[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15514-15516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             TAX INCREASES

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to also talk a bit today about why 
Republicans oppose raising taxes on anyone. President Obama and his 
supporters have repeatedly argued that tax increases will only affect a 
few of the wealthiest Americans, ``millionaires,'' the President 
claims, and people ``who can afford it,'' to use his words.
  First of all, I do not think the President should be pitting 
Americans against each other. Class warfare has no place in our 
debates. Americans agree with President Kennedy's formulation that a 
rising tide lifts all boats. Americans believe--it is our basic idea of 
a country--that we want everyone here to succeed, to do well, and not 
to pit one group of us against another group.
  We all aspire to be in the very top groups of whatever we are talking 
about, and because of the kind of country we have, we have that 
opportunity, and people do move from one income tax bracket up to the 
next one, for example, as we increase our incomes. So we do not want to 
punish anyone for being successful. That class warfare went out of 
style when the Cold War ended. I do not think it has a part in our 
debate.
  Second, his assertions about who will pay are patently false. Small 
business will be among the hardest hit by these tax increases. Let me 
explain why this is true because, as you have just heard, some on the 
other side tend to pooh-pooh this idea. The reason is this. Under the 
Internal Revenue Code, many small businesses are organized as 
passthrough entities, meaning they pay taxes at the individual income 
tax marginal rates. So if you and your wife or you and your husband own 
a small business, and you are a passthrough entity, you pay your small 
business income taxes as individuals. That is how this happens. You are 
not a corporation, you are paying your taxes as people, as individuals, 
the same as anybody else pays as an individual.
  Those who currently pay at either the 33 or 35 percent rate, which is 
the top two marginal rates, would, under the President's proposal, have 
their taxes increased so you would then be paying 36 or 39.9 percent, 
respectively, and if you add in the health care legislation-required 
taxes, it is closer to 42 percent. So you are going from 35 to 42 
percent as an individual paying individual income taxes on the money 
you make through the small business you and your spouse own, for 
example.
  My colleague from Illinois says: Well, that does not apply to very 
many people. How many people does it apply to? What is 3 percent of the 
people with this kind of income? Almost 750,000 people. Almost 750,000, 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation--not my number--estimates 
that in 2011, next year, just about 750,000 taxpayers with net-positive 
business income will have marginal rates of 36 or 39.6 percent under 
the President's proposal.
  That is 750,000 of the most productive small businesses in the 
country. The National Federation of Independent Business survey 
revealed that the businesses most likely to face a tax increase employ 
between 20 and 250 employees. So we are talking not about insignificant 
businesses but those that actually employ people. We also know that 
coming out of an economic downturn, the first jobs that are created are 
small business jobs.
  According to U.S. Census numbers, businesses with between 20 and 299 
workers employ more than 25 percent of the entire workforce. So when we 
talk about, well, it is only 3 percent. Well, the question is, 3 
percent of what? How many does that actually amount to? How many of the 
employees in the entire country does that mean? Twenty-five percent of 
the employees in the country is, by any measure, a significant chunk of 
folks.
  These are the people whom we want to raise taxes on? I do not think 
so. Some Democrats have been claiming these tax increases, as I said, 
would exempt 97 percent of small businesses. Well, let me shed a little 
bit of light on that number.
  In a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled, ``The Small 
Business Tax Hike and the 97 Percent Fallacy,'' two economists, well 
respected, Kevin Hassett and Alan Viard, explained that anyone who 
reports business income on Schedule C of their tax return is counted as 
a small business.
  So if someone makes a little money selling a product on eBay and 
reports that as business income, they are counted as a small business.
  What is the result? Obviously, we have a lot of folks counted as 
small businesses who are not really the kind of small businesses we 
think of as employing folks, these companies that employ between 20 and 
299 workers. The other group just reports schedule C income and are not 
the kind of small businesses creating jobs. This is a very important 
number to keep in mind.
  According to the IRS, Hassett and Viard write, ``fully 48 percent of 
the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations 
reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 
in 2007. That's the number to look at.''
  So when we talk about these small businesses, these corporations 
whose owners report their income as individual income, 48 percent of 
the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S 
corporations reported on tax returns went to people above the $200,000 
mark. Those are the small businesses that are employing people. Those 
are the folks who will be hardest hit when this tax increase is put 
into effect. Frankly, it is many of these businesses that are the most 
profitable small businesses, and they are the ones that will be 
creating the new jobs to bring us out of the economic doldrums we are 
in. Americans know this. That is why I think the key to economic 
recovery being new jobs depends upon what we do to punish the people 
who create the new jobs. We don't need more government spending. That 
is the old plan of the Democrats. It has clearly failed. What we need 
is new jobs.
  The President recently proposed a package of temporary tax credits 
that includes, among other things, a writeoff for all business capital 
purchases in 2011. Obviously, this concedes the economic point that tax 
relief can spur job

