I think it is awfully easy inside the Beltway to lose sight of the decided benefits to balancing the budget. Jack, I do not know if you saw the article in today's Washington Post, but there was an article talking about, it reads, ``On Balance, Budget Deal Could Offer a $1,000 Bonus,'' and it talks about a study by several economists and it looks at the three benefits that would go with balancing the budget. One would be our children would not have to pay debt in the future because we would have not added another $1 trillion worth of Government spending, the economy would grow more, and we would see lower interest rates. But here in the Washington Post it is talking about a $1,000 bonus per family for balancing the budget. So I would say that one of the reasons probably the White House has gone back and forth on this number is it is easy to lose sight of those future benefits.
Marshall Sanford: “I think it is awfully easy inside the Beltway to lose sight of the decided benefits to balancing the budget. Jack, I do…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the benefits of balancing the federal budget during a floor speech.
Share
More from Marshall Sanford
The idea of Canada being a national security threat is something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in anybody's book.
We now have a Republican Party that is muted and silent on the issue of a bailout package which is what is being proposed in consequence to the tariffs that the administration itself imposed.
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…
Is it optimistic? Are we lulling ourselves to sleep based on forecasts that are relatively benign in what may prove not to be the case?





