Vicky Hartzler Quotes

Cost effectiveness and effectiveness are not always the same thing in government.

There's no federal government agency that ought to be immune from having to explain the potential financial impact of an action they've taken or intend to take. We deserve the specifics.

In a mature democracy any proposed policy should be subjected to a close analysis of its likely benefits and costs.

Earmarks have become a symbol of a Congress that has broken faith with the people. This earmark ban shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington.

So I went into government with a clear mind about what the problems were, and what needed to be done.

Let's do away with the Departments of Education, Energy Commerce, Housing and Urban Development.

The Pentagon budget, like all government spending, is an expression of priorities.

All policy is a matter of gains and losses, upsides and downsides.

Let me just say that while I personally am very fond of John Boehner, his record of predicting what would happen if certain policies, economic policies were instituted is abysmal, okay?

One answer is that the town's elected officials thought that the project served a public purpose and that the various subsidies and favors were worth the price. But they may or may not have thought this.

The Obama Administration continues to talk about the 'policies of the past' and insist that a return to those policies will lead to disaster.

And, Mr. Speaker, if the Governor and Council don't see fit to fall in with us, I say let the general duty law, and all, go to the devil, sir, and go about our business.

Government is about hard choices.

Every dime spent is a political decision made.

I do not think we can get any legislation this session for extension of land grants unless we pay more for it than it is worth.

Government does not have basic business sense.

The costs of not doing these things dwarf the costs of doing them. The problem is that people don’t think about ‘Oh you saved my life’ and they don’t say thank you for that—and they don’t want to spend any money for the possibility of saving their life unless they are actually facing something. What government should be about is leading from the front and explaining … that people don’t want to spend any money, but … it costs more money to not do it... New York City’s average life expectancy is three years longer than any place else in America.

We don’t care what the cost-benefit is. We’re going to build it somehow because Congress says it’s going to be built.

What begins in Washington as simple, garden-variety grasping becomes an entitlement, the argument being that the longer the benefit has lived, the more the beneficiaries have built their lives around it, so ending it would be disruptive.

If they saw the enormity of it up front, they might decide they have a choice. They might say that the cost to the taxpayer is too high. The deficit has to look big enough to be important but not too big that it spoils everything.

I prefer to work at the policy level, on trying to fix flawed government policies.

Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move.

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans loved the CBO because it tells the conservatives the thing that matters most to them which is how much is it going to cost taxpayers.

To a certain extent, I have to be the president's bad cop from time to time. I have to look people in the eye and tell them, 'No, we don't have enough money for that.' That is not a very popular thing to do in Washington.

When you compare the relatively modest tax that will ensue from prohibiting companies from receiving a subsidy and deducting that subsidy, the benefits dramatically outweigh the costs.