Date: 1986-09-25
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. there are probably 100 good reasons to vote no on this conference report. There may be only a handful of good reasons to vote "yes." but those affirmative reasons are so overwhelming. so historic and so dramatic that they dwarf into Insignificance the legitimate criticisms that have been so ably discussed on the floor this afternoon. There are provisions that are objectionable. There are mistakes with unintended consequences. One of them was almost too much for me to swallow. As a conferee. I am listed on that conference report as a Member of the U.S. Senate. rather than the House. But even worse than that. I am listed as a Democrat. rather than a Republican. I have to vote for that? This bill makes political sense for a reason far beyond narrow partisan ways. There is enough glory and blame to go around for Republicans and for Democrats. This bill would not be before us without the leadership and the vision and the courage of President Reagan. but it also would not be before us without the skill. the legislative knowhow. and. yes. the vision and the courage of our distinguished committee chairman. Rosn would not have a bill without Dutch. but Dutch would not have his bill without Rosty. When historians look back through the prism of decades. they will view the distinguished gentleman from the State of Illinois. Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. as the legislative giant this bill proclaims him to be. But this bill makes political sense because it reaches down and lifts a $120 billion tax burden off the backs of the poor. beleaguered individual taxpayer. and puts it on the corporate ledgers. many of whom earned enormous profits and paid not one cent in taxation. I would not want to vote to maintain that current system. In each of our districts. on average. 242.000 individual taxpayers and voters will receive a tax cut. I would not want to explain to those people ginned up by a skillful and demogogic challenger why I voted against that. I personally would give ny tight arm to run against an incumbent who voted no on this bill. and I can think of over 100 challengers who are just hoping that they get that chance. Politically. nobody would want to vote for a tax increase. But every record has a flip side. and the flip side of a tax increase is a tax cut. Voting against a tax cut for 242.000 voters in our district may not be the twin brother. but at least it is the kissing cousin of voting for a tax increase for them. That is heavy political baggage. But there is a far more important reason to vote for this report than the next election. It is called the next generation. The centerpiece of the Reagan revolution will be the dramatic cut in tax rates. Think of it. When the President came riding into this city. the top rate was 70 percent. When he rides out of this city. the top rate will be 28 percent. Back then. any extra dollar that your extra effort earned for you. you kept onefourth. the Government took threefourths away. Now we are turning that around and you keep threefourths of the extra dollar. That is called incentive. That Is at the heart of our American free enterprise system. Predicting the economic future is an inexact science. either under this bill or current law. but it really comes down to where do you put your faith in the future. in the decisions made in boardrooms of corporations. or the pocketbooks of the American people? Do you put your hope in incentives to business or in increased purchasing power of people? We have an economic lesson right In front of us if we will only look at it. the Economic Recovery Act of 1981. designed to stimulate the sagging economy that had been left behind. It was one part tax incentives for business and it was one part reduced rates for individuals. The tax Incentives took effect immediately and nothing happened. not a darned thing. A year later. in October 1982. unemployment shot through 10 percent. It was not until the next year. when the cut in rates became fully effective for individuals and the American people had $40 billion more a year to buy new cars and build new homes that the economy took off. Then. and only then. business expanded to meet that demand creating new jobs. I think business would have done that with or without the tax incentives that we provided in 1981. If you are a dripdown economist. wanting to give incentives to the top so that the benefits trickle down to the people. then you should vote to maintain current law. If you are a percolateup economist. believing that the economic health of people with more aftertax dollars percolates through the whole economy. benefiting all. then you will vote for tax reform. Years ago. my fellow Michiganite then Secretary of Defense. Charlie Wilson. said: "Whats good for General Motors is good for America." Poor old Engine Charlie should not have said that. It got him into a peck of political trouble. But every one of us would agree with the truth of the flip side of that record. what is good for the American people is good for General Motors and for all of America. This tax bill is good for the American taxpayer. Truly. it is tax reform of the people. for the people. and certainly by the people. There is no way I am going to vote against that. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in voting to put that precious magic word "incentive" back into our American Tax Code. If you do. politically. economically. and historically. you will be mighty glad you did.