Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support providing the District of Columbia with the flexibility and choice to waive the Davis-Bacon Act to help complete emergency school repair projects. Opponents of this modest effort claim the sky is falling in and that this is really a vote on repeal--it is not. The bill does not repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. It is not a mandate and it is not an order. It simply grants D.C. schools the option of waiving Davis-Bacon requirements. This is a vote to promote fairness, flexibility and choice. Rather than forcing D.C. school districts to comply with an expensive, antiquated, out-of-date Government requirement, Congress has the chance to provide flexibility to the school system. D.C. schools may have the opportunity to fix more roofs, paint more classrooms, or expand classroom learning opportunities. Instead of putting more taxpayer funds into the pockets of big labor, let's use it to help children--to repair schools and provide a better educational environment. Oppose the Sabo motion to strike, free the District of Columbia schools.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I am sure you have heard by now about the Davis-Bacon fraud that was going on Oklahoma. After long investigations by the Oklahoma Department of Labor, the FBI indicted and a Federal judge convicted a labor union official for falsely submitting wage information to inflate wage rates on Federal projects. Last week an Oklahoma Federal judge upheld a conviction and denied the motion for a new trial or acquittal on 14 felony charges. The union official currently awaits sentencing. The investigation by the Oklahoma Department of Labor uncovered just how easy it is to manipulate the system. The investigation uncovered inflated numbers of employees and inflated wage rates on projects that were never built. Unfortunately, this false wage information enormously skewed data that sets wages on Federal projects. This illustrates the poor quality of the Federal wage survey process and how antiquated this program really is. I would like to close by thanking the officials who were involved in the investigation and who persisted on following through to the end results, even if the results sadly confirm the fact that the Davis- Bacon invites fraud and abuse.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, the testimony presented last week in the Committee on Education and the Workforce and in other recent hearings makes it apparent that the National Labor Relations Board is an out-of- control Government bureaucracy. Under the direction of the current Chairman and general counsel, the Board appears to be liberally interpreting the law and appears in many cases to be getting involved in labor disputes in order to promote the agenda of organized labor. In our committee last week, hard-working business people spoke about the questionable NLRB actions in labor disputes and testified that the Board ignores illegal union tactics which result in substantial cost to the employers and disruptions and uncertainty in the workplace. The Board's conduct also allows unions to harass companies until they give in and agree to representation, despite the wishes of the employees. Mr. Speaker, Congress should rightfully be concerned that the National Labor Relations Board is not acting as a neutral referee in labor disputes as required by law. This behavior should be unacceptable to anyone who values the traditional concepts of fairness and balance in the labor-management relations in the United States.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on Thursday, September 25, for rollcall votes 453 and 454. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' In addition, I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 455 on this same day.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I have been following these accusations of campaign finance scandals and reform and outrageous political corruption with great interest. But I must admit, I am having an awfully hard time keeping up. My Democrat friends insist that it is just political and that there is really nothing to them. Since my good friends on the liberal side of the aisle have such a sterling reputation for fairness and their own ironclad commitment to nonpartisanship, I would like them to clear up a few questions I have, questions I am sure they are just as eager to have answered as I am. So, who did hire Craig Livingston at the White House? You know, the former bouncer put in charge of security at the White House and who somehow ended up with 900 FBI files on us Republicans? Another question I have is, what is the difference between a fund- raiser and a finance-related event? I would like to know so that I too can get around the same laws which restrict such activities. Why did John Huang hide for several days from a Federal judge in order to keep embarrassing fund-raising revelations quiet until after the 1996 election? Does anyone have those answers?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, if any issue goes to the heart of the concept that every child should have a shot at the American dream, education is it. Without a good education, many dreams will lie forever beyond the reach of those who wish to get ahead in life. But there are many difficult obstacles standing in the way of a good education, especially for those born to disadvantage and hardship. Of course, it is easy for the liberal elite, safely ensconced in their suburban homes and enclaves, to send their own children to exclusive private school. But the disadvantaged, the very same people they pretend to champion, do not have that luxury. That is why it is particularly distressing to see that the liberal elite is opposed to giving kids a chance to go to a better school, all because the special interests would see their power threatened. This issue cries for some kind of fairness. It is not fair that some kids have to start out with two strikes against them. Let us give parents a choice so more kids will have a chance. Parental choice means more kids will realize their dreams.