[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON NATIONAL SALES TAX HOLIDAY: HOW WILL THIS PROPOSAL IMPACT
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WASHINGTON, DC
__________
NOVEMBER 15, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-330 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
DONALD MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman
LARRY COMBEST, Texas NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
SUE W. KELLY, New York BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
STEVE. CHABOT, Ohio DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
MIKE PENCE, Indiana CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MICHAEL FERGUSON, New Jersey DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois
DARRELL E. ISSA, California GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia MARK UDALL, Colorado
FELIX J. GRUCCI, Jr., New York JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
TODD W. AKIN, Missouri MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, Puerto Rico
Doug Thomas, Staff Director
Phil Eskeland, Deputy Staff Director
Michael Day, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 15, 2001................................ 1
Witnesses
Graham, Hon. Lindsey, Member, U.S. House Of Representatives...... 4
Abercrombie, Hon. Neil, Member, U.S. House Of Representatives.... 5
Lav, Iris, Deputy Director, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities..................................................... 12
Norquist, Grover, Americans for Tax Reform....................... 14
Karl, Elmer, Karl TV and Appliance Store......................... 14
Holland, Elizabeth, Chief Executive, Abbell Credit Corporation... 16
Wilson, Rush, Rush Wilson, LTD................................... 18
Gornik, Katherine, Vice Chair, Consumer Electronics Association.. 20
Appendix
Opening statements:
Manzullo, Hon. Donald........................................ 41
Velazquez, Hon. Nydia........................................ 45
Jones, Hon. Stephanie Tubbs.................................. 47
Prepared statements:
Graham, Hon. Lindsey......................................... 49
Abercrombie, Hon. Neil....................................... 50
Lav, Iris.................................................... 53
Norquist, Grover............................................. 55
Karl, Elmer.................................................. 58
Holland, Elizabeth........................................... 62
Wilson, Rush................................................. 67
Gornik, Katherine............................................ 75
Additional Information:
Statement of William Wright, President & Chief Executive
Officer, Access Integrated Networks, Inc................... 79
HEARING ON NATIONAL SALES TAX HOLIDAY: HOW WILL THIS PROPOSAL IMPACT
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESSES
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room
2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Manzullo
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Manzullo. We are going to call the Committee
hearing together because Senator Murray has arrived, and I
promised her as soon as she got here we are going to start her
testimony and we are going to do that right now, Senator
Murray, even before any opening statements, to accommodate you.
And then we will have opening statements later on. I look
forward to your testimony. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY
Ms. Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
an honor to be here with you and Ranking Member Velazquez and
all the members of this Committee who will join you as you go
along. I appreciate you holding this hearing on what I think is
a very important idea. I want to thank all of you today for
allowing me to talk about how a national sales tax holiday can
help our country's small businesses through these tough
economic ideas.
This idea, Mr. Chairman, has won a lot of support across
the political spectrum. I want to thank Representative
Blagojevich and Representative Graham who are here today and
Representative Abercrombie for their work here on the House
side. I also want to mention Congressman Baird who has worked
with me on this. He has introduced legislation to allow
citizens in states like Washington to deduct sales tax from
their federal tax returns. And I know he is going to be here
later and I thank him as well.
Mr. Chairman, last week I was pleased to introduce S. 1643,
The Sales Tax Holiday Act of 2001, with Senator Snowe. We have
14 cosponsors, including Senators Lieberman, Santorum, Dorgan,
Thurmond, Durbin, Craig, Cleland, Bond, Feinstein, Johnson,
Warner, Mikulski, and Carnahan. I think that is an impressive
list of bipartisan senators. And I think we have come together
on this issue because we all know that our economy really does
need a shot in the arm.
The GDP is declining, consumer confidence is at a seven-
year low, and consumer spending has slowed to its lowest level
in eight years. But consumer spending is just what our economy
needs to get it going. In fact, two-thirds of our economy
depends on consumer spending. The Sales Tax Holiday Act will
get Americans back into our stores and will help get our
economy back on its feet.
The Sales Tax Holiday will help consumers and businesses
save money on everything from cars and computers to books and
baby clothes. It will boost retail sales and consumer
confidence and it will help everyone in the retail chain, from
small businesses on Main Street to anchor stores in large
malls.
Mr. Chairman, this National Sales Tax Holiday is immediate.
Every American can take advantage of it, and it won't break the
bank. It will directly stimulate our economy by boosting sales
and supporting retail, transportation, and manufacturing jobs
throughout the country.
As this Committee knows well, even before September 11,
this was shaping up to be a very difficult time for retail
businesses and the thousands of workers that they employ. Many
small businesses rely on the holiday season to make it through
the entire year. And many workers count on having retail jobs
during the holiday season. Our bill helps both. Seven states
plus the District of Columbia have used sales tax holidays and
they have had great results.
Here is how our bill works. The tax holiday would run for
ten days, from November 23 to December 2. The Federal
Government will reimburse states for lost sales tax revenue.
Right now, we estimate the cost of this to be about $6.5
billion, depending on how many states participate and how
strongly consumers respond.
Under our plan, every penny of this $6.5 billion will go
directly into the economy. Every state that participates in the
holiday will receive a quick payment of their estimated lost
revenue. Before the tax holiday, a state can decide that it
wants to be reimbursed for the exact amount of its loss. Those
states that ask for an exact accounting will go through a
reconciliation process with the Federal Government after the
tax holiday.
I believe the Sales Tax Holiday Act can be an important
part of a balanced economic stimulus package. Our proposal will
stimulate economic activity and consumer confidence. States and
businesses that have participated in sales tax holidays report
an increase in sales during the sales tax holiday. These
businesses have found that consumers don't just shift their
spending to the holiday period, but that these holidays create
new spending that would not have otherwise occurred.
Our proposal will stimulate business investment and job
creation. Retail businesses will need to boost their
inventories to prepare for larger crowds. That is good news for
manufacturers, distributors, and other businesses that help
meet consumer demand for all kinds of products.
Our proposal benefits all Americans. Low, middle, and
upper-income people, all pay sales tax on the products they
buy. And since the sales tax is the most regressive kind of
tax, lower-income consumers will benefit the most.
Mr. Chairman, our proposal is fiscally responsible. This
proposed tax day holiday will last for no more than ten days in
any state and, therefore, there are no exploding costs in the
long term. In addition, as I mentioned, our proposal will not
hurt state and local budgets. Our plan is optional. So states
can choose to opt in if they want to stimulate their economy.
Mr. Chairman, President Bush has urged all of us, in the
wake of the September 11 attacks, to return to our daily lives
and get back to business. I believe this proposal will get our
country back in business. It is fair. It is responsible. It
will help families, and it will stimulate our economy.
And I just want to say one more thing. The time to act is
right now. We cannot afford to have a bad holiday shopping
season. That could drag our economy down into next year.
Retailers and consumers need time to prepare for this proposed
holiday. So we, in Congress, need to pass it now. So I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, your Ranking Member, and all your members
for the opportunity to testify today. And I look forward to
working with all of you to pass this very important
legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you, Senator. To expedite your
time, I want to open the Panelhere to see if any members have
any questions of Senator Murray. Otherwise, I will excuse you. Do you
have time for a couple of questions?
Ms. Murray. Yes, I do.
Chairman Manzullo. The question is, Senator Murray, is
Thanksgiving is next week.
Ms. Murray. Yes.
Chairman Manzullo. And this would be set to take place on
the Friday after that. And in the Senate yesterday, was this
made part of the Senate Majority Proposal and voted down or
could you tell us----
Ms. Murray. No. We intended to offer it as amendment on
that proposal that was presented to the Senate last night. But
we are in a state of limbo at this point to see how that is
going to proceed.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay. I guess my question would be, and
perhaps the suggestion is that in the unlikely case that this
cannot be enacted ready to go the day after Thanksgiving, that
it would be my suggestion--and I think that you and Lindsey
would concur--it would be to prepare a package to get out all
of the stumbling blocks or any of the problems that the
governors may have so that if Congress decides to use this, it
could pass immediately and be implemented with the full
blessings of the governors. Would that be a good suggestion?
Ms. Murray. Indeed. I believe some states have already
moved to have provisions made that if this passes they are
immediately ready to move forward on it. And I think if other
states do that, that will help put some pressure on all of us
here to get it done.
Chairman Manzullo. That is great. Look forward to working
with you and thank you for coming to our hearing this morning.
Ms. Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
being here.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Murray. Thank you, Lindsey.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay. Let us finish with the Panel of
the members and then we can go into opening statements.
Congressman Graham.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM
Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If this thing takes
off, it will be due in large part to this hearing. The momentum
for the bill is building. We have 39 cosponsors in the House
and growing. And Neil and I have been marketing a little bit on
the Floor, but people have been coming up to us wanting to sign
on the bill because our retailers and Chamber of Commerce,
NFIB, and other business groups are really getting behind this
bill. CEOs of retail sales organizations have said this will
help.
The message I want to leave the Committee is, with your
involvement, in a bipartisan fashion, of the Ranking Member and
everybody on your Committee, if we could sort of organize our
efforts here, because you are on ground zero, I think, of the
issues facing the economy in the short term. And that is, small
businesses. We are going to do many things for folks that need
healthcare that are out of jobs. That is going to happen. We
are going to spend some money and we are going to cut taxes to
corporations. But people that have businesses in the mall, on
Main Street, USA, they need some help and they need some help
now.
The report that came out yesterday about increase in retail
sales for October was the largest increase in, I think, since
record-keeping. It was all due to the car sales. And what
happened was that the retail car industry said, if you will
come in and buy a car, we will give you zero-percent financing.
Well, that hook worked. I mean, tremendous boost in car sales
that created a boost in retail sales across our economy. This
is a similar type hook that goes far deeper than zero-percent
financing.
And, as Senator Murray said, if we do not have a good
holiday shopping season, we will be paying the price as a
country for well over a year. This is the first time we get to
evaluate the strength of our economy post-September the 11th.
And in a bipartisan fashion, we need to rise to the occasion.
There are so many things we disagree with on about how to jump-
start this economy, but when you have me and Senator Murray and
Neil sitting at the same table, that is a pretty good start.
The comments since----
Mr. Abercrombie. Larry, Curly, and Moe.
Mr. Graham. That is right. And I will let you pick who is
Curly. But that is good news. And the fact that you and the
Ranking Member are having this hearing, I think, is good news.
Because this is a method that works based on pretty good data
in the past. I am from South Carolina. We have a sales tax
holiday for back-to-school shopping. There is some shift of
buying, but there is an overall net increase.
People respond to a good deal. Two hundred and fifty
million dollars increase in sales during the weekend we had
before school starts. If you go back, clothing supplies--excuse
me--clothes and school supplies for your children tax free,
sales tax free, there is a tremendous bump in sales. So seven
states, including Texas, where our President is from, have
engaged in this type of activity in the past. And the results
are in and it is very, very positive.
Of all of the ideas that our floating out there, this, to
me, makes the most sense because you don't get the benefit
unless you buy something. This is not a rebate that we don't
know where the money is going to go. The only way a consumer
gets the benefit of this tax break is to go out there and buy
something. So it kind of combines spending and tax breaks all
in one.
And we have a magic moment here in time to do something
constructive that will help the economy in the short term which
will turn around, I think, the economy in the long term. And if
there was ever time in our Nation's history where the public
needs to look at these two bodies to say that they are on the--
that their working together for the common good is now. And to
me, people can understand this. They would respond to it. That
$6.5 billion dollars is very affordable. And it would be a
shame not to do this because it has worked in the past, it will
work now, and it will help us in many, many ways.
Americans need to have something to look forward to this
holiday season and something to get excited about. And I can
only imagine the marketing that would go into a bill to this
concept. There is nine more days left. There is eight more days
left. Come out and shop. Get a one-time good deal. Yeah. I
think it would create a lot of excitement and a lot of sales
and really help the economy.
And, Mr. Chairman, if we work together and we work quickly,
we can do this. If we have to slip the ten days to another ten-
day period during the holiday shopping season, so be it. But it
would be a shame and, I think, a missed opportunity if we don't
pass this legislation. And I want to thank you for having the
hearing.
