John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a commitment on the part of the Members to move that as soon as possible.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman would agree with me that this legislation today, the Republican legislation before us today, takes important steps toward solving these problems, but that there is also agreement on the part of the gentleman and on the part of our Republican leadership that the best long-term solution would be to adopt reforms which make it possible, and indeed, encourage, individuals, whether they are employees of a company or the self- employed, or for that matter unemployed, to purchase their own health insurance without having to go through their employer and get the same tax advantage as their employer currently gets under the law.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neumann budget, because it sets the right priorities. But before I begin my remarks, let me just comment on the mystifying debate on this floor which continues to use the word cut, cut, cut, cut. There is not a single cut in this budget. This budget grows spending. It grows it from $1,705 billion in the first year to $1,894 billion in the last year. Over the last 5 years we have grown spending by $7.8 trillion. In the next we are going to grow it by $8.9 trillion. There is no cut. This debate raises the fundamental question, should government grow at 2 to 3 times the rate of the growth in salaries of the American people? Because make no mistake about it, that is what that side wants. Government has an insatiable appetite for more money and more spending, and that is what they want. What does that mean to the American people? For the last 8 years, the average American has seen his or her salary go up 3.4 percent, a 3.4 percent increase in their compensation. But government, government has grown at almost double that rate. Domestic discretionary spending in 1991 went up by 6.9 percent, in 1992 by 9.6 percent, in 1993 by 6.64 percent, in 1994 by 6.1 percent, in 1995 by 4.6 percent. Over the period, while Americans have seen their wages go up only 3.4 percent, government has grown at double that rate, 5.2 percent in domestic discretionary spending. But what has happened in mandatory spending? Means-tested entitlements have grown at three times the rate of the growth in the income of the average American family. Total mandatory spending is growing at double the rate, 5.3 percent versus 3.4 percent. This budget sets the right priorities for Americans. While defense spending is declining, it makes up that. Defense spending has gone down during this time period by 11.6 percent. We must set the right priorities and protect defense spending, and reduce the rate of growth in discretionary spending.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, there has been some talk about whether or not we are defending the Republican budget and whether we are proud of it. I am very proud of this budget. This budget does set the right priorities and takes this country in the right direction. If there were a little more truth on this floor and a little less rhetoric, perhaps we would see that. We have heard our colleagues on the other side say time after time after time that this budget cuts spending. Let me make it very clear. Nowhere outside of this beltway that surrounds this city is an increase in spending from $7.8 trillion over 5 years up to $9.0 trillion a cut. It is simply not a cut. We cannot go from $7.8 up to $9.0 and call it a cut. So let us get that point of truth on the record to begin with. Then let us go to what this debate is really about, because it really is a very simple debate. It is a simple debate between their belief in bigger government and higher taxes because they do not trust people; our belief in a slightly smaller, more efficient government with lower taxes because we do trust people. That is the fundamental debate going on here tonight. They want to reach deeper into the pockets of the American people and take more money out so that they can spend it because they do not trust Americans to spend their own money. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) talks about a $30 billion tax cut in his budget. Unfortunately, that just is not true. There is not a $30 billion tax cut in the Spratt budget because there is not a $1 billion cut in the Spratt budget, because there is not a one penny tax cut in the Spratt budget. Because do you know what the Spratt budget does? It raises taxes on some Americans by $30 billion and includes a sense of the Congress that we ought to give that $30 billion back. Do you know what? The American people are going to figure that out. If we raise taxes on some by $30 billion and we lower it on others by $30 billion, that is a net tax cut of zero, not a net tax cut of $30 billion. So how does that fit into the scheme? That fits into the scheme that they want more of the American people's money, and we want to leave more of the American people's money with them. The President, the President told us in 1994, right after I got elected, that we could not balance America's budget in 7 years; and we shut down the government over that fight. Three years later, I am proud to be standing here, and we did not balance it in 7 years, we balanced it in 3 years. They brag about the surplus, the surplus their President fought us tooth and nail over. Let us talk about the President and his record. He says the era of big government is over. Do you know why? Because for him the era of bigger government had just begun. In his budget, which they do not have the guts to propose, taxes go up by $130 billion. New spending goes up by $150 billion. There are 39 new entitlement programs. They talk about controlling entitlement spending, but their President proposes 39 new entitlement programs. Do you want to burden the American people? That is the way to do it. And 85 new additional programs. Let us talk about the other issue that has really gotten to them tonight, and that is the fact that this is a 1 percent cut in spending. That has really bugged them all night long. They have come to the floor and said, by, gosh, this is a fraud to call it a 1 percent cut. Do you know what? In a technical sense, they are right, because it is not a cut in spending. Spending is going up. In our budget, it goes up at about the rate of inflation. In their budget, it goes up dramatically above the rate of