Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, on February 5 questioned Budget Director Jim Nussel about the new proposed Bush budget. The transcript was posted here.
Senator Sanders: Mr. Director, as I’m sure you’re aware, the United States has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth, income and wealth, of any major country on earth, and increasingly we’re looking more like Brazil and Mexico than we are like Europe and Scandinavia, and other industrialized, ah, countries. When Senator Conrad talks about legacy, for this president, what we should be aware of, since President Bush has been in office, five million more people have slipped into poverty, the middle-class has shrunk, the median-family income has declined by over a thousand dollars, eight million Americans have lost their health insurance, three million Americans have lost their pensions, and yes! some people have done very well. And those are the people on top (right arm points into the air). And of all of the statistics that we throw out around here, I want to throw out one statistic that I want to get your comment on.
Director Nussel, according to the latest reports from the IRS, the wealthiest 1/10th of 1 percent, one-tenth of one percent, three hundred thousand men, women and children, now earn more income than do the bottom 150 million Americans! One-tenth of one percent, more income than 50 percent of the American people, and that gap is growing wider. What is your sense about what it means to the future of this country, and economic justice that we have such an unequal distribution of income and wealth?
Director Nussel: Well, first of all, ah Mr. San . ., ah Senator Sanders, I, ah, ah, I have not thought about that question. I will, I will . . .
Senator Sanders: Don’t you think it’s a question that you should think about?
Director Nussel: I will give it some thought. Ah, I have given some thought to, ah, tax distribution, and tax reform, and, ah, I would agree with you that, ah, our tax code, ah, needs to be reformed. And there are, ah, there are, ah, problems within our tax code that, ah, that, ah, need to be rooted out, and that we have the top 1 percent of the tax code, of the people paying taxes in this country pay 40 percent of all the taxes. The top 5 percent pay 59 percent . . .
Senator Sanders: But you’ve given me an example of the facts that the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent earn more income than do the bottom 50 percent.
Director Nussel: They also pay taxes.
Senator Sanders: Of course they pay taxes, but not proportionate to what they earn.
Let me ask you another question, a moral question. Let’s forget about being in the United States Senate, let’s get down to basic morality. In your budget (pointing his right index finger at Director Nussel), you propose over 700 billion dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest three-tenths of one-percent; 700 billion dollars in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires at the same time as you want to eliminate, among other programs, the low-income weatherization assistance program, as you want to make massive cuts in the (indistinct, sounded like Lydie) program, which you are very familiar with. Well, in Vermont, and all over this country, Iowa, I dare say (NOTE: Nussel, prior to appointment as Ch of OMB, had been a GOP Representative in the House), it is getting cold. Older people cannot afford to keep their homes warm. What is the moral justification for giving over 700 billion dollars in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, and then cut back on programs which keep people warm, which provide health care for desperate people, and which provide many other basic necessities? Give me the moral justification for that.
Director Nussel: The, ah, tax, ah, cuts the president proposed in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 are distribute much further than the top one-tenth of one percent.
Senator Sanders: But I’ve given you an example of how it impacts the top one-three-tenths of one-percent; seven hundred billion dollars. Tell me why the richest people in this country need tax breaks while poverty is increasing.
Director Nussel: Look, ah, look, I would guess under that, that you received a tax cut.
Senator Sanders: I may have. But I’m talking about millionaires and billionaires. And I don’t need a tax break. You don’t need a tax break. Tell me, why should the richest people . . .
Director Nussel: Why don’t I need a tax break?
Senator Sanders: Because you’re doing well and other people are going hungry in America. And people, the middle-class is shrinking.
Director Nussel: So it’s my responsibility . .
Senator Sanders: (Indistinct) I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about millionaires and billionaires . . .
Director Nussel: Then take anyone, take . .
Senator Sanders: For example, you want to repeal the Estate Tax. Is that correct?
Director Nussel: (Nods head up and down)
Senator Sanders: All the benefits of the Estate Tax go to the richest three-tenths of one-percent. If the Estate Tax is completely repealed, the Walton family, which is worth 80 billion dollars, which owns Wal-Mart, will get over 30 billion dollars in tax relief. Do you think the Walton family needs 30 billion dollars in tax relief, when you’re cutting back on healthcare, when you’re cutting back on programs that feed hungry people; hungry senior citizens? Let me hear the moral, your administration talks a lot about morality, and family values. Now tell me about the morality of giving tax breaks to the Walton family, worth 80 billion dollars, and cutting back on the needs of the most desperate. Look! As far as that, . . . justification for raising the fees of our veterans who are getting into the VA hospital, that will drive veterans off of the VA.
Director Nussel: Well, these are the, ah, these are the, ah, veterans who, ah, have incomes that are higher than . . .
Senator Sanders: Yuh, twenty-seven thousand dollars a year. You know, what I want to hear is a simple, man to man, man to man . . . You tell me about tax breaks for billionaires and cutting back on the needs of veterans and low income people.
Director Nussel: First of all, I don’t what the tax bill is for the Walton family. I don’t know how much they pay
Senator Sanders: My estimate is they will save 30 billion dollars through the repeal of the Estate Tax. Tell me why they need a 30 billion tax break, and what do they do with that 30 billion dollars then.
Director Nussel: I’ve no idea. But my bet is that they’re quite philanthropic, as are many in that situation. Again, I don’t know what they do with it. But they earned it.
Senator Sanders: I’m glad you’re concerned with the Walton family. Some of us are concerned about other . .
