I'm not running away from the fact that I had previously said I did not contemplate a major increase, and that was a fair statement of the Government's state of mind at the time I made that.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I think anybody who looks at my record will say I've been trying to cut government spending and make government live more like families do.
I'm for tax reform, not tax increases.
In cutting government, we cut a huge variety of programs, a lot of which I would have liked to see increase, and a lot of which I'd like to see decreased more.
Beware of politicians who tell you they'll do all these wonderful things for you for only a small tax increase. Those tax increases are never as small as you might imagine, and the benefits are always smaller than promised and/or imagined.
I am going to confront the old-fashioned negative thinking which says that all government needs to do to generate growth is cut worker and environmental protections, cut taxes on the rich and stroke 'fat cats' until they purr with pleasure. I'm completely repudiating the idea that government has to get out of the way.
I continue to vote against such spending increases, but sometimes I think some of my Republican colleagues forgot that we were sent here to shrink the federal government, not to grow it.
I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution.
In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.
You've got the Democratic Party that now depends on more government spending and actual building the dependence on government in order to increase their political party.
If you're opposed to the budget I submitted to the General Assembly, you're for a tax increase.