The game that is being played, I say to my friend, is very clear today because the other side has been very clear that they have drafted this in a way that would have knocked out the deficit reduction package of August 1993. Now, I understand that the Senator was not for that. I was for it. I disagree with him. The Senator portrays it as a tax increase on all the American people. The fact of the matter is, it was a tax cut on the top 2 percent of the income, other than the gasoline tax. But the income tax rates affected the top 2 percent. Now, I understand the Senators on the other side have a very soft spot for the top 2 percent, but it seemed to me reasonable to do this and to try to address some of our Nation's problems. In any event, the situation could have been reversed. You could have been trying to push through a deficit reduction package that I opposed for one reason or another. The question is whether you are going to skew the Constitution in a way that a majority is not going to be able to make decisions.
On the recordFebruary 16, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a proposed deficit reduction package during a Senate debate.
Share
More from John Sarbanes
Apr 25, 2023
the majority of Americans agree that climate change needs to be addressed now--not 10 years from now or 100 years from now, but now.
Oct 17, 2023
The health of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed can only continue to improve through robust Federal, state, and local partnerships.
Apr 18, 2023
I do also want to commend my colleague, Representative Blunt Rochester, for the work that she has been doing.
Apr 10, 2024
I thank Congressman Mfume for organizing this very important and special tribute. It is a tribute, as you have already heard, to the six hardworking men who lost their lives during this collapse of the bridge on March 26. They got up that…





