BACHMANN: And remember it's a deficit to government but it's not a deficit to people who get to keep their money. So it's how you frame it. I don't think letting people keep their own money should be considered a deficit.
JOHN ROBERTS [CNN]: But it is, though, because it adds to the federal deficit.
BACHMANN: No, you're right about that, John, that it is to the government, but remember what we could also be doing right now: Cutting back on spending. We've had the biggest increase in spending in the last two years that anyone can remember in modern times. We can also cut back spending to that level and that's not on the table right now.Since her prized legislation will be the largest increase to the federal deficit since the Bush tax cuts were rammed through Congress in 2001, Bachmann wants to change the definition of "deficit."
VIEIRA [The View]: But how — how do you justify adding more money to the deficit, that much more?
BACHMANN: Well remember, that money is — when people are allowed to keep their own money, that's considered a deficit. I don't — I don't agree with that definition. When people keep their own money, that's considered a deficit to government, but it's not a deficit to your pocket or mine, so I think it's important that people can keep their money.So she admits cutting taxes adds to the deficit. But doesn't want to define it that way since it will allow people to keep more money.
In the reality-based community the only way for tax cuts not to add to the deficit is if spending levels are adjusted to make up for the loss of revenue. When asked point blank just a few weeks ago by Anderson Cooper on CNN what she would cut from the budget Rep. Bachmann could not name one single program she would cut. But yes, let's change the definition of "deficit" just in time for people like Bachmann to takeover. This is going to be a fun two years.
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment