I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for raising what I think is such a fundamental point with regard to government spending. It really raises the crossroads I think that we are at as a society. Because in my mind, I keep going out to about 2025, which you well illustrate on that chart. And at that point, we are only going to have enough money for interest and entitlements and nothing else, without either raising taxes substantially, cutting benefits substantially, or running very large deficits going forward. And ultimately, there comes a point of no return, as you correctly point out with your charts, wherein the world financial markets won't lend you anymore. So I think you are on to a remarkably important theme, and I think it underscores the degree to which we are going to have an important debate in this Chamber in really the next month because what the President has essentially said is that I am not going to deal with this. If you look fundamentally at the White House budget, at the core, it abandons this notion of financial discipline. I mean, it adds $2.2 trillion of new taxes. It adds $8.5 trillion of new debt. It goes from running structural $500 billion deficits to $1.1 trillion deficits, with no end in sight to the deficits that continue to grow. So this theme that you are getting on with regard to the mandatory component and the interest component of government spending I don't think can be underscored enough.…
Marshall Sanford: “I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for raising what I think is such a fundamental point with regard to government…”
Share
More from Marshall Sanford
I will take that as a yes, that Milton Friedman was right, that ultimately an important measure toward making government more efficient is, in fact, making it smaller.
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 40, line 21, strike ``in lieu of'' and insert ``or''. Page 41, line 1, strike ``in lieu of'' and…
It's nefarious, it's awkward, it's unpleasant, it's unseemly, it's not something people feel that comfortable talking about, but frank, it's something we ought to talk about because it is a big deal.
Are we the party of Donald J. Trump or are we the party of the ideals of conservative philosophy, market principle, limited government that we've always been about for a long time?





