[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 65 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2905-S2907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           FIXING THE DEFICIT

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, everybody knows this country faces a 
major deficit crisis and we have a national debt of over $14 trillion. 
What has not been widely discussed, however, is how we got into this 
situation in the first place. A huge deficit and huge national debt did 
not happen by accident. It did not happen overnight. It happened, in 
fact, as a result of a number of policy decisions made in recent years 
and votes that were cast right here on the floor of the Senate and in 
the House.
  Let's never forget, as we talk about the deficit situation, that in 
the year

[[Page S2906]]

2000, when President Clinton left office, this country had an annual 
Federal budget surplus--let me underline that, a surplus--of over $200 
billion with projected budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. 
That was when Clinton left office.
  What has happened in the ensuing years? How did we go from huge 
projected surpluses into horrendous debt? The answer, frankly, is not 
complicated. The CBO has documented it. There was an interesting 
article on the front page of the Washington Post on April 30, a few 
weeks ago, talking about it as well. Here is what happened. It is not 
complicated.
  When we spend over $1 trillion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and we 
forget to pay for those wars, we run up a deficit. When we provide over 
$700 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and 
we forget to pay for those tax breaks, we run up a deficit. When we 
pass a Medicare Part D prescription drug program written by the drug 
companies and the insurance companies that does not allow Medicare to 
negotiate prescription drug prices and ends up costing us far more than 
it should--$400 billion over a 10-year period--and we don't pay for 
that, we run up the deficit. If we more than double military spending 
since 1997, excluding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we don't 
pay for that, we drive up the deficit.
  Yesterday, my good friend from Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions--and he 
is a good friend--came to the floor and suggested that Senator Bernie 
Sanders was one of those big government types. I would say to my 
friend, Senator Sessions, and all of those others who are now wanting 
to make savage cuts in programs for working families, the elderly, the 
sick, and the poor: Guess what. I am the deficit hawk. You guys are the 
big spenders.
  This Senator, when he was in the House, did not vote for the war in 
Iraq which will end up costing us some $3 trillion by the time we take 
care of our last veteran. I did not vote for that. Senator Sessions did 
vote for that.
  I did not vote for the huge tax breaks for the richest people in this 
country--no, no. I am the deficit hawk. My Republican friends, in every 
instance, voted for those huge tax breaks.
  I did not vote for the Medicare prescription drug program, $400 
billion over 10 years. I am the deficit hawk. The big spenders on the 
other side said we could spend that money and not pay for it.
  My point is, I am not sympathetic to being lectured about deficits by 
the same people who caused this crisis and who, on legislation after 
legislation, voted to significantly increase the deficit and forgot 
about paying for it--just put it on the credit cards for our children 
and grandchildren. So, please, don't lecture me on deficit spending.
  My Republican friends have come up with an interesting idea as to how 
we can deal with this crisis, with the deficit crisis. In the House of 
Representatives, they voted, I believe, unanimously, for the so-called 
Ryan budget.
  What they said is, at a time when the middle class is collapsing, 
poverty is increasing, unemployment is sky high as a result of this 
terrible recession, they think the best way to deal with the deficit 
and the national debt is to make savage cuts in health care; that is, 
to do away with Medicare as we know it today, convert it into a voucher 
program, massive cuts in Medicaid. So at a time when 50 million 
Americans have no health insurance, that number will go up. I am not 
quite sure what people do if they get sick and lose their health 
insurance. I don't know what they will do. I don't know how many more 
people will die if we slash Medicaid and throw millions of people off 
of that program.
  Their brilliant idea of how to move toward deficit reduction is to 
