I want to take off right where Senator Van Hollen left off.

the President's student loan policies are costly, poorly targeted, and provide substantial benefits to highly educated and well-off borrowers.

When you cut the rates, you take money away from the treasury, but generally your economic growth rate starts to go up a little bit.

Instead of raising taxes like my Democrat colleagues, we lowered taxes across the board while making the tax code more progressive.

The markets would not allow that.

The one I'm looking for is how main street, how employees benefit without having to turn to the federal government.

It seems like the only ones winning in this whole equation would be big business, and big government.

If you do offer your employees great pay and great benefits, you don't have turnover.

I'll believe it when I see it, and hope that does work. But it looks like we're in trouble as a nation in my mind.

It begs the question, is our economy one that can ever be government centric when the stats seem to show otherwise?

Experience shows us the best way to promote prosperity for all is through pro-growth policies that empower ordinary people rather than Washington.

the so-called Inflation Reduction Act... has and will increase prices.

I mentioned it many times here that regardless of our revenue--our tax rate, our revenues stubbornly stay around 18% of our GDP.

When you enact bad policies, what do you expect? You get bad outcomes.

It's the beginning of a conversation. It's going to take a while to figure out.

No one has given me a good argument on how we do some of the things that we're talking about without bankrupting the country.

I mentioned it many times here that regardless of our revenue--our tax rate, our revenues stubbornly stay around 18% of our GDP.

the President's student loan policies are costly, poorly targeted, and provide substantial benefits to highly educated and well-off borrowers.