Schatz: Republican Tax Bill Is ‘Largest Wealth Transfer In American History’

WASHINGTON — In a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) called out House Republicans for holding a committee meeting at 1 a.m. to quietly advance then pass a bill that would cut health care and reduce food assistance for millions, as well as promote a dying and dirty fossil fuel energy agenda — all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.

“This is a sort of general rule in politics, which is that if you start your meeting at 1 a.m., you're probably not proud of what you're doing,” Senator Schatz began. “Republicans in the House know that the bill that they are considering is super unpopular. But they've been ordered to pass it anyway. That is what's happening on the other side of the Capitol right now. House Republicans have convened the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. to advance their tax bill. And it's because they know this bill stinks.”

“It is the largest wealth transfer in American history… They’re literally taking from the poor — people who don’t have enough money — and shoveling straight into the pockets of people who already have more than enough. This bill is about making the richest people to ever walk the earth even richer,” Senator Schatz continued. “How do they plan to do that? By kicking 14 million Americans off of health insurance and denying food assistance to millions more. People will be turned away at hospitals and go to bed hungry — all so that billionaires have a bit more.”

“Even the biggest cuts to Medicaid in history are still not enough to cover the cost of these enormous giveaways. So the Republicans have turned to one of their favorite punching bags: solving the climate crisis… This is going to raise costs for Americans,” said Senator Schatz. “And so there is a reason they convened at 1 a.m., and it is not because that's prime time in Hawai‘i. They didn't convene at 1 a.m. because they like to see each other past midnight. They convened at 1 a.m. because they are about to pass one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that has ever been passed out of the United States House of Representatives.”

The full text of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.

This is a sort of general rule in politics, which is that if you start your meeting at 1 a.m., you're probably not proud of what you're doing. Now, there are some instances in which you start the meeting at 7 p.m. and it goes long, and then you have to vote at whatever hour you finish. But to convene at 1 a.m. is an intentional thing, right? It is to say: “I would very much like if nobody saw what we were up to.” And that's exactly what happened at 1a.m. today, Wednesday morning.

Republicans in the House know that the bill that they are considering is super unpopular. But they've been ordered to pass it anyway. That is what's happening on the other side of the Capitol right now. House Republicans have convened the Rules Committee at 1:00 a.m. to advance their tax bill. And it's because they know this bill stinks.

For starters, it is the largest wealth transfer in American history. Think about that—been a lot of wealth transfers in American history, but this is the biggest one in terms of the tax code. It's not like they're redistributing wealth among the wealthy. They are literally taking from the poor—people who don't have enough money—and shoveling it straight into the pockets of people who already have more than enough. This bill is about making the richest people ever to walk the Earth even richer.

How do they plan to do that? By kicking 14 million Americans off of health insurance and denying food assistance to millions more. People will be turned away at hospitals and go to bed hungry—all so that billionaires have a bit more.

You do not need fancy polling to tell you that this is super unpopular. And so Republicans have decided to fix that problem by convening the hearing in the middle of the night, hoping that people will not notice.

The plain facts of the bill are so egregious. And as I started to write these remarks, I had a problem, which is: how do you describe this thing accurately and not sound like you're frothing at the mouth, like a partisan, and sort of overstating the case? Because this really is kicking 14 million people off of Medicaid, kicking millions more off of food assistance, and then that is the savings that is generated in order to fund these tax cuts for billionaire corporations and the wealthiest people in the United States.

And what happens if something is both true and sounds like a partisan accusation? But that's where we're at. This is actually what they're trying to do. And here's the thing—even the biggest cuts to Medicaid in history are still not enough to cover the cost of these enormous giveaways. So the Republicans have turned to one of their favorite punching bags: solving the climate crisis.

Never mind that hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested in clean energy across the country—mostly in Republican states and districts. Never mind that those investments are creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs. Never mind that even if you don't care about any of that, there is a basic principle in running a smart economy and running an investable economy—and that is that when the private sector makes an investment on the basis of the tax code, and they are in the middle of that investment, that you can't pull the rug out from under them.

