I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would make two quick points on the importance of tax reform. One, I would refer to an editorial that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. What it talked about was the nexus between deficits and tax reform. Oddly enough, if you look at the numbers here of late and if you look at the 2017 CBO report, what it shows is that, in fact, deficits are creeping up again. Last year's number is $668 billion. What they point to in this editorial was that a good part of the reason why deficits have escalated has been tied to anemic economic growth and that, unlike other recoveries that had been more robust in nature, the revenues had not come in as they have in past recoveries. As a consequence, deficits have exploded. So if you care about the deficits--and I do, and I know that the gentleman from North Carolina does, and I know that other members of the RSC do. If you care about deficits, then you have got to do something about tax reform this year was, in essence, the premise of the editorial. The other point I would make is this. In a capitalistic society, capital matters. In essence, it is a mathematical formula. Savings drives investment, which drives productivity gain, which ultimately impacts standards of living or wages, which we talk about. There are only two ways of increasing or improving human productivity.…
Marshall Sanford: “I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would make two quick points on the importance of tax reform. One, I…”
Share
More from Marshall Sanford
I guess my question to each one of you all would be, are we walking our way toward the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man, and are you abetting in that process?
I thank Chairman Shuster for agreeing to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford). The amendment was agreed to…
This is a bipartisan amendment that I wrote with Members Delaney, Duncan, and others, and I think it simply makes common sense. What it does is that it ensures the timely payback of advanced funds to a non-Federal sponsor. What does that…
I, humbly, 100 percent totally disagree with you on that one. I mean, if you look at the baseline over the next ten years, we're talking about $86 trillion of spending, right?