inflation. They want bigger. They want more. They want deeper into the people's pockets because they think only government is the answer. But do you know what? Our budget is a 1 percent reduction in the planned increase in spending. My friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) just said it: Well, take a 1-inch notch out of a belt that is 9 feet 1 inch long. I think the American people understand we can do that, and they are darn proud of us for trying and darn proud of this budget for doing it. It is a 1 percent cut. Deal with it. Now, details. They say, oh, we lack all the details. There is a process for details. It is damned if we do and damned if we do not. They want to see the details because they want to ridicule the details. Then they do not want to deal with the fact that the process here says the budget resolution is supposed to set numbers. The details are supposed to come from the appropriators and the authorizers. In this case, that is the process we are going to follow, and it is the process the American Constitution and the laws and the rules that govern this Congress are arranged to deal with and are designed to deal with. They believe in government. We believe in people. Do you know what? The American people sent us here to do that. The Spratt budget says one more thing. It says that in the balanced budget agreement of last year we set a spending floor. Do not go below it by a dime. Do not try to save another penny. Do you know, I have a family that I run. In my family, in the Shadegg family, because we built a budget last year, we do not quit trying to save money next year. Do you know what? In every family budget in America, if they can figure out a way to save a little bit more money next year, they try to do it. In every business in America, the entire rubric is efficiency. Produce more with less. That is what the genius of America is about. But inside the beltway, inside the Congress, inside this highway, inside this House, the only thing we can do is more means more means more means spend more. It means reach into the pockets of the American people deeper, and it is wrong.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding. As I listen to this debate, I find one particular part of it rather fascinating. I heard a colleague early on in the debate say clearly that the evidence was all on one side; that, in fact, there was clear and convincing evidence that these programs indisputably work, that they lower HIV conversion, and that they do not increase drug abuse. And he said, I cannot believe that that is not true. It is absolutely true. And speaker after speaker has come to this floor and cited scientific studies. But do my colleagues know what? There are studies on both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, one thing is very obvious from this debate. The science is, in fact, divided on this issue. No one can maintain that it is absolutely clear. I want to cite James L. Curtis, a medical doctor and a clinical professor of psychiatry at Harlem Hospital Center, a black American himself. He says point blank, ``There is no evidence that such programs work.'' He says, citing the Montreal and Vancouver studies, that they show that those addicts who took part in the program were two to three times more likely to become infected with AIDS than those who did not. And he also found that almost half the addicts frequently shared their needles. I also want to cite Dr. Janet D. Lapey, M.D., president of Drug Watch International. She cites the same two studies, but she points out another important fact that is being ignored. She points out that in Montreal, deaths from overdose have increased over fivefold since the program started. That is an historic increase. And Vancouver has now the highest heroin death rate in all of North America. One thing we have to concludes from this is that science is divided, but practicality is not. Let me give my colleagues a real-life situation. A woman appeared before our subcommittee and testified on this issue. Her name was Nancy Sossman. We heard my colleague on the other side. She said that she made a personal visit. We heard my colleague say this is an exchange program. In the real world, it is not an exchange program. Without presenting a single needle, she was given 40 clean needles. Asked if she had to return them, she was told no, she did not have to return them, she simply had to dispose of them in an opaque container. In the practical world this program spreads needles among people who need them the least and will do the most damage. As for cleaning up the problem, she specifically told them that she had only been using drugs for 6 months in hopes that they would encourage her to get treatment. They did not do that. Across America, there is no debate about this issue. If we want to win the fight against drugs, if we care about our children as much as we care about HIV, we cannot send the mixed signal of handing out free needles, encouraging people to break the law, encouraging them to engage in destructive conduct that will destroy their lives. In the real world, this program is simply dumb. It encourages people to break the law, destroy their lives, and it at best under the science does not work.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and do so on the basis that the law needs to provide that the purpose of the crime has to have been a profit-seeking motive. The Arizona RICO law is written in a fashion to parrot the gentleman's amendment. It provides that the crime, the RICO offense, in order to be a predicate under the law, must have been pursued for financial gain. What the gentleman's amendment does is simply clarify that and provide that unless there was either a profit-seeking purpose or a criminal offense as defined under State law or under Federal law, a RICO action cannot be brought. That is consistent, Mr. Chairman, with both the intent of the authors and of the experts that help write the law, specifically, I believe, law professor G. Robert Blakey. I think the gentleman's amendment clarifies the law and is a step in the right direction, and I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out that the language as offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma does not limit this exemption to nonprofits. It will apply to profits or nonprofits. What it does is limit the activity to whether or not the activity was profit-making activity.

