On the recordDecember 1, 2010
I yield for another question. Mrs. McCASKILL. We obviously passed this tax cut a decade or so ago, and they decided to make it temporary, not permanent, when it was passed. So there was a decision made by the Senate that it wasn't worthy of being permanent, that it was temporary. So now here we are, it was temporary, and we have to decide whether we make it permanent. That is really where the rubber meets the road because--and correct me if I am wrong--they made it temporary to see if this tax cut for the wealthy would create jobs. I am so sick of hearing on every TV show in America, well, if you give a 3-percent tax differential to the wealthiest people in America, they are going to create all these jobs. Well, I am trying to figure out where the jobs are that this tax cut for the wealthy created. This was an experiment. It didn't work. It didn't create the jobs. That is why we have this debate right now. We have to decide whose side we are on. Are we on the side of the middle class, with shrinking income, with more frustration because they can't do some of the basic things with their families that they always assumed they would be able to do in America or are we going to continue a bonus to the wealthiest Americans which doesn't even stimulate jobs? In fact, what we are going to do today is we are going to make a number of unanimous consent requests for things that will create jobs and see whether we can get our Republican colleagues to go along.…
Source
govinfo.gov




