[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3318-3319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            CHANGE IN POLICY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Earlier this year I came to the floor to pose a simple 
question about President Obama's final years in office: Did he want to 
be remembered as a hero to the left or as a champion for the middle 
class? That is the question. I asked the question this way because for 
the past several years the left has basically had its run of this White 
House. During that period the politically connected and the already 
powerful have clearly prospered. But what about the middle class? They 
feel as though they have been shut out altogether as household income 
has plummeted and families who were struggling to pay the bills have 
gotten left behind by a President and a party who claimed to act in 
their name.
  So I wanted to know: Did the President plan to continue down the same 
ideological road he has taken us on or would he change course and 
embrace effective proposals that would make a real difference in the 
lives of middle-class Americans? Would he reach across the aisle to 
jump-start job creation and make the economy work for the middle class 
again?
  Well, over the last few months we appear to have gotten our answer. 
Once more, the real concerns of ordinary Americans have been pushed 
aside in favor of the preoccupation of the political left. Yet again we 
have seen the truth of the old saying that a liberal never lets the 
facts get in the way of a good theory. Once again we have seen how 
liberal policies end up hurting the very people they claim to help.
  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debate over the minimum 
wage. As a recent CBO report made clear, the President's bill basically 
amounts to a terrible real-world tradeoff, helping one group of low-
income Americans by undercutting another group of low-income Americans. 
How is that fair? Americans are crying out for jobs. Job creation is 
the top issue in our country. Our unemployment and underemployment 
rates have remained abysmally high more than half a decade after this 
President took office. What is the White House's solution? A bill that 
might sound good in theory but could cost as many as 1 million jobs, 
according to CBO.
  The Congressional Budget Office released another report, this one on 
ObamaCare. There is a similar story: 2.5 million fewer Americans in 
jobs thanks to ObamaCare; huge disincentives to work thanks to 
ObamaCare. That is what CBO says.
  Of course, Washington Democrats--the same folks who promised you 
could keep your health plan if you liked it--told Americans not to 
believe their own eyes, that ObamaCare would simply liberate them from 
jobs. ObamaCare would simply liberate them from jobs. It is just 
unbelievable, especially when we consider that the law's medical device 
tax alone is projected to kill as many as 33,000 jobs and that 60 
percent of business owners and HR professionals recently surveyed said 
ObamaCare will negatively impact jobs. As a member of that group 
recently put it, ``Small businesses have an incentive to stay small'' 
under ObamaCare. That is because ObamaCare can punish businesses that 
choose to hire more workers.
  In my home State of Kentucky, the tension between the priorities of 
the left and the needs of real people is on full display. That is 
because the Obama administration has trained its sights on some of our 
most vulnerable citizens. One administration adviser actually used the 
words ``war on coal'' to essentially describe what the administration 
is doing or, in his view, probably should be doing to hard-working 
miners who just want to put food on the table.
  Those were his words, not mine. Here is why: Because according to 
liberal elites in Washington, these folks are standing in the way of 
their theories. A practical approach that actually takes the concerns 
and anxieties of those people into account would promote clean energy 
even as it acknowledged the real-world benefits of traditional sources 
of energy.
  My point is this: The administration has broken faith with the middle 
class, and it has stirred up strong emotions, especially among those 
who actually want to see a better life for those struggling to make it 
in our States. Almost everyone feels let down. A lot of folks are very 
angry.
  It is a real tragedy, not only because of the missed opportunities 
and the human cost of these policies but also because when the 
President ran for office, he promised a very different approach.
  It is tragic because the very folks he has talked about helping are 
the ones who seem to suffer the most under his Presidency.
  It is tragic because it appears as if he has answered the question I 
posed in January: that he is prepared to double down on the left and 
throw in the towel on the middle class. How else can you explain the 
obsession with all of these peripheral ideological issues at a time 
when Americans are demanding good, stable, high-paying jobs and a new 
direction, at a time when folks' wages are stagnant but their costs 
always seem to be rising, at a time when younger Americans seem to be 
resigned to a harder life than their parents had? How else can you 
explain why the President has refused to sign off on projects such as 
Keystone Pipeline that would create thousands of jobs or why he refuses 
to push his own party to join Republicans and support trade legislation 
that could create even more jobs?
  This cannot be the legacy the President really wants to leave, but it 
is the legacy he will be ensuring for himself if he does not change. 
There is still time to alter the course. There is still time for the 
President to acknowledge that there is no reconciling the demands of 
his base and the concerns of the middle class. It is one or the other.
  The real solution here is liberating the private sector. The real 
solution is to implement policies that will increase wages for everyone 
instead of pursuing policies that essentially seek to distribute slices 
of a smaller pie to some. Of course, making a turn toward authentic job 
creation might make the left mad, but it is the only way to get the 
gears of our economy working again and college graduates off their 
parents' couches and onto a path of earned success.
  Maybe the President will show some change of heart in Minnesota 
today. Maybe he will recognize, for instance, that killing thousands of 
high-tech jobs in the medical device industry is not worth the pain it 
is causing. Who knows? Who knows? I sure hope so because if you have 
entered the sixth year of trying to fix an economy and you are still 
talking about emergency unemployment benefits, it is time to recognize 
that your policies have not worked for the middle class. It is time for 
a fresh start.

[[Page 3319]]

  Before I go, I would like to highlight one more dividing line between 
the dreams of the left and the well-being of our constituents. It is a 
topic I spoke about yesterday; that is, Medicare Advantage.
  As I asked then: Why would the administration want to raid a program 
that is working, such as Medicare Advantage, to fund a program that 
does not work, such as ObamaCare? Why would Senate Democrats vote time 
and time again to do that? They must have known that taking $300 
billion from Medicare Advantage to fund ObamaCare would have real-world 
impacts on seniors, such as losing choices and coverage and doctors 
they now enjoy. It is not fair. It is not right. Several of my 
colleagues will be coming to the floor to speak more about this issue 
this morning.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________