Isn't it generally likely that if we use the Tax Code to distort economic activity on balance we are going to have less economic growth than we would have if we allowed the marketplace to allocate capital instead of political people?

So structural reforms in a program are likely to have more enduring results than long-term caps designated. Would you agree with that?

If you don't think that hospitals and doctors practice defensive medicine, you are absolutely crazy.

My point is over this 10-year period, we have seen huge growth in nondefense discretionary spending.

Isn't it true that as recently as 2007 the current tax rate structure yielded revenue that was about 18.5 percent of GDP?

I am sure you would agree that when it comes to its impact on economic growth, not all Government spending is equal.

The current law baseline is not meant to be a predictor of the future.

Wouldn't that tend to enhance growth and, therefore, enhance revenue to the Government?

It is our health-care costs that is driving the deficit and debt crisis that we have.

I think it is abundantly clear that it is the investment of accumulated capital that makes economic growth possible.

At the end of the day, there is no free lunch, and a Government spending expansion here is actually going to do more harm than good.

I think it underscores how important it is that whatever we do attempts to create an environment to maximize growth.