Rep. David McIntosh (R-Ind.) (Courtesy of Rep. McIntosh)

Related Links Congressional Profile: Rep. David McIntosh (R-Ind.) Budget Special Report GOP Reps. Thune and Portman and Democratic Rep. Frost discussed tax relief Rep. McIntosh's official House site

Wednesday, August 25, 1999

Congressional Republicans and the White House have been locked in a debate over the merits of the $792 billion GOP tax plan, and that debate will heat up after Congress returns from its August recess.

Three-term Rep. David McIntosh (R-Ind.) was online Wednesday, Aug. 25 to discuss the tax plan, budget negotiations and what Republicans aim to accomplish in the remaining session of the 106th Congress. The transcript follows:

washingtonpost.com: Good afternoon, Rep. McIntosh, and welcome. This morning the Office of Management and Budget released a report saying that the GOP tax plan, if passed, would result in cuts to various entitlement programs. This will no doubt be a rallying cry for Democrats when the recess is over. What are your thoughts on the report's conclusions?

Rep. David McIntosh: I'd want to look at the report to make sure I understood it in detail. The notion of sequestration is totally erroneous in the sense that we have effectively set aside the projected Social Security surplus. Under their own rules, it's not possible sequestration could occur with the Republican tax cut.

In addition, we put in the trigger mechanism, which in effect says that the money has to be there before you can make the cuts. What I'm seeing President Clinton do is throw up any argument against the tax cut bill, whether it makes sense, whether it's truthful, whether it's based in fact, because he knows it will be politically unpopular when he vetoes it.

I advocate treating this like the welfare reform bill -- we keep sending it to him until he eventually signs it and the taxpayer benefits.

South Bend, Ind.: I know you've worked for over three years on eliminating the marriage penalty. Could you explain why this is such a bad tax for working women?

Rep. David McIntosh: Yes. What happens is when you have two incomes in a family, they are thrown into a higher tax bracket than they would be if they were separated, if they were divorced or if they were just living together. Something wrong in the system -- shouldn't be punishing families because they're married.

What happens to women is that they will come in and out of the work force. They often start out working and leave to raise a family. When they return, either part time to full time, those extra dollars the family receives from that is taxed at the higher level. The cumulative effect is that her earnings are taxed at the 40 to 50 percent marginal tax rate. Women are the ones generally who take the time to raise the family. In most cases, it's women who are making those choices. It's a direct tax on women who want to have careers and be married. The work that was done on that by a Yale Law School professor points this effect out. I was really pleased with what we were able to do in the tax bill to eliminate the marriage penalty for the lower-income bracket families and cut it by about $2,000 for the other families.

Fishers, Ind.: You're leaving Congress, where you are a fairly influential and respected presence, to run for governor of Indiana against a man who is presently a very popular incumbent. What have the Bayh and O'Bannon administrations failed to do in Indiana that you think should be done?

Rep. David McIntosh: Where I could serve best has been a question that Ruthie, my wife, and I have been thinking about for the past few months. By standing still, we're falling behind as we enter the new economy of the 21st Century. Our children 44th on SAT scores in education, and half of our children don't pass basic 9th grade math and English in high school examination. We have a real need to reform our education system.

Also, we have a tax structure -- a property tax structure -- that is unfair and works against attracting new high-paying jobs to Indiana. We need to pursue excellence in government at the state level, and show that conservatism works in a very practical way. For example, our state police have a very antiquated radio system -- they have dead spots when pursuing suspects from county to county -- so they rely on cell phones. We need to give them support and buy them the best equipment to bring them into the 21st Century.

I want to transform our government agencies in cleaning up the environment, to work with farmers and businesses as partners. Indiana has a bad environmental record on emissions and cleanup. I want to put in place incentives for everyone to work toward cleaning up the environment.

