Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2009 -- Continued

Floor Speech

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--Continued -- (Senate - March 12, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, I find it interesting that almost every candidate for President today is talking about change. It is not only the candidates for President. For candidates at every level across this country, the mantra out there is: change, change, change.

And the reason the candidates at all levels are talking about change is they understand something. They understand that from one end of our country to the other, by vast majority, the American people want to move America in a new direction. They want a new set of national priorities.

The American people are angry. They are frustrated with the status quo, with politics as usual, and they want action not talk. They want action from their elected officials.

The American people are tired of paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas, when ExxonMobil is enjoying recordbreaking profits. The American people are tired of paying more and more for health care, and over 8 million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush has been in office, while the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry continues to rip them off.

The American people are tired of seeing their good-paying jobs go to China or the other low-wage countries while they work 50 or 60 hours a week to pay the bills. When we talk about the economy today, let's not forget the American people now work the longest hours of any people in the industrialized world. People are working incredibly long hours, two or three jobs, to pay the bills.

Most importantly, the American people are deeply worried that the American dream is disappearing, that no matter how hard they work, no matter how many hours they spend on the job, that for the first time in the modern history of the United States, their kids will likely have a lower standard of living than they do.

From a values perspective, I believe the American people are tired of the culture of greed which has been so pervasive in recent years, a culture which says: Yes, I am rich and I am powerful and I have billions and I want billions more. I do not care about anybody else in our society; I have got it; I want more.

That is the culture of greed which is so pervasive in our society today. The amendment that will be offered today, that I am offering, is cosponsored by Senators KENNEDY, DURBIN, CLINTON, HARKIN, SCHUMER, BROWN, and MIKULSKI. I am quite confident that if this amendment is adopted, it will not be solving all the problems facing our country.

But on the other hand, if this amendment is passed, it will begin to move America in a very different direction, with a very different set of moral and economic values. This amendment will tell the American people we understand that Washington must adopt a new set of national priorities, that we must be concerned not with the wealthy and the powerful who have so much influence over what goes on in Congress but that the time is long overdue for Congress to begin paying attention to the needs of the middle class and low-income people who have been ignored and left behind year after year after year.

I am very proud to tell you my amendment has been endorsed by over 50 groups representing tens of millions of Americans. These groups include the AFL-CIO, AFCSME, the National Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, the YWCA, and the National Organization of Women, among many other groups.

The budget President Bush recently sent to Congress was nothing less than a disaster. It gave much to those who did not need any help, while it took from those who need help, including those living in desperation.

As I mentioned to the people in my home State of Vermont, it was a Robin Hood proposal in reverse. It took from the poor and it gave to the rich. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am happy to say that under Chairman Conrad's leadership and hard work, the budget we passed out of committee was far superior to what the President proposed and is quite a reasonable document.

I think we can improve upon that document. We can improve upon that budget. That is why I am offering this amendment today with my colleagues who are cosponsoring it.

This amendment addresses three major trends in American society that we must deal with in the budget process.

First, the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major nation in the industrialized world; and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider.

Secondly, it is a national disgrace that here in the United States of America, this great Nation we are so proud of, that we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth.

And third, year after year, we have had recordbreaking deficits, and our national debt is now approaching $10 trillion, a grossly unfair burden to leave to our children and grandchildren and, in fact, a staggering sum of money which is economically unsustainable.

This amendment addresses all three of those issues.

The amendment I am offering today puts the needs of our children, working families, seniors on fixed incomes, persons with disabilities, and the middle class ahead of the needs of the wealthy.

It says to the wealthy: You do not need any more tax relief when the middle class is shrinking, when poverty is increasing, and when the top 1-percent level has never had it so good since the 1920s.

It says to my colleagues in the Senate, let's get our priorities right. Specifically, this amendment simply restores the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million per year and uses that revenue to address the most urgent unmet needs of our children, for job creation, and for deficit reduction.

Mr. President, 99.7 percent of Americans would not be impacted by this amendment. The only families that would be impacted are those earning at least $1 million a year. That is the top three-tenths of 1 percent. What we are simply doing is asking that the upper tax rates go back to where they were during the Clinton administration when, I remind my colleagues, the economy was far stronger.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, restoring the top income tax bracket for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000 would increase revenue by $32.5 billion over the next 3 years, including $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone. Instead of giving $32.5 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest people, including people who have billions and billions of dollars, people who really don't need any more tax breaks, this amendment would invest money in the following areas over the next 3 years.

It would put $10 billion into special education, into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Over 30 years ago, the Federal Government made a promise that it would fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. Unfortunately, the Federal Government--shock of all shocks--has not kept its promise. Today we only spend about 17 percent of the cost of special ed. What does this mean? I can tell you what it means in Vermont and I am sure it is the same all over the country. School districts are faced with growing costs regarding an influx of special ed kids. Property taxes are going up to accommodate those increased costs, and kids with special ed needs do not get the attention they deserve. This amendment begins to reverse that process, begins to tell school districts all over America that we are going to keep our promise. We will begin adequately funding special education.

Secondly, this amendment increases Head Start funding by $5 billion over the next 3 years. The simple truth is, Head Start works. Its goal is to make sure that when low-income kids get into kindergarten or the first grade, they are not already far behind everybody else so that by the time they are in the fourth or fifth grade, they have given up, they have dropped out intellectually. Head Start works. The problem is, there are many families who want to take advantage of Head Start, but communities don't have the resources to open the doors for those kids. After adjusting for inflation, Head Start has been cut by 11 percent compared to fiscal year 2002. Boy, is that moving in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, less than half of all eligible kids are enrolled in Head Start and only 3 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Early Head Start.

This amendment will not solve all of those problems, but $5 billion will help open the doors to large numbers of kids who desperately need Head Start education.

This amendment would also provide $4 billion for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. I can tell you the issue of childcare is one of those issues that we have managed in Congress to sweep under the rug, from one end of this country to the other. Where you have mom and dad both working, where is that working family going to find the affordable, quality childcare they desperately need? We tell single moms, go out and work, but we forgot to tell them where they are going to find the childcare they need to take care of their kids. This amendment begins to do that with a $4 billion increase for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program.

This amendment would provide $3.5 billion more for the Food Stamp Program. I don't have to tell my colleagues that in the United States, shamefully, disgracefully, we are seeing more and more of our citizens go hungry. I know in Vermont, and I expect in communities all over the country, we are seeing working people, not unemployed people, working people going to food shelves to get the food they need to take care of their families. That is not the way it should be. This $3.5 billion increase for food stamps is a step forward.

This amendment would also increase funding for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, by $4 billion. In Vermont and other States, it gets very cold in the winter. We have seniors living on fixed incomes who cannot pay the rapidly escalating cost of home heating oil. LIHEAP is a successful program. It is underfunded. Nobody should go cold, and we put $4 billion into LIHEAP.

We also provide more for school construction. Not only is it terribly important that our kids study in decent schools, schools that are not falling apart, schools which are energy efficient, but by putting money into school construction, we create a lot of good-paying jobs, and that is what that provision does.

Finally, last but certainly not least, this amendment would also reduce the deficit by $3 billion. In other words, at a time when we have seen recordbreaking deficits, we are now closing in on a $10 trillion national debt. This amendment takes a small step forward in lowering this year's deficit.

Let me quote from a letter I received in support of this amendment from over 50 groups across the country, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the NEA, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, the WYCA, the National Head Start Organization, SEIU, and the National Organization for Women, among others:

The economic downturn is creating a crisis for parents who work hard but struggle to afford nutritious meals as food prices escalate; to pay for energy for their homes and fuel for their cars; to pay for child care so that they can work; and to assure that their young children receive the building blocks of a solid education to prepare them for the future. Programs that assist in meeting these needs have been cut significantly in recent years, while tax breaks for millionaires have soared. Your amendment addresses these needs. .....We are urging the Senate to adopt your fiscally responsible amendment to address the pressing needs of working families while restoring greater progressivity to the tax system.

I thank these organizations that represent tens and tens of millions of working Americans.

The choice we face is simple. A lot of rhetoric goes on around here. It is pretty warm in this Chamber, and it is not only from the heat. It is from a lot of hot air from all of us. The time for talk is over and the time for action is now. This amendment will not solve all the problems, but it does say to the American people that the time is long overdue for us to move in a new direction. It is a very simple choice we have to make. The richest people in this country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Frankly, they do not need any more tax breaks. They are doing just fine. But our children are not doing just fine. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are not doing just fine. What this amendment begins to do is to develop a new set of priorities for our Nation. It tells the people we understand that working people are in trouble, they need assistance, and that the time is now to ask the wealthiest people to rejoin the United States and to help us address some of our major social needs.

My understanding is that later this afternoon this amendment will be offered.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. I don't know if it is a New England characteristic that I share, but we make the same points over and over again. The Senator is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has heard my point. Let me make it again.

My friend from New Hampshire, from the other side of the Connecticut River, says we have a progressive system. My God, those rich people are paying a fortune. Well, wealthy people do pay a lot. Do you know why? The richest people in this country are earning far more than they used to, while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing. For example, according to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year--400 families, $290 billion. The wealthiest 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent. Yes, my friend from New Hampshire, I do know they pay more in taxes. The reason is, they get all of the money.

Every economist understands that in recent years what has been going on is the middle class is shrinking, real income is going down, and poverty is increasing. The rich are making out like bandits. Yes, they are paying more in taxes because they are making a huge amount more. That is not progressive taxation. What that is about is the fact that we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major nation on Earth.

I ask my friend, don't you agree with me? That is my question. Of course, you do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source