Chat with Chic, October 3, 1986

10' a Chat with Chic A Report from Washington FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Pete Kelley October 3, 1986 (702) 885-9111 By U.S. Senator Chic Hecht It's been nearly four years now that I've had the privilege of serving in the United States Senate. I like the job and I thank the people of Nevada who, in 1982, gave me this tremendous opportunity to serve. During this time, and as part of my Senate duties, I've presided over the U.S. Senate many, many times. This is a job customarily relegated to junior members, partly to help "break them in," and partly to help them get a real feel for Senate procedures and customs. I've really enjoyed this assignment, and have twice been presented the "Golden Gavel" award for the long hours spent in the president's seat. Sometimes, as most are aware, the Senate floor can be a deserted place with few participants; but, on other occasions it can be an arena alive with heated debate erupting on both sides of the political aisle. It is then that I particularly enjoy the role of presiding officer, for there are many who are excellent debaters, matching wits with one another in an effort to make telling points. Such was the case with the recent debate on the tax reform bill, perhaps the major piece of legislation to get through this Congress. As presiding officer on a number of occasions, I had an exceedingly good opportunity to listen to both sides of this complex issue. And complex it was, for the so-called "revised" bill was more than 1,000 pages long. Although I have some reservations about the bill, I voted for it with the realization that it at least is a start in the right direction and brings meaningful reform to our tax code. I fully realize too that the bill, like so many other pieces of legislation, undoubtedly will be fine-tuned with amendments by another Congress. On the plus side, the bill will take six million low-income tax-payers, including 700,000 elderly Americans, off the tax rolls. It lowers individual rates, closes loopholes, and makes more Americans pay their fair share of taxes. However, I'm very concerned that other provisions are clearly anti-business and could have a detrimental effect on our economy. This is one reason why it may be necessary to go back and fine-tune some parts of the bill next year. I'm also against the restrictions placed on Individual Retirement Accounts. IRAs have helped encourage millions of Americans, including many with moderate incomes, to save for their retirement. IRAs have also benefited the economy by generating new savings, by providing capital for business growth, and by enlarging the stable pool of saving available for long-term investment. Also, I'm concerned by new tax rules applied to investors in limited partnerships and particularly to the retroactive restrictions imposed on millions of Americans who have invested and committed future funds in good faith, based on existing laws. Now, to take away the incentives that were a critical part of the investment decision in the middle of the game is outright unfair. The treatment of capital gains as ordinary income, the retroactive restrictions placed on federal employee pensions, and the limitation of business meals and entertainment deductions to 80 percent of actual expenses are other provisions that concern me. But, like it or not, we've now got it and much of it takes effect on January 1. Whether the bill really will bring improvement to our tax situation remains to be seen. Hopefully, it will.