Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, And Job Creation Act Of 2010
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of grownups, grownups who realize that the end of the year is coming, and taxes will be raised if we don't act now. When I first came to Congress, I knew that partisanship had taken over. I knew the…
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of grownups, grownups who realize that the end of the year is coming, and taxes will be raised if we don't act now.
When I first came to Congress, I knew that partisanship had taken over. I knew the enormous extent of the philosophical divide, but I didn't fully realize that entire years would go by without the two sides working together to come up with an answer for the American people. Sadly, it seems it takes a genuine crisis and a sense of panic before we can work together. In any case, here we are.
The bill before us is not the bill that I would have written, that I would have participated in; it is not the bill that conservative radio talk show host or Tea Party constituents would have liked written; and it is not the bill that The New York Times editorial page or the President himself would have written. It is a compromise. This is what a compromise looks like. Some so-called constitutionalists want to ignore the fact that the Constitution itself actually was a compromise, with a capital ``C.''
And while we are still in this bipartisan moment of clarity, let me say a few other things. First, while I strongly disagreed with the policies put forth by my Democrat colleagues, I do not envy them for having to preside over the biggest economic collapse in a generation. And while I believe their economic premise is misguided, I cannot fault any legislator for sticking to his or her principles.
What I do believe is unforgivable, however, is the tremendous uncertainty that has been created over the past few years. Uncertainty is not good for families; it is not good for investors; it is not good for employers.
Regardless of the cause, all economic crises are ultimately a crisis of confidence. Frankly, the Democrat-controlled government has contributed to that. At a basic level, beyond all of the fancy models and theory, the economy is really not that complicated. Uncertainty leads to doubt, doubt leads to fear, and fear leads to paralysis; and that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly where our country is today.
By refusing to work with this side of the aisle until this point, we have prolonged uncertainty and aggravated the fear. Even here today, in what feels like a great legislative compromise, the most we can deliver for the American people is a year of this and 2 years of that.
The uncertainty must end, Madam Chair, and I believe Mr. Camp when he says that we are going to work on that in January when the Republican majority takes over. At this point, I don't much care what the policy is. I just think it needs to be set in stone. My constituents want to see all the tax cuts extended permanently, and they want the estate tax eliminated permanently.
Now, let me make it clear: I probably have about five wealthy people living in my district, so some might say, What do they care about the estate tax? While they may not be wealthy, they certainly hope that sometime in their life they will be wealthy or their children will be, and they realize the impact of that. And based on the economic situation, it is kind of a mystery to me why they would even care so much about these rich people, but as I said, they probably would like to work hard and become them.
Madam Chair, we know better and our constituents know better. If they aren't rich, they have lived just long enough to know that in this world there are no free lunches. You have to
work for what you get and you have to fight to keep it. So even though many of them are poor and even though many of them are struggling, my constituents don't want handouts. My constituents just want to be able to earn an honest living and rest easy at night knowing that the government isn't going to come in and suddenly swoop in and take everything away from them. For them, Madam Chair, it is more than a matter of principle--it is simply a way of life.
My constituents are upset that the tax cuts aren't permanent, and many of them believe I should vote against this bill.
In short, the story cannot explain that despite the fact that only 2 percent of Americans are rich, more than half the country does not want them to be taxed more to expand government spending. You know, the truth of the matter is, Madam Chair, it is simple. They don't want government's help and they don't want our generosity with other people's money. My constituents simply don't buy it. They don't want a nanny state, and they don't want somebody else to have to pay for it-- not their kids, not the Chinese, not their grandchildren, and not rich people.
I thank the gentleman.
Their philosophy and mine is we want the government to reward hard work, savings, investment, and job creation. I simply don't think these things should be punished, and certainly not in the name of fixing everybody's problems everywhere, because at the end of the day, doing that will just create more problems, more uncertainty, and more panic.
Finally, Madam Chair, my constituents know that we will never climb out of this ditch as long as we keep moving that ladder. Keeping taxes low has to be our goal. That is the ladder to getting out of that ditch.
I urge adoption of the bill.