I am one who is very skeptical about this bill. I am not quite sure what the President is accusing me of. What we asked is that a program be built from the bottom up that would be targeted at helping people who are in need, that would be targeted at helping to create jobs in a quick way, that will actually quickly create jobs that could stimulate the economy and that will not put a burden on future budgets and on future taxpayers by creating new permanent programs and mandatory spending that takes a long time to spend out. The Post then goes on to criticize the attempt of the President to pin on all of the opponents some ideological objection. As it notes: . . . Ideology is not the only reason that senators--from both parties--are balking at the president's plan. As it emerged from the House, it suffered from a confusion of objectives. Here is the point I wish to emphasize. When the President talked not merely of a prescription for short-term spending but a strategy for long-term economic growth, here is what the Post says: This is precisely the problem.…
Editor's note · Context
Expressing skepticism about a proposed economic stimulus bill during a Senate debate.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
Mr. Chairman, Representative Jacobs, the fact is that our current system has deteriorated and aged to the point that we wouldn't be confident in the deterrent value of it on out into the future.
One of the things that we noticed in this endeavor is there is a great attitude among the military, among the Defense Department generally in being able to succeed at a mission.
One of our recommendations concerns ways that we could potentially mitigate the risk of a deterrence gap.
let me speak a moment about this act. The sponsors, as you have just heard, and supporters like Senator Portman have proceeded with very good intentions. As you just heard, a compelling case for finding ways to help people who have made a…





