Senate Proceeding on Jul 27th, 2009 :: 3:49:25 to 4:06:10
Total video length: 4 hours 36 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:38 Duration: 0:16:45 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

3:49:25 to 4:06:10( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Orrin Hatch

3:49:42 to 3:50:03( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: care reform. even though some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not see the serious damage to our society and economy that this proposal would create, i wt to spend a few minutes on why such a course of action would be a grave mistake. we began of hearing of the talk

3:50:04 to 3:50:26( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: of raising taxes on the so-called wealthy last year during the presidential campaign of then can bait obama made -- candidate obama made a number of promises regarding taxes. among them were the following three pledges -- he would cut taxes for small businesses and companies that create jobs in america. he would cut taxes for middle-class families.

3:50:27 to 3:50:47( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: and no family making less tha than $250,000 per year will see their tax increase. and, three, families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than no for a long time and i've seen a lot of president yes, ma'am candidates make a -- presidential candidates make a

3:50:48 to 3:51:10( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: lot of promises. i have seldom, if ever seen promises regarding tax cuts and tax increases made more prominently, more clearly, more often than those president when he was on the campaign trail last year. itas only a matter of a few weeks before the promise to keep tax rates below the 1990's level

3:51:11 to 3:51:32( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: for higher income families was broken. in his budget outline for fiscal year 2010 released on february 26, 2009, the included a proposal to partially pay for health care reform. this proposal would lower the value of itemized deductions for families with incomes over $250,000. when this propo

3:51:33 to 3:51:53( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: with the president's promise to allow the 2001 tax cuts to expire for families making over $250,000, we are looking at effective tax rates well above those paid by higher income families in the 1990's. thus the president broke his pledge within weeks of inauguration while it is true that none of the health car

3:51:54 to 3:52:15( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: introduced so far in congress includes the limitation on itemized deductions, this preferred offset proposal has been discussed in the senate as a possible way to finance health care refor. more importantly -- reform. more importantly, the health care reform package reported by two house committees an working

3:52:16 to 3:52:37( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: its way through a third committee includes an offset that is even more blatantly in violation of the preside's pledge. this is a surtax on the gross income of single taxpayers earning more than $280,000 and families earning more than $350,000. this surtax

3:52:38 to 3:52:59( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: at the loews thresholds -- lowest thresholds set at 5.4% at income higher than $1 million. this is projected by the joint committee on taxatio raise $544 billion over 10 years. i know that we're get too accustomed to seeing scores in the hundreds of billions of dollars, but let me say that

3:53:44 to 3:54:04( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: top rate in many states likely recede 50%. some say this is not the president's idea and that i therefore, should not be blamed on him. well, it may not have been his idea, but i have not white house repudiate it in any way. all indications from 1600 pennsylvania avenue are that the president supports this huge new tax increase.

3:54:05 to 3:54:26( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: do i bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues today merely because i'm irritated to see the president violating 1 of his campaign promises? no. as mentioned seen a lot of campaign promises made and a lot of campaign promises broken. perhaps it's because i'm worried about the estimated 12,900 utah

3:54:27 to 3:54:49( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: tax filers or the just over two million americans who would be affected by this surtax. after all, some are saying this is just over 1% of taxpayers an after all, they're rich and they can afford it, right? wre, i am concerned about them. a tax on adjusted gss income is unf discriminatory.

3:54:50 to 3:55:10( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: if we wish to raise tax rates we should do it in a straightforward way a tax based on gross income provides for few or no deductions and it jolts our long established differential between ordinary income and income from capital. it is a raw revenue grab justified on the socialistic idea that these people earn more

3:55:11 to 3:55:31( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: than the rest of us so they should be forced to share with those less they are. but this is also not my primary reason for bringing up this matter today. i bring this to the attention of the senate for two reasons. first, high t rates on upper-income ear particularly when combined with

3:55:32 to 3:55:54( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: ever increasing progressiveness of our tax system, are disruptive to the economy and to our society. second, a good share of these higher income tax also be paid by small businesses, which will harm job creation. important of all jobs are sector. today i want to talk about the

3:55:55 to 3:56:16( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: problems of too much tax progressivity. i will address the issue of how this tax will hurt small businesses and job creat madam president, we often hear from those on the left that our tax system is not progressive enough. essentially proponents of a more progressive tax system believe that the internal revenue code taxes lower income taxpayers too

3:56:17 to 3:56:38( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: much and higher income taxpayers too lightly. in essence they believe the so-called wealthy among us are not paying their fair share taxes. however, the facts do not support this viewpoint. according to data leased by the i.r.s. for 2006, which is the latest year available, the highest earning 1% of income earners received 22% of all of

3:56:39 to 3:56:59( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: the income in now, this sounds like a great deal of income concentrated into the hands of a few. and it is. one would think and hope that an equitable tax system would require this top 1% of income earners who are earning 22% of all income to pay at least 22%

3:57:00 to 3:57:20( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: of all of the income taxes. if they paid exactly this amount, ours would be considered a proportional tax system. if they paid less, we would call it a regressive tax system. if the top earners than the proportion that they earned, the tax system would be considered progressive. now, i do not know anyone who

3:57:21 to 3:57:41( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: truly believes that a regressive tax system is fair. no one should be asked to bear a highering portion of the tax burden than what he or she receives in income. i know that certain regressive even if our overall system is not. in contrast many americans think the only fair tax system is a progressive one.

