I don't consider $300 billion a small amount of money. Now, maybe it is a small amount of money in North Dakota, but I do know that $300 billion would run the State of New Hampshire for I think approximately 10 years. Maybe it would only run the State of North Dakota for a couple of years, because I know you have big budgets up there, but I think it is a lot of money, $300 billion.
Discussing the significance of $300 billion in relation to state budgets.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
I would suggest that on issues that involve all Americans, where pretty much everybody is affected, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and tax reform, that if you push forward in a partisan way, at least 50 percent, maybe a little less…
Your careers may end happily before the reckoning. Your reelections may not be threatened by your inaction. But your consciences should be.
I think Dr. Rivlin is absolutely correct on both points, and Simpson-Bowles did the same thing that Domenici-Rivlin did, which was to actually increase benefits to single women over 85, and low-income individuals.
In Hillary's case, it's a big issue, because of her -- because of the challenges that she has on the ethical side. In Trump's case, it's a big issue, because he's so erratic.