The following proposals suggest we freeze those elements of last year's $1.35 trillion tax cut that are disproportionately weighted to the nation's wealthiest individuals, to allow the country to meet its many pressing needs.

The following proposals suggest we freeze those elements of last year's $1.35 trillion tax cut that are disproportionately weighted to the nation's wealthiest individuals, to allow the country to meet its many pressing needs.

We are reminded almost daily of the increased and pressing needs of the country -- homeland security, protection from bioterrorism attacks, stimulating the economy, assisting those who lack the means to provide for themselves and their families, providing education and job training so that the future can offer something more to those struggling now, health care, etc. At the same time, many of the nation’s policy makers have warned against allowing the country to go into deficit to meet these needs (though, actually, many economists have pointed out that temporary deficits that arise from spending to address these needs would be beneficial for the economy). Yet, we have heard little about how we can afford to meet so many vital needs without enlarging this year’s deficit. In fact, we’ve heard much more about the necessity to cut programs that meet some of these needs, in order to pay for those that meet other needs. Proponents of this tactic argue that the country must make sacrifices to meet the new specific military and "homeland defense" needs brought about by the war on terrorism and that cuts to the "rest of government" (non-defense, non-homeland security domestic program, i.e., education, maternal and child health, environmental protection, etc.) will be the price we pay. The only sacrifice the country will not be asked to make, in fact, is to forego the enormous tax cuts enacted last June in the President’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut. Agreement on this point seems to extend throughout both parties.

Just a few members of Congress have proposed alternatives, which will enable the country to meet those neets brought about by the events of September 11, as well as the many needs that existed before. These proposals argue that we currently have many more important priorities as a nation than costly tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans.

OMB Watch commends these Congressional members for saying what must be said, and we will continue to provide updated information on action on these proposals, as well as add new proposals, should others take up this mantle.

• First Things First Act -- Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), October 2, 2001
  
  Proposes putting on hold the parts of the tax cut that benefit the wealthy until there is an adequate response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and its impacts on workers; until the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are solvent; until there is a Medicare prescription drug benefit; until school modernization and 100,000 new teachers are hired; and until there is a reduction in the number of people with worst-case housing needs.
  
  
• "America's New Challenges: National Security, Economic Recovery and Progress for All Americans" -- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), January 16, 2002
  
  Kennedy argues that given current circumstances, we should now "postpone a portion of the future tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest taxpayers ... until we are certain that we can afford a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, make the needed investments in education and health care, protect Social Security and fully provide for the common defense." Under Kennedy's proposal, we could save $350 billion over the next ten years by avoiding future reductions in the tax rates paid by taxpayers in the highest income brackets and keeping the estate tax on estates over $4 million.
  
  
• "Wellstone Presses to Put Education First in Federal Budget" -- Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), February 12, 2002
  
  Proposes to freeze the rates of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans where they are now, saving $121 billion over the next ten years. He would invest the savings in schools and kids, especially to see that the Individuals with Disabilities Act is fully funded so that all children with disabilities can get special education.