Pat Toomey

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

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

I think we should be very conscious of the fact that reducing tax expenditures, it matters very much which ones and how we were to go about doing it.

This is the most pro-growth thing we can do is to fundamentally reform our Tax Code.

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

My preference would be that we move in the direction of a more territorial system.

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

Some encourage economic growth more than others?

I just want to underscore, I think this is a problem with the scorekeeping methodology.

That suggests to me that it is very dangerous to delay making meaningful reform.

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

If we can have policies that will encourage maximizing economic growth, all problems are easier to solve with a strong, growing economy.

The main reason that total revenue as a percentage of GDP is so much lower than the historical levels is because we have an economy that is still effectively in a recession.

If we tolerate or aggravate the current deficit problem with the promise that we will work it all out in the future, that is a very, very dangerous direction to head in.

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

Isn't there a danger that the magnitude of the debt is already impeding economic growth?

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.

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

I would argue that it is already happening.

The requests made by this particular vocal minority seek only to preserve the system of checks and balances embodied in the Constitution.

At a time when our Nation's unemployment rate is over 9 percent, this would be a very dangerous gamble.

Our pursuit of better consumer protections should not require us to compromise our basic Constitutional values.

No one person should have so much unfettered power over the American people.

There could not be a worse time, I believe, to give an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat a blank check.

Unless the Bureau is reformed, it is only a matter of time before this concentration of power is abused.