[[Page 15515]]

growth, but there is cognitive dissonance about what the rate increases 
will mean for small businesses.
  I turn again to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Michael 
Fleischer who is a small business owner in New Jersey. He wrote an op-
ed entitled, ``Why I am Not Hiring.'' We want to know the answer to 
that, if we are going to figure out how to help him hire more people.
  He added up all of the costs of government when he hires somebody 
new, particularly the tax cost. He also included regulatory costs and 
other mandates. His conclusion:

       A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can 
     be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations 
     to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's 
     message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a 
     punishing price.

  What price is he talking about, looking at this potential tax 
increase I have been talking about? He estimates over $75,000 to hire 
somebody who makes $44,000. So I think his cost was close to $78,000. 
That is the punishing burden we put upon businessmen such as him just 
to hire more people. Some big businesses can stand that. The small 
businesses that would bear the brunt of this tax increase cannot. That 
is precisely why small businessmen such as Michael Fleischer are not 
hiring today.
  Why would we increase the burden he bears in hiring more people? What 
we ought to be doing is ensuring that the tax rates that have been in 
effect now for 10 years can continue forward so people have certainty 
about what they will be paying, and those very small business folks who 
are hiring the people we want to go back to work would not have to pay 
an additional burden in the form of a higher income tax rate.
  The President and some of our friends on the other side have argued 
that if taxes don't go up, those in the top brackets will just save 
more; that will do little for job creation and economic growth. This is 
the one that really bugs me. It is as if we can't appreciate what 
happens when somebody saves money. Do my colleagues know of anybody who 
buries money in their backyard? I don't. Any person who saves money 
either puts it in a bank where it is lent out to somebody, usually a 
business so it can hire more people or buy equipment, or they invest in 
a stock or a bond, equities usually. What is that investment? It is 
providing capital to business. What does business do with capital? It 
either hires people or buys equipment, which generally requires people 
to make it, and therefore they get hired as well.
  The bottom line is, yes; it is fine for people who immediately go out 
and spend their money. That does have an indirect effect on job 
creation. If enough people spend enough money, somebody will have to go 
back to work to make the products. But the truth is, money that is 
saved has a direct impact on job creation because it directly provides 
capital to businesses so they can expand. Saving doesn't mean throwing 
one's money in a mattress or burying it in the backyard. It means 
investing it in our economy. If taxes go up, less money is available 
for those investments and for job creation.
  A final note: Supporters of the pending tax hikes have frequently 
cited the booming economy of the 1990s to strengthen their case. They 
say if the economy performed so well under President Clinton, what is 
the big deal about returning to Clinton era income tax rates? First, 
they don't want to return to Clinton era income tax rates on anybody 
except millionaires, these people who make over $250,000 a year. But in 
any event, the argument misses the point. The question is not whether 
it is possible to have strong economic growth with higher income tax 
rates, though it is less likely that occurs. Rather, the question is 
whether we should be raising taxes in the aftermath of one of the worst 
recessions where some people are talking about having a double-dip 
recession, and it is clear we are not out of America's worst financial 
crisis and recession since World War II. I don't know of an economist 
who says that is a good idea.
  Peter Orszag, the President's last OMB Director, just had a big op-ed 
in the New York Times in which he said this is not the time to raise 
taxes, when we still have these economic difficulties--on anybody. 
Indeed, the timing of President Obama's proposed tax increases could 
not be worse.
  I just cite the example of Japan during the so-called lost decade. 
They suffered a massive financial collapse in the early 1990s. One of 
the responses was to actually reduce taxes and boost economic activity. 
And it did. They began to come back. Then for reasons that elude me, 
they decided in 1997 to raise taxes again and, sure enough, the economy 
fell back into recession. I should think Japan's experience provides a 
cautionary tail about the dangers of increasing taxes amid a very shaky 
economic recovery.
  In their comprehensive survey of financial meltdowns across the 
globe, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff tell us that 
recoveries following such meltdowns are typically quite slow. The 
current U.S. recovery is no exception. America's unemployment rate has 
been above 9 percent for more than a year. Speaking to the Federal 
Reserve's annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Reinhart said that based on 
the history of past financial crises, it is conceivable that U.S. 
unemployment could stay at 8 or 9 percent for another 7 years.
  If that is the case, why on Earth would anybody be talking about 
raising taxes on anyone, most especially the small business folks who 
will be the first to hire coming out of this economic downturn? It is 
beyond me.
  Obviously, the way to avoid that bleak scenario is to reject the tax 
increases proposed by the President and some on the other side of the 
aisle.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, never before in history has an 
administration claimed to have so much love for small businesses. In 
fact, the President recently stated:

