THE TAX CUT Delivered During Special Orders on the House Floor

Mr. Chairman,

I rise today to express my concern and opposition to the huge, unfair and illogical tax cut which the majority just propelled through the House today. I listened to the debate this morning and I had to wonder how long would it take before we, as a body, realize that this tax cut is nothing more than the 2001 tax cut in 2003 clothes.

In May of 2001, we made a passionate plea to the administration to temper and equally disperse it's proposed ten year tax cut which did not protect the Social Security Trust Fund; did not include much needed funds for domestic priorities and was almost totally based on projected revenues-- barring any catastrophic event . A modest tax surplus meant that Americans had earned some tax relief. My Democratic colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee' lead by the Gentleman from New York, proposed a fair and responsible tax cut, job creation and economic stimulus plan. Most importantly, we tried to convince the Administration that should some major national emergency require us to draw on emergency funds, there would be none. The media called us pessimists and naysayers and on September 12, 2001 we found ourselves poised to expend the greatest amount of personnel, monetary and political resources in history. The debt ceiling has become a ballistic missile' and unguided at that!!! And most importantly, we are now faced with the largest deficit in history. This does not sound like fiscal responsibility to me.

What this $550 billion fiscal monster does affect is another round of tax cuts tilted to the affluent and deficits that will become a future tax on the rest of us and our children. The Social Security trust fund surpluses will be mis-used in every year, for at least eleven years, to mask even larger deficits. Estimates are that by 2012 , the resulting debt load will be about $50,000 per American household. This is a travesty and we should not be a part of it. I agree with providing tax relief; I agree with allowing marriage to not be a discriminating tax category; I believe that people should be given incentives to save more for their retirement especially when people are living longer and Republican policies will see to it that they live without Social Security.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with leveraging Social Security, Earned Income and Child Tax Credits, Food Stamps, Family Support, Student Loans, Public Housing Drug Elimination Programs, Section 8 housing opportunities, and the virtual zeroing out of all unemployment compensation' in order to make the rich richer and real people the holders of a budget busting loose cannon tax cut promissory note.

This tax cut is aimed at the coffers of the rich. We all know that tax cuts for the rich and affluent will not help the economy. The people who will spend the money are those who need it the most! Let's keep in mind that 2.6 million private sector jobs have been lost since the end of 2000! It is 2003 and we are still paying for unintended consequences, ill-conceived tax cuts and growing domestic obligations. This is not the time for 'country store' give-aways !! And if we give anything away' we should at least give everyone something to spend and not just those who have it already. We should seek to do something that is fair, responsible and immediate.

Economists nation-wide are in agreement that this type of tax cut will do little or nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy. More than 400 professional economists, including ten Nobel Laureates agree that :' Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term'.

Mr Chairman' I submit to you that such comments are not politically driven. They do not reflect some partisan attempt to dismantle sound and effective fiscal policy. The in-coming Director of the Congressional Budget Office, a Republican appointee, has testified to the skepticism of these tax cuts either stimulating the economy or paying for themselves

Mr. Chairman we sought then' as we do now' to provide tax relief that is fair, responsible and immediate. Throughout the day's debate, extension of remarks, special orders and other comments, my colleagues have eloquently highlighted the Democratic alternative: FAIR, RESPONSIBLE, and IMMEDIATE have been our cry. I won't repeat the details-- Mr. Chairman you know what they are. We were unable to even bring a Democratic alternative up for debate and that, Mr. Chairman, is the real tragedy of this debacle.