I believe that the struggle we are in is a very significant and fundamental one. This is not a testosterone test. It is not an ego test. It is a fundamental struggle. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the 7-year balanced budget plan offered by my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it contains three significant features. No. 1, they significantly change the function, nature, and role of the Federal Government in the lives of people in this country. Nothing can be more fundamental than redefining the nature and the role of the Federal Government. I would argue that when we put down the Articles of Confederation and moved to a constitutional government, that brilliant minds thought that it was an important function, the role of the Federal Government in people's lives. To redefine that is very fundamental. Second, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to significantly reduce the size of the Federal Government and, third, significantly reduce the revenues designed to carry out the business of Federal governance. Nothing can be more fundamental than that struggle.
Ronald Dellums: “I believe that the struggle we are in is a very significant and fundamental one. This is not a testosterone test. It is…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a balanced budget plan on the role of the Federal Government.
Share
More from Ronald Dellums
This has not been a debate. This is a very complex issue. It takes some time to lay the basis of the foundation of the arguments on either side. But once we spend enough time laying down the basis of our respective positions, allowing us…
I took President Bush to court in order to preserve the prerogative of Congress when many of my colleagues did not have the heart to do it. This is not what this debate is about. This is not Congress' war-making power. This is about…
First of all, if we accept the argument by the previous speaker, then we would not be in the Sinai, we would not be in Korea. And if that is their position, step up to it and be real, step up to it and be consistent. But that argument is…
if you believe in one of the notions that one of my colleagues asserted, that people cannot move to peace because for years they have been killing each other, then we would still believe in the divine right of kings and the right of people…