And the reason is very simple. Besides fairness—and besides the fact that we are undermining progress toward actually addressing an existential crisis for the planet—it also makes the United States very hard to invest in. Because if you are a business and you are looking at the federal tax code and you're saying, "I'm going to make a five-, maybe ten-year investment—capital investment—chips, manufacturing, climate, agriculture, hospitality, real estate, transportation, infrastructure, whatever it may be," but you're doing it on the basis of what the federal tax code says, and then your investment committee, the board of directors, whomever it may be, will say: "Well, how do we know these things are going to stay on the books?"

And the normal answer is, "Well, come on—the federal government is not going to pull out a tax incentive structure in the middle of your investment and construction cycle." And the truth is: yes, they are. And so this doesn't have just climate implications or economic implications in terms of the specific projects. It actually has to do with how stable of an investment climate we establish in the United States of America.

You know, we're no longer doing "all of the above." The argument that we used to have between the political parties was: Democrats would say, "We’ve got to transition to clean energy." Republicans would say, "No, let's do clean energy, but let's also do these other things." But now the Republican position is picking winners and losers—and basically riding the losers into the ground.

Here's the very tough truth: coal is on the way out, whether you like it or not. But Trump and Republicans would rather revive it for a few more years just to squeeze a couple more years of profitability out of it. Because, after all, their capital investments are fully amortized. So a couple more years of profitability means no more investment, but a couple more years of revenue. And so that's what they're doing.

This is going to raise costs for Americans. Let's be clear—this is going to raise costs for Americans.

There was a time—and I was part of these debates in the state of Hawai‘i—there was a time when there was a tradeoff between how much consumers had to pay and our climate objectives. But those trends have changed. So now wind is the cheapest form of energy. Nuclear is among the cheapest forms of energy. Solar is among the cheapest forms of energy.

For me, in the state of Hawai‘i, to bring in low-sulfur fuel oil on a fuel tanker and then light it on fire for electrons is the single dumbest thing you could do—even if you didn't care about climate. It is simply cheaper. It is simply cheaper for consumers, and businesses, and for the climate crisis, and therefore our ability to fiscally manage the climate crisis, as we see increasing disasters—both in their severity and how often they happen.

And then every, what, year, year and a half, we do a $150 billion emergency supplemental because there are now wildfires where there have never been wildfires, floods where there have never been floods, tornadoes where there have never been tornadoes. This is not made up. Nobody gets to deny this anymore.

And so there is a reason they convened at 1:00 a.m., and it is not because that's prime time in Hawai`i. They didn't convene at 1:00 a.m. because they like to see each other past midnight. They convened at 1:00 a.m. because they are about to pass one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that has ever been passed out of the United States House of Representatives.

And I just wonder why. If I'm a House member and I'm being told, "We're going to make all these changes—all these things that you're voting for are going to be excised from the Senate version, don't worry"—well, my view would be: if you're going to fix all that stuff, why are you making me vote on it now? Why are you making me vote on it now?

And the answer is very simple: Donald Trump showed up in the caucus, used a couple of expletives. They implied that voting no is a betrayal—that standing up for your constituents is a betrayal. And I think they're all going to fall in line. And so it is up to the United States Senate to fix this bill or kill this bill. And so that's the task in front of us. And I am hoping that cooler heads prevail. I know there are a number of Republicans that hate these Medicaid cuts. I know there are a number of Republicans who have a ton of clean energy investment in their state.

And there's plenty of political room to criticize the Biden administration or say "I'm against the Green New Deal" and still be for wind, and solar, and nuclear, and geothermal, and agriculture that’s done in a more climate-friendly way. All of that is available to us. We don't have to do things in the maximally unpopular way. But the Speaker apparently wants to do it that way.

###