote of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). He said, "I promise on this floor and again
tonight, I will to the best of my ability and knowledge not vote for one penny more spending than President Bush asked us to spend, period. But let us stop blaming spending unless my colleagues are willing to control spending, and that means all spending. We cannot just pick out that which we like because in the economy it is all spending."

My only point to my colleague is, he is against deficits but he finds ways to spend more on the farm bill. And I understand it; he is sensitive to the farmer.

I just want to make the point that I understand where my colleague is coming from. We all have programs we like, but when we had the farm bill, which we are not opening up, I had a problem as an easterner because I knew it was breaking the budget. But it was a program he liked and he had passion for it, and I understand it. That is the problem with this place. We all have the programs we like.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is a huge difference. It is true that we are in control, but the difference is that when the Republicans bring up ways to cut waste, fraud and abuse, leaders of your party say that that is
irresponsible.

I mentioned that quote a little while ago. The difference is that when we see waste, fraud and abuse, we try eliminate it, we try to cut it. That is what this budget does.

The difference is that when you see waste, fraud and abuse, you want to stack on top, you want to pile on, and you want to increase taxes on every single hardworking American. That is the difference.