Chris Van Hollen

I hope we will all take the same balanced approach to reducing the deficit as has been recommended by bipartisan commissions.

More of the same meaning cutting important investments, shredding the social safety net, and again protecting tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and for special interests.

Apparently, our Republican colleagues decided to put the taxpayer at risk instead.

That, Mr. Chairman, I think is a twisted result.

Our Republican colleagues continue to resist the balanced approach to deficit reduction that has been recommended by every bipartisan group.

Isn't it the case that, in passing this rule, we provide the process by which the budget will be implemented in the House of Representatives? Isn't that the case?

I think going forward, we should keep in mind this distinction between means-tested health programs and other programs.

I would argue, as well as probably most people on our side of the aisle, that the Affordable Care Act helped address a lot of these problems.

Part of the discussion too saying we want to move people from tax-eaters to taxpayers is part of this.

You cannot learn if you live in a violent, abusive neighborhood.

I think that this test-driven mentality that we have in the country has been a disservice to most of us.

I think it would be better if we tried to take the programs that work, try and refine them.

I am more than a little frustrated that we seem to have an inability to accept some of the successes.

If you look at their budget, they cut $800 billion out of Medicaid over 10 years.

First, I would observe that while spending on safety net programs is high now it is largely the function of the economic downturn.

The Republican budget cuts $810 billion from Medicaid.

It is one designed to tell Americans that these social safety nets are not necessary because people choose these safety nets over getting a job.

It ignores the advice of bipartisan commissions that say that any credible, responsible approach to reducing the deficit combines cuts.

There is a difference between reform and just taking a hatchet to important social safety net programs.

It attempts to balance the federal budget on the backs of the poor, by gutting federal spending on safety net programs.

The Republican budget refuses to eliminate one single tax break for the purpose of deficit reduction.

If our goal simply is to take a hatchet to part of the budget in order to meet certain targets while refusing to take a balanced approach, we cannot join in that effort.

It means that their budget hits everyone and everything else harder. That is simple math.

The people that are visiting your offices are terrified that the Republican approach to Medicaid will be adopted.

America absolutely must have taxes and safety net programs, even though they reduce the reward to working.