[Mr. Graham's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Well, thank you. From the great State of
Hawaii, Congressman Abercrombie.
STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like your permission to submit a formal statement.
Chairman Manzullo. All the statements of all the witnesses
and all the members will be admitted to the record without
objection.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
would just like to comment informally, very briefly, and it is
just a commentary, because I certainly am in no position to
instruct you or the other members on this area. I think we all
understand it. I want to echo one thing that Mr. Graham said,
which is the appropriateness of this Committee taking the lead
here. I think this is an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for--
particularly for the majority now--and I am speaking to you as
the Representative of the small business for the majority
because you control the agenda.
I mean, fundamentally, when we all try to work together on
all kinds of things, and that is the only way we can succeed in
the House of Representatives, is by acting in concert as much
as possible. Nonetheless, the plain fact of the matter is--a
political fact of the matter is, is that the majority controls
the agenda, and that is why I am hoping that you will be able
to prevail with the leadership in the majority to get this
scheduled as quickly as possible. I am going to assume that
this is going to pass with some appropriate variations or
alterations as need to be made to accommodate the states or the
other localities so that they can utilize this if it passes.
And the reason is, is that there is no language to which I
am sure you subscribe, as well as every experienced politician
in the room, if you are explaining your reason. Now, the
stimulus package, whether it is the Democrats or Republicans--
and I can speak knowledgeably about it because I voted against
both of them--and for me it is a good and sufficient reason.
And it is because it is too damned difficult for people to
understand.
Anybody try to explain lately to a group of folks who are
going to try and pay their bill in the next 60 days or keep
their employee health insurance over the next 60 days or try to
keep from laying off four or five people in their small
business, what the hell the alternative minimum tax has to do
with their prosperity, with their ability to pay those bills?
You can't explain to the public.
As Mr. Graham indicated, and I am sure the Senator did, you
don't have to explain this to the public. You have to market
it. That is all. Let them know that it is available. Nine days,
ten days. It is a smart thing. This is time-sensitive and time-
crucial.
And I am hoping that this can be--that you folks can pass
this today, hopefully, and get this scheduled and get it on the
Floor and put the pressure on the Senate. Even to pass it as a
stand-alone bill, separate and apart, if necessary, from the
question of the overall stimulus and all the high rhetoric that
is floating around here about long-term economic trends and all
the rest of it. What we are interested in here is the short-
term capacity of the people of the United States to understand
that they are going to be immediately addressed by this
legislation.
And I think you have a rare opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to
be a keystone in what could very well be the difference between
not just profit and loss, but survival of the retail businesses
and everyone associated with those retail businesses in terms
of their employment and their capacity to sustain their
families. And that is what this bill provides.
And I am very, very grateful for the opportunity to be
working not just with you and other members of the Committee,
but Mr. Graham and others. This is not a partisan endeavor.
This is an American endeavor. This is something for us, as the
people's representatives, to take the lead on. And I am
confident that if we can pass this, this will literally make
the difference for survival for literally tens of thousands of
small businesses throughout this country. And, by extension,
hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people as to
whether they are able to sustain not just their capacity to
deal with their everyday economic and fiscal responsibilities
as families, but whether or not they are going to have the
confidence and the hope, realize that we are going to get
through this immediate situation.
We are not dealing with abstract world issues. We are not
engaged in a philosophical discussion. We are not dealing with
mega politics here. We are dealing with the capacity of the
average American family to be able to sustain itself and have
the confidence that this Congress is going to be immediately
responsive to their immediate needs.
And I think that this Committee, through the passage of
this bill, can be a fundamental element in seeing that that
kind of confidence is restored and that kind of literal
economic advancement is made in this holiday season. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Abercrombie's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you. I got a couple of questions.
The--perhaps Congressman Graham, you would know the answer to
this. Do people withhold shopping until the tax holiday begins?
What have the studies shown in the seven states?
Mr. Graham. In South Carolina, this is, I think, the second
year. People's behavior is definitely altered by the good-deal
nature of this. But the issue, does this just displace consumer
purchases, is a question, I think, there is a mixed answer
somewhat, but overall there is a net increase. In South
Carolina there was a net increase beyond just displaced
shopping of $250 million.
And let us just say that people would buy something--they
were going to buy in January, but they buy it during the
holiday season. That is a good thing now. Because 40 percent of
our retail small business income comes during this period. And,
as Neil said, people are deciding whether to hire holiday help.
And they are deciding, some of them, if they don't have a good
holiday season, they are not going to up in January. So our
data is pretty strong that people respond above and beyond
their normal buying capacity and they will make an extra
purchase because it is a better deal than they would have
otherwise and they will buy up the latter.
Car sales in Washington have sort of leveled off in the
State of Washington because people are waiting to see if we
will do this. And if you are buying a car in some states, it
could be up to 14 or $1,500 off the purchase price because of
the sales tax.
Chairman Manzullo. The Texas comptroller reported that
consumers purchased $400 million worth of tax-exempt clothing
during last year's tax-free holiday, double the typical sales
of an equivalent week in August. And in August this year, when
both Maryland and Washington had holidays, one national
retailer saw sales increase 35 percent over the same week last
year. So overall, net sales would be up.
Mr. Graham. Well----
Chairman Manzullo. And that is the bottom line.
Mr. Graham. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. One computer company
had 1,000 percent increase in sales during the sales tax
holiday period.
Chairman Manzullo. That is why the computer people are
going to testify right after you.
Mr. Graham. Right. And it--and just put yourself in the
average person's shoes. You are talking about buying a big item
and you are waiting and seeing. And if you can save 40, 50, 100
bucks on a big item, you are going to do it. And people wonder,
can legislators respond to this? Can they get their act
together to opt in? I would hate to be in a legislative body
that couldn't meet to decide to cut taxes for the benefit of
the consumer. So none of the hurdles that I have heard are
real. People respond. States will respond. We just need to
respond. And with your leadership, I think we can get there.
Chairman Manzullo. There is a----
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Manzullo. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie [continuing]. May I just----
Chairman Manzullo. Of course.
Mr. Abercrombie [continuing]. Follow on that very quickly.
I want to re-emphasize or reiterate my point. Much of this is
going to be psychological. I don't know that any of us can
predict in any given constituency--and by constituency, I mean,
like category of purchase--you know, of dishwashers or another
television set or what--that or clothes or shoes for the kids--
that in any given instance, you will be able to predict exactly
what is going to happen.
But I know one thing for sure that will happen--is if we
act on this and publicize this, that everybody will understand
it immediately and they will take from it that the Congress is
doing something. And not only doing something in the abstract,
but doing something for them right now that addresses their
immediate family needs. And that is probably as important as
anything else because then you can do the marketing or the
explaining on top of that.
Chairman Manzullo. It is easy to understand and it is self-
executing. Let me ask this question. If--I know CBO scored this
as $6.5 billion and they used static scoring.
Mr. Graham. Right.
Chairman Manzullo. But if overall sales increase, how much
more in federal income taxes will come in from the retailers?
Does anybody know? Or from the manufacturers of these items?
Mr. Graham. The good news is, Mr. Chairman, that----
Chairman Manzullo. A lot of people are I don't know--they
said, yeah, CBO--you got it right in Congress, but it is
static--static.
Mr. Graham. Yeah. But that is a great question because we
are assuming--and I guess we are all being conservative--we are
assuming there is not going to be any economic benefit to the
Treasury. It is all going to be a $6.5 billion dollar loss. The
truth is, there will be an economic benefit. No matter what CBO
says, you and I know that when sales go up, people get employed
in greater numbers. There are more people paying taxes. There
will be some offsetting of that.
But let us just say $6.5 billion and everything is static.
It is about ten percent of the number we are throwing around
here to help the economy. And there is a world of difference on
different ways to help the economy, but it seems to be a world
of agreement here. The White House is getting very warm to this
idea. I talked to Alan Greenspan, who is very intrigued by it.
But the main thing is, as Neil said, people can understand
it. And we have a very limited opportunity here to do something
constructive that people can understand, and it is about ten
percent of the number we are throwing around. And, gosh, I just
hope we can do it. And if--I think you all guys are the key.
Chairman Manzullo. I appreciate it. Ms. Velazquez, do you
have any question?
Ms. Velazquez. No. I don't have any questions.
Chairman Manzullo. Anybody else have any questions? Oh. I
am sorry. Democrat side--Bill, do you have any questions?
Congresswoman Tubbs, do you have any questions?
Mrs. Tubbs-Jones. No questions----
Chairman Manzullo. Okay.
Mrs. Tubbs-Jones [continuing]. Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Manzullo. Go ahead.
Mr. Shuster. I just have a statement. First of all, I would
like to commend Mr. Graham and Mr. Abercrombie. I think this
piece of legislation is what the economy needs. And I can speak
to it as a small business owner or as a retailer. I own an
automobile dealership. And what is happening right now because
of this legislation are people are putting off their purchases
because they want to see if they can save the 1,400 or $1,500.
So I think it is going to have a huge impact. And I just
urge the Chairman to let us move on this quickly so that we can
see it get out there and generate more sales. Right now, in my
business, about five to seven percent of the sales are being
put on hold, we believe, and I am getting calls from all over
the State of Pennsylvania, saying the same thing. Is this thing
going to come? So I think we need to, again, act on it and act
on it quickly. I think it is just what the economy needs.
Chairman Manzullo. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Shuster. Sure.
Chairman Manzullo. The--what is intriguing about the zero-
percent financing on the automobiles and trucks--and I don't
know how long that can go--but that has created a whole new
market for people who were not looking for----
Mr. Shuster. Yes.
Chairman Manzullo [continuing]. For automobiles. I was down
at an automobile dealer----
Mr. Shuster [continuing]. Yes.
Chairman Manzullo [continuing]. Sat in a silver pickup
truck, 4x4, I can see myself out on the farm. I could envision
driving a truck whose color is the same as my hair. And I
dreamed about being able to trade in my 1994 Buick Roadmaster
station wagon with 98,000 miles and buy a brand new pickup
truck for 300 bucks a month for the next five years. I have to
convince my wife. That is a hurdle that this Committee cannot
cover. But when you look at, in Illinois, about six-and-a-half
to seven percent in sales tax, on a $20,000 vehicle, that is
$1,400. But people also have to weigh, of course, how long the
zero-percent financing is going to--I mean, I would--if I were
going to buy, I would buy now. Then I would keep on buying once
the sales tax holiday goes into effect.
Listen, we really appreciate----
Mr. Abercrombie Mr. Chairman, can I add----
Chairman Manzullo. Yes. Of course.
Mr. Abercrombie [continuing]. Just a quota to that.
Academic----
Chairman Manzullo. Oh. I am sorry. Oh. I am sorry. I
thought you were finished, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Abercrombie. Oh. It is your time.
Chairman Manzullo. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Abercrombie. I yield back. But again, I just want to
stress that I think this is a----
Chairman Manzullo. You might want to recognize him because
it is your time.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes.
Mr. Shuster. Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. A follow on that,
and as a democrat, because I want to emphasize that this is I
don't want to say bipartisan--it is nonpartisan. In the sense
that I believe--and I want to state for the record--this is a
revenue generator. I know that the CBO, whoever it is--I mean,
but, you know, economists are people who have a job telling you
why you can't have one or don't have one or likely will not
have one. And why, overall, statistically that is a good thing.
You know, so I don't worry about that.
What we have got to do here--we are the people's
representatives. We are the ones that are elected. And I think
that common political sense tells you this is a revenue
generator, because people are going to do things they would not
otherwise do. That is why I think things like the spousal
travel deduction or business meal entertainment deduction--
people who have never worked before, except as economists,
don't understand how the economy operates. They deal in
abstractness.
I live within an economy that is based on service and we
understand that. And the automobile dealers in Hawaii get their
business from people who work in the service economy, who wait
on tables, who provide the food for the tables in restaurants,
who understand what it is to keep a hotel opened,
transportation back and forth from the airport, and so on, and
so forth. And that generates taxes. That generates revenue for
government at all levels.
