Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010

Floor Speech

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as I think almost everyone knows, President Obama and the Republican leaders have reached an agreement on taxes. It is, in my view, a bad deal, and I think we can do a lot better. Tonight, I wish to speak briefly, and I think I will have some other Senators join me. Tomorrow, I intend to be back to speak a lot longer about this issue because I think this is an issue the American people want serious discussion about.

I can tell my colleagues that representing the small State of Vermont, we have received in the last 3 days thousands--thousands--of phone calls from my State and from other States, and what I will tell my colleagues is that 99 percent of those calls were against this agreement. What I wish to do tonight, briefly, and at greater length tomorrow, is to tell my colleagues why I vigorously oppose the deal that has been cut and how we have to move in a very different way if we are going to save the disappearing middle class of our country.

In my view, the American people are against this agreement. They want to hear Members of the Senate speak out against this agreement, and that is what I will do this evening.

Let me explain, very briefly, why I am opposing the agreement reached by the Republican leadership and President Obama. First, at a time when our country has a recordbreaking $13.8 trillion national debt and a collapsing middle class, it is unconscionable to me that we could support an agreement that drives up our national debt because we have given huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who don't need it. Here is an interesting irony: In many cases, they are telling us they don't even want it. Two of the richest people in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have said: Thank you. We don't need this tax break.

This country has serious problems. Use the money on those problems, not giving billionaires a tax break.

In my own State, the founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, Ben Cohen, said: Yes, I would like a tax break, but I don't need it. You know what.

There are millionaires all over this country who are saying the same thing.

We have been told that the extension of the tax breaks for the rich will go on for only 2 years. The Bush tax breaks for the rich will go on for 2 years. Maybe that is the case, but I personally don't believe that. I believe that given the political reality that exists in Washington, my guess is that 2 years from now, when this same debate happens again, these tax breaks for the rich will once again be extended. Our Republican colleagues have been very clear they wanted a 10-year extension. It is hard for me to believe that 2 years from now they are going to say: Oh, 2 years, that is fine. That is enough. We give up. I don't think so.

The difficulty is, we have a President who campaigned vigorously against extending these tax breaks for the rich, but those tax breaks for the rich are in this agreement. So my fear is that if the President is the Democratic nominee 2 years from now and he says: Trust me, we are going to stop these tax breaks for the rich, I think his credibility might not be too high.

So my fear is, in fact, if these Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent, many of whom are millionaires and billionaires, are extended over a 10-year period, we are looking at a $700 billion increase in the national debt.

Secondly, extending income tax breaks for the top 2 percent is not the only unfair tax proposal in this agreement. This agreement struck by the President and the Republican leadership continues the Bush-era 15-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends, meaning that those people who make their living off their investments will continue to pay a substantially lower tax rate than the vast majority of the people in the middle class--people such as firemen, teachers, and nurses.

On top of all that, this agreement includes a horrendous proposal regarding the estate tax, a Teddy Roosevelt initiative which was enacted in 1916. It will be celebrating its 100th birthday in a few years. Under the agreement we will be debating here, the estate tax rate, which was 55 percent under President Clinton, will decline to 35 percent under this agreement, with an exemption on the first $5 million of an individual's estate, $10 million for couples.

I suspect there are people who are watching this evening and they are saying: Oh, my goodness. I don't want to pay a 55-percent estate tax. So let me be very clear in saying this, in telling you something the Republicans do not tell you: that the estate tax applies only to the top three-tenths of 1 percent, so 99.7 percent of American families do not pay 5 cents in the estate tax. So this is not just a tax for the rich; this is a tax for the very rich.

I know many of my Republican colleagues would like to abolish, repeal the estate tax altogether, and that would cost us $1 trillion over 10 years to our national debt, but they are making significant progress by lowering the rate to 35 percent.

Does my colleague from Ohio wish to respond?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I hear what the Senator says about the tax burden in this country; that it falls predominantly on the middle class. When I hear him talk about the estate tax, couples pay no estate tax on the first $10 million of their assets after they both die. Considering they shelter a good bit beyond that, then the tax rate only on the dollars above $10 million were lowered significantly in this proposal--and then what has happened with extending the tax cuts.

I was intrigued, I guess it was yesterday, when the Senator offered a motion on the floor. In light of the fact that a relatively small group of people are getting huge tax cuts--millionaires and billionaires--whether it is the estate tax upon their death that their heirs enjoy this huge tax break or whether it is when earning $1 million or $2 million or $5 million a year and getting a huge tax cut, the motion yesterday simply said, if I recall, that every Social Security beneficiary--and that is tens of millions--

Mr. SANDERS. Over 50 million.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Fifty million people would get a check for $250 from the government, because, I believe, about $13 billion for 1 year, it wouldn't have been a long-term deficit issue; it would have been a one-time cost for people who didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment this year. So we know the average Social Security beneficiary gets about $14,000 a year. We know an awful lot of Social Security beneficiaries live mostly on their Social Security. Most people have a little bit more than that, but an awful lot have only a little bit more or nothing more so that is what they live on. They have no cost-of-living adjustment this year because of this sort of complicated formula.

But what was pretty amazing to me is how at the same time, every Republican signed a letter, 42 Republican Senators signed a letter saying they will do nothing else until they get their tax cuts for the rich. It is almost like a work stoppage. It is almost like the Republican Senators are on strike, saying: We are not going to vote or we are not going to do anything around here. We are not going to work or vote yes on anything around here until you give my people a tax cut, my wealthy friends and contributors in my States.

So the contrast of their saying we will not do anything for anybody else except millionaires and billionaires, we will not--even a $250 check, since there was no cost-of-living adjustment to seniors who are making about $14,000 a year from Social Security.

What that check would mean to them is--I think that contrast made was so important to understand. Give us some more about what that contrast means with those Social Security beneficiaries.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for his very strong ethics in trying to get that $250 emergency check out to senior citizens on Social Security and disabled vets--over 15 million people.

Mr. BROWN from Ohio. One more point. A majority of Senators voted for it.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, 53.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It was filibustered again, blocked by a minority of Senators, right?

Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely. We won 53 to 45, but around here the majority does not rule. The Republicans filibustered, as they almost always do on anything of substance, and we could not get the 60 votes because we did not get one Republican vote.

The point the Senator was making gets to the heart of this entire issue, which is that our friends over there are fighting vigorously for $700 billion in tax breaks for the top 2 percent--$70 billion a year for the richest people in this country. And when we say to them that senior citizens and disabled vets who are living on $14,000 or $15,000 a year need a check of $250, oh, we can't afford that. But we can afford to give a billionaire a $1 million tax break.

Source