make major cuts in education, Pell grants. All over this country 
middle-class families, working-class families are struggling to be able 
to send their kids to college, and Pell grants are an important part of 
how they do it. Cut it, so large numbers of young people never get the 
chance then to go to college.
  Nutrition, cutting back on food stamps, on the Women, Infants, 
Children Nutrition Program. People in America are hungry. Cut back on 
those programs. Housing, cut back on those programs. Head Start, giving 
low-income kids an opportunity to do well--cut back on those programs. 
Childcare--you name it, they are going to cut back on it.
  The deficit is caused by unpaid-for wars, tax breaks for the rich, 
the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, the bailout of Wall 
Street, a declining economy, and less revenue coming in. Their solution 
is to balance the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the 
children, the poor, to cut back on environmental protection, to cut 
back on transportation. It is an interesting idea. I think it is a 
pretty dumb idea myself.
  But inherent in that whole approach is another factor. In the United 
States today, while the middle class is disappearing and poverty is 
increasing, there is another economic reality; that is, the wealthiest 
people in this country have never had it so good. Over a recent 25-year 
period, from 1980 to 2005, 80 percent of all new income went to the top 
1 percent. The top 1 percent now earn 23 percent of all income in 
America, more than the bottom 50 percent.
  Today, if you can believe it, the top 400 individuals in America now 
own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans, the bottom half 
of America. Four hundred people own more wealth than the bottom 150 
million Americans.
  Interestingly enough, at a time when the rich are becoming richer, 
when the effective tax rates for the wealthiest people, at 16.6 
percent, are the lowest on record, at a time when the wealthiest people 
have received hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, at a time 
when corporate profits are at an all-time high and major corporations 
making billions of dollars pay nothing in taxes, my Republican 
colleagues, in their approach toward deficit reduction, do not ask the 
wealthiest people or the largest corporations to contribute one penny 
more for deficit reduction.
  Their idea of moving toward a balanced budget is to go after the 
middle-class, working families, low-income people, but make sure the 
millionaires and billionaires and largest corporations in this country 
who are doing phenomenally well, that they do not have to participate 
in shared sacrifice. They are protected. This is the Robin Hood 
philosophy in reverse. This is taking from the poor and giving to the 
rich.
  Many viewers may not believe me, and I ask them to check it out; that 
in the midst of all of this--huge deficit, huge national debt, the 
Republican proposal to slash programs that working families, middle-
class people desperately need--in the middle of all this, our 
Republican friends have another brilliant idea. Let's give $1 trillion 
in tax breaks to the very wealthiest people in this country. We are 
going to throw millions off of Medicaid, we are going to cut back on 
Pell grants, we are going to make savage cuts in nutrition programs, 
and whether we get all of those savings, $1 trillion in savings, do you 
know what we are going to do with it? We are going to give it to the 
richest people in this country. We are going to lower the tax rate, the 
personal income tax rate for the rich from 35 to 25 percent.
  At a time when major corporations such as General Electric and 
ExxonMobil make billions of dollars in profit, pay nothing in Federal 
income taxes, do you know what we are going to do to them? We are going 
to give them even more tax breaks.
  The President has recently come up with an approach toward deficit 
reduction which is certainly a lot better than the Republican approach, 
but to my mind is by no means as strong as it should be. I was 
disturbed, not happy, to hear that his approach calls for $2 in 
spending cuts and only $1 in additional revenue. So at a time of 
significant, severe recession, millions of people are hurting, the 
President is calling for $2 in cuts in spending but only $1 in 
additional revenue. I think that is a bad idea. I think that is an 
inadequate idea because if the President starts at that position, $2 in 
spending cuts, $1 in revenue, by the time we deal with the Republicans 
in the House, that number is going to go up and will probably end up 3 
or 4 to 1 in terms of spending cuts.

  Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, 
has done a better job. He has not gone anywhere near as far as I think 
he should go but has at least come up

[[Page S2907]]

with a budget that I think most Americans think is sensible, by saying 
at the very least let's have $1 of spending cuts and $1 of additional 
revenue. Let's at least have shared sacrifice. Let's not balance the 
budget on the backs of the weak and vulnerable.
  My office put together a list of ideas that are out there as to how 
we can raise revenue in a fair and progressive manner. I want to touch 
on them for a second.
  No. 1, I want everybody to hear this: If we imposed a 5.4 percent 
surtax on millionaires who have been doing phenomenally well, over a 
10-year period we can raise $383 billion. What do you think? We can 
throw millions of people off of Medicaid, we can end nutrition programs 
for low-income kids, or we can ask the wealthiest people to pay a 
little bit more. The cause of this recession we are in right now has to 
do with the greed, the recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall 
Street. The crooks on Wall Street who made huge sums of money ended up 
driving this country into a terrible recession. If we passed a 
speculation fee, a fee on Wall Street speculators, we could raise as 
much as $100 billion a year, and, by the way, have the added benefit of 
cutting back on speculation.
  We could raise more than $580 billion over 10 years by erasing tax 
breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Right now we have a tax 
policy that says shut down a plant in America, go to China, and guess 
what. They are going to get a tax break. I think that doesn't make a 
whole lot of sense.
  The estate tax--which my Republican friends refer to as the so-called 
death tax--only applies to the top three-tenths of 1 percent, the very 
wealthiest people in this country. Instead of lowering the estate tax, 
as we recently did, we could raise $330 billion over 10 years by 
establishing a responsible estate tax that asks the top three-tenths of 
1 percent of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million in wealth to pay a 
fair estate tax.
  We do raise $736 billion over 10 years by taxing capital gains and 
dividends as ordinary income. Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest 
people in the world, has said he pays a lower Federal tax rate than his 
secretary, than do nurses and police officers and teachers, because 
most of his income and most of the income of very wealthy people is 
generated by capital gains. Our provision could correct that problem--
taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.
  We could raise $40 billion over the next 10 years by ending tax 
breaks and subsidies for Big Oil and gas. I do understand there is 
legislation going to be coming to the floor which I strongly support. 
It doesn't go as far as I would go, but it basically says the top five 
oil companies that have made billions of dollars in profits and are now 
charging us $4 a gallon--prices are soaring despite the fact that 
supply today is greater than it was a year ago and demand is less--that 
maybe we do away with some of the tax breaks they have enjoyed.
  And $40 billion over 10 years is what I would propose we can get. We 
can raise $100 billion a year by prohibiting abusive and illegal 
offshore tax shelters. The Senate Budget Committee has a photograph of 
a building in the Cayman Islands. It is an infamous building. It is a 
four-story building that houses 18,000 corporations. That is right. One 
building, 18,000 corporations. Obviously the whole thing is a scam. 
This is being used as a postal address for corporations and wealthy 
individuals who want to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Government.
  The Budget Committee estimates that we are losing about $100 billion 
a year by having corporations and wealthy people stash their money in 
the Cayman Islands. That is a lot of money, $100 billion a year. We 
could raise up to $500 billion over 10 years by establishing a currency 
manipulation fee, and, by the way, create up to 1 million new jobs in 
the process.
  So what is my point? My point is this deficit was caused by actions 
voted upon by many of my Republican friends: the war, tax breaks for 
the rich, Medicare Part D, that in the middle of a recession when the 
middle class and working families are already hurting, when poverty is 
increasing. It is not only immoral, it is bad economics to balance the 
budget on working families and the most vulnerable people in this 
country.
  When people are hurting, when they have lost their jobs, when their 
incomes are going down, you do not say to those people: We are throwing 
you off of Medicaid. We are going to ``voucherize'' Medicare, we are 
going to cut back on Federal aid to education so your kid cannot go to 
college. That is not what you say in a humane and fair society.
  On the other hand, at the same time when the wealthiest people are 
becoming phenomenally wealthier, and when large corporations are making 
huge profits, and in many cases not paying any taxes at all, it is 
appropriate to say to those people: Sorry, you are also American. You 
have got to participate in shared sacrifice. You have also got to help 
us reduce the deficit.
  That is where we are right now. We are in the midst of a major 
debate, but it is not only on financial issues. It is very much a 
philosophical debate. It is a debate about which side are you on. Do 
you continue to give tax breaks to the very rich and make savage cuts 
for working families, for children, the elderly, the poor, the most 
vulnerable?
  I am going to continue doing everything I can to make sure the budget 
that is finally passed here in the Senate is a fair budget, is a 
responsible budget, is a just budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first I want to give kudos and 
accolades to my friend and colleague and fellow Madisonian--Madison 
High School in Brooklyn, NY, that is--Bernie Sanders. I have rarely 
met, not just here in the Senate but in public life, people who display 
the passion and the effectiveness combined that Bernie does. Sometimes 
it is a lonely world for him in a certain sense, because he feels these 
issues so strongly. He is so outstanding at articulating them in every 
way. And he wonders why the world does not change a little more. Well, 
Bernie, in terms of this world, which changes slowly, unfortunately, we 
would agree with that, you have done a great deal of good for people 
who need help. I am glad you are here, and I am glad you are my friend.

                          ____________________