Government Spending

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Democrats continue to negotiate with each other on their reckless tax-and-spending spree. Democrats are currently working to lower the bill's top-line number in an effort to meet some of the demands of the few moderate Democrats who have reservations about unchecked government spending.

Now, you might think that lowering the top-line number would involve deciding what programs and spending to eliminate to bring the bill in at a lower cost. Well, not exactly. Yes, Democrats are reportedly eliminating some spending, but the word is that, under pressure from progressives, who are dead set against curtailing their plans for expanding government, Democrats are planning to keep a lot of their most expensive proposals, but simply shorten the funding window to make the costs of these programs seem lower.

Take Democrats' fantastically expensive child allowance. Democrats have every intention of turning their child allowance into a permanent government welfare program, but in order to bring the top-line number of their spending bill down, the word is that Democrats are now planning to officially extend the allowance for just 1 year.

This is, in fact, a budget gimmick on top of a budget gimmick, as Democrats were already attempting to disguise the true cost of the child allowance by officially extending it for just 4 of the 10 years in the bill's 10-year budget window.

They were never, of course, planning to eliminate the child allowance after 4 years, and they are certainly not planning to eliminate it now after 1 year, but by officially extending it for just a year in their tax-and-spending spree, they can manage to make the program look as if it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars less than it will actually cost.

And they are apparently repeating this strategy with a number of their other spending measures.

That paid leave program? Apparently, the White House has proposed a smaller version that would supposedly expire after 3 or 4 years.

Those childcare subsidies? Apparently, those may also now, ostensibly, expire.

The ObamaCare subsidies Democrats want to extend permanently? Well, once again, it sounds like they are going to try shrinking the apparent cost with a short-term extension.

But, again, let's be very clear here. These short-term extensions and short-term programs are nothing more than a budget gimmick to disguise the true cost of the Democrats' plan. There isn't one program that I have named that Democrats don't fully intend to make permanent.

Don't believe me? Just ask the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which outlined the strategy the Democrats are currently adopting in a letter to Speaker Pelosi.

I quote from that letter:

If given a choice between legislating narrowly or broadly--

the caucus wrote-- --we strongly encourage you to choose the latter, and make robust investments over a shorter window . . . This will help make the case for our party's ability to govern, and establish a track record of success that will pave the way for a long-term extension of benefits.

So the plan is to make these programs permanent and to permanently and massively expand the size of government. Democrats hope to get Americans hooked on the government benefits they are offering while hiding the true costs of those benefits from the American people until it is too late.

Frankly, it is not a bad strategy if your aim is to permanently expand the size of government because the truth is it is pretty hard to eradicate even the most inefficient and ineffective Federal program once it has been put into place.

As Ronald Reagan used to say, the nearest thing to eternal life that we will ever see on this earth is a government program.

That, of course, is what the Democrats are counting on. They believe that, once they put these programs in place, no one from either party will be able to get rid of them.

What is less clear is how Democrats believe these programs are going to be funded in the long term, if, in fact, they have given any thought to that issue at all. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't.

It is important to note that the short-term programs and program extensions in the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree will be paid for by 10 years of taxes. That is right. It will take 10 years of taxes and other revenue-raising measures to pay for programs that are scheduled to last as little as 1 year.

So what happens when Democrats want to extend that child allowance again next year or extend those childcare subsidies for the long term?

Well, that is a really good question, and one for which I would love to hear the Democrats' answer.

Are Democrats going to trot out more tax hikes to pay for extending the child allowance or making the childcare subsidies permanent? Or are they going to just suggest that we add hundreds of billions--and eventually trillions--to our already dangerously large national debt? And, if they opt for tax hikes, just who is going to be facing those tax hikes?

The Democrats are eventually going to run out of money from millionaires and billionaires, and then they are going to start coming after the wallets of the middle class.

Of course, when I say that the programs in the Democrats' tax-and- spending spree will be paid for with 10 years of taxes, I mean that Democrats are claiming--claiming--that those programs will be paid for, because it is by no means clear that Democrats' tax hikes and revenue- raising measures will actually result in the revenue they are claiming.

Democrats, for example, are claiming that their proposal to increase IRS enforcement measures, including a new requirement that would allow the IRS to look into the details of Americans' spending, will allow them to collect $700 billion in revenue; but the Congressional Budget Office hasn't confirmed that estimate, and there is substantial reason to doubt that Democrats will be able to collect anywhere even close to that amount even with a doubling of the IRS's budget, a massive expansion of a number of IRS employees, and a number of audits of everyday Americans.

Even if Democrats do manage to rake in every dollar they are claiming, the tax hikes and revenue raisers they are proposing would have long-term costs beyond the dollar amount of the tax hikes.

More than one of the Democrats' tax proposals would have a chilling effect on investment and economic growth, which would mean a less vibrant economy with fewer jobs and opportunities for American workers, and the IRS proposal I mentioned could put the details of Americans' ordinary bank activities into the hands of the IRS, an agency that we have seen repeatedly mishandle the taxpayer data it already has, as recently as earlier this year.

Democrats may be able to come up with a smaller top-line number by hiding the true costs of the government programs they are contemplating, but their ``buy now and pay later or pay never'' approach to government spending is going to have serious consequences for our economy and for the American people.

Unfortunately, by the time the full costs of Democrats' massive government expansion are felt, it may be too late to do much about it; and that, apparently, is what Democrats are counting on.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source