[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4503-S4505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SHARED SACRIFICE IN RESOLVING THE BUDGET DEFICIT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1323, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1323) to express the sense of the Senate on
shared sacrifice and in resolving the budget deficit.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 529, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 530 (to amendment No. 529), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance,
with instructions, Reid amendment No. 531, of a perfecting
nature.
Reid amendment No. 532 (to the instructions (amendment No.
531) of the motion to commit), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 533 (to amendment No. 532), of a
perfecting nature.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let us be very clear that in terms of the
deficit-reduction package that is being debated, we are talking about
an issue of huge consequence not only for people today but for our kids
and our grandchildren. This is likely, from a domestic perspective, the
most important issue any Member of the Senate or the House will ever
vote on in his or her political career. This is a huge deal which in
many ways will shape the future of America.
I know the media refers to the discussion as whether we are going to
have a big deal of $4 trillion or whether we are going to have a
smaller deal of $2 trillion, but the real issue is whether we are going
to have a fair deal--a deficit-reduction package that represents the
interests of working people and the vast majority of our people or
whether we are going to have a deficit-reduction package that ends up
reflecting the needs of the wealthiest people in this country, who are
doing phenomenally well, and the largest corporations, which in many
instances are making recordbreaking profits. That is really what the
debate is about.
The Republican position on deficit reduction has been extremely clear
and is consistent with their rightwing ideology. Despite the fact that
our current deficit crisis has been caused by two wars--unpaid for--
huge tax breaks that have gone to the wealthiest people in this
country, and a recession caused by the deregulation of Wall Street and
the lack of revenue coming in as a result of that recession, our
Republican friends are adamant that while the richest people in this
country are becoming much richer, while today we have the most unequal
distribution of income and wealth of any major country, where the top
400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans--
that gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider--our
Republican friends say the deficit must be balanced on the backs of
working families, the elderly, the sick, and the children. No, the very
rich, the top 1 percent, who now earn more income than the bottom 50
percent, should not be asked to contribute one penny more.
The Republicans are very clear, despite the fact that corporate
profits are soaring, that corporation after corporation is enjoying
huge tax loopholes that enable them to make billions of dollars a year
in profits and not pay one penny in taxes. Republicans say: Sorry, off
the table. Large, profitable corporations, with CEOs making millions a
year, don't have to contribute to deficit reduction. Only the children
have to contribute, the elderly have to contribute, and only working
families, the unemployed, and the sick have to contribute to deficit
reduction. We have to balance the budget on the backs of those people.
But if you are very rich and getting richer, if you are a profitable
corporation, that is off the table. You don't have to contribute a
nickel.
Poll after poll shows that the Republican position and their ideology
is way out of touch with what the American people need or want. This is
not Bernie Sanders talking; this is the American people talking. In
poll after poll, when the American people are asked, ``What is your
preferred option in terms of deficit reduction?'' they say it is to ask
the wealthy to pay more in taxes. So when our Republican friends say
the American people don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy, that is
just not true.
To my mind, what the Republicans are proposing is immoral in terms of
coming down heavy on the most vulnerable people in our society, people
who are already hurting as a result of the recession. When real
unemployment is 15 percent, what do you want
[[Page S4504]]
to take out of those people? They do not have any job. We have the
highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world--21
percent of our kids living in poverty. They want to cut them even more?
We have hunger among senior citizens in this country going up. They
want to take away their nutrition programs? Not only is that immoral,
to my mind, it is bad economics because you don't get the economy
moving until working people have some money to go out and buy the goods
and services that companies are selling.
To my mind, where the Republicans are coming from on this issue is
way out in right field and way out of touch with where the American
people believe we should go. But having said that, I have to say I am
very confused as to where President Obama is coming from on this issue.
And maybe I speak here as an Independent--not a Republican, not a
Democrat, but the longest serving Independent in American congressional
history--but I think I speak for the vast majority of the American
people on this issue. Where is President Obama on this issue? We know
where the Republicans are coming from. But suddenly, out of nowhere,
President Obama tells us that Social Security cuts have got to be
placed on the table.
Where does this come from? The President understands that Social
Security hasn't contributed one nickel to our deficit. In fact, Social
Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus today and can pay out every
benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years. Social
Security is funded by the payroll tax, not by the U.S. Treasury. The
President understands that. Yet the President has now put on the table
significant cuts in Social Security as well as Medicare, as well as
Medicaid, despite his knowledge and his previous statements that cuts
in these programs would be devastating to ordinary Americans.
