Senate Gridlock and Economic Stimulus
Floor Speech
SENATE GRIDLOCK AND ECONOMIC STIMULUS -- (Senate - January 22, 2008)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for speaking to a higher level of bipartisan cooperation in the Senate.
I sensed this in returning to Illinois and out on the campaign trail for my colleague, Senator Obama, that this is a sentiment widely shared. The American people understand we have a lot of challenges in this country, and they also understand it is easy to gridlock the Senate.
We had an all-time record number of filibusters initiated by the minority side of the aisle this last year. Sixty-two, I believe, was the final count, which eclipsed the 2-year record of 62 filibusters that had been prevailing. Certainly, we all know how to stop this train in the Senate. Minority rights are well respected by the Senate rules. And 15 minutes into our service in the Senate, you might hear the words ``unanimous consent,'' and realize: Well, I will be darned. If I stand up and object, everything stops. And it is a fact.
Many Senators have used that for valid and invalid reasons, but it has been used a lot. We have one Senator on the other side of the aisle who takes pride in the fact that he has singlehandedly stopped 150 pieces of legislation from even being debated and considered on the Senate floor. Many of them are not even controversial.
I hope we find a way around this. I want to respect every Senator's right, but if we truly want bipartisan cooperation, there are ways to achieve that. Using filibusters would not be that; objecting to bills just categorically would not be that approach either. But the one thing the American people certainly want us to do is to wake up and smell the coffee. And this morning, if you woke up and smelled the coffee, you also smelled something burning on Wall Street. What is burning is the Dow Jones Industrial Average. I do not know what it is at this moment, but it has been pretty awful starting this day, and it has been pretty awful for a long time.
It is interesting in American politics that when I first started running for Congress 25 years ago, the most important information for most voters was how many people were unemployed. And the monthly reports on unemployment really kind of fueled the campaign. If a President had more and more people out of work, there was a downturn in the economy and a downturn in that President's popularity. That was historically the standard. But over time we have stopped talking about the unemployment figures as much and tend to watch the stock market a lot more.
I think it has to do with many of us have our retirement savings tied up in mutual funds and 401(k)s and IRAs. And so what happens is the stock market, at least in the back of our minds, is how I am doing. If the stock market is not doing well, my family is not doing well. So when the news came out yesterday that the bottom is falling out of international markets, and the Dow Jones opens with a tremendous slump of 400 points or more, people understand something is not right.
Last week, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, called me and many leaders in the Senate and all but acknowledged that we need to do something, and do it in a hurry, if we are going to try to stop this economy from sliding into a recession.
Well, I agree with him completely. If you look at what we have done over the past 7 years, to many of us it is no surprise where we are today. There were many on the Republican side who argued for years and years, and still continue to argue, that tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America are the answer to everything.
If you have a surplus, you need a tax cut. If you have a deficit and need to stimulate the economy, you need a tax cut. You always need a tax cut. This kind of moralistic position of cutting taxes for the wealthiest people in America has been the basic doctrine of the Republicans in leadership for a long time.
They have had their way: President Bush's tax cuts, even though they have generated the highest deficits in our history; a greater dependence on foreign countries and foreign capital than ever before; the fact that the President made history, in an unusual way, in calling for more tax cuts in the midst of a war.
All of these things notwithstanding, our economy is slumping. There are a lot of reasons for that. One of the reasons, of course, is we have ignored the obvious. The strength of America is the strength of our families. And 40 percent of the families in America do not get close to the numbers that Republicans consider to be the right level for tax cuts.
Over 40 percent of the people in this Nation struggle in an effort to pay their bills and really live paycheck to paycheck.
It doesn't take much to derail that family train, whether it is the loss of a job or serious illness or some other catastrophe. These people have not been a priority of the Republican leadership in the Senate, the House, or the White House. Now comes the time when the economy is slumping, and all of a sudden this group that had been ignored for so long by Republicans in their tax-cutting priorities is, front and center, the centerpiece for saving the American economy. Welcome to real America, I say to my colleagues. These are the people who have been struggling for a long time and waiting to be rediscovered. They should be rediscovered.
I am troubled to learn--at least some speculation is out there--that this so-called stimulus package is going to be limited so that it still doesn't help those in middle-income status or lower middle-income status, those working families who really do put up a struggle trying to get by. You don't have to spend much time out in the real world to meet them. They are not the legendary welfare kings and queens. These people get up and go to work every morning. They work hard. They don't make a lot of money. They struggle with no health insurance or health insurance that is virtually worthless. They struggle with trying to fill up a gas tank. It may be a beat-up old car, but it is their lifeline to get to work, to make a paycheck, to keep things going. They struggle with heating bills in a harsh and cold winter. They struggle with the dream of a college education for their kids and pray they will have a better life. These are the real-world struggles of real families who have been largely ignored in this economic debate in Washington.
When we get down to a discussion of an economic stimulus package, we ignore these families again at our peril. Any stimulus package that fails to acknowledge their need will fail to stimulate the economy. I don't know what the parameters will be. Targeted, temporary--all of these things make sense. But let's make sure we are doing the right thing for the right people.
Many people go to work every day making a minimum income. They struggle to get by. At the end of the day, they pay their taxes but don't have a Federal income tax liability. How can that be? They are paying their Social Security taxes, they are paying the Medicare requirements, all of the things all workers have to pay. But they don't make enough money because of the size of the family to be liable for Federal income tax.
