Does the Senator realize the Republican amendment locks in the Federal contribution at 100 percent for 5 years? Even if the State is successful in reducing the amount of people on welfare, your amendment locks the Federal Government into spending 100 percent for 5 years. If it is improper to lock the State into spending 90 percent, why is it proper to require the Federal Government spend 100 percent, even though you have fewer people on welfare?
John B. Breaux: “Does the Senator realize the Republican amendment locks in the Federal contribution at 100 percent for 5 years? Even if…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the implications of a Republican amendment on federal welfare spending.
Share
More from John B. Breaux
I will even go along with saying you can bring it back at 5 percent, if you are going to use it for job creation or research and development, for capital expenditures. And If you are going to use it to rebuild your pension fund for…
I think the whole debate politically about ending Medicare as we know it, I think we want to change Medicare.
There's not a lot of programs that we could say that the way we've run them we've actually made money while trying to help people by loaning them money.
this morning one of the very able legislative assistants who has worked on this legislation for almost 7 years, going back to the time on the Medicare Commission when we first started doing Medicare reform, was on the floor working with me…