Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Apr 13th, 2011 :: 1:00:00 to 1:24:35
Total video length: 9 hours 11 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:722 Duration: 0:24:35 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Bill Nelson

0:59:48 to 1:00:09( Edit History Discussion )

Bill Nelson: care should not be turned over to insurance companies. madam president, i yield the

Chuck Grassley

1:00:00 to 1:24:35( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley

1:00:10 to 1:00:31( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: floor. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the -- no a quorum has not been called. i would ask unanimous consent that adam r0ollof of my staff be allowed on the floor during this period of time. the presiding officer: without

Chuck Grassley

1:00:32 to 1:00:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: objection. mr. grassley: madam president, we're all in kind of pins and needles wondering what the president is going to say today in his speech on the budget at george washington university. i hope he comes with a strong program to get the budget

Chuck Grassley

1:00:53 to 1:01:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: deficit down because presidential leadership will really help us get the job done. but congress can do it on its own. it's going to be a lot easier if we know we're working with the president instead of against the president. and i hope the president's

Chuck Grassley

1:01:14 to 1:01:35( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: remarks today reflect the fact that elections have consequences, and the consequence of the last election was a very strong message to washington that we ought to get spending down and government ought to be smaller. and anticipating what he says, i

Chuck Grassley

1:01:36 to 1:01:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: want to make some remarks. and my anticipation is based upon things that have already been said from the white house by staff of the direction the president's speech is taking. if we learned anything during the last two years, it's that america can't tax and spend its way back to prosperity.

Chuck Grassley

1:01:59 to 1:02:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the voters understood that and sent a powerful message for washington last november: stop -- stop piling debt on next generation. stop the overspending that mortgages our children's future and jeopardizes job creation.

Chuck Grassley

1:02:21 to 1:02:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: now, thanks to the gravitational pull of the republican majority in the house of representatives, responding to the results of the last election, the compass is starting to point in the right direction. despite the two-against-one lineup of the debate -- meaning the president and the democratic

Chuck Grassley

1:02:45 to 1:03:06( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: senate on one side and the house house, under the control of the republicans, on the other side -- that two-to-one lineup, we have a continuing resolution of what must be a long haul committed effort. the continuing resolution that we'll pass this week is just the

Chuck Grassley

1:03:07 to 1:03:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: beginning, because the hard work has only just begun. that's reflected in the leadership demonstrated by the house of representatives's budget committee chairman paul ryan. he did what the president failed to do in his budget proposal: get serious. now, today i hope we have

Chuck Grassley

1:03:29 to 1:03:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: evidence that the president is getting serious. but up till now, the president ducked, even ignoring his own deficit reduction commission report fresh off the printer. he hasn't said "yes" or "no," whether he supports the

Chuck Grassley

1:03:50 to 1:04:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: recommendations of the bowles-simpson commission. in sharp contrast, house chairman ryan stepped up and put ideas on the table for fiscal responsibility. today, in response to this effort to show the voters that we got it in the last election, that it's time to reduce

Chuck Grassley

1:04:12 to 1:04:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: spending in washington, the president is giving his speech on reducing the debt. after reluctantly coming to the table for very modest reductions in this -- in spending that's going to be in this continuing resolution that we hopefully pass this week, the president

Chuck Grassley

1:04:34 to 1:04:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: has quickly moved past any focus on getting spending under control and seems to be going back to that same old saw that we've got to have tax increases to reduce the deficit. but history proves that tax increases do not bring an additional dollar to the bottom line.

Chuck Grassley

1:04:57 to 1:05:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: tax increases are a license to spend even more than the $1 that might come in from a tax increase, and we also know that increasing taxes are not going to reduce the deficit; only growing the economy is going to reduce the deficit. and tax increases can have a

Chuck Grassley

1:05:19 to 1:05:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: detrimental impact on growing the economy, because government consumes wealth, it doesn't create wealth. only workers and investors and people that invent and people that create create wealth. now, there's always been a tug

Chuck Grassley

1:05:42 to 1:06:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of war in washington between tax cutters and big spend big spenders. there are those of us who believe that taxpayers have a right to keep more of their money and decide best how to

Chuck Grassley

1:06:03 to 1:06:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: spend and save and and invest those dollars. some work relentlessly to divert more private resources into the tax coffers. doing more of that just doesn't make sense, if you want

Chuck Grassley

1:06:26 to 1:06:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: recovery. consider the work of two u.s. presidents from opposite sides of the political spectrum. study the history of john kennedy on one hand and ronald reagan on the other. they understood that raising taxes bore negative consequences for job creation and economic growth.