And that is my last point. This is not just going to go to
the state. This is going to generate revenue all the way up and
down the line and enable cities and towns and villages to be
able to keep their property taxes going in the way that we will
be able to sustain them as well. If we don't do this, you are
going to see the collapse of all kinds of people being able to
meet their mortgage payments and all the rest of it. This is
going to be a revenue generator, Mr. Chairman, not something
that diminishes revenue.
Chairman Manzullo. Do you yield back your time?
Mr. Shuster. Just amen.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you.
Mr. Abercrombie. We all said amen.
Mr. Shuster. And this is a--I have been here six months and
this is, I think, the most common sense piece of legislation I
have seen. My big concern in six months is I have also seen, as
we move pretty slow, we need to move very, very quickly on this
to get it in play.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. So thank you.
Chairman Manzullo. Mr. Davis, do you have any questions?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have a
question. I just want to thank the gentlemen for coming to
testify. As a matter of fact, I am a cosponsor of this
legislation. I, too, believe that it is a common sense. It
stimulates the economy. It helps to move things around. It
causes people to put resources into action. I am not an
economist, but I am one who believes that if you really want to
stimulate the economy, that you don't just take--my mother was
a good soup maker. And I never saw her stir the top of the
soup. She generally went deep down and took the spoon and
stirred it up, which meant that you shook up everything in it.
And if you can get people to moving and spending and
transferring and interacting, then I believe that we are going
to get some stimulus and we are going to get the stimulus that
we need. And it is a good piece of legislation, and I thank the
gentlemen for coming to testify.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you. Anybody else wish to be
recognized? Okay. Well, thank you two very much.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. Congressman Baird, who is a member of
this Committee, is coming shortly. He is at another markup. So
we appreciate your coming to testify.
Mr. Graham. Thank you very much.
Chairman Manzullo. And if the next Panel would please take
their seats, we can get started then. Mr. DeMint, do you have a
witness here that you would like to introduce from your home
district?
Mr. DeMint. I would love to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to introduce a friend of mine from Greenville, South
Carolina, Rush Wilson. Rush, thanks for being here today and
thank you for letting me go out of order here. Again, he is
Vice President and Manager of Rush Wilson Limited. He helps to
dress the best-dressed people in Greenville, but he has been
very involved with the community in a lot of different ways, as
well as the Independent Stores Board of Directors, National
Retail Federation. And we are in the Greenville Rotary Club
together, and so we have been involved with a number of
projects. He is past President of both the Greenville Downtown
Merchants Association and the Carolinas-Virginia Clothiers
Association. So, Rush, I know you--you know what it is about on
the ground floor out doing business at retail. So I look
forward to hearing from you today and, thank you very much for
coming.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. DeMint. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. Well, thank you. And then I think Mr.
Thune has a witness--that as soon as he comes, we will have him
introduce that witness. Okay. Let us--the--I am going to put my
opening statement in the record and I think, Ms. Velazquez, you
want to do the same thing.
Ms. Velazquez. Correct.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you.
The--let us start here with Ms.--is it Lav? How do you
pronounce it?
Ms. Lav. Lav.
Chairman Manzullo. That is pretty simple, isn't it, to
pronounce. Ms. Lav, could you--Grover, could you move the
microphone over, and if you could place that sort of close to
you, we would appreciate your talking into it. Is it Ms. Lav?
That would be correct.
Ms. Lav is the Deputy Director of the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities. And we have got a little clock here that
shows about five minutes. And if you could stick as close to it
as possible, we would appreciate it. And we look forward to
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF IRIS J. LAV
Ms. Lav. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and members
of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the proposals to create a federally designed state
sales tax holiday.
Now, I would begin by saying the impulse behind sales tax
holiday proposals does make sense. One of the best ways to
boost our flagging economy now would be to stimulate consumer
demand. There is no question. But a national sales tax holiday
has such significant problems that it would sharply limit its
effectiveness.
The first problem is timing. I think no one should support
a sales tax holiday on the assumption that we can boost sales
in the Christmas season of 2001. It just can't happen.
You know, if Congress were to enact a holiday even today,
which it is not about to do, each legislature would need to
meet to enact the plan for the state. Governors can't do this.
Most state legislatures are not in session until January or
February. Of course, you can call a special session, but there
are time requirements and they carry substantial costs.
Once a legislature acted, state revenue departments would
need to act--write regulations to adapt the holiday to their
own sales tax systems. It doesn't happen automatically. And
this is far from a trivial task. Phrases such as sales tax or
tangible personal property or even food, that sounds simple in
federal legislation, are quite difficult to apply in each of
the different state sales tax systems.
And once the implementation details are settled, then the
state needs to go out to the retailers and educate them and the
general public about the holiday. Retailers need to reprogram
their machines, train their employees. It is a whole series of
steps, each one of which takes time. That it is not reasonable
to expect could be accomplished in many places before March or
April of 2002.
And given the delay, enacting of a sales tax holiday could
make consumer demand during the Christmas buying season worse
than it otherwise would be if you have something that is
enacted for January or February or March, and then consumers
delay purchases and--to wait for the holiday.
And, as someone already mentioned, this already seems to be
happening in Washington state, where, because of Senator
Murray's sponsorship, the sales tax holiday has been widely
publicized. The Seattle Times reported on November 8 that some
car dealers are saying they have already seen a drop-off in
sales because of the buzz surrounding the sales tax holiday.
A related issue is whether sales tax holidays hold much net
benefit for the economy. It is likely that increased sales
during the sales tax holiday are borrowed from periods before
and after the week or so after the holiday is in effect. It is
not enough to look at what happens during the holiday. And a
study by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance
found that New York shoppers bought no more clothing in the
winter of 1997 due to their holiday than they would have bought
anyway. They just crammed their purchases into the seven-day
holiday window. And that is one of the few studies that really,
you know, looks at that carefully.
A fourth set of issues of particular interest to this
Committee is the potential difficulty and cost of
implementation of a sales tax holiday for states and for small
businesses. For example, the bills exclude sales payable with
respect to food, tobacco products, and alcoholic beverages. A
lot of states that tax some or all of those, they are not
distinguished on remittances retailers make to the state
necessarily. So separate reporting would be a new burden on
retailers. So would be reporting on sales during a week rather
than a full month. There is just a lot of examples of things
that would be new reporting burdens.
And we do know that the cost of compliance will be greater
for small businesses than for larger ones. Data from Washington
state shows the cost of complying with state sales tax rules
and procedures, collecting and remitting tax, is about six-and-
a-half percent of sales tax for small retailers, but less than
one percent for large retailers. And Washington state also
found that the cost of reprogramming point-of-service equipment
for rate changes was four to nine times higher for small- and
medium-sized retailers than for large retailers.
Finally, the federal reimbursement to states for lost
revenues raises a troubling set of questions. The Federation of
Tax Administrators, the people that really know what goes on
with revenue, has major concerns about the methodologies that
are being considered for reimbursement. And it actually
calculates that the revenue loss would be more like 9.5 billion
to 13.3 billion than the 6.5 billion, which is the figure I
believe the National Retail Federation is using.
If states and localities are not made whole for lost
revenues, which I view as a high probability, the sales tax
holiday would add to the deficits with which states are already
coping. We know already that there will be cutbacks in services
and increases in taxes because of the deficits, and that
certainly will affect small businesses.
It is also important to remember that in the recession of
the early 1990s, about half the states raised their sales and
excise taxes to close their budget gaps, to the tune of about
$12 billion. And certainly, if states are not adequately
reimbursed, but in any case, they will be looking at raising
their consumption taxes, something that can weaken retail
sales. And we have to look at that and figure what the best way
to spend dollars to counteract that.
There are better ways to boost the economy.
Chairman Manzullo. How are you on time? We are about a
minute over.
Ms. Lav. Oh. Okay. I am sorry. I am a little bit over. So
let me say I think there are better ways to boost the economy
and we can talk about that in questions. And I would just urge
you to consider some of these better ways, rather than this,
which is extremely difficult to implement and would potentially
be harmful. Thank you.
[Ms. Lav's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. I look forward to asking you the
question. Thank you very much for your excellent testimony. Our
next witness is Grover Norquist. And Grover is the President of
the Americans for Tax Reform. I look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GROVER NORQUIST
Mr. Norquist. Thank you. Yes. I serve as President of
Americans for Tax Reform. We ask candidates for office to take
the pledge against tax increases--213 members of the House, 37
senators, 1,200 state legislators, nine governors and one
president have done so. So we oppose tax increases, but also
are generally a supporter of reducing the tax burden at the
federal, state and local levels.
I think the national sales tax holiday is an extremely good
idea. I would say that what Mae West said about sex was true
also about tax cuts. All tax cuts are good tax cuts; even bad
tax cuts are good tax cuts. That said, this is a good tax cut.
I think it is an extremely good way to go. I am glad it is
being brought up now. I hope it is passed now for this season.
But if it is not able to be done in time, for reasons that have
been discussed, I hope the next time we talk about a
significant tax cut that we include this as well.
It is a big improvement. It is a way to make any tax cut
more ``progressive'' to make sure that we reach out to people
who don't, perhaps, pay an income tax or a capital gains tax,
but make sure that we get tax reductions for them. I think in
this situation, it is particularly important in building
consumer confidence, which is why I think we should do it now
for this year, for this Christmas season. It is a good idea
now. It ought to be considered as part of future tax
reductions.
There are five states without sales taxes--Alaska,
Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon. I would hope that
we could come up with some mechanism to allow them, perhaps, to
do the same thing against their gasoline tax or against
property tax cuts, and make some provision for those.
And lastly, I would hope that the U.S. Congress would look
down the road to abolishing federal excise taxes and getting
the federal government out of the excise tax business, leaving
that revenue stream for the states and getting rid of the
present excise taxes that we have on telecommunications and
other areas. Thank you.
[Mr. Norquist's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you. Congressman Thune, would you
like to introduce the next witness?
Mr. Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would. It is my
pleasure and privilege today to have with us Mr. Elmer Karl
from Gregory, South Dakota. He is the owner of Karl's TV and
Appliance, Incorporated, and is a past President of the South
Dakota Retailers' Association. Mr. Karl opened his first store
in Gregory with $2,000 and a lot of hard work, and has grown
his company into a successful chain of retail stores. Today,
Karl's TV and Appliance employs 220 people in South Dakota in
ten different stores across our state. So it is a great
pleasure for me to introduce and to welcome to our Panel today
Mr. Elmer Karl.
STATEMENT OF ELMER KARL
Mr. Karl. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank
Congressman John Thune----
Chairman Manzullo. Excuse me. Could you----
Mr. Karl. How about that?
Chairman Manzullo. Yeah. And bring it up just a little bit
closer. There. That is fine. Thank you.
Mr. Karl. I don't want you to miss this. Anyway, I do want
to thank you for inviting me to testify at this morning's
hearing on the proposed National Sales Tax Holiday.
As John mentioned, my name is Elmer Karl and I am President
of our company, Karl's TV and Appliance. Since I started back
in '56, I have implemented a ESOP so we are now an employee-
owned company.
I have served on the Board of the South Dakota Retailers
and have been President for one term. We currently--as John
mentioned, we operate ten locations in South Dakota, two in
Minnesota, one in Nebraska, and two in Iowa. Many of our stores
are located in cities of less than 15,000 population, so I am
well aware of the difficulties and challenges that the small
retailer faces. Our company advertises extensively, runs
monthly retail promotions, to generate business in a highly
competitive situation. So I feel qualified I can express an
opinion on how to generate more sales.
I come here today to encourage the members of this
Committee, to work toward the enactment of the Nationwide Sales
Tax Holiday. I have read the legislation that is being proposed
and, in my opinion, this holiday would definitely encourage the
average consumer to make a purchase during that time. This
savings to the taxpayer would affect virtually everyone and
could not help but jump-start the economy.
Retailers would have to replenish their inventory, which,
in turn, would mean that manufacturers would have to increase
production. Unlike zero-percent interest promotions on durable
goods, which benefit only those consumers with excellent
financial strength, this sales tax holiday would benefit every
consumer making purchases during that time. I do not feel,
based on my past experience of running special one-day
promotions, that this would slow sales prior to, or after, the
dates of this no-tax period.
