[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1086-S1087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEALING WITH THE DEFICIT
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, we face as a nation some of the most
difficult circumstances this country has faced since the Great
Depression. Two of the major issues we are facing is the collapse of
the middle class and, simultaneously, while poverty increases and the
middle class in this country disappears, we also find ourselves with a
$14 trillion national debt and a $1.6 trillion deficit.
At this momentous time in American history, the question arises as to
how we, in fact, will deal with the deficit. Will we deal with it in a
way that is fair and just or will we, at a time when the gap between
the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider, in fact, try to
balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, on the backs of
the poor, on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children?
That is the question we have to address right now.
Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. Yes, we have to go forward in
deficit reduction. But, no, in the midst of a major recession, it is
morally wrong and economically bad policy to balance the budget on the
backs of those people who are already hurting.
I find it interesting that some of the loudest voices who come before
us every day talking about the serious problem of the deficit are
precisely those people who have voted time after time after time to
raise the deficit, raise the national debt. Yet now they come forward
and say we have to cut programs for the elderly, the poor, and the
children in order to balance the budget.
I suppose it turns out that now I and a few others are the real
deficit hawks in the Senate. When it came to the war in Iraq--which
will end up costing us some $3 trillion--I didn't hear a whole lot of
discussion about how that war was going to be paid for. I voted against
that war.
When it came to giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in
this country, I didn't hear my Republican friends say: Oh, gee, we
can't do that because it is going to drive up the deficit. I voted
against tax breaks for the wealthy.
When it came to passing an unfunded $4 billion Medicare Part D
prescription drug program--written by the insurance companies and the
drug companies--I didn't hear my Republican friends say our kids and
grandchildren are going to have to pay for that. I voted against that.
Madam President, you will recall that after the crooks on Wall Street
drove this Nation into a recession and they needed a bailout from the
American people, you didn't hear too many of our friends who voted for
that bailout say: Oh, we can't do that; it is unpaid for. It is going
to drive up the deficit and the national debt. You didn't hear that.
But now, suddenly we have people who have great concern about the
national debt and the deficit, and they intend to balance that budget
on the backs of working people, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and
the children. Among other things, which is incomprehensible to me, at a
time when approximately 16 percent of our people are truly unemployed--
way above the official levels, the official numbers, because the
official numbers do not include those people who have given up looking
for work, those people working part-time when they want to work full-
time--the Republicans come up with a deficit reduction package which
will cost us some 700,000 jobs.
Now, I don't know how or why in the middle of a severe recession,
when unemployment is so high, they would come up with a proposal that
costs 700,000 jobs.
Madam President, you well know that we do an abysmal job in this
country in terms of taking care of our children. We have the highest
rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. We have a
totally inadequate early childhood education program in this country.
Head Start, to the degree that it is funded adequately, does a good
job. But in the midst of the crisis in early childhood education and
childcare, the Republican proposal would cut Head Start--Head Start--
one of the most important programs in America, giving low-income kids a
chance to maybe get into school in the first grade, in kindergarten, on
par with the other kids. They want to cut that program by 20 percent
from fiscal year 2010, depriving over 200,000 little kids the
opportunity not only to receive early childhood education but health
care benefits and nutrition benefits from this important program.
I worked very hard to expand community health centers in America
because maybe--just maybe--it is a bad idea that 45,000 Americans are
going to die this year because they do not get to a doctor. Pick up the
papers all over America. Tens of thousands of people are going to be
thrown off Medicaid. What do you do if you don't have health insurance
and you are 40 or 50 years of age and you get sick? What do you do? Yet
the Republican proposal would cut community health centers by $1.3
billion, denying 11 million patients access to quality primary health
care. In the midst of a major health care crisis, when millions of
people are uninsured--50 million uninsured and people being thrown off
Medicaid--you don't shut down community health centers and deny people
access to health care.
In Vermont--and I am sure in New York State--young people are finding
it very difficult to afford a college education. They are coming out of
college deeply in debt. In some cases, they can't go to college. We are
falling behind other countries in terms of the percentage of our young
people graduating from college. Yet the Republican proposal would
reduce by 17 percent the average Pell grant, and 9.4
[[Page S1087]]
million low-income college students would lose some or all of their
Pell grant.
At this moment in American history where we are involved in an
international, global economy, with so much pressure from abroad, we
have to invest more in education, more in higher education, not less.
In the State of Vermont, the Community Services Block Grant Program
provides vital services to low-income people who are in need of
emergency food, emergency housing--emergency services. They do a great
job. The Republican proposal would cut the Community Services Block
Grant Program by $405 million, which would harm 20 million low-income
people, including millions of seniors.
Lastly--not lastly because there is a long list of these cuts which
make no sense to me--I want to mention a cut of $1.3 billion to the
Social Security Administration. Our Republican friends say we are not
cutting Social Security, but they are proposing a $1.3 billion cut to
the Social Security Administration--the people who administer the
program. What does that mean?
Right now, there is a significant delay if you are looking for
disability benefits--a huge delay. People are calling my office all the
time saying they can't find anybody to process their claims. Yet the
Republicans would propose a $1.3 billion cut, which would delay Social
Security benefits to about 500,000 Americans.
The issue is pretty clear: The top 1 percent in America earns 23
percent of all income, more than the bottom 50 percent. The wealthiest
people in this country over the last 20 years have seen a reduction--a
reduction--in the tax rates they pay. Today, at 16 percent, the
wealthiest people in this country are paying the lowest tax rates that
the rich have paid in many decades.
This is not a complicated issue. This issue is, do we move forward to
balance the budget on the backs of people who are on Social Security,
on the backs of little children who need Head Start, on the backs of
seniors in the State of Vermont who depend upon heating assistance? Do
we balance the budget on the backs of the weak, the vulnerable, the
elderly or the poor or do we say: When we have an increasingly unequal
distribution of income--the rich are doing very well--do we ask the
wealthiest people to start paying their fair share of taxes?
The American people are pretty clear on this matter. They think it is
wrong to balance the budget on the backs of those people who are
already hurting in a recession. Let's ask the people on top to start
paying their fair share so we can see some shared sacrifice in the
midst of this recession.
Madam President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam 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.
Mr. DURBIN. What is the pending business before the Senate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is in morning business.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask consent to speak in morning business for a few
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________