Director Nussel: No, you brought up the Walton family. I don’t even know them. I’ve never met them. I, ah, I, ah . .
Senator Sanders: But you’re worried . . . Your administration is pretty connected to them.
Interesting that Sen. Sanders has the nerve to question the “morality” of giving “tax breaks” to “the wealthy” when he has no MORAL problem with taking their money in the first place. Evidently he feels highly qualified to determine how much others “need” or “deserve” to keep. Why not take 99% of the Waltons’ (and other rich persons’) wealth since they don’t “need” it? For some reason THAT DEMOCRATS NEVER CAN EXPLAIN, it is “fair” for those who have earned more to pay a GROSSLY HIGHER PERCENTAGE…in Mr. Sander’s words, the rich don’t pay taxes “proportionate to what they earn”. In his view, everyone shouldn’t pay the same percentage…that wouldn’t be fair at all, in his view. Some people shouldn’t pay even a penny, while others should pay a far greater percentage. Does that make any sense in the normal understanding of the word “fairness”???? Remember, we’re not talking about paying MORE…we’re talking about paying a much higher percentage simply because you have more.
My wife & I both worked our entire working careers in lower-paying public service professions (teaching & nursing), but we can see the basic unfairness of the Demcratic thieves robbing the rich & then ridiculing those who suggest that perhaps they deserve to get some of their stolen money back. For a party who doesn’t want to “legislate morality”, it seems ironic that they should be passing moral judgment on those who object to being robbed…especially when the victims have already paid far more than their “proportionate share” in taxes throughout their lifetime. If the Democrats really felt that their view was so “moral”, why don’t they try to convince the wealthy that they should VOLUNTARILY leave 50% or more of their wealth to charities after they die…preferably, charities which THE DONORS pick rather than the political charities favored by the Democrats to buy votes.
Could it be that the wealthy pay a highly disproportionate share of the income tax? It is hard to give a tax break to those who don’t pay income taxes.
Rich and Rick — thanks for responding to this transcript of Senator Bernie Sanders and Budget Director Jim Nussel. I think that Senator Sander’s point of view should be widely discussed.
As Americans we frequently affirm that we seek “freedom and justice for all.” What constitutes justice / fairness is a great question and deserves a lot of analysis and discussion. What seems undeniable to me, and is a first premise, in my opinion — that should guide the discussion of the topics raised in Senator Sanders’ transcript — is the fact that in terms of opportunities for generating or acquiring wealth, we live in a very unfair system. There is a lot of objection to the truth of this premise — partly because a lot of people have accepted the relentless and powerful propaganda that gives an opposite view — but it is this truth, I feel, that needs to drive the discussion. It is simply an objective fact that, in our system, those connected to power (money is a source of power, so are effective unions, etc.) have a huge advantage. I wrote an article where I develop more detail of this premise and, if you are interested in discussing this topic, I hope you will read it. The title of the article is “Why are we rich?”
If you agree that the system itself is not fair, that it is skewed to favor those with high incomes, then, the question an effective democracy must answer is, what action can we as a society take that will help create a more fair and just system? Taxing higher incomes at an increased rate is one means to make correction in the system and to bring more fairness into the system. Our democracy, if it so chose, could organize itself so that the lives of ordinary Americans could be much uplifted. In European democracies, as the Michael Moore’s movie, “Sicko,” dramatically points out, ordinary citizens are guaranteed health care, vacations, education, etc. It seems to me that in these European countries, there is much more justice, more fairness for ordinary citizens. Americans should demand much more from their democracy. Taxing higher incomes at even higher rates — a more progressive system — would provide the revenue needed to emulate the best parts of European socialism. But, of course, the chance to move the country in a more enlightened direction has been greatly hampered by the fiscal irresponsibility of George W. Bush and the unprecedented huge debts he, empowered by his Republican Congress, has accumulated. Increased revenue is needed now simply to avoid disaster, not to implement a more enlightened vision of societal fairness.
A democratic society has the right and the obligation to define rules by which the society will live. The United States at its inception decided that European titles of nobility and the European tradition of inherited privilege should have no place in our democracy. It seems right and logical that a democratic society has the authority to define a citizen’s obligation to the society in terms of the citizen’s capacity to contribute. In time of war, for example, it is the young and able bodied who are pressed into service. The “draft” might be considered unfair by those who are obligated to serve, but, the point is, what is “fair” is always a balance between an individual’s rights and society’s needs. In a time of war, society’s obligation to defend itself is given higher priority than an individual’s right to be left alone. All citizens are members of the same society, and the society itself has the right and obligation to define what is fair, for the safety and security of the nation, to expect a citizen to contribute.
A farm family would expect a different contribution from an 18 year old son than from his 10 year old brother. And if the 18 year old might have a fit of self pity and say, “It’s not fair that I have to do three times as much as Jimmy,” the response would be, “Look, if we are to be successful as a family, we all need to do our part.” The jury is still out as to whether, as a society, we will maintain the needed stability to assure that today’s children will enjoy a decent future. If, as a society we fail in flames, it will not be a picnic for the wealthy either. It is in everyone’s interest to work together to make our country as successful as possible. It seems to me that if are to make this country successful we must all do our part. The urgency to make our country successful must be reflected in our tax code. And, just as in a time of war — where a “draft” is imposed for the good of the whole nation — the prominent question about our tax code is not what is “fair” for the individual, it is what is best for the security and future of the country as a whole.