Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I am not sure what meeting I sat through for 12 hours about 2 weeks ago, where we essentially litigated each aspect of this legislation. I am not sure where we have been for the last several…
Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I am not sure what meeting I sat through for 12 hours about 2 weeks ago, where we essentially litigated each aspect of this legislation. I am not sure where we have been for the last several years as we have had, for the last 5 or 6 years, several hearings.
The reality of this legislation is that every facet of it is something we have discussed. There is not a new part--not a new part-- to the legislation. Yes, we have fused it together over time. There is no doubt about that. But to sit here and say that we have not had opportunities in the Finance Committee to hear the facets of the bill is just disingenuous.
Mr. President, it is not a secret that our party and this body have been working on healthcare for about 10 years. Anyone who doesn't understand and appreciate that the individual mandate and its effects in our bill take nothing at all away from anyone who needs a subsidy, anyone who wants to continue their coverage--it does not have a single letter in there about preexisting conditions or any actual health feature.
The reality is, what our plan does on the individual mandate is good news for the average American. Here it is----
Here it is. Here is the good news for every American. They ought to hear loud and clear that 80 percent of the folks who are punished--punished--by the individual mandate live in a household of less than $50,000 of income, and one-third of those folks live in a household of less than $25,000. Therefore, the benefit of our actions is to set folks free from being penalized for doing nothing.
Regular order.
Mr. President, this is what I find astonishing. We have been talking about this for a number of months. Frankly, for years we have been talking about tax reform. Actually, since 1986 we have been talking about tax reform. Our plan removes millions of low-income Americans from having to pay taxes.
I think it is interesting that our friends' argument on the left is sincere but wrong. It misses the fact that if you are living in a single-parent household, with a mother or a father who is working paycheck to paycheck, getting another $100 a month is real money. Why are we not talking about the actual benefits to the specific people who benefit from this tax reform? When Senator Toomey talks about the typical American family seeing its taxes slashed by 60 percent, why is that specific savings of $2,200 not a meaningful--perhaps, transformative--savings that allows someone now to save for college or to save for retirement?
To me, this is where the rubber meets the road. Yes, here on the other side of the Potomac, it is OK to talk in platitudes. I prefer to talk to individuals about the impact of our actions in their households and the impact of our actions in their accounts. It is a very simple way of doing the math. You don't have to pull out a calculator for a 75-percent savings for the average single parent who makes $41,000. The reason that we use $41,000 is that that is the average income of a single head of household. The reason that we use $73,000 is that that is the typical American family's income.
When we are talking about the benefits, we are talking about real people--people like Sherry, back in South Carolina, a single parent with two kids, who is trying to start a business, who is struggling to keep her ends together, believing that someone, somewhere, sees her, that the decision makers in Washington don't see her as invisible or unimportant. I am not talking about tax philosophy. I am talking about real people who need their money more than the government does.
If we are going to talk about tax cuts and tax revenues, let us be clear that in the 1920s, during the Mellon tax cuts, which slashed the high rate from 70 percent down to the twenties throughout the 1920s, revenues went up by 61 percent. Under the Kennedy administration, we cut taxes, and tax revenues went up to the government from those cohorts from whom we cut it.
So what we have is a history. Our friends on the other side say that there is no actual history. Well, there is history that proves that. In the cohorts where the brackets are and where the cuts occur, we can demonstrate that the revenues have increased.
I yield for the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. President, I will say to my friend from Colorado that we are having a spirited debate. We are diametrically opposed on the issue, but we do have some common ground on other issues that we are working on together. I appreciate your passion. I know you are sincere.
I will tell you that there is a truth that is, perhaps, missing from the conversation, and it is simply this: If you don't control spending, you cannot raise enough revenue to keep up. When you look back at the cataclysmic occurrences throughout history, one thing you will find very quickly is that even with more revenue, if your spending outpaces your revenue, you are going to find yourself in a challenging predicament.
I yield for Senator Thune.
I will say, Mr. President, that my colleague from Pennsylvania did such a good job that there is little left to say. I was fumbling because I was just confused on what I would say, and I will be honest with you that there is just not much to say.
If I were to reinforce a couple of points that the Senator did not cover, they would be that at our last Finance hearing, which lasted--I thought it was 12 hours; it was 23 hours--we had our friends on the other side offer 63 amendments. To say that they are not engaged in the process is to forget the 63 amendments offered over 23 hours.
Senator Toomey did such a good job that I am just going to sit back down.
We were.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes, equally divided, for debate only, with no amendments or motions in order and with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time.
