[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 14]
[House]
[Page 19745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      COMPROMISE TAX CUT PROPOSAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the Senate has acted on the so-called tax cut 
proposal. They acted the way the Senate usually acts when confronted 
with a problem; they added ornaments to the Christmas tree. They 
actually increased the cost.
  This legislation will cost $858 billion over 2 years. That is bigger 
than the much-reviled stimulus passed in the beginning of the Obama 
Presidency: $858 billion. That will add approximately $430 billion a 
year to the deficit for the next 2 years. That is $430 billion more 
borrowed, probably from China.
  Now, the question is: Is this the best possible use of this money? 
Will this put America and Americans back to work and get us more firmly 
on the path to recovery? I think not. I think much of this money is 
wasted and will create zero jobs.
  Now, if you think that the Bush-era tax cuts worked well--they didn't 
create any jobs, but if for some reason you think they worked well--
then you are going to like this. In fact, it is even a bigger giveaway 
than the Bush-era tax cuts. Or if you think the $300 billion of the so-
called stimulus that the President gave away in tax cuts, the Larry 
Summers tax cuts that were so small that no one would notice and they 
would just spend them on consumer goods--bad politics, bad economics, 
didn't put anybody back to work, to get three Republican votes, that is 
why that $300 billion went in there, and bumped out real investment 
that would have created immediate and real jobs and long-term 
benefits--no, instead we had ephemeral spending. That was supposed to 
put Americans back to work.
  If you liked that, you are going to love this. It has new provisions. 
One, instead of President Obama's ``making work pay'' tax cuts, now we 
are going to attack Social Security. That is right, the Republicans are 
getting their dreams here.
  We are going to give a tax holiday of 2 percent on Social Security. 
Isn't that great? It goes to any income level. That means Members of 
Congress will get a minimum of a $2,100 tax break, as will other people 
who do very well in this country.
  But, don't worry, that that would kind of hurt Social Security, to 
cut its income by $111 billion next year. It would accelerate the point 
at which it couldn't pay benefits. But, don't worry, we will borrow the 
money from China, and we will inject it into the Social Security trust 
fund, tearing down the firewall between the general fund and Social 
Security.
  Next year the Republicans are going to say to the President, Hey, you 
can't let that tax cut for working people, that FICA holiday, expire. 
And, oh, by the way, we can't afford to subsidize Social Security 
anymore out of the general fund.
  This is a trap, and that kind of a tax cut is not going to put people 
back to work.
  Then we have the tax cuts for the upper income, $51 billion for 
incomes above $250,000. Now, remember, up to $250,000, everybody under 
what President Obama first proposed would get a tax break. It is only 
your income over 250 that would be taxed at the Clinton-era rates. And 
guess what happened during the Clinton era? We balanced the budget, and 
we created 23 million jobs. Not too bad. Now we have record deficits, 
and we are creating an anemic number of jobs.
  They estimate this package might create between 1 million and 3 
million jobs, or save them, or later they will say it could have been 
worse, just like they did with the stimulus. If we directly invested a 
fraction of this $858 billion in roads, bridges, highways, sewers, 
water systems, building schools, things that would pass benefits to 
future generations, we could create millions of jobs and you would have 
gotten something for your money, other than current consumption.
  Then, how about this new provision, estates over $10 million? Now, 
the media keeps saying $5 million. No, it is 5 and 5, husband and wife, 
$10 million of an estate tax-free, and after that a lower tax break. 
That costs $10 billion a year.
  We are going to borrow $10 billion a year, all the American people 
are going to borrow that money, to give 6,000 families a tax break, who 
are already doing quite well, thank you very much. How many jobs will 
that create? Zero. Goose egg. None. It isn't about small business 
anymore. We are talking estates over $10 million.
  Then we are going to continue the Bush-era reductions in capital 
gains and dividend taxes, which go predominantly to the highest income 
brackets, under the premise that those things too create jobs. If this 
is a job creator, it is the least efficient, lamest way to create jobs 
at unbelievable expense.
  If we want to create jobs, there are better ways to do it; or if you 
want to do the tax relief, you could do it for much less. If you cut 
out the upper income, over $250,000, the estates over $10 million, look 
at capital gains, dividends, don't do the FICA tax, or at least cap it 
so people at levels of Members of Congress don't get it, we could do 
this for less and put more people to work.

                          ____________________