the reason that I think in our Committee on the Budget there was not much talk about the positive notes on the President's budget is because the President's budget is full of tricks. It takes taxes and says we are going to have tax cuts, but then it restores all those tax cuts and ends up actually with a tax increase of $16 billion after the year 2002. It does not have many spending cuts so nobody is particularly offended. Technically it balances because of a gimmick. The President says, ``Look, if we're not on track by the year 2000, then I want you to take another $67 billion out of discretionary spending.'' That is more discretionary cuts than even the Republicans have suggested in that length of time. It is going to be impossible. It is pretending that it balances when it does not. I bet there are a lot of Democrats that are going to be unwilling to vote for the President's budget.
Editor's note · Context
Criticizing the President's budget proposal during a Budget Committee discussion.
Share
More from Nick Smith
people say that a truly great athlete is not only gifted himself, he makes those who play with him better. The same is true of President Reagan, who not only led the country, but restored America's confidence. He renewed our sense of…
the reason we are here is to make clear to the world that we are not going to have military conscription right now for active military duty. I introduced a bill last year, H.R. 3598, because I think we need to seriously discuss the…
I rise before you today in favor of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. Existing U.S. refineries are already operating at or near full capacity because this country hasn't added new refineries in almost three decades…
I oppose H.R. 2828, the California Water Bill because it preauthorizes wasteful projects. It forces federal taxpayers to pick up more than a $1.5 billion tab for a California-only project. It would not prevent taxpayers from getting stuck…





