You took out the pay-for provisions of what we submitted to the committee. You make us impact the deficit, although it is only a fraction to which the majority proposal impacts the deficit. We know you do not care about the deficits. In fact, there has been a $9 trillion reversal in the financial fortunes of this country within the last 2 years. We think enough is enough. We do not want to drive the deficit deeper and deeper, and that is why I so wish you would have allowed for the pay-for portion proposed to the Committee on Rules to be considered.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of proposed budget changes on the deficit during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Earl Pomeroy
By way of close, let me say that the legislation before us is important and reflects what has been a pattern of bipartisan work between the ranking member and myself as I have chaired the Social Security Subcommittee. I have enjoyed…
The notion that we are going to allow credit for risk ceded without any looking at whether or not there is a creditworthy partner providing the backstop, to me is just mind-boggling.
Well, we now know the truth. It grew like a great big souffle. It was air, over-leveraged air; and it collapsed.
For the last five sessions I have worked to try and clarify the rate of estate taxation in this country. I felt the right approach was ultimately to take the 2009 levels and make them permanent. The amendment that carries my name in this…





