Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2021

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, first, because I don't get the chance to do this very often, this is the Joint Economic Committee. We are basically here to talk about the economic impact of this piece of legislation. I am joyful to have Mr. Beyer as my opposite. He is someone who I truly respect intellectually. If he suggests you read a book, grab it.

But this is one of those occasions where, having sat through the Committee on the Budget's testimony discussion, I am both frustrated and a little heartbroken on the number of things that were said that actually weren't mathematically true or policy true or accurate. I am hoping that those of us on the Joint Economic Committee can actually raise the level of this argument and this discourse to being hyperfactual because we need to get this right.

Do understand that a $1.9 trillion bill, if you do the interest, is $2.4 trillion to $2.5 trillion. So we need to start getting our understanding of the types of dollars we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to stand here and just do a bunch of responses, but here's the quarterly from the Census Bureau about State and local revenues and resources: A 17.7 percent increase in receipts.

Now, your State might not be that, but 17.7 percent from the Census Bureau, their latest document.

And if you have one of the municipalities that is hurting, that has a shortfall, there is still $58 billion sitting in the account that hasn't been spent, yet we are talking about adding another $1.9 trillion in spending.

Until we also take a moment and understand the almost $1 trillion still sitting in the accounts that haven't been released or spent, part of this argument we are having today is absolutely absurd.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, just a couple points. There is still $280 billion sitting in the payroll protection account. There is still $239 billion sitting in the health spending account. I am someone who, on a personal level--and I believe our Republican side of the Joint Economic Committee--believes we need to probably spend more, but it needs to be properly targeted so we get the impact.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that Congresswoman Beatty has a great mask. It is wonderfully sparkly.

I did want to share one thing very, very quickly. This is our CBO projection of where we are at right now. With the moneys that have already been authorized right now, by the end of this year, we will be close to a 4 percent GDP growth. So last quarter wasn't anywhere where we wanted it. The quarter before that was miserable. But you have to understand that this is where we are at.

We keep hearing our fellow Members make comments, saying the economists said, ``Go big.'' But if you actually listen to their second line, multiple economists said, ``Go big, but go targeted.''

This document isn't targeted. It is all over the board.

Once again--and I am probably going to keep making this point over, and over, and over--I care deeply and am desperately concerned particularly for the poor and the working poor in this country. And this document, if we are going to be honest about it, does not target their suffering.

I will show a couple of boards here where, once again, we are going to be sending stunning amounts of money to places that it is just going to sit in a bank account. It is going to go to places where it is not actually creating that velocity, that multiplier effect of helping those who are suffering.

And do understand--this is important--there is still $172 billion sitting in the disaster loan accounts. There is another $172 billion still sitting in the unemployment insurance accounts from things we have already done together.

In that case, it is not completely--I don't want to use the word ``disingenuous''--but some of the things we are saying here that, yes, there is a crisis out there, and, yes, there is actually money sitting in the accounts. Get that damn money out of those accounts to where the suffering is.

And with that I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Speaker, maybe I am going to break protocol, but I am finding that this will be the second time I think I have complimented someone on the Democratic side. Triggers make a lot of sense in this type of mechanism when you have, functionally, $1 trillion still sitting in the accounts, and we are seeing projections from CBO saying, functionally, by the fourth quarter--I am sorry, I didn't have a chance to print this large--but by the fourth quarter, unemployment--look, I am one of those who believes full employment is always the ultimate goal--but unemployment will be back to where basically we were in 2015-2016.

Can we do better? Absolutely. But to do better, it is going to require thoughtful, targeted, well-designed spending, of our resources, our statutes. And one of the reasons I talk about that is there is something very unique going on. And I hope our chairman of the Joint Economic Committee will actually think about this because we haven't figured out how to turn this one into being partisan yet. I am sure we will figure it out.

But right now, this is the sort of thing we should be talking about. There is this crazy renaissance going on in this country of people starting new businesses, filing new LLCs, starting new concerns.

Now, it may be because of the tragedy of the business they have right now which has been crushed by the shutdowns and the virus, but there are a remarkable number of new concerns beginning.

Wouldn't it be both elegant, but also very powerful, as we watch unemployment, to find ways to access capital; access to streamlined permitting, licensing; crazy things like allowing someone to do a microbusiness out of public housing, things that actually have impact.

And it turns out, those aren't the sort of things you find in a $1.9 trillion--functionally $2.5 trillion if you are going to be honest about the real cost--spending package. And I understand this is a piece of legislation that if you actually look at it, it is just line, after line, after line, after line of numbers.

If this passes--which it probably will, you know, the Democrats are in the majority--the ethical, moral obligations we have heard from multiple speakers here that a budget is your values, is the value the fact you can spend stunning amounts of money even when there is $1 trillion still sitting in the bank unspent, or is the value that you are going to do it in a way where we impact the working poor; where we impact those who are truly suffering, and not crushing someone like my 5-year-old daughter who is the one who is ultimately going to be paying this back.

So if we are going to make the moral argument, I hope we think about the whole, shall we say, continuum of what we do here, what is moral, what is right.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, in many ways we are all saying the same thing. It is just, once again, trying to make the argument, if we do this smartly and well-targeted, we can do it for a dramatically more efficient cost and actually help more of the poor that we know are suffering, more of the people who have been crushed, more of the small businesses.

And a simple example, Opportunity Insights has predicted that, with a $2,000 check to functionally every household that makes less than $46,000, only $420, functionally, of what they receive will get spent. The rest goes in the bank. Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe that is the audience you want to target. But when you start doing the same thing to populations, and for some reason they use $78,000, only $105 gets spent. So think of that.

Mr. Speaker, increase the check another $1,400, a population that makes $78,000 or more, they are only spending $105. The rest is going in the bank account. Maybe that is wonderful, but that is not what we are debating. We are trying to create a multiplier effect of some stimulus in our society to get the economy going so we see those GDP numbers go up; the unemployment go down; and we get back to the miracle we were at in 2018 and 2019, where income and equality actually shrank for the first time in 2 years, where food insecurity shrank for the first time in decades and decades and decades, where the working poor actually were doing better than they had in decades and decades and decades.

How do we get back to, functionally, what was the miracle of 2018 and 2019?

And my argument is, the model that we are reading in this resolution, isn't it. It doesn't get you there. If we truly have the same goal, I desperately hope our friends on the left and those of us on the right, who actually want to look at this almost like an economist of a laser beam, are saying: Let's find those who are hurting and find out how to get the resources that are already appropriated and get those to them, and then appropriate more where necessary.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, once again, back to facts over feelings: After the tax reform, what did we see in our society?

It was the first 2 years that we actually saw income and equality shrink in modern economic times. I thought that was the Holy Grail.

Did you see what happened to Hispanics, African Americans' incomes, working poor incomes?

The fact of the matter is, if you tell the truth about the post-tax reform model--just maybe because I was in the room--the top 10 percent actually were paying more of the Federal income taxes than prior. Yet that somehow isn't the folklore that we so often hear from this floor.

Mr. Speaker, there are couple other points I would like to make. And a couple of this is important because Chairman Beyer actually did a terrific job touching on some of this. And he was making a very powerful point. And, actually, I hate to say this, he was reading part of my script, which actually is a little creepy.

The total deposits in commercial banks, if you take a look at this line, have gone up dramatically. It is because too much of the money that we have done bipartisan in the last year to help stimulate and save the economy ended up in pockets of those very, very wealthy, or even medium wealthy, and it ended up sitting in the bank and not circulating, rotating in the economy and helping the workers, helping the working poor, helping those who are just trying to survive.

My fear is this budget reconciliation document is going to be just a lot more of this, if you actually look. The other thing is--this is a tough one, and this is one I am hoping that the placeholder in this document isn't what the Democrats really are heading towards because, if it is, you are going to hear those who are on our side scream that this is a payoff to, shall we say, a constituency that is very supportive of the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, not been a great year--the year 2000, about 350,000 State municipal workers lost their jobs. This budget reconciliation bill has about $350 billion in the line item for that population. You do realize that's $1 million a job. And if you do the total number, it is still $350,000 a job.

Is that compassion? Or is that lunacy?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this: Mr. Green also can sing, and he is one of those I consider a friend. He and I have done a number of pieces of legislation, and he and I have a running discussion of what actually helps the working poor. We have different views, but we know we both have a passion of it.

Mr. Speaker, let's actually take sort of the theme that has been offered here. I believe it is absolutely mathematically wrong, but an argument that, Hey, so much of this has helped the wealthy in tax reform and those things. Great.

Mr. Speaker, if someone on the Democratic side can promise me that when I am looking at this budget resolution, this is not creating a policy box for the Committee on Ways and Means to turn around and re-implement policy where, functionally, the benefit goes mostly to the very, very wealthy.

So when I see the box here that looks like it would allow for certain revenues to be raised, and then it goes to possibly a SALT--a State and local tax deduction, which we all know the top 1 percent gets 57 percent of the value of it, the bottom 80 percent of our society only gets 4 percent of the value--that would be, actually, a tax break. Actually, I think I have been quoted as saying, ``It is the most regressive tax break that you can think of in our society right now that is in play.''

I am just desperately hoping that isn't what I am reading in some of these pages as part of that setup. And I would love someone on the left to basically promise me that we are not seeing a setup here to, once again, subsidize the rich.

Mr. Speaker, the comment of ``look at this budget and see a party's values,'' this may be a little ethereal, but have you all heard the term ``blank check company''? It is one of the rages on Wall Street right now. Take basically a shell, have a bunch of money put into it, and then they promise, saying, we are going to find something to spend the money on.

