[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 149 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7497-H7498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




OMISSION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2010, AT 
                         PAGES H7418 AND H7419

                                 ______
                                 

            ECONOMIC ISSUES: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I come here to address the House on economic issues 
facing us this month and next month. And I come here to talk about the 
good, the bad and the ugly. First, the good.
  The Federal Reserve Board is going to buy $600 billion worth of long-
term bonds, quantitative easing. This will increase America's share of 
the American market for manufacturers' goods. That's why it has been 
condemned by China, Germany and Japan, because they know it means 
moving jobs from Germany, Japan and China to the United States.
  This is an effective tool that is reversible. We can expand the money 
supply now, and then the Federal Reserve

[[Page H7498]]

Board can reverse its action when the economy improves. Therefore, it 
involves no increase in the money supply that is permanent and, of 
course, involves no increase in our national debt.
  The unemployment rate is over 9.6 percent. We need to act to bring 
down that unemployment rate. And the Fed is to be commended. This does 
not mean that its decision is risk free. Just, given all the risk that 
we're confronted with, this is a good move. And the fact that the 
countries that are running giant trade surpluses with it have condemned 
us gives it an additional advantage.
  Second, the bad. The tax proposals, and I focus here only on the tax 
proposals of the Simpson-Bowles proposal, they have offered three 
different versions of their tax proposal and I will address what they 
call the Wyden-Gregg approach. There are two other approaches, the zero 
plan, which is even worse than the one I'm going to describe, and a 
third option of basically doing nothing except inviting the Ways and 
Means Committee to earn their salary and to look at our tax law.
  Now, I was anxious to embrace this proposal because we need to see 
shared sacrifice. We all are looking for a way to pay down the debt, 
and I, for one, was willing to embrace a program of shared sacrifice 
and austerity. But Messrs. Bowles and Simpson have given sacrifice a 
bad name by using our desire for shared sacrifice to disguise a giant 
tax cut for large corporations.

                              {time}  1910

  In the name of austerity and shared sacrifice we are told that the 
tax rate on the wealthiest Americans needs to be cut to 35%--roughly a 
12% cut in their tax rate. And we are told that the corporate tax rate 
needs to be cut by a quarter. This in the name of increasing revenue. 
This in the name of austerity and shared sacrifice. No. This in the 
name of using the debt crisis as an opportunity to shift wealth and 
power and income from the middle class to corporate elites and the very 
wealthy.
  Now, it is true that they talk about reducing certain corporate tax 
expenditures, but only in vague terms, only to a small degree. It is 
basically a dramatic decline in corporate tax, in the revenue of the 
corporate income tax.
  Now, finally on to the ugly. We have been told by our Republican 
colleagues on so many occasions that the worst thing we could do is 
increase taxes in the middle of a recession; yet the Republican 
proposals, all of them, involve a dramatic increase for working 
families going into effect this next year, namely by allowing the 
Making Work Pay Tax Credit, the so-called Obama tax cuts, $800 for 
every working couple, $400 for every working single, expire at the end 
of this year. I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring our 
colleague Scott Murphy's bill to extend this $800/$400 tax credit.
  With all the talk of extending the Bush tax cuts, with all the talk 
for those who make more than a quarter million dollars a year, we 
should not forget that the Obama tax cuts expire at the end of this 
year, and for well more than half of all American families, the Obama 
tax cuts are more important than the Bush tax cuts.
  Now, why is nobody even talking about extending the Obama tax cuts? 
Because no one with an income of over $150,000 a year gets any of that 
benefit. So when we have a tax cut that is targeted at working families 
that is more important than the Bush tax cuts to over half of American 
families, we see this tax cut about to expire without any discussion 
from those who tell us that the worst possible thing would be to 
increase anyone's taxes in the middle of a recession. I do not want to 
hear about spending $700 billion over the next 10 years to provide tax 
relief to the top 1 percent. I do not want to hear that from those who 
are talking about increasing taxes on more than half of America's 
working families. It is time to extend the Obama tax cut.
  I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to provide tax relief 
to get this economy moving again and then to shift to fiscal austerity, 
but allowing the Obama tax cuts to expire and then cutting corporate 
income tax by one quarter is not the way to go.

                          ____________________