Richard B. Nugent: “Thank you, Mr. Woodall. I certainly do appreciate it; and to my colleague from Florida on the other side of the aisle…”

“Thank you, Mr. Woodall. I certainly do appreciate it; and to my colleague from Florida on the other side of the aisle, once again, it is always a pleasure. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can politicians pat themselves on the back for cutting spending while actually increasing spending. That is a novel idea. Say, for example, we spent $100 on a program 1 year. The next year, we automatically assume that we are going to spend $103 on that same program, due to inflation. If we only end up spending $102 versus the $103, according to official government accounting, we have cut spending, but we increased spending by $2. In the real world--at least back home--you can't simultaneously cut spending while increasing spending and then say you cut spending. You can't do both. It is one or the other. Families don't budget this way. Businesses don't budget this way. It would have made my life a whole lot easier as sheriff if my budget automatically increased 3 percent because of inflation that may or may not exist within the program. If you change the baseline every year by inflation, no one has to justify what their increase is; but then, again, we live in this fantasy world called Washington, D.C. This is where we live today. The fantasy is that we can spend more money than you take in, and it will all work out in the end. We can be $17 trillion in debt today, but don't worry about it because it will get better on its own. How does it work? It doesn't work that way. Mr.…”