Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) issued the following statement on the House floor during debate on the rule for H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010:

“Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, however the rule comes out, for several reasons:

“Number one, if this bill passes, we will extend the upper income tax cuts, at the cost of an increase to the deficit of $700 billion, for an additional two years.  $700 billion over 10 years.  We are told that in two years it will expire.  But, of course, we also know that our friends on the other side of the aisle will try to extend it in two years.  And in two years we’ll have the same kind of coercion.  We’ll be told that if we don’t extend the upper income tax cuts, the middle-class tax cuts will also expire.   And I don’t see any reason to believe that we wouldn’t succumb to that coercion two years from now in an election year, much as we’re doing now on this bill.

“So, I believe that passing this bill would in effect make permanent the upper end tax cuts, which would generate a $700 billion increase in the deficit, which would make it almost impossible to fund housing, education, and everything else we need.  It would be the culmination of the 30-year Republican effort to “starve the beast” – to deliberately create huge deficits in order to provide the political cover for reducing expenditures in education, housing, social security, and Medicare.

“Secondly, I hope that Mr. Pomeroy’s amendment on the estate tax will pass, but if it doesn’t that’s another problem.

“Thirdly, Social Security.  We are going, in this bill, to provide for a one-year reduction of 2% in the Social Security tax.  That will cost us $120 billion in one year, which will be replenished from the general fund.  But we know perfectly well that, politically, once you make that tax cut, it will be impossible to restore it.  Which means, it will be $120 billion a year – forever – taken away from Social Security but replaced by the general fund.

“Now, the conservatives have always told us that we have to reduce Social Security, increase the retirement age, and reduce benefits because it contributes to the deficit.  We’ve said, ‘NO, it doesn’t contribute to the deficit.  Social Security is walled-off and has nothing to do with the deficit.’  But, now, it will be put right in the middle of the deficit debate and it will cost the general fund $120 billion a year – $1.2 trillion over 10 years – and we’ll be told that you’ve got to reduce Social Security benefits, increase the retirement age, because of the deficit.  And it will be in the middle of the deficit debate; and we’ll be told a year, or two, or three from now, ‘by the way, we’ll only replace $100 of the $120 billion that we’re taking away from Social Security this year because we need the money for housing, education, or something else,’ and we should not want to be in that situation.

“FDR decided, in 1935, that Social Security would be supported by its own tax, by its own situation of people paying into it so people take it back when they retire.  Now we’re going to take some of that money away and we’re going to say that the general fund will support it.  FDR knew that, by setting up Social Security as self-financing, it would be difficult to abolish or to reduce.  This undoes that genius by the New Deal and puts Social Security at great risk and, accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill.”