Brad Carson

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, the entire budget debate has been caught up in so much mysterious facts and so much slight of hand that perhaps so many people in this country have been confused about that. The tax cut will do nothing to stimulate the economy. That is not the words of the Democratic Party or people in opposition to the tax cut. That is the words of Chairman Greenspan himself who said that fiscal fine-tuning of the economy is, in fact, oftentimes counterproductive, not in fact helpful to an economy that may indeed be in decline. The interesting question is not again what the marginal tax rate should be or what the tax structure should be, but instead how much we can afford to spend in this country over the next 10 years. There has not yet been a significant tax overcharge. There is a prospective tax overcharge over the next 10 years, and if that money does come in, under the many assumptions behind these budget numbers, then we can talk about meaningful tax cuts. When the Joint Chiefs of Staff alone want nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, $1 trillion for modernization of our military, we are going to have a $2 trillion tax cut that is not consistent with President Bush's own priorities, which demonstrates the myopic thinking behind this entire move.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this, my maiden speech in the House of Representatives, to protest the policy conceived in haste, offered without consultation, and prosecuted almost without discussion. The question before us is not whether a $2 trillion tax cut is a good idea or a bad one, nor is it whether a tax cut is consistent with our acknowledged duties to protect Social Security and Medicare and to invest more resources in an increasingly burdened military. The question, instead, is whether or not a budget, a budget, the master plan guiding spending and investments decisions of the Federal Government, should be agreed upon before we proceed to debate the merits of a tax cut. I support a tax cut, as do most of my colleagues. But a budget that sketches our spending needs against the backdrop of anticipated revenue will allow us to determine, and more importantly allow the people to determine, the magnitude of the appropriate tax cut. The sense of this approach is obvious, save to those people more interested in short-term political gain than the long-term solvency of our Federal Government.