On the recordMarch 18, 2010
First, let me say I support the Senator's amendment. Both amendments have some merit. It is not unworthy to be talking about trying to tighten belts in every area of public spending, but some public spending is more important than others, and we ought to be judicious as we deal with it. The difference, as I understand, between these amendments is one says, Let's cut spending in one area, which is domestic discretionary spending, which is a rather small part of the budget, and it doesn't address the other issues of the spending that goes on through the Tax Code, the entitlement spending, and other larger issues as well. Even as we vote on these issues--and I intend to vote in support of your initiative, which I think is the right initiative--I have to say I don't think this is complicated in terms of what has happened to our country and what we have to do to put it back on track. You can't send kids off to war and then say we are going to charge all the costs of war. We have been involved now in the war against terrorism, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and not paid for a penny of it because throughout the last decade the President said we are going to make all of this emergency spending. Some of us said, Well, let's pay for it? And President Bush said, If you try to pay for it, I will veto the bill. So it is not particularly complicated to understand what has happened here. Government has to pay its bills.…