The President of the United States, Barack Obama, in recent
statements has talked about the growth of political cynicism in this
country and has argued the American people are sick and tired of
politicians who refuse to tackle big issues. There is truth to what he
is saying. But there is also a bigger truth, and that is the American
people are sick and tired and dismayed about candidates who run for
office saying one thing, and then, after they are elected, doing
something very different.
In that regard, let me mention that when candidate Barack Obama ran
for office he told the American people over and over he was going to
fight to protect the needs of ordinary Americans, and the elderly and
the sick and the children. Among many other promises he made during his
tough campaign against Senator McCain, he said he was not going to cut
Social Security benefits. That is what he said over and over.
Let me quote then-Senator Barack Obama and what he told the AARP on
September 6, 2008:
John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer
for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut
cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let
me be clear: I will not do either.
That was Barack Obama in September 2008. So, Mr. President, when you
ask why the American people are frustrated with politicians, why they
are increasingly cynical, it has a lot to do with candidates who say
one thing and do another. If you told the American people you are not
going to cut Social Security, then don't cut Social Security. Keep your
word.
In case people think: Well, these proposed cuts are not significant;
they are trifling, let me quote from a document from Social Security
Works, a coalition of many organizations that is doing a great job
defending Social Security. And when President Obama and others are
talking about cutting Social Security, one of the approaches they are
looking at is changing how we do COLAs--how we do CPIs. So this is from
that document by Social Security Works:
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the adoption of
the so-called ``Chained-CPI,''--
Which is what I believe the President is talking about.
which would be used to determine Social Security's annual
COLA under this proposal, would cut benefits by $112 billion
over 10 years. The Social Security Administration's Chief
Actuary estimates the effects of this change would be that
beneficiaries who retire at age 65 and receive average
benefits would get $560 less a year at age 75.
Let me repeat that. They would receive $560 less a year at age 75.
That may not seem like a lot of money to some folks around here, but
when you are trying to get by at the age of 75--when you have all kinds
of medical bills and you have all kinds of prescription drug costs and
you are trying to eat, and maybe you are getting $14,000 a year in
Social Security--$560 a year is a lot of money.
But then it gets worse. Because what the Social Security
Administration estimates is that at 85--and more and more people, thank
God, are living to 85, people who are very fragile at age 85--people
would see cuts of about $1,000 a year. So the longer you live, the more
your cuts.
Is that what we are about in America now? We don't ask billionaires
to pay any more in taxes, but we tell somebody who is 85 years of age,
living on $14,000 a year, they would get $1,000 less than otherwise
because we have adopted this so-called chained CPI that I gather the
President is pushing.
I think the issue is very clear, and that is that the Senate, this
Congress, have got to stand with the overwhelming majority of the
American people who understand that the solution to this deficit crisis
requires shared sacrifice. Yes, we have to take a look at waste and
fraud and bureaucracy at every agency of government. No one disputes
that. Yes, we have to take a hard look at military spending, which has
tripled since 1997. And yes, maybe we have to bring the troops home
from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than many here wish, or that the
President wishes, and save substantial sums as we do that. But most
certainly, if we are going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we
do have to ask billionaires, who--despite all their power and all their
campaign contributions and all of their lobbying--are doing
phenomenally well, to contribute to deficit reduction. And yes, maybe
those companies that stash their money in tax havens in Bermuda and the
Cayman Islands in order to avoid taxes to this country--$100 billion a
year--will have to start paying their fair share.
On my Web site, which is sanders.senate.gov, I put a letter which
said: Mr. President, stand tall, take on these rightwing idealogs who
want to make devastating cuts to working families. In a couple of
weeks, we have had 135,000 signatures on that letter. I think that
letter reflects what the American people want. They want shared
sacrifice. They do not want to see the elderly, the kids, or working
families being battered more and more, especially in the midst of this
recession.
I would say to President Obama: Do not assume--do not assume--because
you work and reach an agreement that everybody here is going to support
that agreement. The American people demand fairness, they demand shared
sacrifice, and some of us intend to bring that about.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak for up to 7 minutes. I don't believe I will need all of that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening
to my New England colleague speak. The rightwing rhetoric stuff,
though, doesn't work for me when people of good will on both sides of
the aisle are trying to solve these problems.
