Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 - Motion to Proceed

Date: June 8, 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Taxes


DEATH TAX REPEAL PERMANENCY ACT OF 2005--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 08, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the complete repeal of the estate tax.

First of all, let call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is--the Paris Hilton tax break. It is about giving billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses at a time when American taxpayers just can't afford it.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought out the Paris Hilton tax break in June because they are eager to make it an election issue in November.

And I think that is fine. In fact, I am eager for the American people to choose. Because if people want their Government to spend $1 trillion--an amount more than double what we have spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror combined--on tax breaks for multimillionaires and multibillionaires, then the Republican Party is their party.

If the American people want to borrow billions more from foreign countries, spend billions more in taxes to pay the interest on our national debt, and watch billions cut from health care and education and gulf coast reconstruction, then the Paris Hilton tax break is your tax break.

Now let's be honest. This is not about saving small businesses and family farms. We can reform the estate tax to protect the few farms that are affected. We can set it at a level where no small business is ever affected. We can even repeal the estate tax altogether for the 99.5 percent of families with less than $7 million in taxable assets--that means families with assets almost 100 times greater than the average American household net worth.

Democrats have offered to reform the estate tax in these ways time and time again. Reform is possible in a way that doesn cost $1 trillion.

But our offers have always been refused, which can only mean that the party in power is really interested in an unprecedented giveaway to the wealthiest of the wealthy.

And don't think for a minute that there is any plan to pay for this. Every proposal to enforce pay-as-you-go rules for fiscal responsibility has been rebuffed. This tax cut will have to be paid for in the years ahead by higher taxes on working families and reduced public services in all of our communities. This tax cut will have to be paid for by higher interest rates on homes and student loans. This tax cut will have to be paid for by greater dependence on foreign countries. Alan Greenspan warned us against financing tax cuts with debt. But that is exactly what this bill does.

So I would ask the American people one question. At a time like this--a time where America finds itself deeply in debt, struggling to pay for a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, security for our homeland, armor for our troops, health care for our workers, and education for our children--at a time of all this need, can you imagine opening Forbes magazine, looking at its list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, and realizing that our Government gave the people on that list far more than half a trillion dollars worth of tax breaks?

I know I can imagine that. And I would bet that most Americans can imagine that either.

This is shameful. Are we really going to cut taxes again for the Forbes 400 before we fix the alternative minimum tax which affects middle-class families? Are we really going to cut taxes again for multimillionaires and billionaires before we extend the expiring child tax credit which helps working families? Are we really going to worsen our country's financial future for all Americans just so that a tiny number of the estates--estates that average over $13 million--can escape all taxes?

There is no economic justification for repealing the estate tax and certainly no moral justification. This is politics pure and simple.

So if the Republicans want to bring up their Paris Hilton tax break to use it as an election issue later, I say go for it. Because I can think of no better statement about where and how we differ in priorities than that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov

arrow_upward