Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 - Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the President's budget, which we understand will be released tomorrow. The budget comes out at a time when there is a lot of economic news floating around. The jobs report came out last week and indicated that job growth had been much slower than expected. There were about 190,000 jobs that were expected to be created, but there were only 88,000 jobs created, according to that report.

Although the unemployment dropped a little to 7.6 percent--if we factor in the number of people who had quit looking for jobs, which was half a million people--we had a labor participation rate which is literally the lowest since 1979. We have to go back to Jimmy Carter's Presidency to find a time when the labor participation rate hit that low number where 63.3 percent of the people who are eligible to work are actually out looking for work. There a lot of people who have completely quit looking.

We also looked at the U-6 number, which measures employment in a different way. It adds in the number of people who are no longer looking for work or who are working part time but would like to work full time. The unemployment rate for that is about 13.8 percent. This is a very sluggish, weak economy, where there are a large number of people across this country who continue to be unemployed, who continue to try and make their way without the advantage of having a job out there to pay their bills.

It strikes me that as the President releases his budget, the fundamental question which should be asked in the context of the economic data I have just mentioned is what will his budget do to create jobs, grow the economy, and increase the take-home pay for middle-class Americans. To me, that seems to be the question we ought to use as we evaluate not only the President's budget but other budget proposals that have been made here in the last few weeks.

When I say other budget proposals, of course, the House and Senate have both adopted budgets. The House passed their budget. They have passed their budget every year on time. The Senate, for the first time in 4 years, actually adopted a budget a couple weeks ago, and tomorrow we will finally have the President's budget, which, interestingly enough, was due on February 4. We were supposed to get the President's budget February 4. Typically, his budget would kick off the debate on the budget. It would be the starting point on which the two Houses of Congress--the House and Senate--base their budgets and gives them a little information as they move forward, but this is completely in reverse.

In fact, I think this is the latest the President has released his budget since about 1920. We have to go back almost 100 years to find a time when the President has released his budget at a later date than he did this year. So his budget comes after the fact. That being said, I hope when it does become public and we begin to dig into it a little bit and look at what is in it, we will have a more definitive answer to the questions: What are we going to do to create jobs? What are we going to do to grow the economy? What are we going to do to increase the take-home pay of working Americans? To me, that is fundamentally what we ought to be focused on in light of the very abysmal jobs report from last week.

What we are hearing about it--and again we will not know the final details until we see this tomorrow--is it is going to consist of a huge new tax increase. It will be another $1 trillion tax increase on top of the $1.7 trillion in tax increases that the President has already signed into law. If we go back to ObamaCare--the health care bill that passed a few years ago--it included $1 trillion in new taxes. We had the fiscal cliff deal, reached on January 1 of this year, which had $620 billion in new taxes. If we take ObamaCare, the fiscal cliff deal, and then add in some other taxes that have been imposed since the President took office, we are now over $1.7 trillion in new taxes and new revenue.

So when the word came out that the President's budget was going to include another $1 trillion in new taxes on top of the $1.7 trillion already mentioned, we need to ask the questions: At what point does this do serious harm to the economy? At what point do we get to that juncture where we have so much burden, so many new taxes and new regulations imposed upon our economy, that it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to create jobs and get the economy growing at a faster rate. In fact, what we are hearing, at least at this point, is that we have $1 trillion in new taxes, which means overall we would have a $600 billion number in terms of deficit reduction.

We have been told the President's budget replaces the sequester, which had $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. If there is just $600 billion in deficit reduction, what that essentially means is that all the deficit reduction is in the form of higher taxes. We have $1 trillion in new taxes, $600 billion in deficit reduction, and we are completely replacing the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that is currently in effect, unless, of course, as is proposed in the President's budget, at least we are told is proposed in the President's budget is going to be replaced.

My point simply is this: In this country, we have a sluggish economy, chronic high unemployment, massive amounts of debt, all of which can be, if not entirely, at least partially cured and fixed by a more robust, more expansive and growing economy, growing at a more historic rate. The economic growth we have seen since this President took office, the average is .8 percent--eight-tenths of 1 percent is the average economic growth in 4 years since the President has been in office.

