In other words, I think your point is, Paul, that in our debate this week, first of all, almost all of the discussion is centered right over in this--it looks like Campbell's tomato soup on my chart here--it's in this section, and it's ignoring all of this which is equal to the entire revenue of the Federal Government. So you can see that you could cut this to zero, and you still aren't going to fix the problem. On the other hand, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for savings and cutting everything we can. But you are putting in perspective this whole week. I think that's tremendously helpful, Paul, to do that. And I think, as I recall, there is about $16 billion being taken out of defense which is not as deep a cut as what the non-defense discretionary is getting; is that correct?
W. Todd Akin: “In other words, I think your point is, Paul, that in our debate this week, first of all, almost all of the discussion is…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses budget cuts and their implications on federal revenue and defense spending.
Share
More from W. Todd Akin
I know the party voters took a look at our hearts, understood who we were, had a chance to meet us in many, many different ways, and made a decision, and it makes me uncomfortable to think that the party bosses are going to dictate who…
On rollcall No. 360 and 361, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 360 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 361. ____________________
Given that the new defense strategy focuses on only executing 1 major contingency operation, why would it not be prudent to keep at least 38 C-27Js, or more to reduce the assessed risk, in the inventory to meet warfighting requirements…
This bill doesn't cost any money. The people who want the I.D. card simply pay for it.