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for Representative Goodling's amendment which prohibits any money under this bill to be used to develop, plan, implement, or administer President Clinton's new national testing program. In government classes taught all over this country, we learn about the three Federal branches of Government and their functions granted under the U.S. Constitution. I've been out of the classroom for a while now; however, I'm quite sure that article I, section I of the Constitution hasn't changed since I was in school. This section states that ``All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' With this in mind, my colleague from Pennsylvania shouldn't even have to offer this amendment because Congress has not authorized these tests. During the President's 1997 State of the Union Address, he proposed that individualized national tests be given to fourth grade students in reading and math. Instead of seeking congressional approval for this new education policy, the Department of Education has decided to ignore the Congress and move ahead with the development of these tests with the intent of administering the tests beginning in 1999. Even if one supports the President's standardized national testing program, which I don't, shouldn't this be debated and decided in the U.S. Congress and not by Presidential edict? This appropriations bill, if not amended to include Representative Goodling's language on national testing, leaves the door wide open for the Department of Education to continue work in this area. In addition to the fact that Congress has been bypassed in this policy decision, we need to look at the overall issue of national testing. In 1997, the Federal Government will spend roughly $540 million to test students. Do we really need another testing program? I think money could be better spent on the learning process and teacher training. National tests aren't going to arm our students with the tools they need to gain a world-class education. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Even if you support the concept of national testing, you should support the Goodling amendment and permit an open debate on the issue in the Congress instead of letting the President and the Department of Education create policy.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall vote No. 367 on September 5, 1997. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of Mr. McIntosh's amendment to transfer funds from the wage and hour enforcement provisions under H.R. 2264 to programs under the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act. On the same day, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 368. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of Mr. Traficant's motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1119, to insist upon the provisions of section 1032 of the House bill relating to the assignment of Department of Defense personnel to Border Patrol and control.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report onthe Taxpayer Relief Act which will reduce significantly the Federal tax burden for the first time in 16 years. Although the balanced budget agreement promised net tax relief of $85 billion, the final compromise bill provides for $94 billion in net relief over 5 years and more than $260 billion over 10 years. I applaud Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer and ranking member Charlie Rangel for their leadership and hard work, and the heavy lifting of the entire committee's staff, I making the tax package a reality. It is important to remember that there virtually has been no tax relief since 1981, when President Ronald Reagan lived up to his campaign promise and delivered a tax cut measure that led us to one of the biggest economic expansions in our history. In contrast, just 4 years ago, President Clinton gave us the largest tax increase ever, reversing the progress former President Reagan worked so hard to deliver. After assuming control of the House and Senate in 1995, the Republican-led Congress rolled up its sleeves and began the difficult work of bringing real tax relief to the American people. I like to think of it as returning to the taxpayers their own hard-earned dollars. As has been reported widely, the major benefits of this tax package will go to families with children. Although it has been a number of years since my wife and I had children in our home, I see through the experiences of my daughters the financial challengers of today's young families. I am pleased that the conference report on the Taxpayer Relief Act gives parents a $500-per-child tax credit beginning in 1998. Under this provision, parents with children under the age of 17 will be eligible for this benefit, providing help to 11 million more children than what the President wanted since his tax package only provided this benefit to parents with children 12 years old and under. The second largest benefit to most families will be the tax-free education savings accounts which will help them with college or other post-secondary education for their children. The conference report on the Taxpayer Relief Act also reduces the capital gains tax rate from 18 percent to 20 percent for those with incomes above $41,500 per year and from 15 percent to 10 percent for those earning below that amount. This measure would benefit three- quarters of American families who own homes, property, or other capital goods. Equally important, it would greatly benefit those people who have worked hard and invested in retirement accounts because their money now will be taxed at a lower rate. I also am pleased by the conference report's many contributions to the owners and employees of America's small businesses. As one who many years ago started a small business, I can attest to the hard work, sacrifice, and risks involved in earning a living this way and creating jobs for others in the community. Today, small business men and women face more regulatory challenges that I did when I started out. As such, I believe it is all the more important to minimize the negative effect of the Tax Code on this engine of the economy of my district and the entire country. I wish to acknowledge the work of Small Business Chairman Jim Talent in promoting the important small business tax relief which was advocated by the delegates to the most recent White House Conference on Small Business. I joined in signing Chairman Talent's letter to the conferees in support of: the home office deduction; accelerated phase-in to 100 percent of the health insurance deduction for the self-employed; and estate, capital gains and alternative minimum tax [AMT] relief for small businesses. Many of my constituents also will welcome the