Economic Stimulus
Floor Speech
ECONOMIC STIMULUS -- (Senate - January 30, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think it is clear to the vast majority of the American people, if not to the President of the United States, that the middle class in our country is shrinking; tens of millions of people are working longer hours for low wages; workers today are getting into their cars and are paying outrageously high prices for a gallon of gas; that senior citizens in the State of Vermont can't afford the skyrocketing costs of home heating fuel; and that at this particular moment in our history, with poverty increasing and the middle class shrinking and our economy in serious trouble, it is absolutely imperative that we pass an economic stimulus package. The bottom line is not just passing a package but passing a good package.
I think there are some positive aspects of the bill that came from the House. I think from what we are hearing, the Senate Finance Committee is going to make that bill even stronger. But the main point I want to make this afternoon is that when we pass an economic stimulus bill, we have to get it right. It has to be fair. It has to have the impact of rejuvenating our economy and helping those people in need.
Later this afternoon, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate Finance Committee will be voting on what I believe is, for the most part, an improved version of the economic stimulus bill that came from the House. I think it is right that the Finance Committee bill includes an extension in unemployment insurance for 13 weeks in all States and an additional 26 weeks in States with high unemployment. That is obviously the right thing to do, because people who lose their jobs, people whose unemployment compensation expires, are people in desperate need. Those are the people we need to help. From an economic stimulus point of view, those people will take that money, spend it, and help stimulate our economy.
I am also pleased that the Finance Committee extended the rebates to 20 million senior citizens who don't earn income, and that was certainly a major lack in the bill that passed the House. There are millions and millions and millions of senior citizens in this country hanging on, on low fixed incomes, getting their Social Security check every month, but having a very difficult time making ends meet, especially with health care costs rising, heating fuel costs rising, prescription drug costs rising. Those people need help. It is absolutely imperative that if we pass an economic stimulus package, it must include our senior citizens as well. I applaud the chairman of the Finance Committee for including that provision in the bill.
Furthermore, I am strongly in agreement with the proposed package coming out of the Senate Finance Committee that low-income Americans who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes should also receive the same rebate as somebody who is earning $50,000, $60,000, or $80,000 a year. In point of fact, those people are most in need, and I disagree with the House provision that would provide them with a $300 rebate as opposed to middle-income or upper middle income people who get a $600 rebate. We should not provide a two-tier rebate approach. Everybody should get the same amount. Certainly lower income people have more need of the money than upper income people. So I think that provision in the Finance Committee proposal makes a lot of sense.
Having said those positive things about the Finance Committee package, there is one area where I strongly disagree. Under the House package, the rebates were capped at incomes of $75,000 per year for individuals and $150,000 a year for couples. As I understand it, the Finance Committee would eliminate those caps and they would say to the wealthiest people in our society, to the millionaires and to the billionaires, to Bill Gates, to Warren Buffett, that you will be eligible for a tax rebate. At a time when this country has a record-breaking national debt, at a time when the people on top have never done so well, and the richest 1 percent are doing very well based on anyone's analysis; at a time when the richest 1 percent have already received collectively hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks from President Bush, the idea that under a so-called economic stimulus package we would be providing $500 to Bill Gates is not only absurd, it is laughable. I hesitate to think what the American people will conclude if we go forward in that approach, and if we do away with the cap at $150,000, which the House appropriately placed in there.
It has been estimated that eliminating the income caps for the rebate checks, giving that money to Bill Gates and other billionaires would cost about $5 billion. Five billion dollars would, in fact, be enough money to significantly increase food stamps for tens of millions of the neediest Americans in our country. I don't think it is rocket science to suggest that it is more important to make sure that kids in this country get adequate nutrition, that older people be able to get some help in food stamps, than giving a $500 check to millionaires and billionaires, not to mention that all of the economists agree that if you are talking about an economic stimulus, the fastest way you get that money out into our society is by giving it to people who are most in need who will then spend it, not to the wealthiest people in this country. I hope very much that every Member of the Senate will conclude that giving a tax rebate of $500 a person in a so-called economic stimulus package to the wealthiest people in this society makes zero sense.
In my view, despite the improvements or most of the improvements we are seeing in the Senate Finance Committee, I think that, frankly, there is a lot more that must be done in the economic stimulus package, and it should be done for two reasons. No. 1, for 7 years, we have had a President who has turned a blind eye to the middle class and working families and lower income people in this country; at a time, in fact, when poverty is increasing, his contribution to the process was to propose major cutbacks in one program after another. I think it is time now that Congress pay attention to the needs of the middle class, lower income people, and start addressing their needs rather than just upper income people who have received so much over the last 7 years. Specifically, we must provide help to those most in need, particularly senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children, and persons with disabilities.
We must strengthen the middle class in this economic stimulus package, and we must put Americans back to work at good-paying jobs by paying attention to our infrastructure, which has so long been neglected with the results being that we have bridges and roads and culverts and school buildings that are in desperate need of repair.
If we fail to pass an economic stimulus package that does not accomplish all three of these goals, we will have missed out on an important opportunity to strengthen our economy and to help those people most in need.
