HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES : President Clinton’s Fiscal Plan

The House passed a bill (HR 2264) that would enact President Clinton’s plan to rehabilitate the U.S. economy with massive spending restraint, tax increases and entitlement curbs to be phased in over five years. The measure would slow national debt growth by $500 billion but still allow the deficit to expand by 25% over today’s level, to a projected $4 trillion-plus in fiscal 1998.

The bill’s $250 billion in net tax hikes would result mainly from raising rates on wealthy individuals ($115 billion), imposing a BTU tax on most residential and commercial energy consumption ($71.5 billion) and business tax increases including a corporate rate hike ($36.6 billion).

On the spending side, the plan seeks an additional $250 billion in deficit reduction primarily by restraining defense and other discretionary outlays ($102 billion), curbing certain Medicare costs ($78.6 billion) and paying less in debt service as a result of the legislation ($50 billion).

Supporter Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats “must show the country that we can govern, that we are a different Democratic Party that cares about deficit reduction and cares about our future . . . . Most importantly, for 12 years the politicians have misled the people and fed them Pablum and not told them the truth. Today we must look the American people in the eye and say . . . that we will vote for this package to set America right, to stop eating our young and to get America back on track.”

“This proposal will not reduce the deficit because it does not eliminate one federal domestic program,” said opponent Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach). “The American people are being expected to suffer $300 billion in higher taxes and (Democrats) couldn’t find even one little domestic program to eliminate. This program will sock it to the middle class . . . . This is blind-side economics. People are going to wake up on April 15 next year and feel like they were hit by a truck from Arkansas.”

The vote was 219 for and 213 against. A yes vote was to pass the bill.

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Kim (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Torres (D) x

Republican Fiscal Alternative

The House rejected the Republican alternative to the Clinton fiscal plan (above). The GOP measure differed mainly by not raising taxes and achieving more than double the discretionary spending savings proposed by Democrats. The Republican plan sought to reduce deficit growth by about $400 billion over five years, 20% below the Democratic target. The vote was 138 for and 295 against. A yes vote supported the GOP fiscal plan.

Supporter Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.) said the Republican plan “reduces spending and it does not raise taxes. By reducing spending it reduces the size of government. Less government means more private entrepreneurship, which means a greater chance for Americans to get jobs. If you vote for the (GOP) plan you’re voting to create jobs. If you vote for the Democrat plan you’re voting to kill jobs.”

“Now we’re told that the crowd that gave us the ‘80s has got a better plan,” opponent David R. Obey (D-Wis.) said. “I would suggest that even Babe Ruth was only given three strikes before he was declared out. The (GOP) plan is $98 billion less in deficit reduction . . . hits farmers 50% harder . . . hits $10 billion harder at Medicare . . . and will fall very hard on low-income taxpayers.”

Source: Roll Call Report Syndicate

How They Voted Yea Nay No vote Rep. Dreier (R) x Rep. Kim (R) x Rep. Martinez (D) x Rep. Moorhead (R) x Rep. Torres (D) x

Source: Roll Call Report Syndicate