Regarding Commentary by Dennis Hastert and Dick Armey, published by St. Paul Pioneer Press on 08/12/99.

Shouldn't we be outraged if a legislator deliberately misrepresents or distorts information in the pursuit of a particular agenda? The commentary by Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, and Dick Armey, House Majority Leader, is riddled with such misinformation. Is the case for an income tax cut so weak that basing argumentation on facts just isn't practical?

Hastert and Armey state "We now know that Americans are overpaying the federal government to the tune of $3.3 trillion. The debate is about how government should spend the surplus." As Hastert and Armey, not to mention everyone else in Washington, know, the $3 plus trillion number, which is the projected "unified budget" surplus over the next 10 years, is composed of the General Budget surplus and the Social Security surplus. The General Budget surplus, which is projected to be about $1 trillion, is the only surplus that is in any way discretionary. The Social Security surplus exists for a reason -- we are deliberately setting aside funds for the retirement of the Baby Boomers. To suggest that Americans are overpaying the federal government to the tune of $3.3 trillion is shamefully inaccurate.

Even suggesting that Americans are overpaying the federal government to the tune of $1 trillion is misleading. First of all, the first General Budget surplus has yet to emerge. The $1 trillion is only a projection. Secondly, if we characterize the $1 trillion as an overpayment, wouldn't we then have to characterize the $4 trillion in deficits that we ran over the last 20 years as underpayments? Repaying this debt, by any reasonable definition, should not be described as an overpayment.

Hastert and Armey talk about locking away $2 trillion of the budget surplus to shore up the crucial retirement accounts. There's an interesting circularity to this statement. By budget surplus, they are referring to the "unified budget," which includes the Social Security surplus of approximately $2 trillion. They are committing $2 trillion to the very place where it originates. Interesting logic, to say the least. Obviously something is amiss. The truth is that the Social Security System is projected to run short of funds in 2034. Nothing is included in the Republican plan to change that date. To suggest that retirement accounts have been shored up is misleading.

Hastert and Armey claim that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agrees with them concerning the desirability of a tax cut. What Greenspan said, as Hastert and Armey know full well, is that he would prefer the surplus be used to pay down the national debt. Greenspan then went on to say that a tax cut would be preferable to increased spending by the government. Hastert and Armey deliberately distorted Greenspan's remarks. Greenspan's preference is not a tax cut, but rather a paydown of the national debt. He simply said that if we weren't going to pay down the national debt, that is, if the surplus was going to be spent on expanded or new programs, he'd rather see a tax cut. That's a far cry from what Hastert and Armey reported.

My hope is that even Republicans find fault with the kind of article written by Hastert and Armey. They discredit their party and their cause.

Back to Issues   Questions or Comments

Prepared and paid for by James Gibson for U.S. Senate
PO Box 50264, Minneapolis, MN 55405-0264, 612-521-5350