other than what the governor gives had her and in this case he did have her responsible, if you will, for economic development. she would go around and try to promote economic development, tax packages, tax breaks, that type of thing. so it is very likely she would be talking about both of these things. i wasn t there so i don t know whether she linked them or not. to be honest, i don t know why dawn zimmer would lie. she has no incentive to lie. she is basically putting her whole career on the line here. so, you know, it s a very serious charge that she made. i was here on your show when she actually made them and i thought she was very credible in the way she had her diary and had talked to other councilmen about it at the time. i would not dismiss this. this is a very serious charge. and, andrea, i heard the argument put to me by a number of people that there may be we say the thing is in black and white and there may be some gray here, that dawn zimmer thought she was hearing a
corporation, they will leave america. there is that reality. corporations often make a decision to cite new facilities overseas because they get attractive tax packages from other countries and look at the differentials between the u.s. and overseas and make them fair. second individuals, don t eliminate but put a limit to do deductions for home mortgages and the rest. let people choose underneath the limits and that way you could bring in more revenue still lowering tax rates. i ve been bringing up for instance ge an awful lot, about not paying taxes. i was thinking about it this weekend, drove past a ge facilities, they ve been hammered by ge capital. you can almost look at that massive loss, you can see how that gets spread out. for the life of me, i can t figure out how exxon is not paying a damn nickel of taxes in america. we had the same thing. exxon is not paying a nickel in u.s. tax, is that correct?
you voted to give tax cuts to the richest americans, the top 2%, gave them tax cuts of about $800 billion over a decade, exactly what you guys are saying we now need to cut from health care for the poorest americans. that was a tradeoff you made. how can you justify that as a matter of ethics, morality or simply good conscience? well, actually, when that package came up i voted against it but for different reasons than you re stating. you wanted to and we added $300 billion to debt. that s why i think without cutting anything. that was the problem i had with the tax packages. we didn t cut anything but we added additional $300 billion to our national debt. nevertheless, nevertheless, the principles are the same. we are taxing, borrowing and spending too much money. we have to curb the spending. it s the classic approach to whether you believe government should do, what is the proper role of government. i just don t believe you ll tax your way to prosperity. you can t spend
bill in its current form. keep in mind, for every senators demand, there has to be some trade-off to comply with budget routes, which forbid the tax packages from adding any more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit of the next ten years. despite all that, senate finance committee chairman orrin hatch remains confident. yes, i think it will get worked out one way or another but it s going to take good faith on both sides to be able to do it. you know, it s like anything else, we ve got to get results and on to get the bill passed. here is a likely scenario now. after the conference report is released tomorrow, debate and probably begin on the house on monday. the senate will probably go second so it can wait for absent senators cochran and mccain to get well enough to make it to the vote next week. expect a senate vote tuesday or wednesday. but stick with me on this, shannon the senate could change the bill to comply with budget rules, that means it will have to go to the house f