The alleged protection that the Senator from Mississippi seeks to impose for defense spending here applies only to the incremental cut, the Grassley-Exon cut, and that is all. I know this is somewhat confusing, but as I read this thing--and clearly, as the Senator from Georgia perceives it--there is no protection for the remaining portion of discretionary spending. In short, given the fungibility of money, this amendment does not protect military spending at all, as far as this Senator is concerned, and I think my views are well known on that. I would like to see military spending take its chances just with all of the other discretionary spending. But if it is the intent of the Senator from Mississippi to fence off and wall off military spending and protect it, this amendment simply does not do it. All it does is simply wall off that portion of the Grassley-Exon cut as you take this out of Defense. All the rest of this big pool of money is there, and the appropriators can do as they wish with it.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to defense spending during Senate debate.
Share
More from James Sasser
That is a quick overview of the tax changes. Let us see what is happening on the spending side. I am sorry to say, the picture gets worse. It deteriorates even more. The fact is, this plan pays for its tax breaks by taking away health care…
More than 70 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries have annual incomes of $30,000 or less. Asking these people--the retired elderly, 70 percent of whom make $30,000 or less--to give up some of their benefits could create very real…
But it would not be effective really in safeguarding the discretionary spending from being raided.
let us just consider this $500 child credit here. Our colleagues have characterized this proposal as a middle-class tax cut. The truth is, nothing could be further from the truth. Let us just consider how this credit works. For families…





