Instead this budget assumes that Congress will allow an irresponsible tax increase of historic proportions to go into effect. At $1.2 trillion, it would be the largest tax increase in history.  Taxes would go up by $2,300 on 43 million families . . .By $2,200 more on 18 million seniors. . .And by $4,100 more on 27 million small businesses.

Because of this, I was not able to support the budget resolution in committee and I will be forced to vote against it here unless some drastic changes are made.

This tax increase would hit family budgets hard. Let me just tell you what $2,300 means to most American families.

$2,300 is enough money to buy eight months of groceries.

It’s enough money to pay a family’s heating and electric bills for nearly one year.            

And, it’s enough money to buy gas for two cars for almost an entire year.

$2,300 is a lot of money to most working families. and the Democrats’ budget is bad for the family budget.                    

We should not, at this time, be placing more of a burden on the American people with a huge tax increase.

Instead, we need to pass a budget that includes pro-growth policies to help balance the family budget.

This budget proposal increases spending by $210 billion ---- an increase of nine percent over what we spent in fiscal year 2008. Under this budget we would see a $2 trillion increase in debt by 2013. That’s more than $6,000 in extra debt for every American.

At $3.08 trillion, this budget resolution calls for $10,165 of spending for every man woman and child in America - - all 300 million of us. But, there are only about 130 million taxpayers who file an income tax return.

Of those 130 million, only about 14 million had an average income tax liability of more than $10,000 in 2005.

Of these, about 11 million had gross incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. That leaves 3.5 million taxpayers - - no more than 2% of the population - - with an income above $200,000. These wealthy few are paying an extraordinary 50.1 percent of federal income tax revenue.

But, even if you taxed away half of their income, the additional revenue would not add up to enough to balance the budget and pay for the programs and mandatory spending this budget resolution assumes over the long term.

The idea that the money can be found in a mythical source of funding called the "tax gap" is unlikely as well.

The Chairman of the Budget Committee repeatedly has noted that the IRS estimate of the gross tax gap is close to $345 billion per year.

However, the idea that anywhere near this amount of money can be raised by closing the tax gap is simply an illusion. It is nothing more than a fig leaf meant to conceal the intention to spend beyond the means of the federal government.

The truth is my colleagues are not really serious about this, and the proof is that they have not proposed a penny more for the IRS than the President.

It would be difficult to drive the long-term historic level of voluntary compliance from about 85% where it is now to near 100% in order to tap into this mythical source of funding, because that is what it would take to raise $345 billion per year. But, it’s hard to see how it can be done without a vast increase in the size of the IRS.

We also need to pass a budget that includes the necessary funds to help us stop our addiction to foreign oil. In 2005, Congress enacted a comprehensive national energy plan, the first step toward energy independence.

Nevertheless, this year has been a difficult year for Americans facing higher energy costs.

The policies we enacted in 2005 need to be backed up with federal funding in the budget, but this budget resolution fails to address important alternative fuel technologies and other oil replacements.

One of our top priorities should be on our most abundant domestic fossil fuel: coal. New technologies will make burning coal both cleaner and more efficient. We are even developing coal-to-liquid technology that can create a synthetic transportation fuel from coal. American coal reserves will be our best tool to overcome our reliance on middle east oil.               

I have several amendments to this resolution that I plan to offer that I would like to discuss as well.

First, I plan to offer an amendment would repeal an unfair tax that Congress enacted in 1993.

I have brought this issue before the chamber before, so it should be familiar to many of my colleagues. In fact, the Senate adopted a very similar amendment by unanimous consent last year, and it passed by a recorded vote two years earlier.

When the Social Security program was created, benefits were not taxed.

In 1983, Congress decided that half the benefits of some seniors should be subject to taxation and, in 1993, raised that amount to 85% of Social Security benefits.

Today, more than 15 million seniors are affected by taxation of benefits.

The 1993 tax was intended to reach only "wealthy" seniors, but the income levels were set to $34,000 for singles and $44,000 couples. This is hardly wealthy today.

My amendment is fairly simple – it drops the tax back to its pre-1993 level starting in 2008.

This means that the 85% tax tier would be eliminated and the maximum amount of social security benefits that could be taxed would be 50%.

The cost of the tax roll-back – about $89 billion over 5 years – will be offset by an adjustment to function 920.

Over $300 billion in potential savings on government programs over the next 5 years have been identified by the Inspector Generals’ reports and the C.B.O.’s budget options report.

And, it is my hope that the committees of jurisdiction will review wasteful government spending in order to offset the repeal of this tax increase on America’s seniors.

This was an unfair tax on our seniors when it was enacted, and it is time we repeal it.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as many of you have in past.

A second amendment I plan to offer, together with Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Demint, would make room in the budget to permanently extend a tax benefit for adoption that we enacted in 2001.

This is a critical kitchen-table, family budget issue for many middle-income families in Kentucky and across the nation who are contemplating the adoption of a young child or facing the costs of adoption.

By helping to ease this financial burden, we can encourage the development of more stable families and provide a brighter future for thousands of children.

These important goals prompted us to act in 2001, when we passed important adoption incentives in the form of tax credits.

In 2005 alone, 85,000 families, 77% with an adjusted gross income under $100,000, claimed $319.5 million in adoption credits. However, these provisions are set to expire or "sunset" after December 31, 2010.

Our entire society benefits when children are placed with loving, permanent families. That is why today I am introducing my amendment to guarantee permanent tax relief for families who adopt.

My amendment will permanently extend the 2001 adoption incentives allowing those Americans who adopt a child to continue to receive a credit in the amount of their qualified expenses and guarantees the maximum $10,000 credit for those who adopt children with special needs. 

It will help middle class families break the financial barriers and successfully adopt a child, especially those children with special needs who are in particular need of a loving home.

My amendment provides relief for adoptive families at a relatively low cost to the American taxpayer.

Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation scored the cost of my bill, the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act, at $4.5 billion over 10 years.

I am pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act, and that it has received endorsement from eight national associations including the National Council for Adoption, Resolve: the National Infertility Association, and the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys.

The adoption tax credit and assistance programs have already helped countless children and families by making adoption more affordable. We owe it to future generations of children in need to make these provisions permanent.

The last amendment I would like to discuss would require the Budget Resolution to balance the federal budget without Social Security tax revenue.

For too long, we have been relying on payroll tax revenue to pay for general government spending. As we all know, 2017 is the year in which Social Security obligations begin to equal payroll tax contributions, but our problems are likely to emerge much sooner.

In 2011, payroll tax contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund will begin to decline.

Each year after that we will have to make up for a greater shortfall in revenue, compared to the prior year. The surplus also presents a distorted picture of the deficit. According to the testimony we heard from GAO that we heard in the Budget Committee, the on-budget deficit for fiscal year 2007 was more than double the size of the unified budget deficit, which includes the Social Security surplus.

My amendment that I am offering with Senator Enzi would create a 60-vote point of order against any Budget Resolution that does not put us on a path to on-budget balance within 5 years without using the Social Security surplus.

I offered this amendment last year at this time, and the Senate voted 98 to 0 to adopt the amendment.

I hope these amendments are adopted, but on the whole, this budget proposal is irresponsible. it will nearly wreck the federal budget, and it’s bad for the family budgets of America’s families.