In these times of a slow economy, consumers instinctively
cut back purchases to conserve money in case of economic
hardship, such as the loss of a job by a family member. And
those of us in the retail business were already experiencing
softening of sales prior to the horrific attacks of September
11. There is no question that the events of that day further
hurt retail sales and the confidence of the consumer.
While these economic downturns are difficult for the
business community and, in fact, for the Nation as a whole,
they are exceptionally difficult for small business
communities. Because of inventory overstocks due to slower
sales, many are experiencing a slowing of cash flow. Now, this
is not easy for any business, but can be disastrous for even
the most fiscally sound business.
I believe that American small businesses are resilient and
will serve and survive the economic downturns as we have in the
past. However, the cutbacks that have been necessary at the
retail level have been felt throughout the supply chain as
well. The lower demand for manufactured goods to be delivered
to our stores results in more unemployment and continued
recession.
Congressional action that spurs consumer spending would be
the quickest, most targeted way to stimulate the economy. You
will be helping to increase the disposable income of consumers
through the savings that people receive on goods that need to
be purchased for the holiday season. This, combined with the
reduction in the cost of merchandise that customers would like
to purchase, will encourage additional spending, further
stimulating the economy.
I am sure that you have a number of proposals presented to
you to stimulate the economy. However, it appears to me that a
Nationwide Sales Tax Holiday would be an excellent use of the
stimulus money. Under this plan, only those that spend money
would receive the benefits. This ensures that every dollar that
Congress appropriates for this Congress will immediately go
directly back into the economy.
I appreciate the plan to limit this National Sales Tax
Holiday to only ten days so that it will provide a focused,
potent infusion of money without creating a new program that
will require more funding in the future. There may be extra
administrative duties for both the government and especially
for the retailer, however, my feeling is that the retailer is
up to the challenge and willing to create an environment to
grow the economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee
today on this critical issue. I hope that this Committee will
take the action necessary to ensure that the Congress will
provide consumers and the economy with this National Sales Tax
Holiday. Thank you very much.
[Mr. Karl's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Well, thank you. We appreciate your
testimony. You came all the way out from South Dakota. Huh?
Mr. Karl. Yeah.
Chairman Manzullo. How is the weather out there?
Mr. Karl. Pardon?
Chairman Manzullo. You got snow?
Mr. Karl. No. We have been 70 degrees.
Chairman Manzullo. Is that right?
Mr. Karl. Yeah. Last year we had snow.
Chairman Manzullo. Oh. Okay.
Mr. Karl. We don't need another year like that.
Chairman Manzullo. Well, all right. Well, we can't promise
that here. Okay. The--thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Karl. You are welcome.
Chairman Manzullo. Our next witness is Elizabeth Holland.
She is with--is it called Abbell?
Ms. Holland. Abbell.
Chairman Manzullo. Abbell. Thank you. Abbell Credit
Corporation, which owns someshopping centers. And speaking
for--speaking on behalf of the International Council of Shopping
Centers. And we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH I. HOLLAND
Ms. Holland. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, and fellow citizens. My name is Elizabeth Holland
and I am the Chief Executive of Abbell Corporation, a 50-year-
old, third generation family business focused on real estate
investment, development, and management based in Chicago,
Illinois. Abbell Credit manages a 1.6 million square foot
portfolio comprised of shopping center, enclosed mall, and
office properties, including Merle Hay Mall in Des Moines,
Iowa, and Westgate Village Shopping Center in Toledo, Ohio.
I am here on behalf of the International Council of
Shopping Centers, or ICSC, the global trade association of the
shopping center industry. Its 40,000 members in the United
States, Canada, and more than 75 other countries around the
world, include shopping center owners, developers, managers,
investors, lenders, retailers, and other professionals. The
shopping center industry contributes significantly to the U.S.
economy. In 2000, shopping centers in the U.S. accounted for
$1.14 trillion in retail sales, collected $46.6 billion in
state sales taxes, and employed 10.7 million people.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address your
Committee today in support of the Sales Tax Holiday Act of
2001.
The U.S. economy is in the midst of a serious downturn that
requires additional economic stimulus measures in order to
hasten a full recovery. Consumer spending, which accounts for
more than two-thirds of our Nation's Gross Domestic Product,
plunged 1.8 percent in September, following a small three-
tenths of one percent gain in August. Personal consumption of
durable goods fell by 3.2 percent in September, while that of
non-durable goods fell by 1.3 percent. Retail sales fell in
lock step with the decline in consumer spending. Total retail
sales in September were off by 2.4 percent from August.
Yesterday, the Commerce Department released data showing
that October retail sales increased by a record 7.1 percent.
Most of that increase, however, was due to a 26.4 percent jump
in automobile sales. Sales driven largely by zero-percent
financing and other incentives offered by manufacturers and
dealers. Excluding auto sales, overall retail sales in October
rose by a mere one percent. While this increase is certainly an
improvement over September's 2.4 percent decline, it is still
relatively anemic compared to sales growth in prior years.
Furthermore, much of last month's sales increase may have
been the result of pent-up demand from September spilling into
October and is by no means a guarantee that retail sales will
continue to grow.
This time of year retailers typically hire additional
workers to accommodate increased holiday traffic. The retail
industry, however, is one of the sectors of the economy that
has been hit hardest by the dramatic increases in unemployment.
The latest figures from the Labor Department show that retail
employment has dropped during the last three months. In fact,
retail employment fell 81,000 jobs on a seasonally adjusted
basis in October. This is especially troubling during a time of
year when the number of retail jobs usually increases.
One predictor of future retail sales is the consumer
confidence level. The Conference Board, a New York-based
private business research group, reported that its confidence
index fell for a fourth straight month to 85.5 in October, from
97 in September, its lowest level. Falling consumer confidence
often leads to weaker retail spending as consumers' purchasing
behavior becomes guided by negative perceptions about the
economy and the possibility of impending income reductions or
job losses.
It is for this reason that the International Council of
Shopping Centers supports the Sales Tax Holiday Act of 2001.
Introduced by Representatives Lindsey Graham and Rob
Blagojevich, H.R. 3172 would establish a nationwide state sales
tax holiday from November 23 to December 2 of this year that
would exempt from sales tax all tangible personal property,
except food, alcohol, and tobacco, with no monetary cap.
Our sales tax holiday experience in Iowa is consistent with
the conclusion that sales tax holidays assist consumers at the
consumer level. Merle Hay Mall is the oldest, and still the
largest, mall in the State of Iowa. Early in 2000, the Iowa
State Legislature enacted a two-day sales tax holiday to take
place at the beginning of August on clothing and shoe purchases
up to $100 in order to help parents shop for their children
before the start of the school year. The sales tax holiday in
2000 was so successful that Iowa enacted another one for August
of 2001.
I know that my time is short, Mr. Chairman, but I would
just like to provide you with our specific sales numbers. We
had tremendous sales growth year over year during our sales tax
holiday. In August 2000, mall-wide sales were up 45 percent
over the same month in 1999. Department store sales were up
seven percent. Surprisingly, the increases were not isolated to
those merchants who sold goods covered by the tax holiday. Food
court sales were up 63 percent; jewelry store sales were up 24
percent; music and electronic sales were up 27 percent over the
same period in 1999.
Needless to say, with this tremendous sales performance, we
were hoping just to maintain those levels during the sales tax
holiday of 2001. Once again, we were pleasantly surprised.
Mall-wide sales were up 19 percent from August 2000, with
department store sales up six percent. Retailers, such as Old
Navy, The Gap, and American Eagle Outfitters, were up 39
percent. Children's stores that include The Children's Place,
Limited Too, Kid's Footlocker, and Gymboree, were up an
astonishing 92 percent.
Chairman Manzullo. How are you doing on time? You are a
minute over.
Ms. Holland. Oh. I apologize.
Chairman Manzullo. That is okay. They are good figures.
Ms. Holland. We strongly support a national sales tax
holiday for this holiday season and urge that one be enacted as
soon as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to present my
views. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[Ms. Holland's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you for your testimony. The next
witness is Mr. Wilson who has already been introduced. Mr.
Wilson, I look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RUSH WILSON, III
Mr. Wilson. Good morning, and thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you to all the Committee members today for
the opportunity for me to come here and testify.
Chairman Manzullo. Excuse me. You are testifying on behalf
of the National Retail Association.
Mr. Wilson. Yes. I am.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. I would also like to thank Congressman DeMint
for inviting me, and also Congressman Lindsey Graham for
extending this invitation. My name is Rush Wilson, III. I am
Vice President and Manager of Rush Wilson Limited, in
Greenville, South Carolina. It is a retail clothing store
specializing in men's and women's clothing. It was founded by
my father 50 years ago.
I am testifying today on behalf of the National Retail
Federation, where I serve on the Independent Stores Board. NRF
is the world's largest trade association for retail,
representing 1.4 million retail establishments that employ more
than 22 million Americans.
I am here today to discuss the concept that has been
proposed to help address the current status of our economy. The
ten-day Nationwide Sales Tax Holiday that this Committee is
considering is designed to stimulate our Nation's economy by
providing consumers another opportunity to come and return to
our stores.
Simply put, consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of
our Nation's Gross Domestic Product. Many economists have
credited consumption with sustaining the economy through July
and August, even though business investment and construction
were declining. In light of this, many experts agree that the
fastest and strongest means to economic recovery is to boost
consumer spending.
Second, this proposal will stimulate increased spending by
not only saving people money, but also boosting the morale of
the American consumer. This is a popular proposal and easy
that--because it is easy for the consumer to understand, and it
provides immediate benefits.
In a recent poll, more than 83 percent of the respondents
stated that they would take advantage of the holiday, and
nearly 70 percent said that if the holiday were in effect, they
would make purchases they would not otherwise make.
The impact of this holiday would also be experienced
outside the retail community. Reduction in store inventory
would lead to an increased demand for manufactured goods.
Increased traffic in the stores and malls would have a dramatic
effect on the service and restaurant industry as well.
In conclusion, I urge you to consider the opportunity you
have before you. With this proposal, you can take a strong,
positive step toward revitalizing the American economy. This
one-time expenditure will help lift consumer confidence and
spur additional spending. This additional spending will
stimulate retail, manufacturing, transportation, and other
sectors reliant upon consumer spending.
As President Bush has stated, there is a role for
government in aiding America's return to normalcy. By enacting
a nationwide sales tax holiday, Congress can assist in the
effort to return our economy to its previous vibrant state.
Thank you very much for your time.
[Mr. Wilson's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. And thank you for your testimony. Our
next witness is Kathy Gornik, who is Vice Chair of the Consumer
Electronics Association and the President of THIEL Audio
Products. I look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE GORNIK
Ms. Gornik. Thank you.
Chairman Manzullo. Could you put the microphone there in
front of you?
Ms. Gornik. I sure can. Is that good? Thank you, Chairman
Manzullo, and members of this Committee. I am Kathy Gornik,
Vice Chair of the Consumer Electronics Association. I volunteer
in this position as the President of THIEL Audio Products
Company, which I co-founded in 1977. Based in Lexington,
Kentucky, THIEL employs 35 people and is one of America's
premier loudspeaker manufacturers.
THIEL is a member of the Consumer Electronics Association,
CEA, which represents more than 600 companies in the consumer
technology industry. CEA is strongly in favor of H.R. 3172 and
its Senate companion, S.1643, which would provide a necessary,
direct and immediate stimulus to the American economy by
creating a nationwide sales tax holiday.
I am gratified that President Bush and the members of the
Committee are considering ways to invigorate the economy. But
let me say it clearly and emphatically, action is needed now.
It is essential that the government move to address America's
uncertainties and fears about spending money. Of all the ideas
for economic stimulus being considered in Congress, the
nationwide sales tax holiday stands out as the one proposal
that would guarantee consumer spending.
First, a nationwide sales tax holiday will boost consumer
spending right when it is needed--immediately, when consumer
confidence and spending are down. Consumer confidence is at a
seven-year low, and the GDP has seen its biggest decline in a
decade. A sales tax holiday will help arrest these trends and
pump money into the economy around this critical holiday
season.