additional delay in penalties for electronic filing under the electronic Federal tax payment system. Finally, I am especially grateful for the ways in which this tax package clarifies certain of the important pension reforms in last year's Small Business Job Protection Act. In particular, I was supportive of provisions in the House and Senate versions of this measure which were needed to enable subchapter S corporations to establish employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's], giving the employees of these small businesses another retirement option. As a long-time cheerleader for ESOP's, I am enthusiastic over these positive steps to boost employee ownership which have been taken by the 105th Congress. Clearly, the Taxpayer Relief Act for 1997 is not a ploy to give a tax break to the rich, as some of my colleagues would have us believe. It is a long overdue effort to ease the ever growing tax burden that falls primarily on middle class taxpayers, robbing these families of their freedom. While I view this measure as a great start, I will continue to work with my colleagues to deliver more tax relief and a leaner and more responsive Federal Government in the future.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on this legislation to balance the federal budget by 2002. Let me stress that I am committed to balancing the federal budget, but I cannot vote for this compromise budget package. I believe my ten-year voting record speaks to my commitment to balance the budget. In fact, last week I was one of 81 members who voted for the Budget Enforcement Act. Clearly, this was not a very popular vote, but it demonstrated my dedication to balancing the budget. Similarly, I have cosponsored and voted for Constitutional amendments designed to impose a balanced federal budget. I understand the benefits to the economy, my constituents and their families' futures of a balanced federal budget and debt reduction. I believe we need to balance the budget as soon as possible, and I disagree with too many elements of this compromise to be able to support it today. In my opinion, there are several major shortcomings in the budget deal just finalized by Congressional leaders and the White House. Specifically the deal allows spending increases for existing non- defense discretionary programs--and the creation of new programs--which were required to ensure President Clinton's support and signature. These spending increases will lead to an expansion of the federal bureaucracy and an expected increase in the deficit until 2001, when it finally will begin to drop. While the spending increases are promised in the short run, the spending cuts that are required to bring the budget into balance are what we call ``back loaded,'' meaning that they will not be made until near the final years of the agreement. Finally, the new tobacco taxes are unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of my constituents. Under this agreement, tobacco will be hit with a complicated new tax scheme which among other things will mandate an additional 10 cents per pack tax in 2000 and another 5 cent one in 2002. As you can see, an additional 15 cents a pack will be levied by this budget deal. I believe that this is an unfair attack on a legal product, one that would hurt nearly 45,000 tobacco farmers in North Carolina (including over 4,000 in the 10th district alone), and more than 31,000 workers in related industries in my district and the state. Moreover, this excise tax is regressive, hitting hardest those who can least afford this tax increase. In sum, although I could not vote for the compromise balanced budget package, I will continue to work to balance the federal budget. However, we can and must do so without all the unnecessary spending, unfair taxes and budget tricks included in this particular package. In fact, estimates show that we could balance the federal budget in just a few short years if we hold down spending. Why wait until 2002, if we don't have to?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, the Teamsters Union recently accused Mills College in Oakland, CA, of violating its union contract by hiring 500 goats to clear brush from college property rather than using unionized maintenance workers. According to press accounts, in filing a grievance against the school, the local Teamster boss suggested that the college should require the 500 goats to become union members. Madam Speaker, I do not want to make the Teamsters a scapegoat in this saga, but we know how John Sweeney, the ultimate union boss in Washington, plans to make good on his promise to increase union membership through renewed emphasis on organizing. By golly, if you cannot convince real live human beings to join your local neighborhood union, let us sign up some farm animals. Madam Speaker, I would caution, however, that this scheme might have its share of problems. For one, the Supreme Court's Beck decision says that workers have the right to object to the payment of union dues not used for collective bargaining purposes. No matter how this caper finally gets resolved, Madam Speaker, I wish to urge Mills College to stand their ground and not let the Teamsters get their goats.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on International Relations, pursuant to House Rule XX, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and to ensure that the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] proceeds in a manner consistent with United States interests, to strengthen relations between the United States and Russia, to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress with respect to certain arms control agreements, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall votes 298 and 299 on July 22, I would have voted ``yea.'' In addition, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 319 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 320 which occurred on July 24.