It promises to balance the budget by 2012 without raising taxes and with significant increases in both discretionary and mandatory spending. Basic math tells me this is impossible. The majority party's budget assumes the expiration of all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts by adding those revenues into the budget over time to bring it into balance. Chasing higher spending with higher taxes, Mr. Speaker, will fail to address the unsustainable growth of government and will undo everything our economy has accomplished. Even as our Nation faced tremendous challenges over the past few years, the strategy of economic growth through tax relief has delivered significant deficit reductions, including job growth. If we are to raise taxes to balance the budget, entitlements would quickly drive us right back into the deficit, just at a higher level of taxing and spending. With the retirement of the massive baby-boom generation looming, this situation will grow more serious, not less so. Most importantly, however, from an agricultural point of view, the majority party's budget promises more than $110 billion in increased mandatory spending in selected issue areas.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the majority party's budget resolution during a floor debate.
Share
More from Adrian Smith
My colleagues have sufficiently described the details of this bill, why we need to do it, and that we should do it immediately. I certainly urge my colleagues to support it so that we can get this done, especially to assist our men and…
Our bill, the Educational Choice for Children Act, is an innovative policy mechanism to provide deserving students of all backgrounds with more options to fund their education needs, something we should all be able to agree on.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Moore of Utah, for his efforts here today and certainly to all of my colleagues for having an exchange and conversation that I think is vital for our country. It is important that we always examine what is taking…





