Mick Mulvaney

We can learn a lot about a person if we know what types of things he or she talks about or comments on the most frequently. There are numerous topics with which Mick Mulvaney is associated, including Donald Trump and Irishman. Most recently, Mick Mulvaney has been quoted saying: “We are going to get rid of [the EPA] in almost every form.” in the article The EPA Needs Lots of Money to Gut Itself.

Mick Mulvaney quotes

Automatically powered by

Folks watching on television now can go online and read what the bill is. They can watch the committee hearings. Those are things that were dramatically missing in Obamacare.

We're not spending money on [climate change] anymore. We consider that to be a waste of your money.

We are going to get rid of [the EPA] in almost every form.

Keep in mind, the administration is different than members of the Hill, the members of the House and the Senate. Every House member, which I used to be, has a constituency. We have a group of people we represent. Senators represent the whole state. There's also a lot of special interests, a lot of lobbying involved. The president's not beholden to any of that. The president represents everybody.

I thought it was sort of tongue in cheek. But again, I'm the numbers guy. No, no. Listen, those of us who see and work with the president every day believe him, trust him, have no difficulties like the folks in the press do.

We won't be able to balance the budget this year but we are working on trying to get it to balance within the 10 year budget window, which is what Republicans in the House, the Senate have traditionally done the last couple of years. We don't know yet. We don't know what health care reform will look like, what it will do to the budget. We don't know what tax reform will look like, will do to the budget. We haven't finished the infrastructure program yet. Those are the really, really big picture items that we won't know more about for a couple months.

Could I, as a budget director, look at the coal miner in West Virginia and say, I want you, please, to give some of your money to the federal government so that I can give it to the National Endowment for the Arts?' And I just think we finally got to the point in the administration where we couldn't do that.

Some of the stories are just either grossly wrong or nearly grossly wrong, all the stories about how we cut Meals on Wheels.

We're getting into that now. By May, I think it's mid-May we're shooting for right now, we'll have that larger budget... We won't be able to balance the budget this year, but we're working on trying to get it to balance within the 10-year budget window, which is what Republicans in the House and the Senate have traditionally done in the last couple of years.

It is a very complicated budget process when your entitlements, your mandatory spending is driving most of your budget deficit. So over the course of the next decade, we'll have to look at the mandatory spending side in order to figure out a way to make changes to the way we spend money.

We're absolutely reducing funding to the U.N. and to various foreign aid programs.

If you have coverage that doesn't allow you to go to the doctor, what good is it in the first place? ... Democrats took all of this credit for giving people coverage, but ignored the fact that they had created this large group of people that still could not go to the doctor.

Let's talk about after-school programs generally. They're supposed to be educational programs, right? And that's what they're supposed to do, they're supposed to help kids who can't – who don't get fed at home, get fed so that they do better at school. Guess what? There's no demonstrable evidence they're actually doing that. There's no demonstrable evidence they're actually helping results, helping kids do better at school.

We can't spend money on programs just because they sound good. It's fairly compassionate to go to them and say, look, we're not going to ask you for your hard-earned money anymore.

You're only focusing on half of the equation, right? You're focusing on recipients of the money. We're trying to focus on both the recipients of the money and the folks who give us the money in the first place.

I can't go to the autoworker in Ohio and say please give me some of your money so that I can do this program over here someplace else that really isn't helping anybody.

The C.D.B.G.s have been identified as programs since I believe the first, actually the second Bush administration as ones that were just not showing any results.

I think the president is fairly straightforward. We're not spending money on that.

The president is absolutely going to keep the promises he made on the campaign trail. This is the discretionary part of the budget, half of which as you know is defense, the other half is everything else... Just because it's not here, doesn't mean we're dodging the issue.

This is a hard power budget, not a soft power budget. This is not a take-it-or-leave-it budget.

As to the source of funds, that's up to the president, the Treasury and the State Department.

We can't spend money on programs just because they sound good. That is about as compassionate as you can get. We're trying to focus on the recipients of the money and the folks who give us money in the first place. The message the president sent right now is that we want to defund those.