       This is as American as apple pie. Small businesses are the 
     backbone of the economy. They are central to our identity as 
     a nation. They are going to lead this recovery.

  It seems virtually every news story, every speech, every forum 
includes something about standing up for small business. Small business 
owners should love that; right? Yet they are up to their eyeballs with 
this administration. They are so darn angry they could spit fire. Why? 
Because they are tired of the President and others saying one thing and 
then doing another.
  A perfect example, a prime example, is the 1099 paperwork mandate in 
the health care law. Why on Earth would the administration bury 
businesses in costly paperwork while claiming publicly to support them. 
I am talking about, of all things, section 9006 of the new health care 
law. It is buried in the health care bill at page 737. This provision 
illustrates this administration is absolutely tone deaf to the plight 
of small businesses.
  It says, if a business purchases more than $600 of goods or services 
from another business, they will be required to provide the business 
and the Internal Revenue Service with a 1099 tax form. The new mandate 
will affect all kinds of businesses, not to mention nonprofits, local 
governments, and State governments.
  For example, I received a letter from the Society of American 
Florists asking for help. Here is how it will affect their daily 
business:

       Small retail florists . . . will have to issue 1099's to 
     their wholesalers, landlords and gas stations. Wholesalers 
     purchasing flowers and plants from growers will need to issue 
     1099's. Growers who send staff to trade shows will have to 
     issue a 1099 to the hotel in which those staff members sleep.

  Increased paperwork, of course, means increased costs. One small 
business owner in Nebraska said this will cost him $23,000 a year. That 
may not sound like much in Washington where we talk about trillions, 
but to a small business in Nebraska that is a lot of money. It would go 
a long way to hiring another person.
  One would assume there is a great benefit that makes it worthwhile to 
bury our job creators in this paperwork. But, sadly, this is not even 
the case. A division of the IRS predicts there will be little benefit 
and big

[[Page 15516]]

headaches. The IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate projects high costs to 
businesses and the IRS, along with a mess of erroneous tax penalties.
  To my left is a quote from the IRS. This is what they say: The IRS 
``will face challenges making productive use of this new volume of 
information.''
  It goes on:

       . . . it is highly likely that the IRS will improperly 
     assess penalties that it must abate later, after great 
     expenditure of taxpayer and IRS time and effort.

