despite many claims to the contrary, this budget contains no substantive changes to Social Security.

The budget proposes to curtail spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by only $413 billion over 10 years.

The $400 billion in cuts you keep talking about are mostly derived from provider cuts and imposition of government price controls on prescription drugs for seniors.

Unless we find some way of resolving some of these conflicts really, fully, structurally, and not just here and there, we are not going to get things under control.

Social Security is going to go bankrupt from a disability standpoint, Social Security Disability, in 2016.

Now that, in my opinion, is nowhere close to being what is needed.

Claiming that this budget is an act of courage on entitlements is exactly that: it is just a claim. It is not reality.

I think Republicans have had a tough job from time to time too.

It is very easy to make decisions in Natick when it is 70 degrees in the laboratory, but if you don't really test this in the field environment under different combat situations, you are going to be in for a surprise.

I hear every day that the Social Security disability program is going to be bankrupt in 2016.

the Gross National Debt would be $25.4 trillion in 2023, or 96 percent of our GDP at that time.

It does not appear to me that this budget does much as far as addressing the runaway, out-of-control, unsustainable entitlement spending.

I am very concerned about the continued tendency we have of just kicking the can down the road and not really facing these problems like we should face them.

the President's budget takes only baby steps towards reforming our unsustainable entitlement programs.

I think we could solve Social Security just by getting together and resolving the problems and making some tweaks that mean Social Security will be there for our kids and our grandkids, and in Elaine's and my case, even great-grandkids.

Let me tell you what bothers me about your office refusing to support the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed overwhelmingly by both Houses of Congress and bipartisan votes.

If America's founders thought religious liberty so important that they put multiple protections explicitly in the First Amendment, why would that not trump a statute?

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized various substantive due process rights, and if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed as a district court judge, I would apply that precedent.