If the family budget was compared with the Federal budget, what this would mean if a family faced a crisis, they would have to come up with two hundred bucks. You would say to some families, on a $30,000 joint income, two hundred bucks is a lot of money. But you know what? If it was an emergency, they would figure it out. They wouldn't go borrow two hundred bucks. They would figure out ways here and there to cut their own family budgets. They wouldn't wait until the end of the year and save it for the budgeteers. They would not say we are going to cut people and throw them out on the street. They wouldn't say their kids are not going to be able to get shoes and starve. Come on, don't be ridiculous. There is nobody out there that believes that for one second that this giant Federal budget cannot be cut 1 percent to fit this in for victims of an earthquake. In an emergency. I think it is unconscionable to tell people from the well specifics that are not true, that are not in any way intended in this bill or even facts within the language.
Jim Nussle: “If the family budget was compared with the Federal budget, what this would mean if a family faced a crisis, they would…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses the need for budget cuts in response to emergencies, comparing family and federal budgeting.
Share
More from Jim Nussle
If men were angels, quoting James Madison, we would not need all of these controls.
I thank the gentleman. We will have more discussion about this during the debate on his amendment. I withdraw my reservation. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the new form of the amendment is considered as read. There was no…
except the gentleman forgot Osama bin Laden, and I thank the gentleman for that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee, so maybe he can answer some of the…
I believe I have the time, and I have not yielded. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has not yielded. Parliamentary Inquiry