Secondly, a sales tax holiday is targeted tax relief. It
puts money where it is most urgently needed, directly into the
pockets of ordinary taxpaying Americans. Through no fault of
their own, American workers are bearing the brunt of this
economic downturn. A sales tax holiday will benefit every
American. It is egalitarian, simple, and straightforward. Most
importantly, consumers know that in order to take advantage of
a sales tax holiday, they must go to the store and spend.
Finally, a nationwide sales tax holiday will be effective.
As a small businesswoman, I know all about the price
sensitivity of consumers. It is no wonder that statewide sales
tax holidays have a proven record of success.
During statewide tax holidays in Pennsylvania and South
Carolina, sales of computers jumped between 60 and 80 percent.
Our survey shows that about half of the consumers in those
states regarded the holiday as a major consideration in their
purchase. In addition, roughly a quarter of those surveyed
reported that their purchases during the sales tax holiday were
not planned. In other words, a significant portion of these
sales would not have occurred at all in the absence of a tax
holiday.
A tax holiday especially helps low-income consumers, for
whom sales taxes are a proportionately bigger burden. For many
low-income families, a tax holiday makes the critical
difference in enabling purchases that they would not otherwise
be able to afford.
The benefit of a sales tax holiday will extend far beyond
my business and the consumer technology industry. Under the
proposed legislation, almost any tangible consumer product
could be purchased tax free, except for alcohol and tobacco.
Americans would take advantage of a one-time opportunity to
purchase computers, clothing, furniture, and holiday gifts. A
tax holiday would cause a beneficial domino effect across the
American economy, lifting retailers, manufacturers,
distributors, and every sector that relies on consumer
spending.
An added bonus is that consumer purchases often lead to
additional spending even after the tax holiday period has
concluded. In the consumer technology industry, purchases of
speakers, audiosystems, DVD players, and computers tend to
generate subsequent sales of music, movies, accessories, and software.
The bipartisan and broad-based support that the nationwide
sales tax holiday has received is testament to the strength of
the proposal. A diverse range of groups from the Small Business
Survival Committee to the Gray Panthers have voiced their
support for the nationwide sales tax holiday as a smart measure
that will boost consumer confidence and business activity.
Members on both sides of the aisle recognize that this
proposal will not only have a beneficial economic impact, it
will also send a signal of confidence to Americans coping with
the post-September 11 world, and help lift spirits as we enter
the holiday season. Finally, it will send a strong message of
resolve to the enemies of America who are hoping that economic
aftershocks of September 11 will tear our country apart.
In closing, I would like to thank and commend this
Committee for highlighting the importance of a nationwide sales
tax holiday to America's 25 million small businesses. As a
small businesswoman, I look forward to getting over this
current economic downturn so I can begin rehiring workers and
resume growing my company. A nationwide sales tax holiday would
provide the temporary, targeted, and effective relief that
America's small businesses so badly need. I urge members of the
House and Senate to pass nationwide sales tax holiday
legislation as quickly as possible. And many thanks to you
again.
[Ms. Gornik's statement may be found in appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you for your testimony. I would
like now to represent our brother here on the Committee, Brian
Baird, who was scheduled to be on the first Panel. And,
Congressman Baird, I am going to hold you to five minutes also
on your testimony and look forward to it.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN BAIRD
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. And all of your testimony will obviously
be made part of the record.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the chance to testify. I apologize for not being here on the
first Panel. We had a markup on a piece of legislation I
drafted in the Science Committee.
Very briefly, I want to commend the witnesses and the
sponsors of this legislation for their initiative and for
supporting what I perceive to be a very important opportunity
to stimulate our economy at a time of significant downturn.
I support this bill for two reasons. First of all, the
obvious one that people have mentioned--the immediate potential
stimulus effect, particularly at this key holiday season.
However, secondly, I support it for a reason that may not
have been mentioned, and that is one of fundamental fairness.
States in our Nation that fund their state government
activities through sales taxes are disadvantaged currently
relative to states who fund their activities through income
taxes. Income taxes paid to states can be deducted from federal
income tax reform, but state sales taxes cannot. This
effectively leaves a double taxation circumstance on those who
fund with state sales taxes. We have been unsuccessful thus
far, though myself and Congressman Clement have endeavored to
do so, and Barbara Cubin, on the other side of the aisle, has
introduced similar legislation.
But I believe we should look not only at this sales tax
holiday, but following that--which I hope we will pass this
successfully. Following that, I would urge this Committee and
the Congress at large to look at a more broader issue of sales
tax deductibility, either deducting sales tax across the board
again, as it was prior to 1986, as a stimulus to economic
growth, or possibly allowing states who have no income tax, but
only sales taxes, to deduct their sales tax in an analogous
fashion that those who have income taxes do.
The net cost to this is relatively small compared to many
other initiatives that have been put forward. But it is all
about fundamental fairness in addition to the economic stimulus
element that has been mentioned so well thus far.
I thank the Chair for convening this hearing. And I hope we
can bring this to the Floor. And, again, I hope we will move on
beyond this to consider broader sales tax deductibility in the
future. Thanks for the opportunity to testify.
Chairman Manzullo. I appreciate your testimony. I have got
several questions I wanted to ask of Ms. Lav. And I am glad
that I decided to put you first, because my big concern with
the bill, although I am a proponent of it, is the
implementation of it. I--and maybe this is more of a statement
or a suggestion.
I think, first of all, it would be a mistake for a
Congressional bill to start covering not exceptions. If there
is going to a national sales tax holiday, the state--each state
should be allowed to determine what it is going to tax and what
it is not going to tax. Because I have been involved in retail
long enough to know the tremendous cost of reprogramming those
cash registers. It is an incredible amount. I mean, in
Illinois, I think there is a one-percent tax on processed food.
And, on some food, there is no tax, and on some--I mean,
everything that goes through is set up with the--is set up with
that special scanner.
The other--I mean, the other thing that I want to talk
about your testimony is the fact that the states are
legitimately concerned that they are paying their bill and then
someone is going to bellyache. Then you got to go through a
reconciliation process.
So I think if there is going to be a bill, number one, this
thing has to be able to be implemented quickly and easily. And
I will be hanged if we are going to spend any more money on
bureaucrats that get in fights with the governors or how much
they are going to back in the sales tax. If there is going to
be a fight, then I will be the first one to oppose it.
So I am in favor of it. You said you had some suggestions,
Ms. Lav. And, please, go ahead.
Ms. Lav. Well, I mean, I actually--and my suggestions would
be, you know, sort of better ways to go. Because I agree with--
--
Chairman Manzullo. Would you agree with me on the----
Ms. Lav [continuing]. If it is going to be----
Chairman Manzullo [continuing]. Implementation if it is
going to be a bill?
Ms. Lav. I think you could solve--I think you would have
to, if you were to do it, just do it on anything, you know,
that--it is very difficult to distinguish really tangible goods
from non-tangible goods. States tax services. They tax some
services that are incidental. To the sale of goods, they tax
other kinds of services. Some tax leases as tangible goods.
Some of them don't. Some of them tax cars under their sales
tax. Some of them have a separate recordation tax. And, you
know, if you were to do it, it would not be fair for the states
that have chosen to have the separate recordation tax to not
get----
Chairman Manzullo. Illinois has both.
Ms. Lav [continuing]. To get, you know----
Chairman Manzullo. High recordation tax and high sales tax.
Ms. Lav. Right. But some states, you know----
Chairman Manzullo. Sure.
Ms. Lav [continuing]. Instead of a sales tax, do something
else. They don't call the--what they--the way they tax cars--
their sales tax. But it is the same rate as their sales tax and
it is in lieu of it. So I mean, I think that one--you--these
kind--you don't--you wouldn't want to get these--are very
difficult to get around these complications.
It is very difficult--one of the reasons I am very--I am a
little skeptical of this, despite its good intent, is that for
one level of government to tell another level sort of what to
exempt and then to try and reimburse them on some kind of a
fair basis, when you have something that is dynamic where you--
everybody agrees you are going to be shifting sales from before
and after into the holiday window. I mean, there is no one that
disagrees that that is what happens.
And so you don't know how much to reimburse. You don't
know--you have to figure out all these complications about
layaways and so forth.
Chairman Manzullo. Before my time runs out, you had some
suggestions--an alternative stimulus that would be related to
sales or what did you----
Ms. Lav. No. Well, I think--yeah, well, I think what the
most--the best--most effective stimulus is to put money in the
hands of low and moderate-income people who have what is called
the largest propensity to spend. I am not an economist, but I
will use the economic term. Which is that people who spend the
greatest share of every dollar they get. And you can do that by
the rebate that is in virtually all of the bills. You can do
that by improving on employment insurance, because you are
going to have a huge drop-off in consumption of people who are
losing their jobs. And almost every dollar that people get in
unemployment compensation is spent.
There is a new idea that is beginning to percolate in the
Senate, which, you know, it is unclear yet whether there are
problems with it, but it might be good, for giving payroll tax.
The trick is to not get so complicated and just put money in
the hands of people who can spend it and do it fast, which is
what I would suggest.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay. Another method to stimulate the
economy by letting people have more control over their money.
Ms. Lav. Yes.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay. Appreciate that thought. My time
has expired. Or did anybody want to have a comment on my
question? Okay. Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And basically, I am
concerned about this proposal in terms of three areas--its
practicality, timelessness, and the benefit of this proposal.
And I guess that, Ms. Lav, you answered the first one--
practicality. I just would like to ask the other members of the
Panel, if Congress acts on this legislation and we pass it next
week, we are dreaming. But if we pass this legislation next
week, do you think that every state in the Nation will be able
to put in place the infrastructure that we need? Yes.
Ms. Holland. I would just briefly like to say that while a
number of state legislatures are still in special session, I do
know that last week when Iowa State Legislature was in special
session, just on the off chance that Congress did enact this
legislation, they passed enabling provisions that would permit
Governor Vilsack to immediately opt in and direct the
Department of Revenue to take all measures to participate.
Mr. Norquist. I think you would be surprised how quickly
state legislators could act if you gave them the incentive to
do so.
Ms. Lav. I would just--most legislatures are not in session
right now. Very few of them are, you know--a little more than a
handful. And I think there are impediments to their coming into
session, particularly at this time of the year. But just the
practicalities of what it takes to do a special session in a
state and the notice requirements and so forth.
Ms. Velazquez. So what do you say to those people who are
right now concerned about the fact that consumers are holding
off in purchasing and spending their money because they are
just waiting for this national tax sale? The National
Automobile--they express concern about this and they are saying
that the numbers are showing that people are not spending
because they are waiting for this to happen.
Mr. Norquist. You could solve that----
Ms. Velazquez. Wouldn't that have an opposite effect?
Mr. Norquist. You could solve that problem by passing the
legislation very quickly.
Ms. Velazquez. I understand that. But what I am saying is
that this is--we need to get all the states----
Mr. Norquist. Yeah. Well, with CNN and----
Ms. Velazquez [continuing]. To pass the regulation in order
for people to take advantage of this. And it is just not that
easy.
Mr. Norquist. With CNN and e-mail, I think most of the
state legislators could figure out very quickly that you guys
had done this and could get to their state capitals, which are
not that far from where they live, within a day.
Ms. Velazquez. Ms. Lav, do you know of any study that shows
how much this will cost the Federal Government? How much they
are saying this is going to cost.
Ms. Lav. Well, the Federation of Tax Administrators, which
represents the people who, you know, administer taxes and
revenue issues in the states, has made an estimate--it is
difficult to tell because of, you know, the shifting and so
forth, but it looks like it is in the range, you know, of $9 to
$13 billion, something like that.
Ms. Velazquez. Ms. Holland, you stated in your testimony
that the shopping center industry contributes significantly to
the U.S. economy. In 2000, shopping centers in the U.S.
accounted for $1.14 trillion in retail sales, collected $46.6
billion in state sales taxes. What you are telling me is that
you are--that--do you agree with me that this $6 or $9 billion
is grossly understated?
Ms. Holland. I don't know that I agree. I have no question
that the people who estimated that it would cost $6.5 billion
have much more information about total retail sales in a ten-
day period during the holiday season than I do. I do know that,
in my experience, consumers who get to stores, even though they
think they are only saving money on children's clothing and
shoes, spend money on other things. So there is no question
that just getting people out and back to living their lives and
spending money like they did previously would be a good thing.
