I've been in politics for four decades and I thought I'd seen it all. But when I came to Washington last year, I was not prepared for the shock of how matter-of-factly both parties in Congress slurped up the surplus without hesitation. I understand clearly that if we don't send this overpayment of taxes back to those who paid it, politicians can always find a new way to spend it.

Most of us in Congress agree that we should try to run government as efficiently as a private business. But how long would Sears or J.C. Penney survive if they inadvertently overcharged you for a washer and dryer then told you they were going to keep your overpayment and spend it as they see fit? Congress has increased spending beyond the Balanced Budget Amendment caps for the past three years. I have no doubt this spending spree would continue this year and next year and the next if we don't give our taxpayers a refund.

If you don't believe me, ask Alan Greenspan, who is an economist. The Federal Reserve chairman has acknowledged that our surplus has now grown so large that there is enough money to both pay down the debt and give Americans a tax cut. Mr. Greenspan also warned that spending must be kept in check for this plan to work. He knows that the quickest way to increase public debt is government spending, not tax cuts.

Critics of President Bush's tax cut use fancy charts and scare tactics to argue against giving the taxpayers their money back. They say we can't afford it, that it will erode Medicare and Social Security, that it is based on shaky surplus projections. They say this tax cut will put us in the same mess as Ronald Reagan's tax cut of the early 1980s, failing to mention that today's economic climate bears little resemblance to the one we faced 20 years ago. Despite conservative estimates of a $5 trillion surplus, these politicians are searching for every way possible to keep the money in their hands instead of putting it back in the taxpayers' hands.

The resistance to this tax cut has a very familiar ring to this old history professor. Whenever I tried to cut taxes as governor of Georgia, I would always get these kinds of arguments as to why we should not do it. When I pushed to eliminate the sales tax on groceries, some people cited studies showing that my plan would not help those I was trying to help. They swore that it would bankrupt the state in future years. They decried the fact that caviar would be treated the same as dried beans. I eventually succeeded in eliminating the state sales tax on groceries, and none of the dire predictions has come true. The state of Georgia continues to thrive economically and our surpluses are higher than ever.

The argument that President Bush's tax cut is too heavily weighted toward the rich makes no sense. It's just plain bad economic policy to say that some of our taxpayers deserve no refund when our government is projected to run a surplus of more than $5 trillion. And under this tax cut, the largest percentage cuts go to those Americans who earn the least. A family of four making $35,000 a year will receive a 100% income tax cut. Six million families near the bottom of the economic ladder will no longer pay any federal income taxes at all. That's one out of five families with children.

Any time I look at a tax cut, I always look to see how it would affect the kind of family I grew up in: a single mother raising two children. Under the current rate, that single mother begins paying taxes when she earns $21,300. Under the Bush plan, she would not begin paying income taxes until her earnings reach $31,300. That leaves extra money in her pocket for school clothes or for the heating bill.

Yes, this plan gives refunds to wealthier Americans -- as it should. But who are we to pick and choose among our taxpayers? All of them combined have paid more than it takes to run this government. All of them combined should get a break.

No, I'm no economist. I'm an ex-governor who's seen firsthand what happens when you give money back to taxpayers, and I'm a new U.S. senator who's seen firsthand what happens when you don't. I am proud to co-sponsor President Bush's tax cut in the Senate because I agree with his basic premise: American taxpayers -- rich and poor -- are much better judges of how to spend their money than we are.

Mr. Miller, a Democrat, represents Georgia in the U.S. Senate.

[top of page]

[Back to the Library page]

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of economic and tax reform issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.