Here are just a few steps that I believe we should be taking. First, I believe we should increase the stimulus package by at least $25 billion. I also believe we should reduce the business tax breaks by at least $25 billion. Mark Zandi from Moody's has estimated that the business tax breaks contemplated by Congress would yield very little stimulus to the economy, much less than increasing food stamps or unemployment benefits. In other words, if the goal is to stimulate the economy, the tax breaks being proposed for the business community in many ways would have much less of an impact than many other proposals, such as increasing food stamps or unemployment benefits.
If we did those two things--increase the stimulus package by $25 billion and reduce the business tax breaks by $25 billion--that would leave us with an additional $50 billion. What can we do, what should we do with this $50 billion? We could complete the picture. We can put Americans back to work at decent-paying jobs, we can help those who are most in need, and we could strengthen the middle class.
How do we do that? Specifically, I believe we should provide $5 billion for an expansion of the Food Stamp Program. In America today, poverty is increasing. We are seeing levels of desperation in the State of Vermont and all over this country that we have not seen in many years. Food shelves in the State of Vermont and throughout this country are running out of food. I understand that in the agriculture bill, there are proposals to increase food stamps, but we do not know when that farm bill is going to be passed. We have to act now. Let's support our neighbors who are having a hard time feeding their families. Let's substantially increase food stamps and do it in this economic stimulus package.
What else should we be doing? I can tell my colleagues, coming from one of the coldest States in America, at a time when home heating fuel prices are soaring, it is absolutely imperative that we significantly increase funding for the LIHEAP program. Many of the people on LIHEAP are senior citizens, and the rest are low-income people. With fuel prices soaring, with poverty increasing, more and more people are having a difficult time keeping their homes warm. We must significantly increase LIHEAP funding. The economists tell us that is also an important mechanism if we are going to stimulate the economy.
Including food stamps, LIHEAP, and unemployment benefits in the economic stimulus package is not only the right thing to do in terms of stimulating the economy, it is the moral thing to do. We cannot, we must not turn a blind eye to those people who are most in need. That is what has gone on year after year under Republican rule. It is time we turned that around and told those Americans most in need that we hear them, we know what is going on, and this Congress, this Government will respond to those needs, and now is the time to do that.
In my State and all over America, our infrastructure is crumbling. There are estimates that we need over $1 trillion to rebuild our bridges, our schools, our culverts, and in the process of doing that--this is work which has to be done, and the longer we wait, the more it costs. I speak as a former mayor. When you delay your infrastructure repairs, all it means is it is going to cost you more next year. We can put many workers back to work doing this very important task of rebuilding our infrastructure, making sure the schools our kids are going to are updated, and making sure they are energy efficient. If we make our schools and public buildings energy efficient, in the long run we are going to save money. But as an immediate economic stimulus, putting money into the infrastructure can create many jobs, and these are good-paying jobs. I am talking about schools, bridges, roads, sewers, wastewater plants, rails, ports, airports, health delivery systems, and other infrastructural needs. Last year, about 200,000 construction workers lost their jobs, and this is a good way of bringing at least some of them back into the workforce.
I will also give two more examples of investments we should be making that can have a very significant impact upon the lives of the American people.
When a worker loses his or her job, in all likelihood that worker is also losing his or her health care. We have seen, since Bush has been President, over 7 million Americans lose their health insurance, and as unemployment goes up, surely that number will only increase.
If we just provided, for example, $148 million for the expansion of community health centers, that would be enough money to create 227 new CHCs all over this country. It would provide jobs for health care workers, but even more importantly, when somebody loses their health insurance, they would have the opportunity to access primary health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, and mental health counseling. This is a good investment at any time. It is an especially good investment now. It puts people to work and will provide health care access for millions of Americans.
For those who question the appropriateness of including community health centers in an economic stimulus package, I simply remind them that this is precisely what we did under President Ronald Reagan's stimulus package in the 1980s. It worked then, and I believe it will work now.
Another important investment we should be making is to provide at least $500 million for the low-income Weatherization Assistance Program. Weatherization is a program that is going on all over the country. We do not need a new bureaucracy to funnel that money into the projects; it is there already. In Vermont and in many other parts of America, the needs for weatherization far outstrip the funds that are available. Many of the community action agencies have long waiting lists.
Funding weatherization makes eminent sense for a number of reasons. No. 1, the programs are in place. We can put people to work right away. That is an economic stimulus. No. 2, it is absolutely absurd that millions of low-income people continue to live in homes which are very poorly weatherized, where insulation is lacking and they have inadequate roofs, windows, and doors. They are putting money into their heating system, and that money is simply leaking out of their homes, causing, by the way, an increased problem with greenhouse gas emissions. So weatherization makes sense in terms of creating jobs, it makes sense in saving people money on their fuel bills, and it makes a lot of sense for those of us who want to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.
Back in 2001, when both you and I, Mr. President, were Members of the House, I was an early backer of tax rebates. I strongly support tax rebates for middle-class and for low-income families with children and for persons with disabilities. I also believe senior citizens who do not pay income taxes should be receiving this assistance as well through a bonus in their Social Security checks. But giving someone $500 or $1,000 alone will not fix the economic problems the middle-class and working families of our country are facing. Putting Americans to work at decent-paying jobs and helping those most in need is also extremely important.
We must pass an economic stimulus package. We must do it as quickly as we can. But we must do it in a way that really has an impact on our economy and an impact on the lives of those people who are most in need. In the coming hours and days, I intend to be actively involved in that process.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source