the New York Times calls it budget bologna. The Washington Post dubs it budget theatrics. Even the Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici, our longtime Republican leader there, calls it a mockery. But no matter what it is labeled, the budget offered by the Republican leadership even at this late date is another example of their inability to conduct the Nation's business. As we have heard today, there is little appetite for a budget, even among many Republicans in this House and certainly in the Senate, that would wipe out the Energy and Commerce Departments, privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, eliminate the Legal Services Corporation and AmeriCorps, the national service program, and abolish a tax break for low income couples without children. Although the outrage from the American public has forced retreat on some of these proposals, the latest offering from the Republican leadership continues to be unrealistic and radical. It deviates from last year's balanced budget plan so much so that Office of Management and Budget Director Frank Raines calls it a rank repudiation of the balanced budget agreement on which we shook hands just 1 year ago.
Victor Fazio: “the New York Times calls it budget bologna. The Washington Post dubs it budget theatrics. Even the Senate Budget…”
Editor's note · Context
Criticizing the Republican budget proposal during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Victor Fazio
I think this is a very, very difficult concept to administer, and let me give my colleagues some examples as to how difficult it would be. If a Member is from Kansas City, Missouri, this places a much higher value on funds they would raise…
But it is rather ironic that this is presented as additional responsibilities for the Federal Election Commission when in fact, if my colleagues read the bill, there is no new authorization for what the report that accompanies the bill…
it is my understanding that crop insurance was not part of the legislation when it passed these individual Houses and was added simply on the same basis that the food stamp provision was. There is some inconsistency.
I did not serve here during the Watergate era. But in the 20 years I have been here, I have been greatly involved in ethics issues, serving on the Committee on Ethics for 8 years and leading on perhaps the most important bill of my career…





