A Quote by Bruce Bartlett

Democrats will play the old Washington game of calling reductions in the rate of growth of spending for any program a 'cut'. — © Bruce Bartlett
Democrats will play the old Washington game of calling reductions in the rate of growth of spending for any program a 'cut'.
I will say this: the central banks can actually support growth beyond a point. When there is no inflation, they can cut interest rates, and that is the way they support growth, but if you cut interest rate to the bone, there is nothing more to cut. It is very hard to support growth beyond that.
I have fought against excessive spending my entire career. And I got plans to reduce and eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending and if there's anybody here who thinks there aren't agencies of government where spending can be cut and their budgets slashed they have not spent a lot of time in Washington.
I've made a commitment that state spending in Vermont won't grow any more than the rate of inflation plus population growth.
Sometimes, tax rate increases create the very problems that the spending is intended to cure. In other words, the tax rate increases reduce economic growth; they shrink the pie; they cause more poverty, more despair, more unemployment, which are all things government is trying to alleviate with spending.
Any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.
The anti-tax-cut, soft-on-defense, big-spending Democrats will take the Democratic Party to the edge and maybe over.
You're having government spending on the economy being cut almost everywhere. That means that the only source of spending for growth has to come from borrowing from the banking system.
The rate of growth of the relevant population is much greater than the rate of growth in funds, though funds have gone up very nicely. But we have been producing students at a rapid rate; they're competing for funds and therefore they're more frustrated. I think there's a certain sense of weariness in the intellectual realm, it's not in any way peculiar to economics, it's a general proposition.
Make no mistake: I will work with both Democrats and Republicans to cut wasteful spending and reduce our debt in a balanced, responsible way.
When they call the slightest spending reductions 'painful', we will say 'If government spending prevents pain, why are we suffering so much of it?' And 'If you want to experience real pain, just stay on the track we are on.'
We pledge to you that we will create jobs. End economic uncertainty and make America more competitive. We will cut Washington wasteful spending and reduce the size of government. And we will reform Congress and restore your trust in government.
I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.
There's not gonna be any tuition cuts. There aren't gonna be any drastic reductions in salaries. And in fact when the subject of cuts comes up, the first thing that the opponents of cuts say, "You can't cut this faculty. You can't cut the salaries. You wouldn't save enough money, you can't go there."
The data does not support that high-income tax cuts are the main drivers of growth, so I don't think that uncertainty over what the tax rate will be for someone that makes a million dollars a year has that big an impact on the economic growth rate in the country.
One thing that Washington D.C. does not do well is cut spending.
I was chairman of the steering committee for agriculture when we set up the target of 4% growth rate. I had written that if you want to achieve 4% growth rate in agriculture, you should have 8% growth in animal husbandry and fisheries and 8% in horticulture.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!