As I listen to this debate, I want to say that I and many of my colleagues agree that we must take the deficit seriously; but to do so, we have to not only examine spending cuts. We have to look at tax expenditures. This new rule that is being presented is literally less than 3 hours old. Since the Republicans have taken control, they have said simply-- and so most Americans understand this--that they will look at spending cuts as really being cost-savers for the government, but tax expenditures--tax cuts--maybe for the wealthiest Americans, maybe for certain companies--maybe some good, maybe some we would even agree with--will not be counted as part of a cost to government, as a reduction in the amount of revenue that we get into the government. They will simply ignore it, and the expenditures will just get added to the deficit. Just last week--and for weeks and weeks before that--they said deficit reduction was at the top of their agenda. It took them 3 hours to make that an untrue statement. They have simply already set up a situation where they can add trillions and trillions of dollars to the national deficit, and we can do nothing about it.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses concerns about deficit reduction and the treatment of tax expenditures in budget discussions.
Share
More from John Schwartz
I thank the ranking member. The Federal budget is a statement of our priorities and our values as a Nation. The budget needs to be fiscally responsible and reduce the deficit, meet our obligations to our seniors and our families and our…
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was shattering for Americans everywhere. For such an unspeakable act of violence to take place at an elementary school--a place of safety, learning and lively spirit--was devastating. My own sons…
I appreciate the opportunity to speak for just a couple of minutes on the legislation before us. I do support a transparent process that would better ensure that there's public information on the impact of sequestration which, of course…
On rollcall No. 177 I was unable to attend. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''