Mr. SHADEGG. Again, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to try to make this clear. It does not matter whether the entity is a profit-making entity or a nonprofit-making entity. If a profit-making entity is not engaged in a profit-making activity, they are engaged in a charitable activity.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. It is often important in a debate to have a red herring. If we do not want to talk about the real issue in a piece of legislation, talk about something that we can imply is involved in the legislation but really is not, a red hearing. In this debate today, sadly, we have a red herring. The red herring is the argument raised on the other side that this measure will make it harder to close tax loopholes. Member after Member after Member after Member of the other side has gotten up and said this is the Tax Loophole Protection Act. This will make it impossible to close tax loopholes. This is a bad idea because it will make it impossible to reach corporate tax loopholes. Sadly, it appears that those Members either have read it and know that to be false, or have not bothered to read the language that we are voting on. Simply stated, this measure will make it no harder to close tax loopholes. Any tax loophole in the current Code, as the last speaker identified, and the speaker before him, and the speaker before him berated their concern about not being able to close tax loopholes, every single one of the tax loopholes about which they are concerned can be closed under this measure, and can be closed with a simple majority vote provided that the Congress does not use the closing of the tax loophole to raise overall taxes. That is, if we close the tax loophole on one particular group or corporation as they would like to do, we have to give tax relief to some other group of Americans. If they are greatly concerned about individual taxpayers being punished when they close the tax loophole, all they have to do is grant tax relief to individual Americans, and only a simple majority vote is required. All of this discussion of preserving forever tax loopholes is simply wrong. It is not the way the measure is written. The measure is written to provide that any tax increase, that means the closing of the tax loophole, which is revenue neutral, does not result in the increase in overall taxes, passes with a simple vote. We close a tax loophole, we give other Americans a tax break, and there is, in fact, only a simple majority required. It is sad that they cannot comprehend the language of this measure and want to use a red herring. Let us talk about some of the other arguments that have been made. It has been argued that this matter is impractical. Well, 14 States are currently operating under this measure and doing extremely well. It has also been argued that it is confusing, and we do not know what will happen. Well, 68 million Americans know what will happen under tax limitation. In a 12-year statistical comparison of States with tax limitation against States without tax limitation, what happens is very clear. In States where we have tax limitation, government spending goes up more slowly. As a matter of fact, in tax limitation States, while government spending went up by 132 percent over those 12 years, in nontax limitation States it went up by 141 percent. There is another corollary. Taxes go up more slowly in tax limitation States. In this 12-year period, taxes went up 102 percent. It is clearly possible still to raise taxes. In nontax limitation States, taxes went up by 112 percent. So we slow the growth of government if we pass a tax limitation amendment. But let us talk about the positive side of this for the American people. In tax limitation States, this 12-year study showed economies expand faster. Overall economies grow dramatically faster. In tax limitation States, economies grew by 43 percent, whereas, in nontax limitation States, the economies grew by only 35 percent. Let us talk about the final benefit of this so we do know what would happen. In those States which have enacted tax limitation, employment, jobs, putting people to work grows faster and grew faster in those 12 years than in nontax limitation States. In tax limitation States, States which have adopted a Constitutional amendment identical to this one, employment grew at 26 percent in the 12 years. By contrast, in States which refused to adopt this, as my colleagues on the other side are arguing, employment grew by only 21 percent. The bottom line is it is very clear tax limitation slows the growth of government and boosts the