John Spratt: “when I was last up here on the rule, we had this chart here which shows what happens, the damage done to the deficit, to…”

“when I was last up here on the rule, we had this chart here which shows what happens, the damage done to the deficit, to the bottom line. It is $426 billion this year, $494 billion, totalling $4 trillion over 10 years. I ask the question: Is there not a better way? Indeed, we had a better way. We had an alternative which, for no impact on the deficit long term, we could have added, according to the macroeconomic economic adviser's model, the same one they are using, 1 million new jobs stimulating the economy to that effect in calendar year 2003 for seven times the amount of money. For the $550 billion tax cut here, we only get 600,000 jobs. Why would they not at least allow us to come here in the well of this House, this free market, this forum for America, and present what is manifestly a better plan if we want to create jobs, twice as many jobs as their proposal will create, and it has no long-term effect on the budget? That is because what we are going to do here is start up the economy, but we are not going to increase the deficit and the idea is because that will stifle growth and kill jobs. We had a better plan, and they would not let us offer it. The question is why.”