Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Bill Daley is a businessman in Chicago and a friend of mine. A few years back he was the chairman of the Al Gore Presidential campaign. We all know how the campaign ended in the Florida recount. Bill was contacted several years later by those who wanted to run for President. They made their trip to Chicago and asked Bill if he could give them some insight into what it was all about, how you would win. Bill said to them, one and all, the same thing: I am not sure I have any special strategy to tell you, but there is one thing I have discovered over the years. By the end of the Presidential campaign, the American people will know who you really are.
I thought that was very simply and directly stated by Bill Daley and reflected the fact that although every candidate at every level tries to surround himself or herself with the wisest people in Christendom, to give them advice on polling and media and analyzing the electorate and the right words to be said, that more so in a Presidential campaign than almost any others, by the end of the campaign, the American people know who you really are.
The revelations into a person's values and character are not those well-scripted ads or even those flowery speeches. The revelations come by observing that person in good times and bad and perhaps hearing the unguarded comments which give you an insight into what they think when the camera is not on.
That is why this release of a video of Mitt Romney has had such an impact on America. What he said at a fundraiser in Boca Raton, FL, to some very wealthy supporters on May 17, 2012, bears repeating in specific detail. Here is what he said:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ..... These are people who pay no income tax. ..... [M]y job--
This is Mitt Romney speaking--
is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
It was a moment of candor by Romney in a room full of friends about his view of America, and it has become the centerpiece of this week's debate in the Presidential campaign, not just because he was caught in an off moment or with an embarrassing statement, but the fact that since then he has not retracted, he has not backed off of those statements.
In his first press conference, when confronted, he said he was ``inelegant'' in the way he spoke. Well, assuming that he meant ineloquent and not lacking eloquence, I would say he has had enough time to develop an elegant reply, and we have not heard it.
I think there is more truth than not in what he says when it comes to his point of view of this country, and it is no surprise when you look back to those other unguarded moments and things he has said during the course of the campaign.
We remember the highlights. ``Corporations are people, my friend,'' he said. ``I like being able to fire people,'' he said. ``I'm not concerned about the very poor,'' Romney said. ``I'm also unemployed,'' Romney said. ``Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs,'' Romney said. ``Ten thousand bucks? $10,000 bet?'' he said. ``I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners,'' he said.
It was Bill Kristol who wrote recently--I believe it was yesterday--in the Weekly Standard a response in which he was critical of President Obama but also of Governor Romney. Here is what Bill Kristol, one of the prominent conservative spokesmen in America, in response to Romney's revelation at the Boca Raton fundraiser, wrote:
It's worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes are Romney supporters--especially of course seniors (who might well ``believe they are entitled to health care,'' a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they're not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.
End of quote from Bill Kristol.
This was a revelation into his values and his view of America. But it also tells us that he does not understand this country and the people who live in it. Because when we take a close look at those in the 47 percent, here is who we find: the elderly, working families with children, and low-wage earners. That is the 47 percent.
The elderly. One in five of the elderly is in the 47 percent. These Americans do not owe any Federal income tax because of a longstanding policy choice that Social Security benefits--modest Social Security benefits--should not be taxed. Does Romney oppose that? Does he want to tax Social Security benefits so these will be responsible nonvictims in his view of America?
Now let's turn to low-income working families with children. They make up approximately one out of six people in the 47 percent. They benefit from the earned income tax credit. It was an incentive for them to go to work. Realizing they do not make much money working, we are going to give them a break in the Tax Code to help them get by.
As the majority leader mentioned earlier, this notion came out under President Ronald Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan who said, when he signed this into law in 1986, this will remove ``six million [poor] people from the income tax rolls,'' making it one of the most effective antipoverty programs in our history.''
So these people are not paying taxes--so-called victims, so-called irresponsible, under Romney's analysis. Is he suggesting the earned income tax credit has to go?
When you take a look at these people who make up the 47 percent in America, you understand that many of them have paid their dues. Veterans on disability may not be paying income taxes. They are part of the 47 percent. People who are middle-income working families, whose kids borrow money for college are turning to the government for help when they want to put their kids through school to make sure they have a better life.
