Images de page
PDF
ePub

time expansion in history, that has made the so-called Republican tax cuts possible. Let me review some economic statistics under the Clinton administration. The U.S. economy has created 18 million new jobs in the last 6 years, over 90 percent in the private sector, which has generated billions of dollars in additional tax revenues. Today's unemployment rate of 4.2 percent is down from 7.5 percent in 1992 and has been below 5 percent for 21 consecutive months, the lowest sustained peacetime unemployment rate in 41 years.

Since 1993, real wages have risen 6.1 percent compared to a decline of 4.3 percent during the previous two administrations. Real hour wages are up 2.5 percent in the past year alone after falling 5 percent from 1981 through 1992. The median family income, adjusted for inflation, is up $3,517 since 1993 after falling $1,835 between 1988 and 1992.

And sometimes what we don't hear is as important as what we do hear. I don't think any of my Republican colleagues will complain today about what is called the Misery Index. The Misery Index, many of you may recall, was the quotient used by Ronald Reagan in 1980 that asked the question, "Are you better off today than 4 years ago?” The resounding answer today from coast to coast is yes. Since the Clinton-Gore administration came to office in 1993, we are better off. In New York, in California, in New Jersey, in Virginia, in Indiana, and nearly every other State, we are better off today than we were 6 years ago. It would appear that this strong economic growth, more than any other factor, has made these State tax cuts possible. More people working and making higher wages translates into higher tax revenues and lower expenditures

on welfare and unemployment. Given these strong economic statistics, it is no wonder that the States now have money to pay for tax cuts.

One illustration is what has taken place in New Jersey. In her written testimony submitted to the committee, Governor Whitman says that she was able to cut New Jersey's personal income tax by 30 percent while retaining the same level of tax revenue, but what makes this possible is more people working and paying taxes on higher incomes all of which has taken place under a Democratic administration.

Yet another myth is that it is just_Republican Governors who have cut taxes. This is also not true. Democratic Governors, none of whom, as far as I can tell, were invited today, as well as Republican Governors, have been able to take advantage of the strong economy of the last 6 years to cut taxes. For example, Indiana Governor O'Bannon cut taxes by $600 million in his first year in office. He has proposed another $1 billion in tax cuts in 1999. Governor Carper of Delaware has cut taxes for 5 consecutive years. Governor Locke of Washington and Governor Patton of Kentucky have signed tax cuts in recent years. In Missouri, Governor Carnahan has an increase in personal income tax exemptions as well as a reduction for health insurance costs for self-employed individuals. In fact, this year alone, 10 of the country's 19 Democratic Governors have proposed tax cuts for their States. But we are not going to hear from any of these Democratic Governors. We are also not going to hear testimony from anyone about the negative consequences of some of the Republican tax cuts. There is no mention that some States with Republican Governors would be forced to cut funds for education programs and health care to pay for tax cuts. There is also no mention of increases of State debt or increases in local taxes that are necessary to make up for cuts in State funding for services.

So, I can't help but be a little skeptical about the motives behind this hearing. First, we have a hearing to showcase Republican Governors' tax cuts; then, tomorrow, the day taxes are due, Mr. McIntosh is holding a subcommittee hearing entitled—this is the title for the hearing—“Clinton-Gore Versus the American Taxpayer.” It would appear that these hearings are little more than a taxpayer-funded commercial for the Republican party. I find it ironic that the majority which says it is holding this hearing to find out how to save taxpayers' money would actually waste the taxpayers' money to hold what amounts to an RNČ political event. With income taxes due tomorrow, I wonder what the taxpayers will think about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make this opening statement; I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Waxman, and, as you know, we always extend to the minority the right to invite someone, and this was no exception; the minority chose not to invite any Governors.

Do any other Members have any opening statements?
[The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin Gilman follows:)

Me

Remarks
"Tax Reform in the States"
April 15, 1999

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN....

AS WE ALL KNOW, TODAY IS TAX DAY. TODAY,

MILLIONS OF WORKING FAMILIES WILL ONCE AGAIN

REALIZE THE SAD REALITY THAT THEY SPEND MORE ON

FEDERAL TAXES THAN ON FOOD, SHELTER, CHILD CARE,

,

AND OTHER IMPORTANT NECESSITIES....

MOREOVER, CONGRESS WITH YESTERDAY'S

PASSAGE OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET

RESOLUTION, IS WELL ON ITS WAY TO DECIDING ON THE

IMPORTANT ISSUES OF TAX CUTS AND GOVERNMENT

SPENDING ......

ACCORDINGLY, I KNOW OF NO BETTER WAY TO

UNDERSCORE THE NEED TO TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT

HOW BEST TO PROVIDE NECESSARY TAX CUTS AND

IMPORTANT GOVERNMENT SERVICES, WHILE

SHRINKING OUR BURDENSOME RED TAPE AND

BUREAUCRACY, THAN BY HIGHLIGHTING THE

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK,

GEORGE PATAKI.....

GOVERNOR PATAKI HAS SHOWN THAT A STRONG

COMMITMENT TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND A

BELIEF THAT GOVERNMENT CAN ASSIST THOSE IN THE

PURSUIT OF A BETTER LIFE CAN INDEED GO HAND IN

HAND....

.... WITH THE GOVERNOR'S LEADERSHIP, NEW YORK

IS NOW THE NATIONAL LEADER IN CUTTING TAXES. HE

HAS CUT INCOME, CORPORATE, PROPERTY, AND SALES

TAXES, AND HAS ELIMINATED NEW YORK'S ADDED-ON

ESTATE TAX.

IN ADDITION, THE GOVERNOR HAS FORGED AHEAD

WITH AN IMPRESSIVE AGENDA ON CRIME CONTROL,

WELFARE REFORM, JOB CREATION, EDUCATION

EXCELLENCE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND

ACCESSIBLE HEALTH CARE...

3

« PrécédentContinuer »