Chuck Grassley

1:06:47 to 1:07:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: you may rember that during world war ii and afterwards we had 93% marginal tax rates. who decreased that? not some republican president, but a democrat president reduced it because it was not raising revenue and it was hindering the economy. and you a situation when

Chuck Grassley

1:07:08 to 1:07:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: corporate and personal income tax rates climbed during the great depression, we have proof that unemployment kept climbing as we will. in fact, if there's two things you want to rember from hoover that we shouldn't ever make mistakes again, he raised taxes tremendously high, and he put --

Chuck Grassley

1:07:30 to 1:07:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: he signed the smoot-hawley tariff bill, creating -- leading us into the great depression. as america struggles today to shake off the biggest economic downturn in decades, we can't afford to repeat the same mistakes. we should learn from history. in an economy where consumer

Chuck Grassley

1:07:53 to 1:08:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: spending accounts for nearly 70% of the nation's gross domestic product and small businesses account for 70% of the new jobs, it would be foolish to divert even more of america's taxpayer money into the federal treasury. with a smaller tax liability,

Chuck Grassley

1:08:14 to 1:08:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: small business owners can expand their operations, upgrade their equipment, hire, more workers in their hometown -- hire more workers in their hometown communities. but tax policies designed to increase revenue for hometown spending won't help to create new jobs that can attract to

Chuck Grassley

1:08:35 to 1:08:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: retain talent and vitality in those smaller towns. what's more, raising federal tax rates would stunt the positive ripple effect that occurs in the local economy and the local tax base when small businesses are able to grow and expand their sales, output, and profits.

Chuck Grassley

1:08:57 to 1:09:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: raising taxes sets the stage for paralyzing setbacks for small business, so we should not forget that many small business owners are subject to the highest marginal tax rates and federal estate taxes. i've worked for a long time for tax policies that give small business owners the freedom and opportunity to hire, expand, and

Chuck Grassley

1:09:19 to 1:09:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: grow their businesses without having profit-burning taxes and overly burdensome regulations get in their way of getting ahead and living the american dream and creating those jobs. marginal tax rate increases are especially harmful to small businesses because small

Chuck Grassley

1:09:40 to 1:10:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: businesses are typically organized as flow-through enties, since small businesses create 70% of the new jobs and unemployment at 8.8% remains historically high, it doesn't make sense to raise taxes on small businesses. supporters of the tax increases

Chuck Grassley

1:10:01 to 1:10:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: for those earning $250,000 a year would like to camouflage the tax hit on small businesses, but their attempts to mislead cannot withstand an honest examination. the marginal tax rate hikes would directly target flow-through businesses that employ 20 million american

Chuck Grassley

1:10:22 to 1:10:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: workers. it's a waste of resources for washington to recycle tax dollars through the public sector when small businesses can do more good and get more bang for their own buck. and taxpayers in general deserve more bang for their buck.

Chuck Grassley

1:10:44 to 1:11:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: madam president, i have a chart here that shows you an analysis by the congressional budget office, the official nonpartisan score keeping forecongress. in its january 2011 budget and economic outlook report, c.b.o.

Chuck Grassley

1:11:09 to 1:11:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: reports -- c.b.o. reports that taxes have averaged 18% of the gross domestic product from 1971 to the year 2010. so this is an historical average. and what i think is very significant about an average

Chuck Grassley

1:11:31 to 1:11:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: going back to 1-9 1971 is it seems to be a level of taxation that the people of this country have not revolted against, and it is a level of taxation that has not been harmful to the u.s. economy as we have seen great growth during this period of time.

Chuck Grassley

1:11:55 to 1:12:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: so here's where we are: beyond the very negative impact of tax increases, there's no evidence that tax increases lead to deficit reduction. in fact, if history is any guide, washington will simply spend the money.

