Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIpt

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Brady ``Borrow to Benefit Billionaires Act.''

I don't believe that it is in the interest of our country to borrow another $269 billion from the Chinese, the Saudis, or whomever we can get it from in order to benefit about 5,000 or so of the wealthiest families in this country, and that is precisely what this legislation does.

``If ever our people become so sordid as to feel that all that counts is moneyed prosperity, ignoble well-being, effortless ease and comfort, then this Nation shall perish.''

``No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax.''

Those are bold words of a different kind of Republican than we have today. They are the bold words in 1907 of President Teddy Roosevelt when he originally proposed the tax that has been mislabeled today as the ``death tax.''

President Roosevelt thought that it would be the death of our country if we had a permanent leisure class elite of the type that dominated so many European countries. He thought that a reasonable tax on inheritance of the wealthiest, most prosperous members of our country would be in the national interest--indeed essential to the future of the country.

I think his approach was right at the beginning of the 19th century, and it remains true in this century because this is really a billionaire protection act.

When he introduced this legislation, Mr. Brady said: What kind of government swoops in upon your death and takes nearly half of the nest egg that you've spent your life building?

Well, the answer is not the American Government. Our government does not do that and does not touch the estates of any but the smallest, smallest fraction of the wealthiest--about 5,000-plus households in the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I am concerned about the anticompetitive effects of this bill because, while this money could be used to address the size of our national debt--and that might be an appropriate place for it. Think about the size of $269 billion and what it could do. We know that our infrastructure is crumbling. That would be more than enough

to cover, over the next 10 years, the shortfall that has been estimated in dealing with our transportation infrastructure.

Think what dollars of that size would do for strengthening of the competitiveness of our workforce from pre-K to postgrad.

It is a bad investment to help those who have already got what they have got.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source