Ms. Velazquez. But when you give me a number like $46.6
billion in state sales taxes, don't you think that this $9
billion is understated? Just too low a cost for the Federal
Government.
Ms. Holland. Well, it would depend on what percentage of
that state sales tax was collected between Thanksgiving and
Christmas.
Ms. Velazquez. Okay. Ms. Lav, what will be the cost of
compliance? You--in your testimony you said that it will be
greater for small businesses compared to larger corporations.
Would you please explain that?
Ms. Lav. Sure. I mean, I think larger corporations just
tend to have more sophisticated equipment. They have a larger--
they can spread the overhead of compliance over a larger number
of sales. It is also the case that, you know--they just make
more sales and they--andthen they can more easily comply. It is
always the case that it costs a small business more to comply with the
same set of rules than if you are spreading that compliance over a
larger base of sales. And so whether it is programming cash registers
or filing forms with the government, as a percent of their sales, it
costs small businesses more.
Ms. Velazquez. Ms. Gornik, yes.
Ms. Gornik. Thank you for letting me jump in here. I own a
small company and, admittedly I am not a retailer. But I will
tell you that any retailer--and I don't care how big they are
or how small they are--would leap at this opportunity to
provide their customers with a discount. And they do this all
day long. Sometimes they can do it several times a day. Believe
me, these people are very well--you know, they are competent,
they are able to create adjustments in prices. It is--they--
this is part and parcel of running a business, and it doesn't
matter if you are large or small.
The other point I want to say, Ms. Velazquez--and I am
sorry if I am mispronouncing your name--is that consumers
aren't buying right now. Whether they are waiting for us to
give them a national sales tax holiday or they are just afraid
to buy, they worried about the economy, the truth is, and the
bottom line is, is that they are not buying. I don't think that
this particular legislation is holding them back.
Ms. Velazquez. I don't know you read this article that came
out in the Washington Post, but it is making reference to the
fact that there has been a jump in retail sales, 7.1.
Ms. Gornik. Right. And the further information on that
particular point is that is driven almost entirely by new sales
of automobiles. And it is not spreading across the economy to
me or many of the companies represented here.
Ms. Velazquez. Ms. Lav, what evidence is available which
proves that increases in sales during a sales tax holiday have
translated into the state overall economic improvement?
Ms. Lav. There is very little evidence. And, in fact, the
evidence that exists suggests that it doesn't. It really--the
evidence that--of careful studies suggests that you have
shifting of sales into a sales tax holiday window, but very
little overall increase in sales if you look at a full quarter
or a full period, a larger period of time. So--and so--and if
there is not--and even consumers don't necessarily get the full
benefit of it. There is some evidence from research on the
floor of the sales holiday that, in fact, retailers, by giving
less markdowns they otherwise would during the period of a
sales tax holiday, capture about one out of every $5. That of
the cost of what, in this case, would be the cost of the sales
tax holiday that the Federal Government----
Ms. Velazquez. Would you like to comment?
Mr. Karl. Yeah. I don't--I just can't agree with that
because it will stimulate sales. And, yes, the merchants are
still going to be competing against one another, and that will
not--that money will go directly back to the consumer, that
savings. It will spur sales and there will not be--we have run
promotions that are just one-day promotions and advertise it
four or five days in advance. It doesn't seem to affect those
days prior. It may soften them a little, but that one-day spike
will just wipe out any little anything that would happen that
they wouldn't buy.
It would be--you know, if I would have to--and having
income tax and we are putting it by sales tax--and right now
our sales tax is down. And we need a shot in the arm.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. One comment
I want to make about auto--I am an auto dealer, still am an
auto dealer and in contact with the store, and I get updates on
what is happening. And this legislation is causing people to
hesitate, but it is also bringing people into the store that
said their--that think if it is going to happen, they are going
to buy a car. And the key to this right now is that we need to
act and act quickly. And those people will either buy or won't
buy if we enact this legislation. But I think, on balance, it
is going to be a big boon to the economy. It is a one-time
deal, and the cost of implementing it, I think, is minor
compared to what it is going to do to the economy. So just
statement, no question. Thank you.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay.
Ms. Gornik. I would like to also add a comment that----
Chairman Manzullo. Go ahead.
Ms. Gornik [continuing]. That this will not--I would like
to take a longer view of the ripple effect of a national sales
tax holiday. We keep talking about the cost, but we are not
talking about the added benefit that can occur. For example, if
a person were to buy a DVD player, through this incentive, over
the ensuing weeks and months, that person is far more likely to
buy DVDs to go with that. But in our consumer research at the
Consumer Electronics Association, very much supports that. We
will see additional revenues generated across the economy. And,
hi, Darrell.
Chairman Manzullo. Hi, Darrell.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. But the witness knows
me far too well, I am afraid, after about eight years on the
same board. Hello, Katherine.
Chairman Manzullo. Well, Katherine, thank you for coming in
spite of that. I appreciate--Mr. Pascrell, do you have any
questions?
Mr. Pascrell. I certainly do. Mr. Chairman, I want to
commend those folks who put this in front of us and you
allowing us to discuss this today. The more I look into this
particular issue--and I must say, Mr. Karl, you make a lot of
sense. I may not agree that we can get this done in time, or we
should. But I think that the plight that you expressed is
something we must address. There is no two ways about it.
Whether this is the stimulant that we want--because all states
have the ability, and most states, have the ability to do this,
to have done this. Some have already done this in past years
and in this year.
What is very different, very different, about 3172 is that
we talk in 3172 of reimbursement. Now, Mr. Norquist said some
very interesting things today and I would like to ask you some
questions with your permission.
Mr. Norquist. Sure. Is this about Mae West?
Mr. Pascrell. No. I will ask the questions, Mr. Norquist.
Mr. Norquist. Sure.
Mr. Pascrell. Where do you suggest we get the $6.5 billion
of reimbursement to the states, 80 percent of which must be
provided at a certain time, and the other 20 percent later on?
Where do you suggest we get that money? And have you located
that money in the federal budget?
Mr. Norquist. No. You are talking about general revenues.
And this is coming in the context of overall tax cuts that the
House and the Senate are looking to pass.
Mr. Pascrell. So there is no money in the budget right now
which addresses this particular issue.
Mr. Norquist. No. You would be appropriating that. Correct.
Mr. Pascrell. Now, if I had to make a decision, and you
tell me whether you agree or disagree with me--if I had to make
a decision as to whether or not I was going to spend $6.5
billion of federal tax dollars to either provide for homeland
security, specifically prevention of bioterrorism, and do this,
I know what I would provide, and I think I know--let me ask you
the question. What would you suggest? What is the greater
priority at this particular time? Because there is legislation
to do that, by the way.
Mr. Norquist. Uh-huh.
Mr. Pascrell. So I am not dreaming it up. Which is the more
stimulant to the economy, and which is more necessary, in your
mind?
Mr. Norquist. Well, the effort for homeland security is
being taken care of through the Defense Department budget and
the CPA budget, and there is a regular appropriations process
for all of those things. This is a separate issue of how best
to stimulate the economy. I think we should do both of those
things, and I hope the folks over at the Senate will actually
do the homeland security stuff in the regular appropriations
budget, rather than what they have been doing with putting in
all sorts of pork barrel spending programs and the chicken poop
stuff over there, rather than doing it in homeland security.
You are quite correct to criticize the Senate for not getting
the homeland security stuff done.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, the $6.5 billion is going to have--we
have to find it somewhere----
Mr. Norquist. Correct.
Mr. Pascrell [continuing]. Which is my point.
Mr. Norquist. Uh-huh.
Mr. Pascrell. You said that every tax cut is a good tax
cut, even bad tax cuts are good. And I wonder if you would
agree with me--and let us talk about a specific example. In the
recent stimulus--stimulant package, the--dealing with the
corporate taxes, dealing with the corporate income tax and its
relationship to each of the states of the union--federal
corporate income taxes--the states would lose $5 billion if
that part of the stimulant package went into--was implemented.
Now, to me, particularly with so many states facing budget
deficits right now because of a lot of reasons----
Mr. Norquist. Uh-huh.
Mr. Pascrell [continuing]. That would be an example to me
of a bad tax cut. Would it be an example of a bad tax cut to
you, even though, in your mind, it would be good?
Mr. Norquist. Uh-huh. The challenge is that since 1994
federal government spending has gone from 22 percent of Gross
Domestic Product, GDP, to 18 percent. So there has been a
reduction in the cost of the federal government as a percentage
of the economy. Sadly, at the state level, they have not had
the competence and the hard work that you have put into
maintaining some budget discipline and spending has increased--
--
Mr. Pascrell. But you know----
Mr. Norquist [continuing]. At the state level as a
percentage of GDP. And so we unfortunately have not seen the
fiscal discipline from governors and state legislatures that
Congress has shown. So I do think we need to look at the
governors and ask why they haven't become more productive and
had greater productivity as the federal government has.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, I think----
Chairman Manzullo. I would like to move onto----
Mr. Pascrell. Well----
Chairman Manzullo. We have ten other people and your five
minutes just expired.
Mr. Pascrell. We will let other people to go on, Mr.
Chairman. You are the boss.
Chairman Manzullo. Mr. DeMint.
Mr. DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This idea has pulled
me both ways. I would really like to see us looking at
permanent tax policy rather than something that is just a quick
fix like we are talking about here. At the same time, after
years of consumer marketing, I understand consumer behavior is
not necessarily rational and logical. And the downturn in
retail sales has very little to do with a lack of money in
consumer's pocket, but more of an attitude. And this idea may
be just what the doctor ordered as far as changing the
attitude, giving people one more reason to shop, particularly
going into our biggest retail season of the year.
So I think it is something we really need to look at. And I
agree with Mr. Norquist, if we did something here, those state
representatives would be in their capitals very quickly
changing their laws to get free federal money. So--and this is
also something, from our perspective politically, that I think
consumers, voters, are likely to understand. Whatever we do on
the other--the rest of the economic stimulus, whether it be on
the tax cut side or the spending side, very few people are
going to see or feel or understand that directly. And this is
something people can understand.
So I am very interested in it. The question has come up is
that--it has been mentioned today that, well this might give a
little jolt for a short period, but actually it creates a cliff
on the other side where you get sales for a couple of weeks and
then it is going to drop off more than it normally does, and it
will wait for the, I guess, the next stimulus to get people to
shop again.
I don't necessarily think that is true, but I would like
some of you retailers--and, Mr. Wilson, maybe we would start
with you. Do you think, if we had this holiday, that as soon as
it was over, that you would have a drop-off in sales that
continued into a difficult month of January and maybe beyond?
What is your perspective of what would happen after it was
over?
Mr. Wilson. Well, our perspective is--or our outlook on
this holiday season is not as good as it has been in the past.
This type of incentive for--to get consumers out and spend
money, it will create more of a positive atmosphere in the
economy. Right now, I think people are somewhat depressed. I
think they are scared. I think they are going to hold onto
their money. They are not going to spend as much. And with this
tax holiday, it will help people come out and spend money.
Mr. DeMint. Uh-huh.
Mr. Wilson. I am not so worried about a drop-off in sales.
I think this attitude, positive attitude, will move forward
through Christmas and then into January.
Mr. DeMint. Yeah.
Mr. Wilson. What I am scared of is the attitude now of
holding back spending because that is what we are faced with
right now if we don't do something about it.
Mr. DeMint. Yeah. I tend to--any other comments? Good. I
tend to agree. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. Congresswoman Tubbs Jones.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
hosting this hearing this afternoon or this morning. I was
confused on the time. But let me thank each of you for coming
to testify today. I have a couple just kind of general
questions. I think I am going to look to Mr. Norquist first.
Mr. Norquist, is it your opinion--or what is your opinion in
terms of consumer spending when an economic stimulus package
that is being presented to the Congress currently, or is before
the Congress currently, puts no dollars in the hands of workers
to spend dollars?
Mr. Norquist. Well, if you are not taking sales tax dollars
from them, then you are leaving in their hands money that they
earned. I mean, I----
Ms. Tubbs Jones. No. I am--let me ask the question again.
