John Sarbanes: “Members need to ask themselves whether they support the priorities reflected by these choices. For every dollar lost to…”

“Members need to ask themselves whether they support the priorities reflected by these choices. For every dollar lost to the Treasury in tax cuts, a dollar must be added to the Treasury through reductions in programs that are essential to many of our citizens. If there were no tax cuts, or if the tax cuts were less than what is being projected, we wouldn't have to cut the home health program. These two things--tax cuts and program cuts--have to be understood together, even though they have been separated into two bills. The fact of the matter is that the whole budget plan, in order to provide for upper income tax breaks, has to reduce programs to offset the cost of the tax breaks. And the vote we just had is one example of a program that is being reduced. So, in assessing this reconciliation bill that is before us, we need to ask ourselves whether providing tax breaks to the very well to do should be a higher priority than adequate funding for programs essential to the well-being of ordinary citizens. On each amendment we have to ask this very question: I repeat, is it more important to give a upper income tax breaks--and, in order to compensate for them, to cut programs such as the very program that we just voted on with respect to home health copayment, a program which clearly helps people at the very lower end of the income scale--or to preserve programs vital to ordinary Americans?”