Grover Norquist Quotes

Well, no American wants to in any way hurt our capabilities to national defense, but that doesn't mean an unlimited amount of money, and a blank check for anything they want at any time, for any purpose. Not at all.

It is not how much you spend on defense as much as how you spend it.

At Concerned Veterans for America, we've made the case that the defense budget could be targeted for spending reform, but in a targeted fashion that genuinely changes unsustainable spending trajectories while preserving U.S. defense capacity.

I am not disputing the need for this money. What I am disputing and calling attention to is the fact that we are taking the tab for defense in our time against terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere and shoving this tab off onto our children.

I was able to promote a strong defense budget when it could have been cut a lot more severely.

We need to stop spending money on those weapons systems that do not advance national security.

[The] up-and-down pattern of [defense] spending over the last 18 years averages out to below zero percent real growth. In other words, if defense spending had followed a path of zero percent real growth, the U.S. probably could have obtained more defense for its dollar.

How much do we really need for the defense of the United States of America? Only the defense to defend its shores? Well I suppose that the maximum for the defense of our shores is one billion dollars. So the rest of our defense budget relates to what we regard as our responsibilities as a world power.

Balanced budgets have a lot to do with National Defense.

Beginning to dismantle the Pentagon would save $1 trillion a year - a small government proposal if ever there was one.

I read in the press, and therefore it must be true, that no secretary of defense had ever been quoted as arguing for a bigger budget for State.

We pay for the navy, and we have no commerce for the navy to protect; we pay for the army, and we loathe and execrate the work upon which it has been engaged.

In Congress, while the House's proposed defense budget calls for significant increases, it also cuts 11 billion dollars from veterans spending - including healthcare and disability pay. Be clear: we can't equate spending on veterans with spending on defense.

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

Today, the US spends less on defense as a percentage of our economy than we did at any time since he Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For the world's only superpower, that is an invitation to very serious trouble.

What I say is, national defense is the most important thing we do in Washington, but there's still waste in the military budget.

During the 2000 election, the current administration told our military, help is on the way. That is clearly not the case. The administration has failed to request the funds needed for the defense of this Nation. We must give the Army what it needs.

Let's push the Pentagon off the fiscal cliff.

Being a defense hawk and a budget hawk are not mutually exclusive.

If we can't find cuts in the defense budget, we're not looking carefully enough.

At the present time we are keeping our military expenditures below the…minimum which would in themselves ensure national security. By doing so we are able to increase our expenditures to assist in European recovery.

Sound principles will not justify our taxing the industry of our fellow citizens to accumulate treasure for wars to happen we know not when, and which might not, perhaps, happen but from the temptations offered by that treasure.

No state, without being soon exhausted, can maintain above the hundredth part of its members in arms and idleness.

When the greatest part of the [U.S.] budget pays for our defense and the livelihood of retirees, it is pointless to pretend that public spending is an embarrassment consisting only of welfare and waste.

There is no better constraint on the leader of a developing country than telling him that he has to pay cash for his weapons.