3:57:42 to 3:58:03( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: the more you make, the more you ought to pay. i can understand this and i do not necessarily disagree with it within reason. on the other hand i believe that a strong case can be made that a proportion aal tax system is the fairest tax system. many of my fellow utahans agree with this. i received thousands of letters

3:58:04 to 3:58:25( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: over the yearssking why we should not have a flat tax asking citizens to proportion of their income and taxes. even though many americans le a progressive tax system, i think they might be shocked to see just how progressive ours has become. mentioned before that the top 1%

3:58:26 to 3:58:48( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: of earned -- of earners income earners received 22% of all income however, this group paid 40% of all income taxes paid in america. almost twice the proportion paid as earned. now this is not progressivit,

3:58:49 to 3:59:10( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: madam president, this is progressivity on steroids. it is not just the top 1% to see this problem. the top 10% of income earners received 47% of all income, but they paid 71% of all taxes. again, this is way bey bebeyond what i would call reasonable amount of progressivity.

3:59:11 to 3:59:32( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: this is not the worst. this is only half of what i call the equitiable taxation equation. this is because so only talked about the half of the equation that raises money from taxpayers. what about the other half of the equation where the money is spent? in 2007

3:59:33 to 3:59:53( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: tax foundation looked at the tax side of the equation and the spending side. their findings are very interesting. using total federal taxes rather than just income taxes, the study found that the top 20% of income earning households paid an average, upon, on average,

3:59:54 to 4:00:15( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: $57,512 in federal taxes. however, the average federal government spending received by these households was just $18,573. the lowest 20% households, on the other hand, paid an average of just $1,684 in federal taxes but received an

4:00:16 to 4:00:37( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: amazing household in federal government spending. another way of saying this is the top earning 20% of households received 32 cents in federal government spending for every $1 in while the lowest earning 20% of households received $14,076 in federal government spending for

4:00:38 to 4:00:59( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: every $1 plain and simple this means the top earning fifth of americans get back only a third of what they pay in taxes while the bottom earning fifth receive a bounty of nearly 15 times what they pay. now this is redistribution going

4:01:00 to 4:01:20( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: this is all federal taxes, not just income taxes. if the study included only the federal income tax the amounts would be skewed further because the income tax is more progressive than are other fede moreover, this study used tax and spending numbers from 2004. our tax system has become more

4:01:21 to 4:01:41( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: progressive since then. it is very apparent to me our tax system is very, very progressive, already, and when it is viewed in the larger context along with the federal spending, it is nothing short of ultra progressive. and so the question if my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle is this:

4:01:42 to 4:02:02( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: justow progressive is progressive enough? i realize some will not be satisfied until we reach a total redistribution where there is no more rich or poor among us. while that idea might sound really fine, it would create total havoc to our government and our society and i think we all know it. how far can we

4:02:03 to 4:02:23( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: progressivity before the system collapses of its own weight? our tax system and indeed our entire system of government depends on the voluntary cooperation of citizens. underlying, if unstated foundation of the american government, is the idea that the great majority of us will work hard, take care of our families

4:02:24 to 4:02:44( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: willingly, pay our taxes, coopere with the law, do our best to make it all work. what happens to our society if those who are in the top 25% who areow paying 86% of the general cost of government, see their burdens is about to grow bigger and they may be part of only 10% or 15% carrying all the

4:02:45 to 4:03:06( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: rest of us? where does incenti go as we approach this situation? is there a tipping point where hard-working and successful americans will say "enough is enough." i am no longer willing to be a chump and everyone else. why don't i stop pulling and get

4:03:07 to 4:03:28( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: in the wagon ride? we've seen a strong movement toward removing more and more lower-earning americans from the income tax roles. the making work pay credit, another refundable tax credit, gives cash back where no taxes have been paid. they serve as negative, as a negative income tax.

4:03:29 to 4:03:49( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: according to the tax policy center for c the number of americans who are not subject to the federal income tax exceeds 43% this number will likely grow enactment of the making work pay credit earlier this year. if the president and his followers in the congress have

4:03:50 to 4:04:10( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: their way, there will be millions more who will be allowed to stop pulling and get on the wagon to be cared by the few who work. this means the number of american households that contribute nothing to our subsequent cost of government to our defense and to the thousands of programs that are funded by the income tax, is approaching

4:04:11 to 4:04:31( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: 50%. asking fewer and fewer to carry re and more of the load is dangerous in a free society. we are approaching that point where the majority can simply vote for higher taxes to funds higher spending with no personal cost to them. when that happens, our representative republic is in grave danger.

4:04:32 to 4:04:53( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: madam president, there are lots of good economic reasons why we have to be careful about raising taxes too bearing the burden of the costs of government. i will talk about those at another time. what i am talking about today is simple but it is scary. there is a limit on how much we

4:04:54 to 4:05:15( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: can and successful people to contribute to the cost of general government. just as there is a limit to how few people will be willing to pull a wagon that gets heavier each time we let someone leave the ropes and climb on board the free ride. ideally we should all have to carry out our weight and while this may not be possible or

4:05:16 to 4:05:36( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: practical, we surely cannot expect a willing but diminishing minority to continue to heavier and heavy are wagon up a steeper and steeper hill without a breakdown. i urge my colleagues to think carefully before going along with the idea that loads more of a tax burden on the few who seem

4:05:37 to 4:05:56( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: to be able to afford it. if we go too far down this path 're all going to end up in a ditch. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.