The historic average over the past 60 years is about 3.3 percent, and that includes 11 recessions. We have been through 11 recessions in the last 60 years, and still we have an average growth rate of 3.3 percent. It is not terribly robust, but on average at least it is good enough to keep the economy chugging along, to keep throwing enough jobs out there to keep a majority--or at least keep the unemployment rate at a reasonable level and keep Americans employed. Yet in the last 4 years the average is .8 percent.

Last year, we looked at 1.5 percent to 2 percent, in that neighborhood, but the fact is, until we start growing at a faster rate, we will be plagued by chronic high unemployment and we will continue to have these massive deficits year over year. As we all know, when we have a growing and expanding economy, people are working, investing, making money, and paying taxes. When the economy is growing, we get more tax revenue, and that makes the fiscal imbalances look smaller by comparison as well.

The real objective we ought to have in front of us if we want to deal with the fiscal imbalance and if we want to deal with the sluggish economy out there is policies that will promote economic growth, policies that make it less expensive and less difficult for people in this country to create jobs. We should not add more taxes, not add more costs in the form of new regulations, not impose more burdens on the economy but unleash the economy and allow it to grow and allow people in the economy to create jobs.

There are a number of reasons why that cannot happen. As I said, we have $1.7 trillion in new taxes that have been put on the economy since the President took office. His budget, as we are told, is going to include another $1 trillion in new taxes. We have new health care mandates that businesses--small businesses, large businesses, businesses of all sizes--are reacting to. It is something I hear more about now when I travel my State than almost anything else.

When we talk to people who create the jobs, there is uncertainty about how this is going to be implemented. There are lots of delays in terms of its implementation. We are looking at significant increases in premiums across many different age groups.

We heard the Senator from Wyoming, who was down here earlier, talking about the impacts of health care and what it will mean to the economy, what it will mean to people who buy their health insurance in the individual marketplace, people who acquire it through their employer. Obviously, there are people who might be forced into exchanges. There is just a tremendous cloud of uncertainty which hangs over our economy right now. Much of it is due to government policy generated in Washington, DC. Many of those policies come back to the budget. What is the vision we have for the future of this country?

The budget is a vision statement, as has been stated by Vice President Biden in the past. It sort of lays out a policy framework for the two parties and their respective ideas about how to grow the American economy, how to get people back to work, how to improve the standard of living and the quality of life and the take-home pay for middle-class Americans. Again, that is what I would argue the budget discussion we have should be focused on.

It strikes me as somewhat unusual and ironic that the President, after getting $1.7 trillion in new taxes since he took office, would submit a budget that is several months late, filled with new tax increases, and would put even more burdens on an already fragile economy. Yet that is what we are hearing is going to be in his budget.

There are some other things which I would hope he will include in that budget. We are told he is going to propose a modest and what I think is a bipartisan entitlement reform known as chained CPI that would change the calculation in some ways and would be more reflective of cost and the economy when it comes to calculating benefits for certain programs. But it is a small change in terms of what the dimensions of the problem are.

In fact, if we are going to do anything serious and meaningful to deal with the runaway spending and debt, we have to--in a structural way--reform these programs on the mandatory side of the budget that are growing at two to three times the rate of inflation and are unsustainable.

If we look at what drives Federal spending today, it is mandatory spending, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--programs that are sort of on autopilot, if you will, in the Federal budget that today represent somewhere on the order of about three-fifths of all Federal spending. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, 10 years from now it will represent 91 percent of Federal spending if we continue on the path we are on today. That is completely unsustainable. That means we have 9 percent of all Federal revenue available to fund national security, fund nondefense discretionary spending, and to pay interest on the debt. That is a future we cannot comprehend.

I think what it points out is we need to deal with these programs in a way that reforms them, that saves them, that protects them not only for generations of Americans today who depend upon them but also for future generations of Americans. On the current trajectory, on the current path, we simply cannot do that, and we have to make changes and reform these programs.

So it would seem the President, in his budget, would contemplate what he might do, proposals he might make to address that. Again, we will not know for sure until we see it tomorrow, but my understanding is there will be very little in terms of consequential, meaningful change, meaningful reforms and restructuring of programs that will actually get us on a more sustainable fiscal path.

