Jim Nussle Quotes

To deal with entitlements we must either raise taxes, cut benefits, or borrow inordinate amounts of money.

Having billions of dollars immediately available to plug budget holes without raising taxes is very appealing. And to the delight of Wall Street investors, state and local governments often fail to ask the important questions or consider the long-term impact.

I don't have a firm line on balanced budgets.

Where we are now is we have resolved the revenue issue and the question is what are we going to do about spending. I wish the president would lead us in this discussion rather than putting himself in a position of having to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to discuss the single biggest issue confronting our future.

I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this [the national debt].

I served on the budget committee in the Senate, and I remember as vividly as if it were yesterday when we had a hearing in which Alan Greenspan came and justified increasing spending and cutting taxes, saying that we didn't really need to pay down the debt - outrageous in my view.

The bottom line is more tax money is going to be needed. Just how much will be the primary issue on the agenda when Congressional leaders meet with the President later today, Wednesday, May the 9th, 1990. And good morning, welcome to Today. It’s a Wednesday morning, a day when the budget picture, frankly, seems gloomier than ever. It now seems the time has come to pay the fiddler for our costly dance of the Reagan years.

It is day after day in this institution, borrow money, run up the debt, run up the deficits and then with a straight face say, we are going to repeal a tax that affects 1 percent of the American people, just 1 percent of the American people.

We have to deal with two issues. Spending and taxes.

A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.

People try to live within their income so they can afford to pay taxes to a government that can't live within its income.

I don't mind the government accruing debts as long as every dollar is spent effectively with a high return. That works out fine. If you accumulate debts and waste your money, that's, of course, a disaster.

There is a very serious fiscal-policy question of, 'Are we running our overall fiscal policy such that we as a government can pay our bills?'

I am fighting for those middle-class families who want us to deal with our debt and deficit, but they also want the investments that are critical to our country moving forward.

When the economy is growing, there's a lot that can be done to deal with the deficit.

If you don't get spending under control, eventually you're going to have a big tax increase.

The deficit is the symptom, but spending is the disease.

There are no uncontrollable outlays except for debt interest. Outlays are what they are due to legislation.

As a general rule, the demands of the current year, especially in time of peace, should be provided for by the revenues of that year.

One proposes raising the value of specie when the King's debts are large, and lowering it when his revenues were to come in, that so he might both pay much with a little, and in a little receive a great deal: another proposes a pretence of a war, that money might be raised in order to carry it on, and that a peace be concluded as soon as that was done; and this with such appearances of religion as might work on the people, and make them impute it to the piety of their prince, and to his tenderness for the lives of his subjects.

A national debt, properly funded and serviced, can be a potent instrument of national policy.

You have to tackle the real drivers of debt - that's mandatory spending, not discretionary.

If taxpayer money were limitless, we wouldn't need a budget at all.

In addition to reining in spending, taxes, tolls and fees, let's rein in how much the state borrows.

Congress must do what we said we would and find ways to pay for bills we propose so we don't leave future generations mired in debt.