[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 148 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7876-S7877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX CUTS AND THE ECONOMY
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning I read a little piece in the
newspaper that a man named Jacob Carroll had died in Afghanistan, a
U.S. soldier. He died in Afghanistan on the battlefield. I did not know
Jacob Carroll, but he is one of 438 American soldiers who have died
fighting in Afghanistan. He has not only joined in the 438 who have
died in Afghanistan but also the over 4,400 who have died fighting in
Iraq.
I think most Americans perhaps hear the news, see the news, and move
on to what else is covered that day in the newspaper. I was thinking
about that when I read something that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had
said about the shared sacrifice and shared responsibilities of our
country. We have been at war for 9 years in the Middle East, Iraq, and
Afghanistan. If you look around our country, and especially look around
this Chamber, and evaluate what we have done and what we are
preoccupied with, it is very hard to see that our country is at war.
Oh, there are some young men and women who are sent halfway around
the world to strap on ceramic body armor in the morning, get shot at in
the afternoon, and perhaps get killed. They are at war. They understand
sacrifice. But I wonder if it is not too much business as usual in our
country and has not been for some long while. I ask that in the context
of the discussion I heard this weekend on the interview shows. I was
not in town here this weekend, but I heard some of the discussion, and
it was about: Well, how about the tax cuts? Who can get additional tax
cuts at this moment? And who supports maximum tax cuts versus other tax
cuts?
Well, we are at war. We have people dying who serve this country on
the battlefield. We have a $13.6 trillion Federal debt. We have a $1.3
trillion budget deficit this year. And the issue is, who should get
more tax cuts? That is almost unbelievable to me.
Let me read what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said so many decades ago.
He said:
Not all of us have the privilege of fighting our enemies in
distant parts of the world. Not all of us can have the
privilege of working in a munitions factory or a ship yard,
or on the farms or in the oil fields or mines, producing the
weapons or raw materials that are needed by our armed forces.
But there is one front and one battle where everyone in the
United States--every man, woman and child--is in action . . .
That front is right here at home, in our daily lives, and in
our daily tasks. Here at home everyone will have the
privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary, not
only to supply our fighting men, but to keep the economic
structure of our country fortified and secure . . .
I find it a little disheartening that we have so many people now who
have decided that the biggest issue is additional tax cuts.
I travel a lot through Minneapolis to get to North Dakota on
weekends, and occasionally at the Minneapolis Airport it will be cold.
Yes, it will be 40 below, and the wind will be howling at 35, 40 miles
an hour, and you will see a group of people huddled outside the door at
the Minneapolis Airport smoking cigarettes because there is no smoking
inside the terminal. I figure somebody who goes out to smoke when it is
40 below zero and the wind is blowing 45 miles per hour has pretty much
given up their claim forever that they can quit anytime they want to
quit. They have pretty much given up that claim.
I would say similarly that those of us in this Chamber who have
talked to us about the danger of Federal debt and Federal budget
deficits have pretty much given up their claim forever to say that they
care about the economic policy and deficits and debt that overhang this
country if they bring a satchel to the floor with them that says: My
priority is to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans when we are at
war and have a $13 trillion in debt. Don't tell me you have a claim
about caring about Federal budget deficits if that is the agenda you
are pushing.
Let me give just a little bit of history on this question of tax
cuts. The first time in 30 years that this country had a Federal budget
surplus was in the last year of President Clinton's 8 years. At that
point, we had a Federal budget surplus. All of the economists and
others estimated that we would have budget surpluses from that point
throughout the following 10 years.
So the new President, President George W. Bush, said: If we are going
to have surpluses, an estimated $5.6 trillion of Federal budget
surpluses over the next 10 years, let's take aggressive and quick steps
to give back the surpluses in the form of tax cuts.
I stood here on the floor of the Senate and said: Wait a second.
Don't be quite so hasty. We don't have those surpluses yet. We have
just had 1 year of surpluses, and the rest of them are just
projections. Why don't we wait and be a little conservative.
The answer was: You know what, you don't understand economics. We are
going to do this because we are going to have all of these surpluses.
So very large tax cuts were put in place--the largest for the
wealthiest Americans--and at that point, we stopped seeing any
surpluses at all. The tax cuts were for the purpose of giving back
surpluses that were to exist when, in fact, none existed. Almost
immediately, in 2001, we found out that we were in a recession. Very
quickly, we found that there was an attack against our country on 9/11.
Then we were at war in Afghanistan, then at war in Iraq, then a 9-year
war against terrorists and all the security costs that attend to that.
So there haven't been any budget surpluses.
The most unbelievable thing to me is that this country has asked men
and women to go off to war and risk their lives, and some have given
their lives, and this government has not paid for the cost of that war.
We have paid for that war in blood and death--blood and death--no, not
the blood of those who serve in this Chamber but blood and death for
sure.
Now the question is, with a $13 trillion debt and a deep recession,
the deepest since the Great Depression--having gone through and now
starting to come out of that recession, the question is the extension
of the tax cuts that were provided in 2001. In 2001, those tax cuts had
a termination date, and that termination date was this December 31st.
So the question, then, is, If tax cuts are to be extended, for whom
shall they be extended? It will cost about $3 trillion to extend them
for middle-income taxpayers and another $1 trillion in 10 years to
extend them for upper income Americans. Let me tell my colleagues what
I mean by that. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has said
that if you extend them for those over $250,000 a year, it costs about
nearly $1 trillion with interest over the 10 years, and in addition,
those who make $1 million a year will get a tax cut of $104,000 a
year--$104,000 a year.