  Not even the IRS wants this information. Simply put, it is an 
expensive mess without a lot of tax dollars to show for it.
  So we are going to stifle job creation. We are going to hammer 
businesses and ultimately increase incorrect tax penalties, according 
to the IRS. Now we begin to understand why business owners are spitting 
mad. It makes no sense whatsoever. That is why my amendment is so 
terribly important. It fully repeals this section of the law. It is 
paid for. Countless small businesses have advocated for a full repeal 
of this language.
  According to the National Federation of Independent Business:

       It is clear there is bipartisan agreement that the 1099 
     provision contained in the health care law will have a direct 
     negative impact on small businesses.

  The House Democratic leadership recognized the job-stifling, job-
killing provision and proposed a full repeal of this new 1099 
requirement. Of 239 House Democrats, all those voting except one 
supported a full repeal of this portion of the new health care law. 
House Democrats recognize that the 1099 mandate is absolutely misguided 
and downright damaging to job creation.
  Unfortunately, in the Senate, there is a Democratic-proposed 
alternative that only partially repeals the mandate, and all it does is 
add confusion to try to accomplish political cover. Instead of actually 
solving the problem, it picks winners and losers with thousands of 
businesses still subject to the job-killing mandate.
  Businesses with 26 or more employees are still subject to the 
mandate--I might ask, what is the wisdom of 26? Why not 25, 24?--for 
transactions totaling $5,000 or more. So what does that mean? According 
to the Census Bureau, the Democratic amendment will still subject 
415,391 businesses in the United States to a job-killing paperwork 
mandate that not even the IRS wants, and over 93 million workers are 
employed by these businesses.
  Now, what does that mean to individual States?
  Let's take a look. In the State of California, 18,960 businesses 
would still be subject to the mandate under the side-by-side amendment. 
Does anybody want to go to these businesses in California and say: We 
are burying you in paperwork for no useful purpose to try to pay for 
the health care bill? In Florida, more than 11,000 businesses have more 
than 25 employers; Texas, 14,208 businesses. I could go on and on. 
Furthermore, it will continue the paperwork nightmare.
  Governments, nonprofits, and businesses will still have to track 
everything and collect the tax information from their vendors because 
they do not know if they have made the first purchase going to $5,000 
or the last purchase that will not tangle them up in this requirement.
  It will also discourage businesses from expanding and hiring. Why 
would we want to say to businesses: You are OK if you are at 25; but if 
you get to 26, we hammer you? It makes no sense whatsoever.
  One of the most discouraging aspects of the alternative by my friends 
on the other side is that it favors Wall Street over Main Street. It 
exempts certain payments from big businesses that have fancy systems to 
comply with tax laws, but it severely hurts the mom-and-pop enterprises 
on Main Street.
  Businesses that are not exempt will find ways to limit the number of 
1099s. They might buy some supplies from the big box retailers and 
avoid the mom-and-pop retailer on Main Street to avoid the government-
imposed 1099 mandate.
  As our Chamber of Commerce said:

       Governments, nonprofits and businesses would have a choice, 
     to buy supplies from Joe's Stationary and report to the IRS 
     or buy from the national chain and not have to report at all 
     . . . small businesses will become second class citizens 
     since they will be the ones that will lose out.

  You see, with all due respect to my colleague, this side-by-side 
amendment brings a patchwork of exemptions for businesses to sort 
through.
  Under this amendment, property is exempted. Yet there is no 
definition of ``property.'' It leaves business owners in the lurch, 
crossing their fingers, hoping the IRS will exempt transactions. This 
is not certainty. It is utter confusion.
  All businesses will have to track their transactions until the IRS 
figures out what ``property'' is. Even after ``property'' is defined, 
it will lead to a patchwork of exemptions. Every time a business owner 
wants to buy something, they have to call their accountant.
  This amendment also claims to soften the blow by exempting credit 
card transactions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 
minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHANNS. But the truth is, the IRS has already announced steps to 
implement that exact same policy. The unfortunate thing about this 
exemption is that it will cause more problems, not fewer: pay by check, 
pay by credit card; property, nonproperty; 24 employees versus 26 
employers; and on and on. It was all done to finance the health care 
bill on the backs of American businesses.
  I ask my colleagues to support my effort to repeal this job-killing 
mandate in its entirety when we have an opportunity to vote tomorrow.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________