Like this two-sided coin, the Clinton budget bill has two sides. One side is a tax increase-the largest tax increase in the world, and most Americans know that. But the other side of this coin-of the Clinton budget plan is something else, and it's not spending cuts; it's spending increases: $165 billion in new domestic spending, adding $1.2 trillion to the deficit, growing Government by 20 percent over the next 4 years, all charged to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, with most coins it is: Heads, you win; tails, you lose; but with the Clinton budget bill it is: Tax increases, the American people lose; spending increases, the American people lose. There is something new about this coin, but there is absolutely nothing new about the Clinton proposal. It is tax and spend: Heads, you lose; tails, you lose.
After careful analysis, I decided that I could not support this package. It goes too far in raising taxes and not far enough in cutting spending….I fear that this package, if enacted as passed by the House, will come back to haunt all of us because of its emphasis on taxes over spending cuts. We must not abandon the more fiscally responsible, new Democrat approach on which we were elected.
The Clinton tax hikes on income would have a devastating impact on long-term economic growth. In particular, the increase in the tax burden would reduce savings and investment, thus hampering the economy’s capacity to generate new jobs and higher wages. Specifically, higher tax rates on income would punish productive economic activity, reduce tax revenues, lead to increased federal spending and higher budget deficits, reduce job creation and penalize small business.
These new taxes will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit. Economists across the ideological spectrum are convinced that the Clinton tax increases will lead to widespread job loss.
Mr. Chairman, the President's budget plan which is incorporated into this budget resolution imposes higher taxes and more deficit spending. We have been told that that kind of a budget package will have an impact on the economy. Certainly I agree. However, it will be the kind of impact that this country can't absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive Federal deficit, and increase Government spending.
But, I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy because of the repressive impact of these taxes and, of course, the possible inflationary impact of the taxes, along with the labor-cost-increasing mandates that are already a part of the president's agenda.
As a result, even though the Clinton proposal contains a very steep increase in the nation's tax burden, the actual amount of money the government collects may fall if enough workers lose their jobs and the taxable incomes of individuals and businesses decline.
It should have been obvious from experience—but wasn’t—that additional hard work, genius, creativity and risk-taking were all discouraged by high marginal tax rates.
Why should any of us strive to make that extra dollar of income when the government is going to lay claim to an increasing share of it?
[In 1981] we, as a nation, finally recognized that it is patently unfair to take more and more from a worker simply because he or she works harder, or longer, or takes more risk, or displays more innovation.
