[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 176 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6928-S6929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Debt Ceiling
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on September 25, President Biden tweeted:
My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars.
That is right. According to the President, a series of new, permanent
entitlements and a massive expansion of government, the biggest
expansion of government, at least, since the New Deal, is going to cost
zero dollars--that from the President of the United States.
And the President has now been doubling down on that claim. On
Monday, he once again tweeted:
The fact of the matter is my Build Back Better agenda costs
zero dollars.
Well, no, Mr. President, the fact of the matter is your Build Back
Better agenda costs $3.5 trillion, at least. That is the minimum
number. The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, where the
President's Treasury Secretary served on the board before joining the
administration, estimates the cost at $5 trillion or more.
Leaving that aside, even if the President has been merely trying to
claim that his plan is fully paid for by tax hikes and other measures,
to say that it would cost zero dollars is beyond ridiculous.
I mean, think about it. Let's say your college education was
completely paid for by your parents. Did it then cost zero dollars? Of
course not. It costs a lot of money--money that your parents likely
were able to pay only because of a lot of hard work and sacrifices.
What if you saved up for a couple of years for your dream vacation,
and now you have all the money that you need, down to the cost of your
Ubers and your hotel breakfasts, does that mean that your vacation is
going to cost zero dollars? Of course, it doesn't.
The same thing applies when it comes to the Democrats' legislation.
Even if Democrats add all the money they need to pay for every dollar
of their massive spending spree, the pricetag still wouldn't be zero
dollars. I mean, it just absolutely doesn't pass the sanity test for
Americans.
The pricetag for this proposal is, at least minimum, $3.5 trillion
and likely much, much more. Presumably, what the President has been
referring to when he makes the absurd claim that his spending bill will
cost zero dollars is his assertion the bill won't add to the debt.
The problem is that isn't true either. Because the pay-fors in the
Democrats' bill won't actually pay for the bill in its entirety. The
tax hikes in the Democrats' legislation will actually only pay for
about two-thirds of the bill's ostensible $3.5 trillion pricetag.
The other revenue-raising components in the bill won't make up the
difference. What are those other revenue-raising components? Well, a
substantial part is increased IRS enforcement. Democrats claim they can
get $700 billion in more revenue by closing the tax gap, the difference
between taxes owed and taxes paid.
There is no question that individuals shouldn't get away with
cheating on their taxes. And there are, undoubtedly, reasonable
measures we can take to strengthen enforcement and narrow the gap.
Unfortunately, Democrats haven't proposed any reasonable measures.
Instead, the Democrats are proposing to, A, double the size of the
IRS and, B, have the IRS snoop on Americans' bank accounts. That is
right. Democrats want to double the size of the IRS and force banks,
credit unions, and other financial institutions to provide details of
individuals' spending to the Federal Government. Under the
administration's proposal, once your withdrawals or deposits for the
year exceed a certain amount--and that amount, by the way, if the
President has his way, is $600--your bank or credit union would be
forced to report the details of your activity to the Federal
Government.
So the Federal Government could end up with a record of every time
you eat dinner out or pay your rent or buy a new jacket or a toaster
oven. The invasion of privacy being talked about here is absolutely
staggering.
We already have a mechanism in place to allow the IRS to view large
transactions that might indicate potential criminal activity. We do not
need the Federal Government monitoring every purchase that law-abiding
Americans make from the App Store or how many times Americans buy a cup
of coffee, not to mention the incredible demands this reporting
requirement would place on community banks and credit unions. Banks and
credit unions around the country are worried about how they would
manage to comply with the bill's reporting requirements.
Let's not forget that the Agency that would be receiving all of this
information has a reputation for mishandling private data. In fact, the
IRS was subject to a massive leak, or hack, of private taxpayer
information mere months ago--information that somehow ended up in the
hands of advocates at ProPublica--and neither Treasury nor the IRS has
provided meaningful followup about that data breach, much less any
accountability. Giving an already troubled Agency access to reams of
additional private taxpayer information is a very bad idea.
Even if we granted that this massive invasion of privacy were worth
it, the truth is that all of this additional enforcement still wouldn't
provide the money that Democrats are claiming it would provide.
Democrats claim that they can get $700 billion from the bill's
increased tax enforcement measures. The reality is more likely to be
about $200 billion lower, according to an analysis from the Wharton
School of business. So Democrats would be doubling the size of an
Agency with clear management issues and implementing a staggering
invasion of taxpayer privacy to pay for a tiny fraction of their
spending spree.
As I said, no taxpayer at any income level should be able to avoid
paying the taxes he or she owes. I have actually signed on to cosponsor
legislation that would look at responsible ways to strengthen IRS
enforcement efforts. But Democrats' proposal to double the size of the
IRS and track taxpayer spending should never--never--have seen the
light of day. Even former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who served
under Presidents Obama and Trump, said he thought that $80 billion for
the Agency was too much.
Taken together, the IRS enforcement on steroids and Democrats'
massive tax hikes will still not be enough to pay for their
multitrillion-dollar legislation, partly because the tax hikes may not
bring in as much as the Democrats claim but also because Democrats have
used a lot of budget gimmickry to disguise the true costs of their
bill.
The standard method for analyzing the cost of a bill is a 10-year--
10-year--budget window. So you look at what your bill would cost over
10 years, and that is how you get the cost of your bill. That is
normally the way that it works around here.
Well, that is not exactly what the Democrats are doing. That child
allowance in the Democrats' bill? Democrats have only counted the cost
of that allowance through the year 2025. That allows Democrats to claim
that the cost of that provision is around $500 billion instead of the
$1.1 trillion the measure would actually cost over a decade.
[[Page S6929]]
All of those tax hikes are, of course, just for covering the costs of
the bill over a 10-year or shorter window, but in reality, the new
government benefits the Democrats are putting in place are not going to
expire in 10 years. This bill is effectively instituting multiple
permanent--permanent--entitlement programs. The long-term cost of those
programs is not going to be covered by the tax hikes Democrats are
currently proposing, as massive as those tax hikes are.
I have talked a lot about the dollar costs of this bill, which are
massive--the biggest expanse of government in, literally, my generation
in history. I could spend just as long talking about the bill's other
costs, like the fact that the bill is likely to cost workers jobs and
opportunities by increasing the tax burden on American businesses and
depressing economic growth, or the cost to American families, who are
going to be facing higher energy bills and higher prices as a result of
this legislation, but I am going to stop here for today.
One thing is for sure: Democrats' massive spending spree is going to
cost a lot more than zero dollars. And American taxpayers? Well, the
American taxpayers are going to be paying a heavy price for this
legislation for a very long time to come.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I agree with what my colleague from
South Dakota and my neighbor has had to say about the issues of the
spending bill.
I would also add that people all around the country are paying the
price right now with rising prices. They are getting hammered at the
grocery store and hammered at the gas station, and every month since
Joe Biden took the oath of office, prices have risen faster than wages.
People are feeling the pain and the bite taken out of their wallets.
Even without the specific raised taxes that the Democrats are
proposing, the American people have already taken a pay cut.
I note that the majority leader has arrived on the floor, so I am
going to delay the remainder of my remarks so he can continue with his
leader time at this point.
I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming, and I ask
unanimous consent that he be able to resume as soon as I finish my
remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.