Chuck Grassley

1:12:24 to 1:12:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i often quote a professor vedder of ohio university who has studied tax increases and spending for more than two decades and this is the very same study i was referring to as i started my remarks today. quote -- "over the entire pos

Chuck Grassley

1:12:45 to 1:13:09( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: post-world war ii era through 2009, each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 in new spending. so it's like a dog chasing its tail. it's never going to catch it. and if we raise a dollar and it doesn't go to the bottom line and professor vedder says it doesn't go to the bottom line,

Chuck Grassley

1:13:10 to 1:13:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it is a license to spend $1.17. now, how do you ever get ahead? now we have people that want to increase taxes because another dollar coming in is going to lead to $1.17 of spending. well, it would be one thing for me to vote for a tax increase and it went to the bottom line.

Chuck Grassley

1:13:31 to 1:13:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it's another thing to vote for a tax increase that just allows more spending and raises the deficit instead of getting the deficit down. people in my state of iowa don't tell me that they're undertaxed. they know all too well that the problem is that washington overspends.

Chuck Grassley

1:13:54 to 1:14:16( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i have another -- before this chart is taken down, just so you can understand here that there's no reason to raise taxes above this historical average to bring in more revenue because you can see the projection out here by c.b.o. that the existing tax

Chuck Grassley

1:14:17 to 1:14:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: rates are going to bring in more revenue without increasing tax rates just because of the economy growing. and we're going to get back to income coming from existing tax rates, where they were at the time that we had the tax bill of

Chuck Grassley

1:14:38 to 1:14:59( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: 2001, and reduce taxes -- the biggest tax increase in the history of our country, the biggest tax decrease in the history of our country we raised and we brought more -- raised down and even got some additional revenue with reduced rates. but it is going to bring in just a health car heck of a lot more money, and

Chuck Grassley

1:15:00 to 1:15:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that ought to be calculated, and you shouldn't do anything that's going to destroy this situation. i have a -- there is this suggestion for eliminating the cap on wages, as some are proposing, would result in a

Chuck Grassley

1:15:23 to 1:15:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: huge tax increase of 6.2% on incomes of over $106,800. both employees and employers pay those taxes. those in favor of this will argue that it's needed to protect benefits for beneficiaries. now we've been down that road before. we've raised the tax rate in the

Chuck Grassley

1:15:44 to 1:16:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: 1980's. this was spoefsedly also -- supposedly also to help benefits but look where we are now. there's no guarantee that raising taxes in that way will guarantee benefits any more. this chart, once again referring

Chuck Grassley

1:16:05 to 1:16:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to this chart, c.b.o., to be specific on this growth out here, c.b.o. projects that taxes will average 19.9% of gross national product from 2010, and then they're going to rise to

Chuck Grassley

1:16:27 to 1:16:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: 20.8% of g.d.p. by 2021. and if we increase taxes, i think it's going to put that economic growth in jeopardy. i request -- i request unanimous consent to insert into the record an article "investors business daily."

Chuck Grassley

1:16:48 to 1:17:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: according to this article, if the government confiscated all of the income of people earning $250,000 a year, the money would fund the federal government today for a mere 140 days. statistics tell us that the top 5% of the households earn 29% of

Chuck Grassley

1:17:09 to 1:17:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the income and pay 43% of the income tax collected by the federal government. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i am -- i'll put the rest of my statement in the record. if the presiding officer: you can continue. i was saying you could add it to

Chuck Grassley

1:17:31 to 1:17:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the record without objection. mr. grassley: i'm sorry. i misunderstood you, madam president. thank you. we're in a situation where people are talking about increasing taxes on higher-income people because supposedly they can afford it, and probably they can afford it. but what i get sick and

Chuck Grassley

1:17:52 to 1:18:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: about in this jargon that goes on here in washington is the demagoguery of taxing higher-income people when this group of people are already paying coming into the federal government and 47% of the people in this country don't pay any

Chuck Grassley

1:18:13 to 1:18:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: income tax whatsoever. how high do taxes have to go generally to satisfy the appetite of people in this congress to spend money? and particularly, how high do they have to go on marginal tax rates to satisfy the people that

Chuck Grassley

1:18:35 to 1:18:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the wealthiest in this country are paying enough money? i often quote instead of this 5% figure, i think it's 1% of the wealthiest people, 27% of the income pay 40% of the income tax.