private economy, including jobs for which my colleagues on the other side are so concerned. Another colleague of mine got up and said that this is undemocratic. Somehow this flies in the face of democracy. He quoted James Hamilton, excuse me, James Madison. Let me make it very clear what James Madison said. He was a vocal supporter of majority rule. But he argued that the greatest threat to liberty in the republic came from an unrestrained majority rule. On top of James Madison who argued that an unrestrained majority rule is bad for democracies, Alexander Hamilton also argued in favor of the danger of an unrestrained majority. The Presidential veto used by this President is the best example of the restraining the majority rule. The final argument I want to turn to is the issue of how this is somehow inconsistent with the Founding Fathers' view of the world and that the Founding Fathers considered and rejected this. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Alexander Hamilton, who expressed his views on this issue, pointed out that direct taxes should require specific constitutional constraints. And I would note that, at the founding of this Nation, there was no direct tax. To argue that the Founding Fathers debated this issue and rejected it is silliness. At the founding of this country, there, we not only could pass an income tax with a simple majority vote, we could not pass an income tax with 100 percent vote. Because, at that time, direct taxation of the people was not permitted. The second claim made by that same speaker was, well, if we pass a tax limitation amendment, no future Congress will ever cut taxes, because they will be afraid that they cannot raise them again in the future. Again the argument is false. In my State of Arizona, we passed tax limitation in 1992. Since then, we have enacted four significant tax cuts. So with tax limitation in place, the legislature of the State of Arizona has said that they could still cut taxes and have the courage to do that. There is a simple fact here. This measure will make it harder for this Congress to raise taxes, harder for this Congress to reach into the wallets of hard-working Americans and take money out of those wallets. All the other discussion on the other side is red herring. What they want is they want it to be easy to reach into your wallet or your purse and take your money. And they understand the simple principle. If we have to have a two-thirds vote, it is going to be harder to raise taxes than if we have to have a simple majority vote. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make the point, the question was asked as to what has changed since the last time this was voted upon in this body that would cause a different result. I think it is worth noting that two States have enacted tax limitation amendments since the last vote in this House on this issue. Those two States did so by a margin of over 70 percent. I think it is also very important to note that it is now broadly being publicized in this country that we are taxing the American people today at the highest rate we ever have in American history. Federal taxes are higher than at any point in time since the end of World War II, since 1945. In 1945, by the way, a war year in which we were funding a war economy and a war, in 1945 Federal taxes were one-tenth of 1 percentage point higher than they are now as a proportion of our Gross Domestic Product. If we add the obviously higher State and local taxes, dramatically higher than 1945, to those almost all-time high Federal taxes, it is clear we are taxing the American people at the highest level in our history. I think that is a change. It has been broadly publicized. It is part of the change which led two new States by a broad majority, 70 percent plus of the voters in those States, to enact their own tax limitation amendments. I think those are changes that have occurred since the last vote and hopefully will encourage Members of this body to embrace this today. Clear changes that have occurred since the last vote.