SERRANO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSES TAX CUT PLAN

Congressman José E. Serrano (D-NY) is vehemently opposed to President George W. Bush’s tax cut proposal. Serrano, who recently voted against the $958 billion income tax cut, the first installment of a $1.6 Trillion tax cut plan, on the House floor, issued the following statement: Mr. Speaker, I rise in vehement opposition to HR 3, the so-called “Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001".  There is no need to rush into the tax issue today.  Indeed, it is foolish to move forward with any bill cutting taxes until we can put it in the context of the entire budget.  For that reason, I will not support the Democratic substitute either at this time. Before we cut taxes, we need to know how much we will need to spend to meet national needs -- education, which is a top priority of the American people, Social Security and Medicare, including a prescription drug benefit, universal access to health care, a cleaner environment, more effective law enforcement, a robust foreign policy, and all the necessary activities of the Federal government. We need to decide how we will respond to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2001 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, which gives our public works a grade of D+ and estimates that we will need to invest $1.3 Trillion over five years in our roads, bridges, aviation system, schools, water, waste, and energy systems. We need to reach agreement on paying down the Federal debt to prepare for the pending retirement of the Baby Boom generation, which will place enormous strains on the Federal budget and the national economy. Just as important, because we know that the President’s tax plan will cost far more than the $1.6 Trillion the President claims, and that the administration’s budget won’t add up without cuts (or deficits), we need to understand what areas of the Federal budget the administration proposes to cut to make the President’s numbers work.  And that’s assuming the ten-year surplus projections come true, which is a very risky assumption. Apart from the timing and the lack of a budgetary context, the substance of HR 3 is not worthy of support. The President’s tax proposals, those in this bill and those yet to come, are unfairly skewed away from the neediest families.  The wealthiest 1 percent of the income distribution, with incomes averaging $900,000, pay about 21% of federal taxes but would receive 43% of the benefits, an average tax cut of $46,000. Many working families, including those who pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes, would get nothing.  On Tuesday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a study which indicates that if Congress approves the administration’s tax plan, an estimated 12.2 million low- and middle-income families, with 24.1 million children, would not receive any tax reduction at all. Mr. Speaker, I represent the South Bronx in New York. There are many people in my district who work two or more jobs just to make ends meet.  Just think what these families could do with some extra money.  They, and low- and moderate-income families like them, need and deserve tax relief as much as anyone, and they are likely to put any money they get from tax relief into the local economy. The Republicans keep saying the rich deserve the biggest tax breaks because they pay the most taxes.  But don’t forget, the rich pay the most taxes because they have the most money. Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Speaker.  Americans should get a tax cut, but a tax cut package should be reasonably sized, fairly distributed, and achievable within a budget that addresses national needs, especially education.  I urge my colleagues to vote against HR 3.