[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 44 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3041-S3042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I wish to talk about the state of our 
country and the President's budget that has recently been offered.
  There are many Americans who are hurting right now. Many have lost 
their homes or are afraid of losing their homes. Many are concerned 
that the value of their home, their greatest asset, has gone down 
tremendously and they can longer count on their home as an asset when 
they retire. They have seen their 401(k)s devastated. Certainly, many 
of us in this chamber who have Thrift Savings Plans have seen our plans 
go down because of the problems in the stock market. Over half of 
Americans are invested in some way in the stock market. So there are a 
lot of people who are hurting out there right now. The unemployment 
rate all across the country is rising. I think California is over 10 
percent now. My home State of Nevada is over 9 percent. Nationwide, 
unemployment is a little over 8 percent. So we should be focusing on 
the economy.
  During Bill Clinton's campaign back in 1992, he coined a phrase: 
``It's the economy, stupid.'' That is when we were in a very minor 
recession. Today, we are in a severe recession with no end in sight. 
Some people say we are going to recover next year. Other people say 
this is going to be a long, deep recession. No one really knows for 
sure. We do know that is the past, when we do the wrong things, 
recessions can become very severe, and can lead to depressions. When we 
do the right things, recessions become more mild.
  We recently passed a so-called stimulus bill. I don't think it is 
going to do a lot. It is going to help short term in a few areas, but I 
think the long-term damage is going to vastly outweigh the short-term 
prospects. Last week, we passed another massive spending bill that 
increased funding 8 percent over the same programs we had last year. An 
8-percent increase at a time when families are cutting their own 
budgets, businesses are cutting their budgets, is irresponsible.
  I just had the mayor of Las Vegas in my office. Local governments 
across America are having to cut their budgets. State governments are 
cutting spending because Governors are required by constitution in 
almost every State to balance their budget. They are looking for any 
kind of waste. The only place that is not looking for any waste is 
right here in Washington, DC. Why? Because we can print money. We can 
borrow from our children.
  Every generation of American has said: I may not have everything I 
want, but I want my children to have a better America than I did. 
Growing up, part of the American dream has been: I want to go past what 
my parents did. Today's generation has become selfish. We want to keep 
our standard of living and borrow from our children's future, no matter 
the cost to our children. That idea is what the President's budget 
accomplishes.
  The President's budget double the public debt in the first 5 years. 
Let me repeat that. In the first 5 years of the President's budget, the 
debt doubles. In the first five years of the Obama Administration, 
assuming he is re-elected, this budget will increase the debt more than 
the debt has ever increased since the founding of the Republic, all the 
way from George Washington to George W. Bush. After 10 years the public 
debt triples. This is not sustainable. If we go down this path, it 
could lead to the downfall of America as we know it.
  There are many items in the budget that are problematic. We had a 
discussion this morning about the differences between Europe and 
America. In Europe, they believe the state is the answer, government is 
the answer.
  One of the things de Tocqueville observed when he visited America in 
the 1800s was the charitable nature of Americans, how we helped in 
communities through voluntary acts, through our churches, through our 
community organizations, secular, religious--we helped each other 
voluntarily. It was not forced on us by the government.
  Europe today believes the state is the answer. As a matter of fact, 
not too long ago, the King of Sweden made a charitable contribution to 
private charities, and people in Sweden criticized him because instead 
of giving the money to charities, they said he should have given the 
money to the state. That is the European attitude.
  Most Americans believe that the private sector can deal with problems 
in our communities person to person through charitable giving. We are 
the most generous Nation in the history of the world when calculating 
the percentage of our income we give to charities. That has been part 
of the miracle of America. Whether it is for disease research, whether 
it is for organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs or Big 
Brothers Big Sisters, community food banks, Catholic Charities.
  We have some amazing charities that give compassionate care to those 
who truly need it. As a matter of fact, the word ``compassion,'' if you 
take it at its root, means ``to suffer with.'' Charities and 
individuals can relate to people on a one-on-one basis and suffer with 
them. They can walk through life with them. That is why when the 
President put in his budget that we were going to eliminate charitable 
deductions for people making over $250,000 a year, there was a hue and 
cry across America, especially from charities saying: Mr. President, 
this is going to hurt. You are going to hurt us at a time when, because 
of the economy, charitable contributions are down.
  We have seen that. Food pantries across America are hurting. Every 
organization that has come to me in Nevada has told me: We are hurting 
right now. Please don't allow this part of the budget to be adopted. 
Don't let the charitable deduction go away.
  We have to ask ourselves: Why would someone want to eliminate the 
charitable deduction just to increase the size of Government? Is it 
because they believe the state is a better answer than the private 
sector? Maybe. If that is the case, this is a very dangerous precedent 
we are setting going forward.
  The budget has many other problems. There is a tax in this budget on 
which, I believe, the President violated his pledge. He said taxes were 
only going to go up on those people making $250,000 a year or more. I 
guess that is true as long as you don't use energy because there is an 
energy sales tax in the President's budget. So if you use electricity, 
if you use gasoline, or if you buy any products made with energy in the 
United States, you are going to pay higher taxes on products, higher 
taxes on your electric bills, higher taxes on your gasoline.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for an additional 3 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I won't object, but I would ask that 3 
minutes be added to the time for the Ogden debate.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Madam President, this energy tax I was talking about is a very 
regressive tax. I understand why people want to do it, I support the 
transition to a greener economy, but instead of putting incentives for 
us to go to a greener economy, they want to put a tax on Americans that 
will hurt the poor more than anybody else. It will severely affect 
those making under $250,000 a year.
  They say they are going to distribute that money to those through the 
Making Work Pay tax credit. But that is for lower income people. What 
about

[[Page S3042]]

the people who are truly middle-income people--the people making around 
$100,000 a year, or $80,000 to $100,000 a year. This includes teachers, 
firefighters, and police officers. They are going to pay that tax.
  According to MIT, the refundable aspect of this tax provision is 
going to raise about $300 billion a year. They are not refunding that. 
So this is another giant problem the President has with his budget.
  A couple other concluding points. We have a situation here where we 
should sit down together and think about our children, our 
grandchildren. Instead of giving us what we want today, let us think 
about the debt we are passing on to them. What is that debt like? It is 
as though we have taken their credit card and we are running up their 
credit card and they have to pay the finance charges. That means they 
have to work harder and they have to pay higher taxes in the future to 
pay those finance charges. This debt adds trillions of dollars in 
interest payments on their credit card--trillions of dollars.
  This is not the direction our country should be going in today. We 
should be thinking about being fiscally responsible and thinking about 
future generations, just as generations before us have done.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________