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that I am a cosponsor of the Budget Enforcement Act, a bill to reform the Federal budget process. If enacted, this bill will establish in law the budgetary outcomes projected to result from the 1997 balanced budget agreement, as well as provide for their enforcement. In addition, it includes long-overdue changes to emergency spending rules. I wish to commend the bipartisan group of House Members who put this bill together. They have worked hard for years to craft this enforcement mechanism. They forced the leadership to allow a floor vote and sought to address everyone's concerns over the impact of this important legislation. While I do not believe this legislation is perfect, I believe it represents an honest, bipartisan effort to ensure spending and revenue targets, agreed to by the Congress and the President, will actually be adhered to. We are working together to achieve the best alternative to address our Nation's deficit problems and respond to our constituents' concerns over our inability to live within the budgets we adopt. My interest in the Budget Enforcement Act was sparked, in part, by a constituent letter which I received some months ago. My constituent challenged me to explain how the 5-year budget agreement of 1997 differed from other budget balancing plans which have gone by the wayside. He remembered well the grand promises Congress made to the American people following the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget deal in 1985 and three subsequent efforts to balance the budget. Despite the good intentions of the authors of these budget balancing plans, we have yet to reach balance. Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the national debt quintupled, to $5.3 trillion, during this sustained period of deficit spending. For the record, I favor tax cuts every bit as much as my conservative colleagues who argue that the Budget Enforcement Act will result in a suspension of the budget's tax relief--or worse, will permit new tax increases and user fees to pay for deficits. In fact, passage of the Budget Enforcement Act will not force any rollback of any tax cut that will already have taken effect. Among the respected groups making this analysis of the bill's impact on taxes is the National Taxpayers Union, which considers a ``yes'' vote to be a key vote for its rating of Members in the 105th Congress. Some opponents of the Budget Enforcement Act argue that the most serious problem with this bill is that it would jeopardize the tax relief in the budget reconciliation bill. However, I do not view this as a major problem. Any unlikely delay in promised tax relief can be addressed immediately after we balance the budget and secure a budget surplus to enable us to take the Social Security trust funds off- budget. The Budget Enforcement Act provides a separate cap for Social Security which would be adjusted for changes in numbers of beneficiaries and inflation. Since there are no other factors which can cause Social Security costs to rise, Social Security would not be affected. While the Budget Enforcement Act would not cut Social Security, we want to reassure seniors who will be the target of politically motivated distortion campaigns engineered by advocates of higher Federal spending. As such, the bill's supporters had prepared an amendment specifically to protect the Social Security trust funds. We received a commitment from the House leadership that this amendment to reassure our Nation's seniors would be made in order during floor debate. Since the Rules Committee violated this pledge with its passage of a closed rule, I intend to vote against the rule on the Budget Enforcement Act. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, in 1962, 35 years ago, my wife and I went to El Salvador to help in developing their economy. It was peaceful and quiet then, the war had not started, and we have been working ever since to continue that growth and the growth in the democracy. On June 25, 1997, the Committee on International Relations unanimously passed a resolution that I introduced, House Concurrent Resolution 88, congratulating the government and the people of the Republic of El Salvador on successfully completing free and democratic elections for the fourth time. On March 16, 1997, El Salvador held free and fair elections for 84 national legislative assembly seats, 262 mayoral and municipal council posts. This was yet another milestone in the normalization of the democratic process in El Salvador, and I wish to commend that nation for its efforts. El Salvador has come a long way since the 1980's when the nation was in the midst of a terrible civil war. Many of my colleagues will recall that that war cost the lives of tens of thousands of El Salvadorans and left the country in shambles. Now the Salvadorans have replaced bullets with ballots. It was a strong leadership and guidance coupled with the courage demonstrated by former President Alfredo Cristiani that rescued the country and paved the way for El Savador's future. He continued to seek peace in spite of the fact that the war continued. His successor, the new President Armando Calderon Sol, elected in a free and fair contest, had the same commitment to democracy and will strive to keep this nation moving forward in the next century. The stark contrast between war-torn El Salvador and the El Salvador of today is a tribute to its people and its leaders. In addition to holding successful elections, we see the Salvadoran Government's effort to foster free-market enterprise and privatization of certain industries as part of its move toward a free and fair society. Most importantly, we continue to witness the successful implementation of the 1992 peace accords. I believe the Americans must continue to show support for our Salvadoran neighbors through this long and fragile process, and I hope my colleagues will join me and congratulate El Salvador in this latest and most remarkable accomplishment.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak in favor of H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments. As a businessman who had to hire many people through my business lifetime, the most frustrating thing that occurs is when a person requests to fill out an application for work but they do not have time and they ask to be able to take that application home with them. One knows then they cannot read or write, which one we do not know. But they still want a job. Primary and secondary education did not provide what is necessary. That person is trapped in that never-never land of joblessness and unemployability. Job training is their only way out. Giving them some help through vocational and technical training gives them a chance. Please vote for H.R. 1853.