shultz, former secretaries of -- he was secretary of three things, including treasury; and john taylor, who is a stanford economics professor. they wrote this op-ed in the "wall street journal." i'll just quote two short paragraphs. they start out by saying "wanted: a strategy for economic growth, full employment and deficit reduction all without inflation." they say "experience shows how to get there. credible actions that reduce the rapid growth of federal spending and debt will raise economic growth and lower the unemployment rate, higher private investment, not more government purchases, is the surest way to increase prosperity. when private investment is high, unemployment is low. above all, they say, the federal government needs a credible and transparent budget strategy. it's time for a game changeer, a budget action that will stop the recent discretionary spending binge before it gets entrenched in government agencies." and they conclude by saying "we need to lay out a path for total federal government spending growth for the next year and later years that will gradually bring

schultz and john taylor.ylor and george becker are economist professors -- becker at the university of chicago, taylor at stanford university. george shultz is former secretary of labor, secretary of treasury, and secretary of state. all three are affiliated with the hoover institution. and in this article present, i think, the real answer to the two key problems that face us today. i'd like to ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks that this piece called "time for a budget game changer" be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: we don't have enough jobs in this country, is one of the key problems, we need to get the economy growing and we're having to borrow far too much money because of government spending. what this piece points out is there's a direct relationship between the two. now that's not too surprising, of course. the bottom line is that government borrowing and spending distorts the market by making less money available for private sector to inve

this chart is based on a chart produced last week by an economist at stanford university, john taylor. what it shows is the difference between what the president wanted to spend this year and what we will actually spend this year when this bill passes. the difference, $78.5 billion less than what the president requested. nower there are some who want to say that this bill is just more of the same. well, if you believe that it's more of the same, this chart will show you the direction of federal spending over the last couple of years. on that 1/3 of the budget that we call discretionary spending that we fight over all year. it couldn't be more stark. it's like driving down the highway and throwing your car into reverse and instead of spending more and more and more, guess what? we're actually going to spend less in the discretionary budget this year. now there are some press articles who have picked up on some spin from our colleagues across the aisle suggesting that the bill will result in smaller savings than advertised between now and september. and it's just not the case. it comes

john taylor, a noted economist from stanford, gary becker, a nobel laureate in economics, george shultz, former former -- three different secretaries, serving in two different cabinets, all experts in financial fiscal matters, and what they wrote in this -- and they called it "time for a budget game changer" is the following two sentences: "credible actions that reduce the rapid rate of growth of federal spending and debt will raise the economic growth and lower the unemployment rate. higher private investment, not more government purchases, is the surest way to increase prosperity." so, mr. president, what we're talking about here is not drastic cuts for austerity's sake, but rather sensible reductions to create prosperity in this country. that's what we're talking about doing here. that's why i support what speaker boehner has been trying to do, and i urge my colleagues, instead of, as i said, throwing rotten apples at each other here and trying to preach a doom and gloom game, let's focus on what this country can do in a positive and constructive way to get our economy going again an

this chart is based on a chart produced last week by an economist at stanford university, john taylor. what shows is the difference between what the president wanted to spend this year and what we will actually spend this year when this bill passes. the difference, $78.5 billion less than what the president requested. nower there are some who want to say that this bill is just more of the same. well, if you believe that it's more of the same, this chart will show you the direction of federal spending over the last couple of years. on that 1/3 of the budget that we call discretionary spending that we fight over all year. it couldn't be more stark. it's like driving down the highway and throwing your car into reverse and instead of spending more and more and more, guess what? we're actually going to spend less in the discretionary budget this year. now there are some press articles who have picked up on some spin from our colleagues across the aisle suggesng that the bill will result in smaller savings than advertised between now and september. and it's just not the se. it comes down to

but the nobel prize laureate garry becker, a superb economist john taylor, secretary of state george schultz did a "wall street journal" article recently noting that under our spending, the spending now is 24.1% of g.d.p. if the house bill that cuts spending by $61 billion were passed, we would be spending 20.0%, one-tenth of one percent reduction in spending from that calculation. i thank the chair and would yield the floor to my colleague. and i am delighted to have him in the senate. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- a senator: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman for yielding and come here tonight one more time. i am a very short-term member of the united states, only about three months, but every time i have spoken on the senate floor i have talked about the importance of reining in spending, the crippling nature of our national debt and the bef that if we don't take care of these issues, the future of our nation is at stake. mr. moran: one of the reasons i have for serving in this senate is to turn this country around for our children an

this chart is based on a chart produced last week by an economist at stanford university, john taylor. what it shows is the difference between what the president wanted to spend this year and what we will actually spend this year when this bill passes. the difference, $78.5 billion less than what the president requested. nower there are some who want to say that this bill is just more of the same. well, if you believe that it's more of the same, this chart will show you the direction of federal spending over the last couple of years. on that 1/3 of the budget that we call discretionary spending that we fight over all year. it couldn't be more stark. it's like driving down the highway and throwing your car into reverse and instead of spending more and more and more, guess what? we're actually going to spend less in the discretionary budget this year. now there are some press articles who have picked up on some spin from our colleagues across the aisle suggesting that the bill will result in smaller savings than advertised between now and september. and it's just not the case. it comes

in a recent article, john taylor, an economics professor at stanford; gary becker, nobel prize winner; and george shultz, former secretary of labor, treasury and state, quote -- and i quote -- "credible actions that reduce the rapid growth of federal spending and debt will raise economic growth and lower the unemployment rate." end of quote. and then they say it again, higher private investment, not more government purchases, is the surest way to increase prosperity. end of quote. so, madam president, we duesing government spending can increase -- reduce being government spending can increase government productivey and jobs. president obama sought to stimulate the economy and create jobs by spending trillions of dollars. what has that the that gotten us? record deficits, excess borrowing and it's gotten us stubbornly high unemployment. chairman ryan's budget also calls for tax reform through sensible and growth-promoting policies. the budget contemplates a top tax rate of 25% for individuals and businesses. currently the tax rate on business is 35%, the highest of all of the countries

to include a "wall street journal" op-ed from april april 4 by gary becker, george shultz and john b. taylor that points out that the numbers in the house of representatives' proposal would have the federal government spend for the rest of the year basically what we spent in 2008 plus an allowance for inflation. and there's no reason, the authors say, why the government agencies from treasury and commerce to the executive office of the president can't get by with the same amount of funding that they spent in 2008 plus increases for inflation, so this would be a reasonable first step as we get to the larger issue of how we reduce the debt over a longer period of time. i ask consent to include that in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, last month marked the one-year anniversary of president obama's signing into law -- signing the health care bill into law. i believe it was a historic mistake. and we talk about the health care law in a variety of ways. one thing that we have said is that at a time when our country needs to try to make it easier a

john f. kennedy. richard nixon was loathed by a significant part of the press. it was predominantly democratic. for the first time since zachary taylor, both houses of congress were against the president of the united states. and as i said, the media loathed richard nixon, a lot of them did, and others did not like richard nixon. here is the final problem -- go up and down the east coast, "boston globe," "new york times," "washington post," anti- nixon, all of them. the three networks -- people depended on the network news of those networks as their primary source of news and information about the president of the united states. all of fossil to richard nixon. thus, -- all were hostile to richard nixon. thus, the imperative of richard nixon to communicate a round of this filter, which many of us saw as distorted, and keep the country united behind him. he did it two ways. one, the primetime address, and two, the press conferences. it was in that environment that he wrote his inaugural address, of which my friend was the principal author. >> it may have been one of the high points, his opening minutes. the inaugural address was widely