Mr. President, we have heard a lot about this bill over the last several hours and, frankly, several weeks, and we have had a lot of conversations over the last several months, but, today, December 1, 2017, at 4:24 p.m.--and I hope we remember this because I have finally heard the definition of ``fearmongering.''
Someone once said that fear is an acronym for false evidence appearing real. What we have heard today is that because of the passage of this bill, the Crime Victims Fund will be zeroed out. We heard the social services block grants will go away. We heard there will be cuts to Medicaid. I want all the folks in this Chamber to remember the time so that if they ever have to go back and find it, they will know it was December 1 at 4:24 p.m. when it was said.
So here is my thought: A few months into 2018, when your takehome pay has increased because the government is taking less of your hard-earned money--punishing you less and rewarding your success more--just remember to check and see if there is any money in the Crime Victims Fund; I would suggest they check and see if there are any dollars in the social services block grant; and I hope they will check and see if there has been a cut to Medicaid because if you cannot find those cuts, there is one reason: They do not exist.
I look forward to hopefully passing this bill today. I hope we do. I look forward to the American people taking
the time to remember the exact time, the exact date that this was said, and then do the research necessary to draw their own conclusion. The first conclusion that will be easy to come to is that when you look at your pay stub and you see there is more money in it in 2018 than there was in 2017, just remember how it got there. It is not because of what we do, because there are some folks on this side of the Potomac who believe we actually have Federal dollars. There are no Federal dollars. Every penny we spend in Washington comes from a taxpayer somewhere. There are no Federal dollars; there are simply taxpayer dollars arriving in Washington to be used in some way.
I am only suggesting that the average American can spend their money in the way best for their family significantly better than we can.
So I hope the good people of this country who are paying attention to this very important debate will be able to remember 4:24 p.m. so they can review the tape, review the video, the DVR--or whatever you call it nowadays--and see for themselves what was said or go someplace online and figure out, at the end of 2018, the middle of 2018, the beginning of 2018, has something actually changed other than that you have more money in your paycheck?
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Ohio.
I say to Senator Portman, may I see that list? I have been on the floor and, unfortunately, I have not been able to get a copy of the list. Obviously, you have been able to have your staff get it or go online and get a copy of this list. I think my good friend from Oregon said they needed their good friends who are lobbyists to supply them with a list.
I am not sure what the other side is missing. They had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for a couple of years, and they increased spending without doing anything about revenues, other than trying to have a tax increase a few years ago, $630 billion of tax increases, and somehow they have missed the correlation between higher taxes and lower revenues. We have gotten it right that oftentimes lower taxes actually increase revenue, which has been proven from the twenties, sixties and eighties.
It is good news that my friends on the left are finally thinking about the national debt. We had a couple hundred years of life in America that produced about $10 trillion of national debt. Eight years after Democratic leadership, we have a national debt of $20 trillion. I find it a tad disingenuous that my friends on the left are going to counsel us about debt when, in fact, their record is so clearly obvious. When it comes to the benefits this bill has for those folks who are working paycheck to paycheck, as the country saw its debt double in the last 8 years, what they did not see double were their wages. As a matter of fact, their wages were stagnant. Why? Because when you take money out of the private sector economy and place it into the hands of the government, you do not grow the private sector economy. It is a simple formula.
While wages were flat, the economy grew at an anemic 1.9 percent, even though they doubled the national debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. It is fascinating that my friends on the left, looking for ways to create lobbyist loopholes, are on this floor lecturing anybody about debt. We, on the other hand, aren't thinking about lobbyists or our friends on the left. We are thinking about the American people, the hard-working group of individuals who find themselves too often at the end of too many weeks with too little left in their pockets.
We are not asking the American people to just believe us. What we are saying with great clarity is, starting in paychecks in 2018, because of our tax cuts targeted toward the typical American family, you will see in your paycheck more of your hard-earned money. This is how we say there is proof in the pudding. It is simply to take a look and see how much of that money is left.
To my good friend from Ohio, my friends on the other side of the aisle are starting to overcook my grits just a little bit. I don't mind having a vigorous debate on facts, but to sell fear--as I said a few minutes ago, fear being false evidence appearing real is just turning the heat up on my grits. I have to tell you, this leads to an unhealthy outcome for the American people because at the end of the day, the goal is not for us to be right and for them to be wrong. I don't think their goal is for them to be right and for us to be wrong. It is kind of simple. The goal is, and always should be, for the people we represent to be better off because of our decisions in Washington. I can tell you, passing this tax reform bill will leave the typical American family with 60 percent--60 percent--of a tax cut.
I yield back.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.