[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.

                          ____________________