Currently, the economic stimulus package before the U.S.
Congress provides dollars to companies and puts no dollars in
the hands of the workers. How is that an economic stimulus that
would then help the sales tax holiday work? How would that
work?
Mr. Norquist. The importance of reducing marginal tax rates
is it changes the incentives that people face and the decisions
that they make. What we are talking about is letting people
keep the money that they earned and reducing the disincentives
to save and invest and consume.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. But the current economic stimulus package
doesn't give any money to workers or allow them to keep money
that they earned. Is that a fair statement or have you analyzed
it? Maybe that should be the question I ask you.
Mr. Norquist. No. If you are looking at--are you talking
about the bill that the House passed?
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Yes.
Mr. Norquist. Okay. The bill that the House passed reduces
a number of taxes across the board, both on individuals and on
companies. Of course, half the people in the country own shares
of stock. So when you cut taxes on businesses, you are cutting
taxes on the assets of half the people in the country.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. But it would be true, most of the people
who own stocks aren't going--are not going to spend any more
money based on a sales tax than they would normally spend
anyway, because it is not an issue of balancing dollars like it
would be for a low-income person who has to determine whether I
am going to spend dollars on food and clothing or something for
my children. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Norquist. Well, the stimulus package, as passed by the
House, as I understand it, does include sending some checks out
to people who pay Social Security taxes, but not income taxes,
under Thomas's bill.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Under Mr. Thomas's bill. But the
question--my question back to you is that an economic stimulus
package that puts no dollars in the hand--most--let me start
over. Most consumers or the bulk of those consumers are
everyday working people who really don't have savings accounts
or investments accounts. Fair statement. Right?
Mr. Norquist. No. Actually more than half the people in the
country own shares of stock directly. The whole idea----
Ms. Tubbs Jones. So the other half----
Mr. Norquist. The whole--well, we are going to get to that.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. So let me put it a different way. Most
low-income people are more consumer-oriented than they are
investment-oriented. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Norquist. Correct. And that is why this----
Ms. Tubbs Jones. And so most of the current consumption
that goes on at these times of year really is focused more on
the people who do more of the purchasing; more consumers than
people at the upper half who always spend the--than they are
going to spend for Christmas or whatever. Are they----
Mr. Norquist. I would argue--well, to the extent that low-
income people face prices--higher prices because of sales
taxes, if you exempt those sales taxes, state sales taxes, for
10 days, you would be particularly helpful to lower-income
Americans. The proposal before you today would be more helpful
to lower-income Americans----
Ms. Tubbs Jones. And we will put more money in their pocket
because those at the low end of the income are really going to
benefit from the tax benefits that are in the economic stimulus
bill.
Mr. Norquist. Okay. Well, I would argue that the tax
benefits in this bill of reducing the sales taxes are very
important to them. There is a difference----
Ms. Tubbs Jones. I am just trying to combine--and I
understand what you're arguing about this particular bill.
Mr. Norquist. Yes.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. But what I am suggesting to you is we are
talking about an economic stimulus. Currently, the economic
stimulus that is before the House does not facilitate lower-
income people being able to benefit from this particular
package----
Mr. Issa. Would the----
Ms. Tubbs Jones [continuing]. Because it doesn't stimulate
income.
Mr. Issa. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Tubbs Jones. No. I will not.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Norquist. Actually, Thomas's bill does send out some
rebate checks to people who pay Social Security taxes, but not
income taxes. So that is aimed at lower-income people. If you
are asking, do I believe that taking tax dollars from one
individual and giving them to another individual and letting
that other individual spend the money to stimulate this
economy, no. I don't.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Thank you. I yield the balance of my time
to my colleague.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you. I have got six seconds here.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. That is all I have left. Well, I don't--I
didn't realize I had used up so much time. I thank each and
every one of you for coming. I am sorry I didn't have a chance
to engage in a conversation with each of you. But if you get a
chance or some free time, I would like to know what all of you
think would stimulate the economy other than sales tax
legislation? Thank you.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay. Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate
the Chairman holding this hearing and for my colleague's very
stimulating comments about the stimulus package. We must have
read a different bill than she read. There was a great deal in
my way of thinking, maybe too much emphasis on rebates and
give-a-ways, when, in fact, what the economy truly needs, in
this member's judgment, is those things that will stimulate
capital formation and not just be targeted at consumers.
And with that being said, I would like to address my
comments, not to pick on Mr. Norquist, but he is just such a
big and easy target. I am--well, not that big.
Mr. Norquist. I am not that big. Wait a minute.
Mr. Pence. I will not yield.
Mr. Norquist. I have dropped some pounds in the last few
years.
Mr. Pence. Oh. Okay. The--my colleague who just spoke said
that people who own stocks don't worry about sales tax. I would
love to get you to amplify a little bit on what I thought I
heard you suggest that with more than half of the American
public owning stocks in some way, shape, manner, or form----
Mr. Norquist. Right.
Mr. Pence [continuing]. That the Balkanization rhetoric
about the country, the rich, the poor, or this half, that half,
actually--is it not accurate to say that millions of what are
commonly proudly referred to as blue collar working Americans
today, own stocks through pension funds and 401K's. And I would
just like you to--I would like you to reflect on who you think
would benefit with particular emphasis on people that may own
capital assets.
Mr. Norquist. Okay. There used to be a sense in this
country, and it used to be perhaps somewhat true, that only a
few people own shares of stock directly. Back when Reagan was
elected in 1980, only 20 percent of Americans owned shares of
stock directly. Now, many others benefited from share ownership
in insurance companies or in their pensions, defined benefit
pension plans for state and local workers, for people in other
companies, but only 20 percent owned shares directly. Now, it
is over 50 percent who own shares directly--401Ks, IRAs, and
it's growing every year.
In addition to that, there are 15 million state and local
workers for whom real--have been put aside by state and local
taxpayers. And there really aren't fair values behind the
commitments to get them defined benefit plans. And a lot of
states, Florida just being one of them, are allowing people to
move from the defined benefit plan to defined contribution. So
we are going to get to, very shortly, 60, 70 and more percent
of the Americans owning shares of stock directly.
So the ideal in the--or rhetoric sometimes that we have
had, the envy of the political agenda and the political
principle that has been used in this country in the past no
longer reflects the reality of the United States and hasn't for
some time.
Mr. Pence. So to paraphrase, millions of blue collar
Americans, many union, many millions of union officials,
including state and local public employees who enjoy
participation in public employee unions, own stock and
presumably would be in what we like to refer to as working
Americans. Would these people benefit or, you think, be
encouraged to participate more aggressively during the holiday
season with this tax rebate?
Mr. Norquist. Well, I think tax reductions----
Mr. Pence. Tax holiday. Excuse me.
Mr. Norquist [continuing]. On all factors of production
will make people better off, both as consumers, as investors,
as owners of shared accounts--owners of real property, homes.
Over 60 percent of Americans own their own homes. One--the
problem of envy of class division, you know, belongs in East
Germany a long time ago. It does not belong in the United
States and does not reflect the realities of the American
economy anymore. And that is why I think we have seen a much
more pleasant discussion about this tax cut and others and why
the tax cut that you passed in the spring was bipartisan and
having bipartisan support, because of the recognition of that.
I think that this effort to make it easier for people to
consume without having discriminatory sales taxes is a great
step in the right direction, but, you know, borrowing from the
capital gains tax would help every single American.
Mr. Pence. I thank you. I yield back the balance of my time
with a great appreciation for this entire Panel. I look forward
to enthusiastically supporting this proposal, believing, as
many of you have said already, that it is a tested principle
and it is one that, as my colleague, Mr. DeMint, said, would be
well understood and appreciated by Americans. And if my wife is
to be any judge, any break at the cash register will bring her
more hastily into the stores. And I think it would have great
simulative effect at a needful time in this country.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pence. I yield back.
Chairman Manzullo. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me commend you
for putting together this very thoughtful Panel and holding
this hearing. And especially I want to thank Representative
Thune for inviting Mr. Karl because I just found his testimony
to be fascinating. And I am a great fan of ESOPs. And I think
that is one of the best approaches to helping all people in
this country have a part of the ownership that I have ever
seen. And so I just commend you for that.
I don't view this proposal as being any panacea for our
economy. I view it as a short-term stimulus. It is kind of
surprising to me because very seldom do I find myself favoring
tax breaks. I happen to come from the school of Justice Holmes,
who suggested that taxation is the price that we pay for a
civilized society. I also come from a school where Frederick
Douglas made a comment once that one of the things that we
recognize in the world in which we live is that we may not get
everything that we pay for, but we most certainly must pay for
everything that we get.
And so I am always amazed when I see people or hear people
suggesting that somehow our government can function in all of
the things that we expect government to do, that we can do it
without putting into the till the resources that are necessary.
That is to say, I don't believe that you can get rain without
thunder and the lightning. I don't believe that you get the
Army and the Navy and the CIA and all of the other programs and
services that we expect to have, without paying for them.
I do believe that if we wanted to seriously stimulate the
economy, that we start by raising the minimum wage. That we
would really start by putting some additional money in the
pockets of people who need it the most who are going to go out
and spend it. And they are not going to spend it willy-nilly
because they are going to spend it because they need to spend
it in order to live.
I think if we rose to the point of a livable wage for
people, then we would talk about lifting the economy. I come
from a vantage point to suggest that a rise in tide will lift
all boats. And that is to say that if you start at the bottom,
and lift people up, everybody else is going to go along as
well.
I ended up arriving at the point of supporting this measure
because I felt that we didn't have any other answers that were
going to come as rapidly as this might come. I don't believe
that we are getting ready to raise the minimum wage before
Christmas. I would love for us to do it, but I just don't
believe that we have the wheel to do it at this moment.
I keep hearing about tax breaks that are trickled down that
have nothing at all to do with helping the people, a majority
of whom I represent in my Congressional district. I have the
most fascinating district in all of America, some of the
wealthiest people, but I also got a lot of the poorest people.
And many of the proposals I know, and they know, are not going
to help those at the bottom.
And so my only question really is, in terms of the
possibility--and you raised--and I agree with you--I mean, all
of the practical points of implementation. If the
implementation could occur, my question is, do you believe that
for a short term, this proposal could, in fact, be helpful and
help move the economy along while we try to figure out what we
really need to do, like change our trade policies, like change
some of the corporate give-a-ways, and some of--and find a way
to keep some manufacturing in the country, because it is tough
to live in a high-tech service economy. It is tough, especially
for the people at the bottom who oftentimes don't qualify for
either.
Ms. Lav. Well, I would say that unfortunately there is a
lot of ifs. And when you have a long chain of ifs, you know, if
you can do it quickly and, you know, if you can solve the
administrative problems, and if states get reimbursed
adequately, and--because I am more worried about states raising
their sales tax right now. Half the states raised their sales
tax in the last recession. I don't think we really want to see
that happen again. And so I think I--and so, you know, if you
could get through all that chain of ifs, maybe this would be a
good idea.
But, you know, I think it would be better to do things to
prevent states from having to raise their sales taxes now. I
think it would be better to actually put--directly--have the
Federal Government directly put money in people's pockets,
rather than try and go through this kind of Rube Goldberg of
having one level of government reimbursing another level of
government.And, you know, I think that you can't just put this
in place. There would be a mess. You know, it is like all other
things--you have to write the regulations and you have to get it right.
Chairman Manzullo. I appreciate the answer. The gentleman's
time has expired. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Thune.
Mr. Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. Rube Goldberg. I haven't heard that in a
long time.
Mr. Issa. I went to high school with him.
Mr. Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement I
would like to have included in the record, a written statement.
And, again, appreciate the opportunity to have a hearing on
this subject today. I think it is an important one. I do
appreciate having Elmer Karl from my home state here. Elmer
Karl is a legendary figure in South Dakota for a lot of
reasons. Not only a successful small business entrepreneur, but
someone who probably has a higher name identification and is
more recognized across our state than any politician. When he
advertises on television, it travels--it is projected all
across the state and it has obviously been very effective.
I appreciated your testimony, the testimony of the entire
Panel. I apologize for not being able to be here for all of it.
