the administration comes in for a fair amount of criticism from our side of the aisle, and I think most of it is well directed. So when they do something that is positive and which is, in my opinion, proper policy, it should also be acknowledged. The administration's decision today, the White House decision, the decision of the President, as presented by the President's people at Treasury, Deputy Secretary Summers, to put in place a moratorium, or send up legislation to put in place a moratorium on any tax relative to transactions over the Internet which States might try to assess is the absolute right decision. I know that the Governors of the different States were in Washington this week, and that they made one of their priorities the ability to assess a tax on transactions which occur over the Internet. That is wrong. The Internet is obviously the last Wild West of American and world entrepreneurship. It is an explosive technology of which, as we all know, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. I can't think of any quicker way to retard that explosion of technology, creativity, entrepreneurship, and the prosperity which will arise from it, than to create a hodgepodge of taxation across this country assessed against the Internet by each State.
Judd Gregg: “the administration comes in for a fair amount of criticism from our side of the aisle, and I think most of it is well…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the administration's decision on Internet taxation during a floor speech.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
But there is no question that if you are going to address this issue in a way that has substantive impact on the future of our Nation, the prosperity of our children, and our standard of living, it is the second 10 years, and the third 10…
I think Simpson-Bowles got it right on this point. We reduced deductions and exemptions so that we generated $1.1 trillion of revenue every year.
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.
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.