I think we are undercutting our own national interests by not being at the table.

The tax expenditures now exceed the actual tax revenues.

A lot of it comes down to people.

We are spending all of our time on really one-fourth of the Federal budget.

I think he has outlined the problem magnificently and dismally. It is not a happy picture.

Unless we deal with the underlying growth of the cost of health care, that is going to eat us up.

I think we shortchange this whole process by saying, well, we are going to reduce the size of the Federal Government.

I wish they would do it.

How do we deal with the $18 trillion debt? I mean, balancing the budget would be nice, but we have still got an $18 trillion debt.

You are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

I would argue, for example, that the GI bill is one of the most cost-effective programs in history, but the results did not come in for some years.

My only concern as a policymaker is that we not be seduced by the rosy projections that never manifest themselves.

But I would also point out that there is another deficit that is not shown on this chart, which is the infrastructure deficit.

I think this is so important, and we have got to continue to talk about this.

As I read it, though, what you really found was it was the labor supply that you were analyzing, not people losing their jobs but people choosing not to stay in a particular job because they could have health insurance.

I suspect you would see that there is a direct correlation between partisanship and low esteem.

The workforce is a big concern to me, and I think you are going to see potential other Government breakdowns unless there is proper attention to this over the next 5 to 10 years in particular.

I think that is an important point, because there was a lot of talk at the time that CBO says ACA will cost 2 million jobs, and that is really not accurate.