I strongly oppose this so-called tax compromise because it represents a windfall for the wealthy, a windfall that will result in one thing and one thing only: insufficient funds for all other social programs. By holding assistance for the unemployed hostage and giving tax breaks to the billionaires, tax breaks actually that create absolutely no jobs, we will create a big hole, a big hole in all of the support that we need for our children, for women, for veterans, for our education and health programs, and that only names a few, Mr. Chairman. Rather than tax breaks for the wealthy, we need policies that create jobs, jobs that will help our working families. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed tax package because it will yield only one thing, and that is insufficient funds for any of the social programs we need in our country.
Editor's note · Context
Woolsey opposes a tax compromise, arguing it benefits the wealthy at the expense of social programs.
Share
More from Lynn C. Woolsey
There was a very compelling op-ed piece in The Washington Post last week by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker. In it, he paid tribute to the many American civilians who are risking their lives doing important humanitarian work…
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the following: Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made…
The gentleman from the other side of the aisle is not correct on this. If the President signed the bill, the regulation would be stopped. In closing, Madam Chair, the adoption of my amendment will save the lives of Americans who work in…
We'll be spending the next several days debating the Department of Defense budget, a whopping $519.2 billion. By anyone's accounting, that's a lot of money. What we won't be debating is the future of our presence in Afghanistan. You'd…





