Ken Buck Quotes

Someone has to stay on the line and say, no, we can do this by cutting spending and reducing the size of government. That's what I was committed to doing.

Our morbidly obese federal government needs not just behavior modification but bariatric surgery.

If you ask people do you think that government should spend less money than what it takes in, most people agree with that.

Memo to Congress: America's problem is not that government is too small. It's the spending, stupid!

What you really want to do is sit down and find a place that you can control government spending and raise more revenue.

I came to Congress to help reduce spending.

In a clean break from the Obama years, and frankly from the years before this president, we will keep federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, or less. That is enough. The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government, and we choose to limit government.

The question is: How do we reduce spending from 25% of GDP, which is where Obama put us? The focus is on total government spending. Can we bring it down, in a reasonable and politically acceptable way? That's what the Paul Ryan plan does. It puts us on a gradual reform path to reducing the size of government.

The goal is to reduce the size and scope of government spending, not to focus on the deficit. The deficit is the symptom of the disease.

Taxes are forever; spending cuts are transitory.

Certainly, cutting spending is one of the things that can transcend to the federal government. I mean, I think the federal government has grown by leaps and bounds, and they need to look where do they need to cut.

We should reduce total government spending as a percentage of the economy. The left wants to focus on the deficit so they can take us away from the focus on spending as a percentage of the economy.

I don't believe we need any more taxes. We need to curtail the size of government. That seems to be a common thread among a majority of Americans out there that understand that we have to limit the size and scope of our government.

The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending.

Look, I am not worried about Washington cutting too much spending too fast. I mean, the kinds of spending cuts we're talking about just right now are $100 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget.

The problem is government spends too much. So raising taxes is what politicians do, instead of reducing spending.

Sadly, far too many politicians in Washington lack the courage to do something to fix our problems. They are worried about the political implications of making the hard choices we so desperately need to cut spending and shrink government.

I think you're going to see a number of Democrats that do want to see us grapple with spending.

You eventually have to figure out how to balance the books. So that's the reason I gave up my day job to come do this was to go fight to create the space where spending matches America's capacity to tax, and that means economic growth and a smaller, humbler federal government.

Government spending clearly needs some adjusting. But a budget is a statement of our priorities, and balancing our spending on the backs of our nation's seniors is not the right approach.

Instead of raising taxes as some would insist, we need to reduce waste and inefficiency in government.

Most of the major increases in the debt ceiling have been accompanied by structural changes in the way we raise and spend money.

I’d cut down government spending and I’d move to keep down the size of government, too.

We are the ones that are trying to get Washington spending under control so it can live within its means.

But I think the global economy will understand that the United States has the ability to meet its obligations. But it's not going to be able to do it over the long term if we can't control the growth of government.