Shared Sacrifice in Resolving the Budget Deficit

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let us be very clear that in terms of the deficit-reduction package that is being debated, we are talking about an issue of huge consequence not only for people today but for our kids and our grandchildren. This is likely, from a domestic perspective, the most important issue any Member of the Senate or the House will ever vote on in his or her political career. This is a huge deal which in many ways will shape the future of America.

I know the media refers to the discussion as whether we are going to have a big deal of $4 trillion or whether we are going to have a smaller deal of $2 trillion, but the real issue is whether we are going to have a fair deal--a deficit-reduction package that represents the interests of working people and the vast majority of our people or whether we are going to have a deficit-reduction package that ends up reflecting the needs of the wealthiest people in this country, who are doing phenomenally well, and the largest corporations, which in many instances are making recordbreaking profits. That is really what the debate is about.

The Republican position on deficit reduction has been extremely clear and is consistent with their rightwing ideology. Despite the fact that our current deficit crisis has been caused by two wars--unpaid for--huge tax breaks that have gone to the wealthiest people in this country, and a recession caused by the deregulation of Wall Street and the lack of revenue coming in as a result of that recession, our Republican friends are adamant that while the richest people in this country are becoming much richer, while today we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country, where the top 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans--that gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider--our Republican friends say the deficit must be balanced on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick, and the children. No, the very rich, the top 1 percent, who now earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, should not be asked to contribute one penny more.

The Republicans are very clear, despite the fact that corporate profits are soaring, that corporation after corporation is enjoying huge tax loopholes that enable them to make billions of dollars a year in profits and not pay one penny in taxes. Republicans say: Sorry, off the table. Large, profitable corporations, with CEOs making millions a year, don't have to contribute to deficit reduction. Only the children have to contribute, the elderly have to contribute, and only working families, the unemployed, and the sick have to contribute to deficit reduction. We have to balance the budget on the backs of those people. But if you are very rich and getting richer, if you are a profitable corporation, that is off the table. You don't have to contribute a nickel.

Poll after poll shows that the Republican position and their ideology is way out of touch with what the American people need or want. This is not Bernie Sanders talking; this is the American people talking. In poll after poll, when the American people are asked, ``What is your preferred option in terms of deficit reduction?'' they say it is to ask the wealthy to pay more in taxes. So when our Republican friends say the American people don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy, that is just not true.

To my mind, what the Republicans are proposing is immoral in terms of coming down heavy on the most vulnerable people in our society, people who are already hurting as a result of the recession. When real unemployment is 15 percent, what do you want

[Page: S4504]

to take out of those people?

They do not have any job. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world--21 percent of our kids living in poverty. They want to cut them even more? We have hunger among senior citizens in this country going up. They want to take away their nutrition programs? Not only is that immoral, to my mind, it is bad economics because you don't get the economy moving until working people have some money to go out and buy the goods and services that companies are selling.

To my mind, where the Republicans are coming from on this issue is way out in right field and way out of touch with where the American people believe we should go. But having said that, I have to say I am very confused as to where President Obama is coming from on this issue. And maybe I speak here as an Independent--not a Republican, not a Democrat, but the longest serving Independent in American congressional history--but I think I speak for the vast majority of the American people on this issue. Where is President Obama on this issue? We know where the Republicans are coming from. But suddenly, out of nowhere, President Obama tells us that Social Security cuts have got to be placed on the table.

Where does this come from? The President understands that Social Security hasn't contributed one nickel to our deficit. In fact, Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus today and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years. Social Security is funded by the payroll tax, not by the U.S. Treasury. The President understands that. Yet the President has now put on the table significant cuts in Social Security as well as Medicare, as well as Medicaid, despite his knowledge and his previous statements that cuts in these programs would be devastating to ordinary Americans.

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, in recent statements has talked about the growth of political cynicism in this country and has argued the American people are sick and tired of politicians who refuse to tackle big issues. There is truth to what he is saying. But there is also a bigger truth, and that is the American people are sick and tired and dismayed about candidates who run for office saying one thing, and then, after they are elected, doing something very different.

In that regard, let me mention that when candidate Barack Obama ran for office he told the American people over and over he was going to fight to protect the needs of ordinary Americans, and the elderly and the sick and the children. Among many other promises he made during his tough campaign against Senator McCain, he said he was not going to cut Social Security benefits. That is what he said over and over.

Let me quote then-Senator Barack Obama and what he told the AARP on September 6, 2008:

John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either.

That was Barack Obama in September 2008. So, Mr. President, when you ask why the American people are frustrated with politicians, why they are increasingly cynical, it has a lot to do with candidates who say one thing and do another. If you told the American people you are not going to cut Social Security, then don't cut Social Security. Keep your word.

In case people think: Well, these proposed cuts are not significant; they are trifling, let me quote from a document from Social Security Works, a coalition of many organizations that is doing a great job defending Social Security. And when President Obama and others are talking about cutting Social Security, one of the approaches they are looking at is changing how we do COLAs--how we do CPIs. So this is from that document by Social Security Works:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the adoption of the so-called ``Chained-CPI,''--

Which is what I believe the President is talking about.

which would be used to determine Social Security's annual COLA under this proposal, would cut benefits by $112 billion over 10 years. The Social Security Administration's Chief Actuary estimates the effects of this change would be that beneficiaries who retire at age 65 and receive average benefits would get $560 less a year at age 75.

Let me repeat that. They would receive $560 less a year at age 75. That may not seem like a lot of money to some folks around here, but when you are trying to get by at the age of 75--when you have all kinds of medical bills and you have all kinds of prescription drug costs and you are trying to eat, and maybe you are getting $14,000 a year in Social Security--$560 a year is a lot of money.

But then it gets worse. Because what the Social Security Administration estimates is that at 85--and more and more people, thank God, are living to 85, people who are very fragile at age 85--people would see cuts of about $1,000 a year. So the longer you live, the more your cuts.

Is that what we are about in America now? We don't ask billionaires to pay any more in taxes, but we tell somebody who is 85 years of age, living on $14,000 a year, they would get $1,000 less than otherwise because we have adopted this so-called chained CPI that I gather the President is pushing.

I think the issue is very clear, and that is that the Senate, this Congress, have got to stand with the overwhelming majority of the American people who understand that the solution to this deficit crisis requires shared sacrifice. Yes, we have to take a look at waste and fraud and bureaucracy at every agency of government. No one disputes that. Yes, we have to take a hard look at military spending, which has tripled since 1997. And yes, maybe we have to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than many here wish, or that the President wishes, and save substantial sums as we do that. But most certainly, if we are going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we do have to ask billionaires, who--despite all their power and all their campaign contributions and all of their lobbying--are doing phenomenally well, to contribute to deficit reduction. And yes, maybe those companies that stash their money in tax havens in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands in order to avoid taxes to this country--$100 billion a year--will have to start paying their fair share.

On my Web site, which is sanders.senate.gov, I put a letter which said: Mr. President, stand tall, take on these rightwing idealogs who want to make devastating cuts to working families. In a couple of weeks, we have had 135,000 signatures on that letter. I think that letter reflects what the American people want. They want shared sacrifice. They do not want to see the elderly, the kids, or working families being battered more and more, especially in the midst of this recession.

I would say to President Obama: Do not assume--do not assume--because you work and reach an agreement that everybody here is going to support that agreement. The American people demand fairness, they demand shared sacrifice, and some of us intend to bring that about.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source