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I often wonder if the other side has forgotten what motivated people from every corner of the globe to come to our shores throughout history. Indeed, the forefathers of the very same people who reflexively attack the idea of tax cuts as tax cuts for the rich came to America to escape government oppression, to escape the idea that government has a higher claim to the fruits of your labor than you and your family do. America as a land of opportunity was not built into a rich and prosperous Nation by this way of thinking. In fact, America is a land of opportunity for reasons which are exactly the opposite of this way of thinking. Government cannot build prosperity. Only free individuals can. Americans became rich because free individuals had dreams, took risks, and worked hard to realize those dreams. The other side might wish to remember that their rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with making America more free, nothing to do with telling children to dream great dreams, and nothing to do with making a nation prosperous. It is very sad to see.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, remember when a tax cut meant paying less taxes? That was not too long ago. Taxes were something you paid, not something you got. The tax cuts I am talking about are tax cuts that reduce the amount you pay. A tax cut does not mean that anyone gives me anything, it means the Government is taking less. I have no hope whatsoever that the other side will understand this point, but my constituents asked that I keep trying. When the Government takes a little less from the taxpayers, no one else is worse off. However, when the Government gives somebody some money, like the earned income tax credit, for example, that is at the expense of somebody else. The taxpayers pay for that. Some Members' idea of a tax cut means that the taxpayers pay more. That is nonsense. A tax cut is not at the expense of other taxpayers. A tax cut to those who do not pay income taxes is at the expense of others. That makes all the difference.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, ever wonder what the Family Economic Income of the President is? Let us see. The President's salary is about $200,000 a year. But then the Treasury Department's calculates his income is actually a lot more than that, even if it is not. For example, they say we need to add something called imputed rental income to real income. Imputed rental income is income we would get if we rented out the house that we own. Now normally the Treasury Department would add something like $10,000 to the President's income for renting out the White House and carrying that as income, but the Treasury Department officials are not so sure what to do now since they know that the Lincoln bedroom can be rented out for over $400,000 a year, so they are really not sure how to score it. And then they have other problems as well. They have not a clue as to how much to score the President's Whitewater property for imputed income purposes, and then there is the huge question mark about how much foreign money should go under unreported and underreported income category. I guess the Treasury Department needs to take another look at this family income economic income.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Last year Mr. Speaker, the AFL-CIO offered approximately 1,000 3-week summer internship jobs to college students, who received a weekly stipend of $210 for their work. They called it the union summer. From press accounts it appeared that some of the students worked an average of 76 hours per week for an hourly rate of $2.76 per hour. This arrangement, if true, is a violation of the Federal wage and hour laws. In October 1996, I requested the Department of Labor to investigate these alleged violations. The Department of Labor said they are looking into the matter, but after numerous letters and telephone calls over the last 8 months, the Department refuses to provide me with specific information about the case. A new union summer program is under way right now in 1997, with thousands of college students participating around the country. The Department of Labor should do everything in its power to ensure that appropriate Federal wage and hour laws are fully enforced, regardless of the identity of the employer. I am continuing to press the Department of Labor to promptly report on its investigation because I fear that similar transgressions, if left unchecked, could occur again with this union summer program this summer.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, it is time to give credit where credit is due. In today's Washington Post on the front page there is an article announcing that the budget could be balanced ahead of schedule. The budget could be balanced as early as next year. How can we explain this good news? Let us recall a little history. In 1993, the President submitted a budget with huge deficits as far as the eye can see. In 1994, the President submitted a budget with huge deficits as far as the eye can see. In 1995, the President submitted three budgets with huge deficits as far as the eye can see. But in 1995 a big change came to Washington. Republicans came to town promising to balance the budget and they were serious. They insisted that the President join us in an effort to balance the budget, and the President finally agreed. Our determination and seriousness is now paying off. We are perhaps only 1 year away from a balanced budget. That is a victory that all Americans should celebrate.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, White House figures showing that the tax cut package mainly benefits the rich have as much credibility as an Oliver Stone movie. Like Oliver Stone, the Treasury Department has decided to make stuff up. It is even worse than that. Like Oliver Stone, the Treasury Department uses tax numbers in a way that deliberately is designed to deceive. Again like Oliver Stone, the Treasury Department is counting on the fact that most people will not be able to tell the difference between what is the truth and what is fiction. I am talking about the Treasury Department's fraudulent use of family economic income, a new, ingenious way to make middle-class families look rich. Family economic income, you ask? What is that? Now you begin to see what I am talking about. Oh, sure, imputed rent income, unreported income you never knew you had, unrealized capital gains you never knew you had. Stuff like that. It is so dishonest it would make even Oliver Stone proud.