So when you contrast that, that cut in jobs, the cuts that would be part of the Republican budget plan, adopted by this House, would grow the deficit because if we're arguing that employment reduces the deficit, unemployment, in contrast to the American Jobs Act, would drive up the deficit. It's going back to the failed policies of the past. We've fought two wars that were never put on budget. We offered trillions in tax cuts that we couldn't afford, and we avoided talking about paying for the war. Did we think there wasn't going to be a crash? Did we think that that behavior wouldn't come with a price? Of course it had to extract a price from the American society, and it was the loss of 8.2 million jobs; it was the loss of as many as 800,000 jobs a month. It was about bringing America's economy to its knees and draining trillions of dollars from households that trusted that their investment with the private sector, with the financial industry was going to return them lucrative dividends. We saw the failure of those policies. Why would we go back down that road, which seems to be what the Republican plan, the Republican budget, is all about?
Share & report
More from Paul Tonko
I was using that to set in context my comments because, again, waste addressed in an efficiency exercise is important, but ironically, today, we are finally on the House floor talking about an EPA rule that reduces actual, literal waste…
When Americans get behind the wheel, when they want to drive their cars, they put it in ``R'' to go reverse and then they put it in ``D'' to go forward. Just as in the House here, the Rs want to take us backward, and the Ds want to drive…
I thank Representative Beyer for joining us in this fight and for his very challenging observations that he has shared. His activism on behalf of this bill and science, in general, is most appreciated. Mr. Speaker, within the first few…
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 88. personal explanation