Who are these people? I can give an example. We estimate that 40 percent of all households may not make enough to qualify for one of the proposed stimulus packages. Families of four making less than $25,000 a year would get nothing. A family of four making $25,000 a year, if it isn't given a refundable tax credit, will receive nothing by way of a stimulus check.
What does a family do if they are making $25,000 a year and receives $1,600, let's say, from the Federal Government? Well, if you are trying to get by on $2,000 a month, $1,600 from the Federal Government may be the answer to your prayers. You may finally be able to turn around and buy something you have put off for a long time. You may be able to catch up on some of your bills. Getting $1,600 when you are making $2,000 a month is a big deal.
Let's look at the other end of the equation. What if you are making $20,000 a month and you get $1,600 more? That is nice. I am sure there is something you can do. Will it change your lifestyle? Will it change the economy? It is not as likely.
That goes back to something I learned a long time ago from a Jesuit priest who taught economics at Georgetown University called the marginal propensity to save. For every dollar you are given, what is the likelihood you will spend it and the likelihood you will save it? Economists look at that, and they know that if you are in a lower income group, you are less likely to save, more likely to spend, because you are living paycheck to paycheck. If you have a lot of money, you are more likely to save and less likely to spend because you are meeting your needs each paycheck. So when we devise a stimulus package, let's make sure we keep that fundamental rule of economics in mind. Let's make sure struggling families at lower incomes aren't left behind. The fact that they don't pay income tax doesn't mean they are tax free. They do pay taxes for Social Security, for Medicare, other things--sales tax, for example. This is the targeted group when it comes to a real stimulus.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter sent to all Members in leadership on January 18 from John Sweeney. John is president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the AFL-CIO. John lays out his priorities, the priorities of his organization when it comes to a stimulus package, a short-term stimulus.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. If Members look at the list of things John Sweeney has highlighted, he understands what I have just described: the rules of economics, the fact that a lot of working families have not been part of the grand bargain in Washington for a long time. John Sweeney says: Let's extend unemployment benefits. That certainly is something on which money is well spent. Every dollar you put into unemployment benefits increases economic activity by $1.73, up to $2.15. It is a terrific boost to the economy, plus it goes to the people who need it the most, the ones who are out of work.
Mr. Sweeney also calls for an increase in food stamp benefits. Many of these people are not tax filers and don't receive unemployment benefits, so they would benefit. They are struggling with their jobs, trying to get by, and many of them still qualify for food stamps.
He also talks about a tax rebate targeted toward middle and lower income taxpayers. He talks about acceleration of construction projects. That is money well spent too. It isn't just the Tax Code we should be looking at. There are other ways to move the economy and do the right thing for America.
One of the things Mr. Sweeney notes in his letter is that there is a backlog of $100 billion in needed repairs to American schools. He also says there are 6,000 bridges that have been declared unsafe. The Presiding Officer certainly knows that issue well, as chair of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. There is a lot we can do to improve the economy of America by improving the infrastructure. I don't have to remind people what happened in Minnesota not long ago when a bridge failed. People died. It is an indication to all of us that we have to be aware of that need.
This letter I commend to all colleagues because it is a good starting point when we discuss what we can do to this economy to make a difference, a real stimulus package.
This package should be funded at appropriate levels to have an impact on our gross domestic product. The money should go by way of help to taxpayers and their families who truly are struggling. I just have to tell you, if you are making a quarter million a year, the notion that the Federal Government is going to send a rebate check to Members of Congress and people who make dramatically more money--wait a minute; what is this all about? Doesn't it make more sense for us to focus on those folks who are struggling who will spend it, who will energize the economy, than maybe giving enough money for families so that they can put a little extra coat of varnish on their yacht? Is that really an economic stimulus? I don't think so.
I hope we will be able to help those businesses that will create good-paying jobs in America. That is critically important. I hope we will do this in a way mindful of the need for unemployment insurance and food stamps for those who are truly at the bottom and trying to move on with their lives and make a new life for their families.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued a statement and said that the stimulus plan that some have suggested may fail a test of being effective if it doesn't help families making under $40,000 a year. Keep in mind that if you are being paid the minimum wage in America, you are making a little over $20,000 a year. So even people making twice the minimum wage and more would receive no help from some of proposals made already. We don't need to bypass 45 percent of households, 65 million of them with modest incomes. If a family of four has an income below $41,000 a year, under some of the proposals being discussed, they receive no help at all. We have to make sure they are included. We have to make certain the economic stimulus package really reaches those who have been left behind by the tax cuts for wealthy people that have been in vogue for so long in Washington.
These families are the strength of our country. These are the people who get up every morning and go to work, raise the kids, and make the neighborhoods and towns that make America strong. It is time for us to try to come together on a bipartisan basis, get an economy moving forward which helps all of us by making certain we don't leave behind those families at the end of the economic ladder who have been ignored for so long.
During the course of this break, I visited with a lot of families. It is hard to imagine sometimes, for those of us who are lucky enough to make a good living and have good health insurance, what these poor families put up with in trying every single month to keep it together. It is a lot of stress and strain. There is no stimulus package we will pass that will wave a magic wand and make their lives miraculously better. But woe to us if we pass a stimulus package which ignores the reality of economic sacrifice and struggle in America. Woe to us if we pass a stimulus package which ends up putting money in the hands of those who, frankly, don't need it as much as others. And woe to us if, at the end of the day, we stay hidebound to some old theories that have not worked and find our Nation sliding into a recession where we will all suffer.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source