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me make a few remarks and then perhaps we can engage in a dialogue back and forth and make some of these points in a way that will drive them home, hopefully, to our colleagues who get to cast a historic vote tomorrow. I raise the issue for my constituents on this question as really presenting one direct question: Should Congress be more responsible about spending the hard-earned tax dollars taken from the citizens of this great country? Simple as that. Should the Congress be more responsible about how to spend that money? Now, we heard my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) talk about this being a Tax Limitation Amendment. It is an amendment designed to make it a little bit more difficult to raise taxes on the American people. And then I stand up, as one of the other chief sponsors of this and say, it really is about spending. Well, let me draw the link. The problem is, when it is easy to raise taxes, as it has been in this country for too long, then we can be too casual about how we spend that money. This measure is designed to achieve a very important goal and that goal is to make us, the Members of Congress, be more responsible about the way we spend your money. Because if we say that going on to the future, on into the next century, on into the horizons that lie ahead in America that we are not going to pass additional tax increases with a simple majority vote, 50 percent of the Members of this body plus 1, we are going to have to have a supermajority, we are making it that much harder, just a little more difficult to raise the taxes on the American people. I will tell my colleague, I, John Shadegg, would like to see it much more difficult to raise taxes on the American people. I do not think we can get that far down the road, but with this measure, we can make it a little bit more difficult. I believe that is vitally important. I think it is very timely that this measure is before us right after tax day, but right after a fair amount of publicity in which the American media has reminded the American people recently that taxes in America today are at the highest level they ever have been in our history. I think about my generation, the baby boom generation, peers of mine in their mid-forties, early fifties. They are paying more in taxes today in America than ever in the history of our Nation. I think about the generation behind us who are coming up, the Generation X'ers. They are just beginning their working careers. They are paying more in taxes today than ever in their lives. Taxes as a proportion of our total economy are taking up more than they ever have at any point in time. That is really a composite of two figures. Federal taxes are at their highest level since 1945, a war year at the end of World War II, when they were about one-tenth of 1 percentage point higher than they are now. But if you combine that almost record high Federal tax level with higher State and local taxes, because State and local taxes today are dramatically higher than they were in 1945, we are taxing the American people at a rate higher than we ever had. I would like to be here tonight talking about tax relief for the American people, and hopefully in the next few weeks we will be able to do that, but this measure is not about tax relief. It is about ensuring that before this Congress reaches into the pockets of hard-working American men and women one more time and takes out of their wallets like this one yet a few more hard-earned American dollars and says, no, we need this money for the government, we need this so that we in Congress can spend it on programs that we think are wise, and the American taxpayer who earned this dollar does not get to make that decision because the government is going to take it from them, before we do that yet one more time and ratchet up the tax level yet one more time, we ought to make it a little bit harder. We ought to make it a little bit harder to take those hard-earned dollars from American taxpayers. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), pointed out that 14 States have enacted tax limitation amendments. Arizona, as my colleague pointed out, is one of those States. In 1992 we passed a tax limitation amendment in Arizona, and we required under that measure a two-thirds majority to raise State taxes in Arizona. I am very proud because I helped lead that effort in Arizona. It has had a tremendously beneficial effect on the Arizona economy. Before we passed that, Arizona had gone through a series of tax increases. Year after year after year, the Arizona legislature had done what politicians all too often do when there is a constant demand for more money. They had passed tax increase after tax increase after tax increase. As a result of that, the Arizona economy had grown very sluggish. Since passing this measure in Arizona, which, by the way, passed by a vote of 72 percent of the people of Arizona voting on the measure approved the adoption of this Constitutional amendment, our economy has sped up dramatically.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield.

