We do not have a revenue problem in D.C. or this county. We have a prioritization problem. When you create the priorities you fund the priorities of the country and you stop spending money when you get to zero.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Government does not have a revenue problem; government has a spending problem. Government does not have a revenue problem; government has a priority problem. It is time that we begin to fine tune our focus and decide what the priority of government ought to be.
My goal in getting rid of tax loopholes is not to raise taxes. Our problem in Washington, D.C. is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem.
I run a taxpayer group - the most powerful guy in D.C., nonsense. OK? There are buildings with thousands of people in them, all lobbying for more spending and higher levels of spending and more government commitments. And there are a handful - a handful of groups that fight for less spending.
When I became governor, spending actually increased 28 percent my first term. Revenue increased 42 percent my first term without raising anybody's taxes. We did it because we had more taxpayers with more taxable income. That's how you get the revenue up. We did that without raising anybody's taxes.
Washington does not tax too little: it spends way too much.
If we want to increase revenue, we need more taxpayers. The way to do that is employ more people.
If you are spending too much, you cut back on spending and you raise your revenues. And that's it.
The reality is that during the Reagan years, for instance, we doubled the amount of revenue that we were sending to Washington, D.C. after the tax cuts took effect.
We sincerely believed that we don't tax too little in Washington. We spend too much.
So, the point I'm making is, we are not going to cut spending in Washington if we think it's the job of every congressman and senator is to pave local parking lots and build local sewer plants. These parochial interests are getting in the way of the national interests.
No opposing quotes found.