I have to say the connection when we talk about policies--and I could go into a lot of different policy areas that I think drive up the cost of doing business in this country, one of which I already mentioned; that is, the new health care entitlement program that imposes lots of new requirements and mandates on employers as well as on individuals and is filled with $1 trillion in new taxes. But there are other areas of our economy as well.

If we look at the power of energy in this country and what it could do to unleash jobs to help get our economy growing at a faster rate, we see we have enormous opportunity out there in that sector of our economy.

We obviously have enormous opportunity if we are willing to take on our Tax Code. Our Tax Code is enormously complicated, complex beyond the comprehension of most Americans, which is why in many cases they have to turn it over to a professional tax preparer. But I believe it is fair to say if we could reform our Tax Code in a way that broadens that base and does away with a lot of the loopholes and the special interest provisions--the exclusions, deductions, et cetera, in the Tax Code today--broadens that tax base, lowers the rates--we could unleash a period of economic growth unlike anything we have seen in a long period of time.

If we go back to the last time this was done in 1986, we know we saw a long period of economic growth because people--there was a lot of pent-up uncertainty and there is today, I might add, as well--and there is a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines that could be deployed and a lot of jobs, frankly, and opportunities we are losing to global competitors because our tax rates are, frankly, just not competitive in the global marketplace.

So I would argue that reforming our Tax Code would be enormously helpful if we are serious about growing the economy and creating jobs. That too is an area where I hope the President will engage. So far we have not heard from him on that except to say in terms of the corporate tax rate he would be willing to work with us on tax reform that would be deficit neutral. But if we look at what is coming out of his administration, these proposals, and the budget we will see tomorrow, most of it involves raising taxes--closing loopholes, perhaps, but doing it to generate new revenue to fund new Federal spending, not to reduce rates and to generate economic growth. Economic growth ought to be the goal in tax reform. It ought to be progrowth tax reform, and it would take us a long way toward that goal of getting this economy back on track and unleashing the economic growth we all want to see.

But I have to say it is also important, if we are going to get the economy growing again, that we get Federal spending under control. There is a lot of research out there, a lot of study that has been done that has looked at the relationship between high levels of debt as a percentage of our economy, GDP, and high levels of spending as a percentage of our GDP and how that impacts or translates into economic growth and jobs. The studies suggest that when our debt to GDP reaches a certain level--and ours exceeds that by 90 percent according to one of the studies--that it costs 1 point to 1.5 points of economic growth every single year. In this country that is about 1 million jobs. So as long as we continue to have a debt to GDP that exceeds 90 percent--ours is now about 104, 105 percent of GDP--we are in dangerous territory when it comes to the fragile nature of our economy and what it means to our ability to grow in the long term as we project out into the future.

If we look at many of the European nations that are strangled with high debtloads right now, a tremendous amount of leverage, we can see what is happening in their economies. How have they tried to cure that in most cases? They try to raise taxes, which makes the problem even worse because that slows economic growth.

So what we need to be looking at in terms of a budget is one that takes on what is driving Federal spending over the long term--the mandatory part of the budget--reforms and restructures programs in a way that saves and protects them; that doesn't in any way impact people who are drawing benefits today but makes those programs more sustainable for future generations of Americans. We need a budget that brings the debt-to-GDP and the spending-to-GDP levels down to a more historic norm that are consistent with what we have seen over our Nation's history as opposed to what we are looking at today, which are extraordinarily high levels of debt and extraordinarily high levels of spending as a percentage of GDP.

We ought to think about what we can be doing in terms of reforming the Tax Code and streamlining regulations to lessen the burden and the tremendous weight we put on our small businesses and our job creators.

