I am most concerned that most of the agreements that are made wind up with tax increases because the spending cuts are not real. Is it possible to give another possibility of how this could evolve? While I think the tax increases could be permanent but the spending cuts never occur, a common tactic is to have an asterisk saying, ``Specifics will come at a later date.'' Is it possible under a balanced budget amendment to do that; that is, to have illusory spending cuts but the tax increases be real?
Mark Souder: “I am most concerned that most of the agreements that are made wind up with tax increases because the spending cuts are…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about tax increases and spending cuts in relation to a balanced budget amendment.
Share
More from Mark Souder
Apparently, our ground rules here are: We praise the vets on Saturday and punish them on Sunday. To my friend from New Jersey, this afternoon we did a supposed fix for TRICARE, because the Senate bill, basically, unless you're 65 and over…
Actually my main subject I want to cover tonight is Israel, but I didn't want today to pass again without making comments about the health care bill, because clearly that is the number one subject on the minds of the people in Indiana as…
as the representative in Congress of Fort Wayne, Indiana--home to an estimated 3,000 to 3,500 people from Burma, the greatest population of Burmese in the United States--I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 317. Over the last year…
the proposal to end the FFEL program and replace it with direct federal student lending will have negative consequences on students, it is fiscal madness and the alleged financial benefits to the federal government are likely illusionary.