We are working on a sense of the Senate here today, and I am rising
to speak about my own sense of the Senate. It is an amendment I filed
to this bill we are on addressing a key commonsense idea. It is very
simple: Don't raise taxes on small businesses, period. But especially
don't raise taxes at a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and
there is meager job growth throughout the country. Quite frankly, it
has stalled out. We can't afford more of the failed economic policies
we have been experiencing. Frankly, I can't believe increasing the tax
burden on small businesses is even on the radar
[[Page S4505]]
screen here in Washington. It makes no sense to me. I want to do the
opposite. I think we should respond to these terrible unemployment
numbers with a progrowth idea such as a payroll tax deduction for
businesses that hire workers. Let's do something constructive,
something that adds incentives to actually get our economic engine
moving again, especially with the businesses that do it best, which are
small businesses.
The idea we would raise taxes right now on small businesses is the
very definition of being out of touch with the people back home who
actually work for a living and who create jobs for others. As I travel
back to Massachusetts--and I do that virtually every weekend--I meet
with constituents, and I think I have had over 230 or 240 meetings
since I have been elected. The biggest question I am always faced with
is: What is going on in Washington? Why do you guys always throw a wet
blanket over us, with overregulation, overtaxation, creating a lack of
stability and certainty? It is not something that is making a lot of
sense back home.
When I hear from small business people back in Massachusetts, they
are worried they can't hire more workers. We need to actually create
confidence in our small businesses so they will put people back to
work. Instead, we are terrifying them with these tax proposals and a
lot of the rhetoric they are hearing here today. They do not know what
is coming down. They do not know what is next. People up here listening
have no clue what is next. What are we in Washington going to do next
that will throw that wet blanket on things? Yet we expect them to hire
a new employee? It is not going to happen.
In particular, there have been recent calls from some on the other
side of the aisle to repeal the LIFO--last in, first out--accounting
method, and applying it retroactively, without even reducing the
corporate tax rate or doing anything to soften the blow on small
businesses. That would be disastrous on those who depend on the current
system. As the Presiding Officer knows, our corporate tax rate is
already the second highest in the world. If Japan lowers theirs, ours
will be the highest. And it is often the small local companies that get
punished the most. Yet some here in Washington want to tax small
businesses more. I don't get it; I am sorry.
Despite these many challenges, in the past decade this country has
seen the creation of more than 300,000 small businesses--companies with
500 employees or less. These small firms and the founders who started
them took risks during a time many large companies had been downsizing.
As a member of the Small Business Committee, I hear testimony regularly
from many of our business leaders expressing the difficulties of the
current environment, and I believe we absolutely need to do everything
in our power to protect small businesses from the heavy hand of
government--the overregulation, the lack of certainty and stability,
the potential overtaxation.
In Massachusetts and throughout this great country, small businesses,
and especially manufacturers, have been the key to our economic
recovery. They are the economic engines in Massachusetts and the rest
of the country. They are the lifeblood of our economy. They range from
mom-and-pop stores to some of the country's most cutting-edge, high-
tech startup companies. How can we tax these job-creating small
businesses and then stand on the Senate floor and speak about how awful
it is that unemployment is at an all-time high, cloaking it in the
language of rhetoric of ``millionaires and billionaires, and corporate
jets.'' We all know, even if we do the things we talk about, it doesn't
get us close to solving or dealing with the problems.
It is outrageous and, quite frankly, the American people can see
right through it. We should be doing better. So I filed the amendment
today to say that I, for one, will not support more burdens on small
businesses. They already face enough problems and challenges.
The current unemployment numbers that we are all seeing from States
across the country should serve as a wake-up call that people are still
hurting. They need some relief. They want to do their best, but they
are being stifled. That wet blanket is hurting them and stopping them
from creating jobs. It should be our No. 1 priority, and I hope it will
get the attention and support of every one of my colleagues.
If you care about the survival of your State's small businesses, stop
proposing increasing the taxes, increasing regulatory burdens, creating
that wet blanket and killing off the incentive to actually go out and
hire.
Mr. President, I thank you for your courtesy in the beginning, and I
yield the floor.
____________________