Mr. SHADEGG. Not only have there been no attempts to raise taxes in the Arizona legislature since this measure was adopted, at least no broad-based tax increases, and because we wrote the Arizona measure in a very comprehensive fashion, no increase in fees or user fees, but in point of fact the legislature has gone the other way and they have actually cut taxes, helping to stimulate that economy. As a result of that stimulated economy, we are getting more revenues in than we did before.

Mr. SHADEGG. It does not take a two-thirds vote at the Arizona legislature to cut taxes. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Arizona legislature to raise taxes.

Mr. SHADEGG. It certainly would not. As the gentleman well knows, you can make the argument, and our colleague in the United States Senate who is carrying this makes the argument that it actually does take in the U.S. Senate a two-thirds majority to cut taxes. Because of the debate rules they have and the rules on cutting off debate, you really, as a practical matter, to be able to pass a tax relief measure over there, would have to have a two-thirds majority. But under this tax limitation amendment, you would never have to have a two-thirds majority here in the House to enact tax relief. You would have to have a two-thirds majority to enact a tax increase yet one more time.

Mr. SHADEGG. That is exactly right. The gentleman mentioned earlier broad public support for this. I want to talk about a poll recently conducted by Americans for Hope, Growth, and Opportunity, a nationwide poll taken on this issue within the last few weeks. In that poll, there are some surprising numbers. First of all, the overall number says that the vast majority of Americans, Republican or Democrat, Independent, you name it, favor this idea. And 68 percent of all Americans, regardless of their party registration or their party leanings or affiliation, favor the adoption of a tax limitation constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority of this body and of the United States Senate in order to raise taxes yet one more time. You might find it not too surprising that within that number, 75 percent, three out of every four Republicans also favor this idea. I suppose we as Republicans can take claim for the fact that we are the antitax party, and that makes some sense that we would favor by a fairly high number, a number higher than the total, the option of the tax limitation amendment. But I am very encouraged and find it most significant that when you poll Democrats, it turns out that 63 percent, a very dramatic majority.

Mr. SHADEGG. Almost a two-thirds majority of all Democrats across America in a nationwide poll, just short of two-thirds of all Democrats in this country, favor the adoption in America today, hopefully by this vote tomorrow, of a supermajority requirement to raise taxes. I certainly hope that that is a figure that is not lost upon our colleagues; that they will recognize that the time has come to pass this. When we have now government taking the highest proportion of the gross domestic product in taxes that it has ever taken in our Nation's history, it seems to me very clear that the signal being sent by Republicans and by Democrats is that it is time to enact a constitutional tax limitation.

Mr. SHADEGG. What would happen is we would be sending a tremendous signal across this country that we are through reaching into the pockets, at least willy-nilly reaching into the pockets of the American taxpayers. Because if three-fourths of the Republican Members paralleled the support in the society, three-fourths of all the Republicans voted for this amendment tomorrow, and if 63 percent of all Democrats, as you posed in your question, just like 63 percent of all Democrats across America, voted for this Constitutional amendment tomorrow, it would pass and pass with a very, very wide margin, sending a bullet shot across this wall to the United States Senate and to the President saying this is an important piece of legislation.

Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely.

Mr. SHADEGG. I most certainly am going to vote for it with great pride.

Mr. SHADEGG. We are on our way.

Mr. SHADEGG. I think it is clearly doable and would be a great signal for this country.

Mr. SHADEGG. He just gave me a thumbs up. We have got three votes. We are on a roll. This could be almost a telethon. We are talking about building a vote for a tax limitation amendment. The gentleman from Texas mentioned earlier the effect of this, but I want to repeat that particular sentiment in some of those statistics. Well, 14 States have adopted in their own Constitutions a tax limitation amendment. Some studies have been done on those States that have had tax limitation for a number of years. What those studies show is that government and government spending grow at a slower pace in those States than in States without tax limitation. Interestingly, in case you say, ``Well, so what, we have slowed the growth of Congress, I am not so concerned about that, Congressman, I am interested in my job,'' the flip side of that, in tax limitation States, States that have adopted a tax limitation amendment at the State level, the private economy and the number of jobs, the employment rate grows faster than in non-tax limitation States. I know it is hard sometimes for the audience, for our colleagues out there listening, to absorb statistics, but I am going to read through them very importantly in a slow fashion so that people can get them. In tax limitation States taxes grow more slowly than in non-tax limitation States, and spending grows more slowly. As a matter of fact, in tax limitation States over a 12-year period taxes increased by 102 percent. So tax limitation States, there it is, there are the figures, spending has grown by 102 percent. But in non-tax limitation States in that same 12-year period, spending has gone up by 112 percent, a dramatic increase. By contrast, if you look at the economies of those States, in tax limitation States, the economies, including employment, the economies grew by 43 percent, whereas by contrast, in States without tax limitation the economies have grown by only 35 percent. So the bottom line is, tax limitation slows the growth of government and promotes the growth of the private sector. For people across America who want jobs, the bottom line is the adoption of a tax limitation amendment, in every single one of those States where it has been adopted, has encouraged the number of jobs that are growing. If you say you have a young son or daughter about ready to enter the job market, tax limitation amendment in your State has enhanced their chance of finding a job in the productive market.