I close because I know I have my colleagues coming to the floor. There is
one thing that leapt off the page when I read this quote from Boca Raton. It appears that Mitt Romney makes his value judgments on Americans based on their income tax returns.
Historically, American voters have made a judgment on Presidential candidates based on their income tax returns. The man who set the gold standard that was followed for decades in America in Presidential races was Mitt Romney's father George Romney, former Governor of Michigan. He disclosed 12 years of income tax returns, and he said: Do not just give me 1 year. That does not tell me anything. One year might look good. Give me 12 years, and I can then decide whether this person is paying taxes as they should and make a value judgment accordingly.
Well, the son did not learn from the father. Over the past 36 years, Willard Mitt Romney holds the distinction of all Presidential candidates of either political party of having made the least disclosure of income tax returns of any Presidential candidate--1 year. He promises another, but 1 year.
What did this 1 year reveal? It revealed he is the first Presidential candidate in the history of the United States of America with a Swiss bank account. I have asked business leaders across America, Why would you have a Swiss bank account?
I asked Warren Buffett--he is one of the wealthiest men in our country--have you ever had a Swiss bank account. He said: No, there are perfectly good banks in the United States.
Then I asked business leaders--and seriously--Why would you have a Swiss bank account? Two reasons. You want to conceal what you have and the transactions that lead up to you acquiring it or, secondly, you believe the Swiss franc is a stronger currency than the U.S. dollar. I might add that Mitt Romney created a Swiss bank account under President George W. Bush's administration.
Secondly, the offshore tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda--why do you have those? To avoid tax liability in the United States.
I do not know what is in Mitt Romney's income tax returns. There must be something in there he does not want America to see, because he is defying all the calls to go public with the income tax returns.
Are income tax returns important? In Boca Raton he judged 47 percent of the American people based on their income tax returns. We should judge Mitt Romney based on his income tax returns or his refusal to disclose them.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I will be brief. I thank the Senator from Alabama, my friend, for yielding the floor. He asks an important question: Why has Congress not passed a budget resolution in a number of years? But he knows the answer. The answer is because we did better than that. We enacted a statute, a law. A resolution is a message from one house of Congress, back and forth, and kind of binds us internally. A law signed by the President has the force of law. It was called the Budget Control Act.
The interesting thing about the Budget Control Act is it was written by Democrats and Republicans. It charts the course of spending for 2 years, including the one we are appropriating into now. It was voted on in favor by Democratic and Republican leaders alike. It was a bipartisan effort signed by President Obama with the force of law. That has more power than any budget resolution.
So, clearly, saying that we did not pass a budget resolution on its face is true, but to say that we are not bound by rules when it is comes to spending is to ignore the obvious--a budget control act voted on by the leaders on both sides of the aisle.
The second question he asked is, are we ignoring that spending restriction when it comes to those veterans programs, and why should we?
Well, first, the bill that is before us, this Veterans Jobs Corps Act, is paid for. It does not add a penny to the deficit.
The second question is, Well, why do you need it anyway?
Have you noticed the veterans coming home? Have you noticed the high unemployment rate? Have you noticed the problems they are facing when they bring home visible and invisible scars from this war? Is it greater than we thought we would face at this time? Yes. Do we have an obligation to spend this money regardless? Of course. Did we not promise these men and women: If you raise your hand and swear your allegiance to the United States and your willingness to risk your life, we will stand with you when you come home. We will help you find a job. We will give you the medical care you need.
We promised it. We are going to keep the promise.
Now comes the Budget Act, and now a technicality is being argued that maybe we cannot keep the promise. I am going to vote to waive the Budget Act because I stood on this floor with Democrats and Republicans alike, joined in the speeches, joined in the parades, joined in the flag waving saying how much we respect these veterans. But when it comes to spending the money we promised them we would spend so they could become a vital part of America's future, I am not going to step back and hide behind the Budget Act. I am going to stand and make sure that money is there, paid for, not adding to the deficit, so that they have the help they need for the lives we promised them.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source