We are having a hearing today over in the Ag Committee on
bioterrorism and so I have tried to jump back and forth between
those hearings. But I did want to talk a little bit on the
record on this subject, because figuring out what we do to get
the economy jump-started and doing it as quickly as possible is
incredibly important to the future of our country right now in
light of everything that is going on.
Just a couple of observations about this legislation. I am
co-sponsoring the legislation for a number of reasons. One is,
I think there is empirical data that show that it works. And
that, to me, is significant. I think it is immediate. It is
consequential. And it directly benefits all consumers. People
who, day in and day out, shop for their daily needs would
realize a benefit from this.
And I guess one question I would have, because I have a
letter from the Governor of my state, who has expressed
concerns about implementation, some of the administrative costs
and so forth, associated with this. A question I would ask is,
if we were not able to do this, this year, coming up with the
holiday season, which is what everybody had sort of hoped we
would be able to do, is there still value in doing it, say,
early next year, in February or around President's Day? And by
that time, a lot of our legislatures will be back in session.
And one of the concerns that was raised by my governor is you
would have to call a special session and there would be costs
associated with that. From a retailer's standpoint, a small
business standpoint, does it still make sense to do this even
if we aren't able to do it before this year is out?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. And definitely. I think we should do it
whether it is this holiday season or in February, January,
March. I think Congress needs to do this.
Ms. Holland. I agree. I just think that we get the most
bang for our buck prior to the holiday shopping events because
that is pretty much when 40 percent of the stores have their
sales.
Mr. Thune. Okay.
Mr. Norquist. I would suggest you do it both times--now,
and in the--and if your governor spent less time trying to tax
the Internet, he would have more time working on this project.
Mr. Gornik. And also to the degree that certain businesses
are sort of rinky right now, help now is better than help in
the future.
Mr. Karl. Yeah. I agree that if we can't do it now, in
February would be a great time also. It is a slow month and it
would be an excellent stimulus. And I certainly hope that our
governor continues to attack the Internet.
Mr. Thune. We figured we would have a spirited debate on
that subject. That is a hearing for another day, Mr. Chairman.
Are there problems--associated with--as long as, again, the
states are made whole as a result of this, in terms of any
revenue impact? And, of course, in our state, we have not only
state sales taxes, but our municipalities, local governments
benefit from that as well. Does that concern any of the Panel
in terms of the positives that are generated, and as you weigh
that in the balance?
Again, the concerns were expressed by the Governor of South
Dakota had to do not only with having to call a special
session, but that this is you sort of the Federal Government
telling us how to do our work, our business, conduct our state
affairs, basically taking revenue away from us, even though it
would be made up. But has anybody, in your experience, as you
discuss this issue, had any kind of blow-back or resistance as
a result of some of the implementation issues that might arise?
Mr. Karl. I don't know that Governor Janklow understands
that whole situation. If we are going to get--I think his
concern was the fact that the cash flow and not getting the
money back from the Federal Government immediately. And if we
can address that so that we don't get hurt as far as paying our
state employees and taking care of our government, I can't see
where the downside is to this. Because certainly we need
increased sales. And this certainly will do that.
Mr. Thune. Yes.
Ms. Lav. Well, it is--you know, your assumption is easier
said that done, that states be made whole, because it is going
to be a question of what whole is. If--because if you use
historical data then there is the question of what about the
sales that were accelerated in. And, you know, if you ask
states to do a detailed accounting, that is tremendously
burdensome. And if you ask them to wait, they are going to have
to borrow money and pay interest. So I mean, it is not as
simple. And I think that is why a number of governors have
expressed some concern about this.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay.
Mr. Thune. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. So I
yield back. Thank you. Thank the Panel.
Chairman Manzullo. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since Mr. Davis is still
here, if I can just reiterate my support that we will work on a
minimum wage reform package that really does see the light of
day. And I stand very ready to work on that. I think the
absence of a living wage is partially because we haven't been
willing to make real reforms in how we calculate it, how we do
it, to the benefit of the worker. And I hope we can work
together on that sooner and not later.
You know, the one thing that perplexes me is why
republicans are for this and democrats often are against this.
And, you know, I have entered only recently this partisan
divide. But let me just ask a question and maybe you can answer
why I don't understand this.
If I understand correctly, if you make $10,000 a year and
you are absolutely--I mean, you get it all from government aid,
and you are really at the bottom of the economic ladder, like
some of our members have said their constituents are, you spend
everything that you get. And, therefore, if you are spending
100 percent of what you get, if we lower your taxes because you
pay taxes on this, and it is one of the most regressive taxes
because it is six percent in a given state, even if you only
make $10,000, you are going to get a benefit that is six
percent of everything you made.
And then if you are middle class and you spend much, but
not all, you are going to get a percentage--let us say half to
three-quarters, because you are only going to spend that
much.But you are probably the group that does have the discretion to
maybe shift a little more spending. So you are going to tend to spend a
little more, thus, creating more revenue.
And if you are in the multi-millionaire club, you probably
buy what you want when you want it and, therefore, this isn't
going to move you very much. So if I see this correctly, this
is a tax relief or a reverse flat tax that benefits, in
percentage terms, the most-deserving, or the least-earning, or
the most needy of our society, creates among the middle class,
blue and white collar alike, a shift that will probably result
in greater revenue in other areas, income taxes, both for
workers and for companies in their taxes--and probably does the
least for the top level.
Why is it that this isn't a reverse equivalent of what my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are always asking
for?
Ms. Lav. Well, you are correct, sir, in that sales taxes
are very regressive and they take a larger share of income from
lower-income people than higher-income people for----
Mr. Issa. So if we undo regressive tax----
Ms. Lav [continuing]. The reasons you--well----
Mr. Issa [continuing]. This is the best thing. Is that
correct?
Ms. Lav. In part, it is. But, in part, this particular one,
the base that you are buying out--certainly high-income people
are going to get the most dollar amount. So if you look at the
share of dollars, high-income people are going to get more
dollar amounts because who is going to be able to afford to buy
the new DVD. You know, in the increment that is not----
Mr. Issa. Wait. Wait. This is the $169 or even $99 DVD.
Ms. Lav. Well, the----
Mr. Issa. Is the millionaire--I just----
Ms. Lav. But----
Mr. Issa [continuing]. Want to understand. The
millionaires--and understand, I am for this; you are against
this. So this is how the system, I believe, works here. I get
to ask the questions a lot. What----
Ms. Lav. Well----
Mr. Issa [continuing]. Is it about a $99 DVD--and you can
buy them today at Best Buy and Circuit City--that you have to
be a millionaire to buy?
Ms. Lav. No. I am just saying that for a low-income person
who can't, I was going to say, afford $100, they probably also
can't afford $95. That is, you know, to respond to a sales tax
holiday. That was the only point I was going to make. So, you
know, it is certainly not--you know, I am not arguing
particularly it is not necessarily that the increment helps
low-income consumers the most the additional----
Mr. Issa. But that wasn't my question.
Ms. Lav. But the--it is----
Mr. Issa. That wasn't my question.
Ms. Lav [continuing]. The--you know, there are other
problems----
Mr. Issa. Ma'am, ma'am, please. It wasn't my question. And
maybe Grover can answer the question. If the lowest-earning
people in our society, those at $7,000, $8,000, the very
bottom, spend 100 percent, don't they get 100 percent relief by
this?
Mr. Norquist. Yes. And this is a tax cut that is skewed in
its distribution towards the lower-income Americans. It has
more benefit to them as a percentage of their income than it
would for Bill Gates or whatever. You are quite correct that
you are smoking out an answer from people. When some tax cuts
have been put forward, some of the politicians said, oh, we are
against this tax cut--it is too weighted to the rich. They say,
okay. You have just offered them a tax cut that is weighted to
poor people. They don't like it either. Okay.
Some politicians don't like tax cuts because they don't
like the American people keeping their own money. They don't
like rich people keeping their own money. They don't like
middle-class people keeping their own money. They don't like
poor people keeping their own money. They want to take the
money and they like to spend it.
Mr. Issa. Anyone else see slightly different or some other
comment? Kathy? Come on. I have known you for ten years. You
have had an opinion on everything.
Ms. Gornik. I agree with the comments just spoken.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. Well, thank you. You know, I have got a
solution to this thing. Let me tell you how simple this thing
is. If the government is going to spend $6.5 billion each
year--or on this program, here is the bill. If a state passes a
bill that has a sales tax holiday for ten days based upon the
state's own rules and regulations, then you take the
proportionate number of people in each state and the Treasury
of the United States sends them a check. The State of Illinois
gets a check for $260 million, period. That is it.
All the state has to do is certify--is put into effect a
sales tax holiday. And whatever the state is, based upon their
own laws and regulations--they may tax hotel stays, they may
tax food at one percent. You don't have to change your computer
and you don't have to do anything. The Federal Government does
not mandate what you can charge sales tax on or not.
You know, Illinois has--will have 19 representatives.
Divide that by 4 into 35. That is about four percent. Four
percent of $6.5 billion--Congressmen can't divide, but we can
multiply. It comes out to about $260 million. And I think we
need to do something. That would--that answers every single
question that you have, Ms. Lav----
Ms. Lav. Not quite.
Chairman Manzullo [continuing]. Because what it does is
that it creates very little paperwork and the money goes back.
And the states that want to participate in it can; those may
and those that don't want to, don't have to do it.
Ms. Lav. I mean, the----
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I might echo that not only is that
a positive proposal, but it would tend to reward equal states
based on population, thus having our poorer states get maybe
more than they earn, but, or course, not more than they need.
If a state happened to have----
Chairman Manzullo. However it is.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. A poorer population, which is
probably very good.
Chairman Manzullo. Ms. Lav.
Ms. Lav. I was just going to say, some states would come
out ahead and some behind on that, because a state, for
example, like Hawaii or South Dakota that has a very broad-
based, you know, sales tax, would probably not--you know, per
person----
Chairman Manzullo. I didn't say this was perfect, you know,
but----
Ms. Lav. Yeah. No.
Chairman Manzullo [continuing]. I am trying to----
Ms. Lav. You said it did every objection--so some states
would come out behind.
Chairman Manzullo. I appreciate that. Did you have any
closing comments, Ms. Velazquez?
Ms. Velazquez. No. I just would like to ask unanimous
consent to include this study that was conducted by the
University of Florida regarding the price effects around a
sales tax holiday into the record.
Chairman Manzullo. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Thune.
Mr. Thune. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a suggestion to
your proposal that we do it like----
Chairman Manzullo. Just a second. Obviously that will be
included in the record without objection.
Chairman Manzullo. As would anybody--any other statements--
if there are any other groups or individuals that want to have
their study, as long as it is not real thick, made a part of
the record, you are welcome to do so. And you have ten days
within which to get that either to Ms. Velazquez or to me. Mr.
Thune.
Mr. Thune. I was just going to simply suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that your proposal on population, since South Dakota
only has one member in the House, and we get 1/435 of that $6.5
billion, that maybe we do it like the electoral college and
make it, you know, count the Senators too. So we would
distribute it a little bit more fairly. I yield back.
Chairman Manzullo. All right. We--the Subcommittee Chairman
on Taxation is not here today, so I have got an assignment for
him. That would be for Mr. Toomey. The problem with this
legislation obviously cannot get through to be in effect on the
day after Thanksgiving. And I am going to assign him, as the
Chairman of that Subcommittee, to try to work with the various
groups, especially the governor's group, to try to come up with
a plan so that in the event that Congress decides to do it, we
would be ready to go.
And it would have to address most of the objections raised
by Ms. Lav. She raises very practical objections as to the
administration of this particular proposal. Everybody here is
in agreement that you need a stimulus. Her objections, although
maybe some are based upon theory, but 80 percent of it is based
upon the practicality of implementing this in any--and the fact
that there may be additional costs to it.
So I am going to have Mr. Toomey--assign him to work with
the different groups to come up with a plan that maybe, if in
the spring Congress decides it is necessary, we can get a
consensus that will address at least most of the issues that
were raised today, especially the very delicate issue of
implementation.
Again, I want to thank you all for coming. It has been an
excellent hearing. And this Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7330A.041