CONTACT: JONATHAN GODFREY (202) 226-6888

 

“Madam Speaker,

 

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2847, the “HIRE Act.”  While I am sensitive to the excruciating economic pain felt by many in my district and around the country, I cannot in good conscience support this flawed bill. 

 

I applaud the House and Senate leadership for including some common sense job creation provisions in this bill.  In particular, I support the inclusion of language that frees up $77 billion dollars worth of surface transportation investments and another provision that gives the recipients of qualified clean energy, school construction, and energy conservation bonds a direct payment from the federal government to cover their interest costs.

 

I wish that these provisions were enough to secure my support for this legislation and help those who cry out for additional economic aid.  Unfortunately, the originators of this legislation – my colleagues in the United States Senate – decided to set aside the remaining $13 billion dollars of this $17 billion dollar bill for an ineffective and wasteful hiring tax credit.  As with many previous efforts in the Upper Chamber, the Senate has yet again sacrificed effective policy in order to tout some small measure of bipartisan support.       

 

During my 45 years in this body, we have debated whether or not to raise the minimum wage countless times.  As we know from these reoccurring debates, companies do not respond to small changes in the cost of labor.  This is why the periodic 15 to 20 percent increases in the minimum wage enacted into law by the Congress over the years have not effected employer hiring decisions.  Unfortunately, the very economic reality that makes the minimum wage good policy also makes the Schumer-Hatch hiring credit bad policy. 

 

If a 15 to 20 percent increase in the minimum wage doesn’t affect employer decision-making, logic dictates that an even smaller payroll tax break for companies that hire recently unemployed workers will similarly have a nonexistent effect on hiring.  This bill will create yet another failed corporate “trickle-down” tax break and Congress will hand out a new benefit - paid with scarce taxpayer resources – to employers who hire workers they would have hired anyway.

 

This is not to say that a properly conceived tax policy couldn’t receive bipartisan support or play an important role in spurring hiring.  For example, I have proposed legislation that is supported by many economists and organizations on both the left and right that would save millions of jobs at minimal cost to the federal government.  My “SHARE Credit Act” would provide a tax credit to employers that shorten hours instead of firing workers.  For a mere $22,000 dollars a worker, we could cheaply and efficiently stem the monsoon of layoffs reported each month by the Labor Department.

 

However, above and beyond mere tax policy, Members on both sides of the aisle know that we need to do more.  Ending the unacceptably high levels of unemployment that plague our economy will require us to attack this epidemic using all the tools of the federal government.  This means coupling progressive tax measures with public works hiring initiatives and a commitment to full employment.  To do anything else would be a betrayal of the fundamental trust given by those who elected us.  Each of us comes to Washington with a simple task: Address the most critical issues that face the Nation by using the most effective tools at our disposal.  No bonus points are awarded for bipartisan legislation that does not meet this high standard. 

 

A bill whose major component is a meaningless giveaway to Corporate America cannot be called a jobs bill.  At a minimum, the Senate should now conference the $150 billion dollar jobs package that that the House passed last December. 

 

Uneven and piecemeal legislative efforts like this bill should be the exception, not the norm.  I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.”          

 

###03-04-2010###