For those of you who have been here a little less time than I have, I came in the 104th Congress and joined this body in 1995, and for years after that we grew the economy at three and four times the rate of inflation, grew the size of government at three and four times the rate of inflation, year after year after year. We were spending at 8 and 12 percent, year after year, and that did not stimulate the economy. Indeed, that government spending, as you point out in your chart, from 1992 to 2001, if government spending was going to stimulate the economy, we would have a booming economy. The reality is, to stimulate the economy in this kind of circumstance, you have to put some cash back into it. The way government can do that is by cutting taxes.
John Shadegg: “For those of you who have been here a little less time than I have, I came in the 104th Congress and joined this body in…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of government spending and the need for tax cuts to stimulate the economy.
Share
More from John Shadegg
So this would be the first Federal mandate saying you must buy a product because the Federal Government tells you you must buy a product?
Ah, so it's Republicans who oppose this bill that are the pals of the health insurance industry? I don't think so. And you're telling me that in the one State where we've already tried this, a mandate that you must buy health insurance…
So the reason you wouldn't want to stand on the floor and vote for that Senate bill is not just because of the policy in it, it is because that bill will contain the Cornhusker Kickback, right?
Because of one word difference? One word difference. The Senate has already passed the Senate bill, the House has to pass that exact bill word for word. It can't have one word missing?