Chuck Grassley

1:18:56 to 1:19:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: now, if it be 41% or 42%, maybe we'd look at it. but i never get the opinion from anybody that's proposing these higher marginal tax rates on upper-income people that they're ever going to be satisfied that those people are paying enough taxes. so to get back to what i just said, you could confiscate not

Chuck Grassley

1:19:19 to 1:19:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: just tax, but confiscate all the income that people make over $250,000 a year, and you're only going to run the government for 140 days. so what do you do about the rest of the year if you want the healthy to pay all the taxes? -- want the wealthy to pay all the taxes? we ought to have some principles

Chuck Grassley

1:19:40 to 1:20:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of taxation that we're abiding by. and so i abide by the principle of 18% of the gross national product of this country coming to us to spend, leaving the 82% in the pockets of the taxpayers, because if 535 of us decide how to divide up the resources of

Chuck Grassley

1:20:02 to 1:20:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: this country, it doesn't do us much economic good if the money is left in the pockets of the 137 million taxpayers to decide whether to spend or to save it and how to save it or what to spend it on. it responds to the dynamics of

Chuck Grassley

1:20:23 to 1:20:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: our economy, of the american free enterprise system in a way that 535 members of congress don't know enough how to do. and if we relied upon the 535 of us to decide how to spend more resources of this country, we wouldn't have the economic growth we have. we agree to be europeanizing our

Chuck Grassley

1:20:45 to 1:21:05( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: economy, and we know that that's bad. so this principle of 18% is good. but also, you got this principle of this amount coming in here pretty regularly. i mean it's not a straight line here, but pretty even over a 50-year average.

Chuck Grassley

1:21:06 to 1:21:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i think it averages out about 18.2%. now you've got the marginal tax rates going back to 93% in world war ii and staying pretty much 93% until, as i said, senator kennedy becomes president. and then he decides that the marginal tax rate is too high for the good of the economy, and he reduces it.

Chuck Grassley

1:21:28 to 1:21:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i'm not sure exactly, i suppose because of the vietnam war it went up a little bit here. then it stayed pretty steady at 70 until there's a president reagan. then it goes down to 50 marginal tax rates. then it stays there awhile. then in 1986, it goes down to 28%. and then we have the promise of

Chuck Grassley

1:21:54 to 1:22:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: no new taxes, no new tax when president bush reneged on that promise, it went back up to almost 40%. and then they went up again here and stayed here until we had the tax decrease of 2001. but you know what this shows here? everybody's got an idea. you raise the marginal tax rate,

Chuck Grassley

1:22:15 to 1:22:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: you're going to bring in more revenue. but you know the taxpayers of this country, the workers of this country, the investors of this country are smarter than we are. we think we're smart. we're going to raise marginal tax rates, we're going to bring in more revenue. but you have 93% marriage national tax rate, 70% marginal

Chuck Grassley

1:22:37 to 1:22:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: tax rate, 35% right now, but you get the same amount of revenue because people have decide that had they're going to give us bums in washington just so much of their money to spend. tanned works out to be about 18 -- and it works out to be about 18%. so we've got a president probably giving a speech today saying that you're going to

Chuck Grassley

1:22:59 to 1:23:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: raise taxes on higher-income people because, like him, they ought to pay more money. well, what do you get out of it? you can mess with these tax rates all you want to, but you bring in about the same amount of revenue because people have decided that if we're going to tax them to death, they're going to take more leisure,

Chuck Grassley

1:23:22 to 1:23:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: they're going to invest in nonproductive investments. and what you've got to do is you've got to keep marginal tax rates low so you expand this economy, as we have seen when taxes go down, unemployment goes down.

Chuck Grassley

1:23:44 to 1:24:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: when taxes go up, unemployment, the incentive to employ is gone. and so here we are, i hope we have a president that is willing to look at history and learn from history in his speech today. i yield the floor, madam chairman --

Chuck Grassley

1:24:05 to 1:24:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid