I note with chagrin that because neither Republicans nor Democrats have the high ground on spending, something has to be done, and I would suggest at some point we have to begin. Maybe it is with this amendment, maybe it is not with this amendment, maybe it is with something else. But let's talk about spending. On our watch, on the Republicans' watch, family income grew from 1995 to 2004 by 8.2 percent. Pretty good. Not bad. We could all wish it had been better. But what did Republicans do on spending? Republicans grew Federal outlays by a staggering 25 percent. You are right, we don't have much high ground to talk about. But when, then, will we start? And who will it be that starts?
John Shadegg: “I note with chagrin that because neither Republicans nor Democrats have the high ground on spending, something has to be…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for accountability in government spending during a debate.
Share
More from John Shadegg
That's what we call defensive medicine, which means a doctor defending himself in advance or practicing defensive medicine because he is afraid he's going to get sued and has to be able to respond to that suit.
I presume that makes those Senators who got these deals into the bill that aren't going to be stripped very happy.
Wait, the gentleman's telling me that never before in Federal law have we ordered people to buy a particular product, that we don't do that in Federal law as a routine matter?
But wait. But wait. Without a 2,700-page bill, you couldn't hide the Cornhusker Kickback. You couldn't hide the Gator Aid. You couldn't hide the Louisiana Purchase. I haven't even gotten to all of them yet, but go ahead.