Those are the types of things we ought to be looking at in terms of policy. That is what the budget ought to be focused on, getting spending under control, getting it back down to a more reasonable level and a more historic norm. But until we do that, my fear is we are going to continue to see chronic unemployment, a lot of people leaving the workforce, and labor participation rates that are at historic lows. We are going to continue to see a sluggish economy that continues to stumble along at 1.5, 2 percent annual growth. We are going to continue to see take-home pay levels go down for ordinary, working-class, middle-class Americans who are out there trying to pay their bills, trying to take care of their everyday expenses and perhaps put a little bit aside for their retirement or for their children's education. Those are hard decisions that Americans are making at their kitchen tables every single day.

These are kitchen table issues; they are pocketbook issues. They are the kinds of decisions that American families have to contend with. They don't have the luxury the Federal Government has of being able to go out and borrow.

Of course, today, of every dollar we spend in Washington, DC, 40 cents is borrowed. So we continue to borrow like there is no tomorrow. We continue to pile up massive amounts of debt, put it on the backs of our children and grandchildren, hand them the bill or the credit card overcharges we are making today. That is wrong. It is inconsistent with everything that has made this Nation great. Part of our Nation's heritage is we have been a country that has understood the idea that one generation sacrifices so the next generation can have a higher standard of living and a better quality of life. That is something that is very true in my part of the country in the Midwest, in South Dakota.

My grandfather and great uncle are among those who came in 1906, didn't speak English, learned the language, worked hard building a railroad, and later were able to save enough money to buy a small merchandising store and continued in their pursuit of the American dream.

That is what I think has characterized generations of Americans like them since, up until today. Today we are at a point in American history where if we don't get our fiscal house in order, if we don't deal with these imbalances that have gone on now for decades, we are going to relegate, if you will, future generations of Americans--our kids and grandkids--to a lower standard of living and a lower quality of life than what we have enjoyed.

That is why the President's budget, as much as it is late, is so important, because it really does set that tone. It really does tell us what that vision for the future of this country is. If we don't have a leader in the White House who can lay out in a systematic way what he wants to do to address the economic data--the statistics I mentioned earlier, the high unemployment, the underemployment--we consistently see these economic numbers come out from one month to the next. When there is a little improvement, we get all excited about that, and the next month it takes another tumble.

We find more and more people who are just leaving the workforce, and the labor participation rate is at a historically low level since 1979, and we haven't seen it down 63.3 percent, which is what it was for the month of March. If we are going to do something about that, we are going to have to have people who are going to demonstrate the political courage that is necessary to confront these big challenges and big decisions, and that means people in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. But awfully important to all of this is the President of the United States.

There is only one person in this country, among 307 billion Americans, who can sign a bill into law. There is only one person in this country who has the bully pulpit and the capability to rally people in the Congress and people around the country as well as around great causes. I can't think of a greater cause today than doing something to deal with runaway spending and a debt that is hurting our economy, that is enslaving future generations of Americans to a lower standard of living and a lower quality of life.

Those are issues that need to be addressed. The President's budget tomorrow could go a long way toward addressing that. I am afraid it is going to be a missed opportunity if what we hear about it is actually true. We hear it doesn't address the long-term drivers of spending and debt, it raises taxes $1 trillion, and it does $600 billion of deficit reduction but all in the form of higher taxes. That is not going to solve our problem. We cannot raise taxes enough to deal with what plagues our country in terms of our fiscal imbalances. What plagues us is the fact that we spend too much, not that we tax too little; that we have a slow rate of growth in our economy, so slow we are not generating the number of jobs and the amount of investment that will get the economy growing and taking off again, but also improve the fiscal picture for our country's future.

So I hope I am wrong about this. We will see tomorrow if everybody will be pleasantly surprised and the President will take on the big issues and do away with more taxes and more spending and more regulations and more costs for businesses that are trying to create jobs. But I think that would be the triumph of hope over experience. So far what we have seen out of this administration is that very formula: more spending, more taxes, more cost to small businesses to create jobs, and higher cost from regulations. They have been consistent on that. That is not the way to get the economy growing and expanding again.

We believe we ought to be not growing the government but growing the economy. Frankly, if all of us in the Senate looked at every bill that comes before us in terms of what will it do to create jobs, what will it do to grow the economy, what will it do to increase the take-home pay for middle-class Americans, we would probably get a lot higher quality legislation, legislation that produces solutions for the American people, which is something we are not doing today.

Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source