So here is the question: A country that is deep, deep, deep in debt
and projected to go deeper into debt, should this country borrow $1
trillion in order to give a tax cut of $104,000 a year to someone who
makes $1 million a year or should we perhaps mind the words of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, who says that perhaps that front in which every man,
woman, and child can contribute at a time when a country is at war,
that front is here at home in our daily lives. Here at home, everyone
will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary,
not only to supply our fighting men but to keep the economic structure
of our country fortified and secure.
So a young man named Jacob Carroll dies today. He is from Clemmons,
NC. I didn't know him, nor do I suspect anyone in this Chamber knows
him, but he
[[Page S7877]]
died fighting for his country. Are we to do less when we see people
making the ultimate sacrifice? Are we to do less than at least ask for
sacrifice by all Americans or are we going to continue to say: We will
borrow money to continue to prosecute a war. We will send young men and
women to risk their lives, but we will not pay for it. We will just add
it to the debt. And when it comes time to answer the question--perhaps
in a lameduck session at the end of this year--of who shall get the
benefit of the extended tax cuts, we will also say--some would insist--
that those who are fortunate enough to make $1 million a year in net
income in this country--quite a blessing, I would say--those who are
fortunate enough to make $1 million a year, we will say to them: You
are fortunate enough to get another $104,000 tax reduction, another tax
cut. Why? Because a lot of people here believe that is the way you
promote economic progress. Not to me. You promote economic progress by
demonstrating to the American people that you understand the kind of
choking nature this debt and deficit have on future opportunities and
future economic growth in this country.
We all grew up at a time when we almost always understood just
viscerally--we didn't have to be told--that our children would have it
better than we have it. We grew up in a time when it was almost
inevitable and we didn't need to be told that we were the biggest, the
strongest, the best; we could beat anybody in the world at almost
anything with one hand tied behind our back. But it has changed. It has
changed. Now this country needs some good decisions, some tough
decisions, some decisions to do the right thing.
The question on these talk shows this weekend was, Will you
compromise? The better question is, Will you do the right thing for a
change? We all know--this country knows--you can't fight a war for 9
years and not pay for any of the costs of it and add it to the Federal
debt, and deficit every single year. We know better than that. That is
not the way you run a country, it is not the way you share sacrifice,
and it is not the way you honor soldiers. You go to war, and we will
charge the cost for blood and death. That is not the way to honor those
who fight for our country.
Let me mention one final point. It is interesting to me that unless
you believe all tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 should now
be extended in this circumstance, you are a ``liberal.'' So apparently
the conservative approach is to borrow money and extend the tax cuts,
add $1 trillion to the Federal debt in order to extend tax cuts for
those earning over $250,000 a year or more. It doesn't seem to me as
though that is a conservative approach; it seems to me that is a
liberal approach if you want to add $1 trillion to the Federal debt in
order to accomplish that.
I wish no one had to pay any taxes. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Sign
me up to say that I wish no one had to pay taxes. But the cost of this
country's governance, the building of roads, the schools, yes, the
Defense Department, the payment for soldiers and weapons and so on to
protect this country--all of that needs to be paid for.
I hope those who decide to affix labels to various positions might
well understand that to borrow a substantial portion of money to
provide tax cuts when the country is up to its neck in debt is not a
conservative position. It just is not. And to suggest we have fewer
extensions of tax cuts for the upper income people so that we don't
borrow money to add to the Federal debt, that is not a liberal
position. It just is not.
Fair Trade
Let me also mention one final point. It is the case this weekend,
again, with the chattering class, that they describe President Obama's
trip to South Korea as something less than a success because there was
not a trade agreement negotiated and completed with South Korea. Well,
that wasn't the President's fault. The fact is, the South Koreans were
not willing to budge on the significant issue that divides our country
and South Korea on international trade, and that is the bilateral trade
on automobiles. I won't give a lot of statistics except to say this: 99
percent of the cars driven on the streets of South Korea are made in
that country. Is that an accident? It is not an accident. That is
exactly what they want in South Korea. Ninety-nine percent of the cars
they drive on their roads are made there because they want South Korean
jobs to make cars driving on their highways. South Korea ships us,
depending on the year, anywhere between 600,000 and 800,000 cars a year
that they make in their country to sell in our country. We are only
allowed to sell about 6,000 cars a year in South Korea. Let me say that
again: 600,000 to 800,000 cars being shipped this way and 6,000 cars
from the United States being shipped to South Korea. That is exactly
what the South Korean Government wants--jobs there, not here.
Well, you know what, the President should not have--and I applaud him
for being unwilling to negotiate a trade agreement that is so
fundamentally at odds with the issue of having jobs in this country.
This country needs jobs. We are terribly short of jobs. We shouldn't be
negotiating trade agreements that would fritter away those jobs. We at
least ought to require fair trade agreements with countries such as
South Korea--at least fair trade--and that has not been the case. So
the President ought not be criticized for not bringing home a bad trade
agreement. He was not willing to negotiate a bad trade agreement. Good
for him. Everyone in this country who needs a job ought to stand up and
say: Good for him. Good for standing up for this country's interests.
No, it is not being protectionist to insist that if your products are
open to our market, then you open your market to our products. That is
called fair and reciprocal trade. If other countries don't want to do
that, then they have to understand that there are consequences to that.
The President has not failed at all on this issue. When and if the
South Korean Government decides it wants fair trade and reciprocal
trade opportunities on bilateral automobile trade, I expect we will
have a trade agreement. Until that time, I applaud the President for
deciding not to sign a bad trade agreement. I want the President to
negotiate trade agreements that lift this country up and say to people
who are now jobless--and there are millions of them--that, I am
fighting for your jobs. It is not protectionist to fight for and demand
fair trade and reciprocal trading procedures with our trading partners.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and make a point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________