A Quote by Jason Chaffetz

We have seen an outrageous increase in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government. — © Jason Chaffetz
We have seen an outrageous increase in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government.
Over the last few years, we have seen too many politicians disregard the Constitution as they voted to increase the size and scope of government. I will use my legal experience gained as a federal attorney to hold them accountable.
The worst thing the federal government could do is to increase the size, reach and cost of government. If government failed in its response to the hurricane, the answer is not more inefficient government.
But no one has yet succeeded in reducing the size or scope of the federal government.
But no one has yet succeeded in reducing the size or scope of the federal government
Fiscal conservatism is just an easy way to express something that is a bit more difficult, which is that the size and scope of government, and really the size and scope of politics in our lives, has grown uncomfortable, unwieldy, intrusive and inefficient.
We also need to encourage Americans to become more fiscally responsible themselves. We can do this by redesigning our tax system into an expenditure tax with a single flat rate. ... We have to substantially reduce the size and scope of the federal government, fundamentally increase the role of the states in choosing their own practices, and bring decision-making closer to the people, not to unelected administrators. These steps are crucial to getting our nation on a path of fiscal, political and constitutional responsibility.
After almost 50 years in which federal spending averaged about 20 percent of GDP, Joe Sestak and Nancy Pelosi took federal spending to 25 percent. You know, that's a 25 percent increase in the size of the government overnight. That's what we - that's what we've got to rein in.
Do we want more of the same regulatory mission creep that has helped to harm America's poor and middle class? Do we want more of the policies that have stifled growth? Or do we want something else, something different, something that focuses on the need to reevaluate the size, the scope, the cost, the reach of the federal government?
You need to be intent on reducing size, scope, and influence of government.
In my life, I've seen everything, and one thing I know for sure is you can't win in the federal court. You're going against the government of the United States. You don't beat a federal court, a federal judge, and the FBI - there's no way.
Every year the Federal Government wastes billions of dollars as a result of overpayments of government agencies, misuse of government credit cards, abuse of the Federal entitlement programs, and the mismanagement of the Federal bureaucracy.
One of the reasons some of the advocates of ever larger government and more government intrusiveness get nervous about discussions of the actual cost of government is that they fear if the people had a discussion about what government costs, the true cost of taxes, that they might not want as much government as they are presently getting.
The central issue of our time - of all times - is the size, power and scope of government.
We can't be playing around with these issues [Zika disease], because this can become very serious very quickly, as we have seen in Brazil and other countries. The funds are going to be used at the state level, but it is important for the federal government to cooperate in the federal government's role.
President Obama wants to increase the size of government and raise taxes, while I support less government and more individual freedom.
There's an inverse relationship between the size and scope of government and the health of our free-market economy.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!