This is essentially a blank check budget reconciliation with actually none of the very elegant and persuasive words said.

There is also one other thing, and I want to say this as respectfully as possible, so I am going to read someone else's words. The well-worn and misleading talking points is 83 percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent. Just not true. Since the day of tax reform until 2025, the wealthiest, and maybe it is too much, get 25 percent. At the very end of tax reform, when many of the different tax breaks and those things are expiring out, there is an anomaly in the year 2027. It is not 83 percent.

Please, I beg of my friends on the left, I know we like our talking points, but there is a reason the public is so enraged with us. It is because we have this bad habit of getting behind these microphones and playing some real games with the facts, and the facts are the facts.

Once again, the blank check company concept, this is now the blank check budget.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing I wanted to share. First, the Restaurants Act is a good piece of legislation. I think there are many of us on Ways and Means who look forward to it or something very, very close to it.

Also, one other comment, Madam Speaker spoke earlier, I was actually somewhat enthused about her focus on kids in school. As Mr. Beyer teased me, I am 58, my wife is 58, and I have a 5 year old. That is the ultimate definition of being optimistic for the future. That is funny.

But the fact of the matter is, I desperately hope that Madam Speaker will use her influence on the teachers' union to encourage getting these kids back to school. I have some charts--but I am not going to show them to everyone because I may save them for evening floor time-- on the devastation--and the Speaker actually just spoke about this, which is a great irony--of what we are doing to the future earning power of everyone from the parents to the children themselves.

How many saw the story, I think in The New York Times, this last week about children suicides in Nevada?

It rips your heart out. But I don't see it in this budget document. It is not in there.

If that is where we are heading, great. As Republicans we are going to help make good things happen, getting these schools open, but we actually need the influence from the left, particularly with the teachers' union to make that a possibility.

Mr. Speaker, this has been actually a reasonable conversation. I desperately hope we are going to have more of this.

But back to some of the principal points from the Republican side we are trying to share about this budget resolution is the SBA paycheck protection. There is still $280 billion sitting in the account that hasn't gone out the door; healthcare spending, still has $239 billion sitting in the account that hasn't gone out the door; economic injury disaster loans, $172 billion still sitting in the account that hasn't gone out the door; unemployment insurance expansion, another $172 billion still sitting in the account; education funding, $59 billion sitting in the account; assistance to State and local, $58 billion; stimulus checks, there is still $52 billion sitting in there; food stamps, there is still $33 billion; childcare and development block grants, there is $10 billion sitting in that account; agriculture assistance, there is still $29 billion sitting in the account. That is $1 trillion.

Is there a need for more help in our society?

Absolutely.

Does this document actually target it to those who are hurting, to the working poor, and to those who actually haven't gained great wealth with the stock market? Are other dollars in their accounts?

I just don't see it in there.

And functionally, this is $2.5 trillion of spending. When we authorize $1.9 trillion and then do the interest on it, I think that is a fair interest calculation.

I beg of us that as this moves forward and we actually get to put some policy behind these incredibly broad numbers, will those of us who actually care about math--because the running joke in our family is that Daddy works in a math-free zone. Somehow, I thought it would get a laugh.

I desperately ask all of us, this is a stunning amount of money. I understand the need for the administration and the Democrat majority to act like individuals of action.

But what happens when that action is theater?

On the conservative side we want to help, but $1.9 trillion isn't the help. It is figuring out where the needs are and getting it to them. Instead--and I'll show some of the charts--some of the dollar amounts that are in this document are absurd and still don't get us what we know we need in our society.

So as part of my closing here, we have $1 trillion already still sitting in the accounts that haven't gone out the door.

What are we doing to get those resources to those who need it?

Because this is something that we could do instantly. The cash is already sitting there. It is already authorized.

But also, what could we do as those of us in the Joint Economic Committee try to work on math saying: Here is how we get the maximum amount of stimulus to help those who are hurting?

How do we get back to--forgive my cheat sheet--how do we get back to an environment where, once again, like we had in 2018 and 2019, income inequality actually shrank for the first time?

How do we get back to where food insecurity was shrinking and where the working poor were getting substantially less poor?

I know there is a great difficulty for my brothers and sisters on the left to extend tax reform and regulatory reform any credit. Then don't give it credit. But do at least accept we had some amazing things happening there for a couple of years for the very populations we come behind these microphones and say that we care about.

Is there a way that on this left budget document--which is functionally a blank check company--being authorized to drop $1.9 trillion in immediate cash with an ultimate cost of about $2.5 trillion, could we actually take a look at what was working in our society before the pandemic and figure out how to do more of what was working and take a look at what was done in the previous years where we spent lots of money and we had almost no multiplier effect, none of the folks we were trying to help were getting help, and do less of this?

Because this document reads very much like we are going back to the bad old days of spend lots of money, do some great virtue signaling, and, ultimately, the very people we talk about are no better off.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source