I would just conclude with two points, because I agree with what the gentleman is saying, it resonates with me, and I am quite confident that it resonates on the part of most Americans who are dealing with this as a kitchen table issue. They would rather have their debt tax cut, reduce those deficits, than have a couple of dollars in a tax cut that really does not accrue to most average Americans. I want to just indicate that there are two lines of argument that I find fully specious, one being that somehow this PAYGO concept, pay as you go, for expenditures of the budget or tax expenditures, is somehow biased against cutting the budget. I think if we require the people running around here who want to cut taxes to have to pay for it, it will actually make it more likely that spending will be cut, not less. I must confess that the gentleman's rule, as I read it, is agnostic as to whether taxes should be cut or not. It is just you pay for it. I happen to want to cut the alternative minimum tax, which is creeping up on American families and is going to hit them like a sledgehammer over the course of the next couple of years. But I think, in fairness, people who care about that ought to be required to offset it in some fashion.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the PAYGO concept and tax cuts during a floor debate.
Share
More from Earl Blumenauer
Substance, not arbitrary deadlines, should drive the outcomes at the ministerial.
We should better safeguard people's rights and data while still protecting the global internet.
Had I been present for the vote today on Roll Call No. 221, Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 1243, I would have voted NAY. Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 222, H. Res. 1243, I would have voted ``no.'' Had I been…
This week we are having a public media summit in our Nation's Capital, with representatives from independent television stations from across the country. Thirteen years ago, the prospects were not particularly encouraging. We had just had…