Another issue that will be critically important is that we are dead last in the Midwest in attracting high-tech jobs and service and financial institutions. At the same time, we have some of the best research going on at Purdue, Notre Dame, Indiana University and Rose Hulman in terms of medical technology and computer technology, and we need a vision for the state that says we should commercialize that research. There is a new economy that's taking over with the Internet. I'd like to see something like the Research Triangle that they have in North Carolina -- I'd like to have that in Indiana. We want our young people to be able to choose to have a career and live in Indiana. Currently, we're ranked 14th in the percent of high school students going to college. But about 40 to 60 percent leave the state after they graduate to get jobs elsewhere. So as a result the Indiana population ranks 47th in percent of adults with a college education.

Muncie, Ind.: I'm pleased you're running for governor and know that you will be elected. But isn't your candidacy at least a tacit acknowledgement that the GOP is going to lose the House next year? If not, then why give up a promising career in the Congressional majority? By leaving the House, you put at risk yet another heretofore GOP seat, making it very difficult to keep the House.

Rep. David McIntosh: That is a concern from a lot of my friends in the 2nd District. Keeping this seat in the GOP column is very important to Ruthie and me because the next person will be our representative, and I want to see someone who will keep fighting for the same things that I have

I think it's going to be a good year for the GOP Congress nationally. We'll have a strong presidential ticket, Congress will show that we've done our job on tax cuts and keeping a balanced budget. There won't be a perceived caving on the budget right before the election, because Denny Hastert will take care of that. Nationally I think it will help us win elections. Locally mine has been a swing district in the past, but we've done a lot of work on the grassroots level, and it's become more conservative, more Republican district than it was in '94 when I was running. We'll have a good candidate on the Republican side to continue that tradition.

But ultimately you're right; it creates an open seat and a risk. I just felt that the problems in our state were so pressing that I needed to serve in that capacity.

Washington, DC: Hello Congressman McIntosh. I was wondering if you think there's any value in postponing a tax-cut debate until plans are developed to reform social security and medicare. What would your argument be for going ahead with a tax-cut plan now, and not waiting to see what surplus funds remain after these two important issues have been handled? Also, I was wondering why you believe a tax-cut plan should be paramount to a plan to use projected surplus funds to pay down the national debt? If I have $2000 in credit card debt, and I suddenly get a windfall -say, a larger than expected tax return-, I shouldn't run out and buy a TV. I should pay down my debt first. You probably disagree, and I'm curious how you would respond to these points. Thank you.

Rep. David McIntosh: Let me address the final point first. There are several reasons to pass a tax cut now. First, if we don't let the taxpayer keep their money, it won't go toward paying down the debt, but will be used to support more government programs. What I've learned in Congress is that pork bill spending is just as attractive to Republicans as to Democrats, and unless there's a hammer to restrain the spending, it'll happen. Social Security is such a hammer. So is the balanced budget. What we're looking at is the possibility of $1 trillion pot of money that will be too tempting for politicians not to spend.

The second point is that that money is not the government's to spend, like buying a TV. That money belongs to somebody, and they pay it to us through taxes. It's as if you had a $2,000 credit card debt and you ask your Aunt Mabel to help you pay it down. Then you got that windfall and kept asking her to give you $200 a month to pay down that debt. That doesn't seem fair.

The final reason is that I think this tax bill is probably the most important legislation we've passed in Congress since the balanced budget effort. Because of all the good things it does in policy -- virtually eliminates the marriage penalty, eliminates the "death tax" on small businesses and farmers, encourages people to buy health insurance by giving them the same tax breaks that corporations get, and an across-the-board tax cut that will keep the economy going at a point where interest rates are starting to head back up.

washingtonpost.com: That was the last question for Rep. David McIntosh. Thank you, Rep. McIntosh, and thanks to all those who participated; your questions were great. We're going to continue our discussion on the budget and the tax cut plan on Tuesday, Aug. 31 at 1 p.m. EDT with White House Deputy Press Secretary Barry Toiv. In addition, Rep. Robert Ehrlich (R-Md.) will join us Sept. 2 at noon EDT..