Only in Washington can we have the debate over how desperately New York and the U.N. needs $100 million, while simultaneously arguing that not giving that money to the U.N. would not result in any savings for the U.S. taxpayer. If money is vital in one account, how can it be worthless in another? The truth is that CBO is restrained in its analysis; and because of those rules it is forced to observe, it reached the conclusion that having the U.N. repay the U.S. $179 million would have no impact on our balance book. How can getting $179 million from the U.N. not be counted as savings? Does any person who has ever balanced a checkbook believe this to be true? Of course not.
Jeff Duncan: “Only in Washington can we have the debate over how desperately New York and the U.N. needs $100 million, while…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses the financial implications of U.S. contributions to the U.N. and related legislation.
Share
More from Jeff Duncan
It is interesting that the gentlewoman across the aisle mentioned Ukraine because as the majority leader so succinctly pointed out, Joe Biden's policies of shutting down American energy production is actually funneling money to Vladimir…
We are showing how misguided this $27 billion green bank is, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) knows about fossil fuel production and what this would mean to the great State of Pennsylvania that produces a lot of energy. Mr…
This election is going to be determined by a group of folks that don't like the - almost every one of Joe Biden's policies, or a majority of those policies. But they just are going to have to wake up and feel like he's a safer option to…
I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.