Can I really go to those folks, look them in the eye and say I want to take money from you and I want to give it to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? That is a really hard sell. And in fact something we don't think we can defend anymore.

We went back and pulled lines from speeches, interviews and turned his words, his policies into numbers.

Can we really continue to ask a coal miner in West Virginia or a single mom in Detroit to pay for these programs?

We can't spend money on programs just because they sound good and great. Meals on Wheels sounds great. Again that's a state decision to fund that particular portion to it. To take the federal money and give it to the states and say look we want to give you money for programs that don't work. I can't defend that anymore.

We haven't settled on construction types. We haven't settled on where we're going to start.

One of the other things the President said was he was going to go after wasteful programs, depleted programs, programs that simply don't work, and a lot of those are in HUD.

This is the America First budget. In fact, we wrote it using the president's own words. We went through his speeches, we went through the articles that have been written about his policies, we talked to him and we wanted to know what his policies were, and we turned those policies into numbers. There is no question this is a hard power budget. It's not a soft power budget. The policy is that we're ending federal involvement with the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.

You can expect reductions in the EPA that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energies. You will see a reduction in subsidies, a reduction of participation in those types of programs.

If [Trump] said it on the campaign, it's in the budget.

This is a hard-power budget. That was done intentionally. The president wants to send a message to our allies and to our potential adversaries.

The president has said he's going to undo the military sequester. This budget does that.

There's no perfect piece of legislation. There's gonna be this framework that's going to be added to or subtracted to during the process, and eventually it's going to pass the House and it's going to pass the Senate.

I would expect that there would have to be reductions in forces at various agencies. I can't imagine how you'd take some of these reductions and don't have a reduction in the workforce, which is exactly what the President talked about. We gave a great deal of flexibility to the secretaries and the agency directors. So how they manage that would be up to them on sort of a case-by-case basis.

We did not write this budget with an eye toward what it would do to the value of your condo.

There's a lot of programs that simply cannot justify their existence and that's where we zeroed in.

The president is going to keep the promises he made regarding those programs.

This budget represents a president who is beholden to nobody but the voters. He is following through on his promises. We did not consult with special interests on how to write this budget. We did not consult with lobbyists on how to write this budget. The president's team wrote this budget and that's what you'll see in the numbers.

You can't drain the swamp and leave all of the people in it. We went to what the president said during the campaign, and we turned those policies into numbers.

You can't drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. So, I guess the first place that comes to mind will be the Environmental Protection Agency. We're not spending money on that any more. We consider that to be a waste of your money.

Yes, it's a fairly small part of the discretionary budget, but it's still consistent with what the president said. When you see these reductions, you'll be able to tie it back to a speech the president gave or something the president has said previously.

The credibility I think I bring to this job is that I believe very firmly in real numbers. My job is to tell the president the truth. My job is to tell you the truth.

We promised at the outset that we were going to repeal all of the taxes.

Coverage is not the end. People don't get better with coverage, they get better with care.

We think we've created a system that saves money and allows more people to get affordable health care. You sit there and talk about coverage, but coverage is not the end. People don't get better with coverage. I don't think we're in a position to start counting votes until we know what that bill looks like.

I don't know if the document exists because I haven't seen it. This is exactly what we thought the CBO would come forward with. They're terrible at counting coverage.

I don't believe the facts are correct.

Sometimes we ask them to do stuff they're not capable of doing, and estimating the impact of a bill of this size probably isn't the best use of their time.

Just because you spend less money on something doesn't mean it can't get better.

That's what we're trying to fix. Not coverage for people, not coverage they can afford, but care they can afford. When they get sick, they can go to the doctor. That's what the Donald Trump plan is working on, and that's where we think it is going to be wildly successful.

We are going to propose to reduce foreign aid and we are going to propose to spend that money here. The overriding message is fairly straightforward: less money spent overseas means more money spent here.

It is a true America first budget. It will show the president is keeping his promises and will do exactly what he said he was going to do. It prioritizes rebuilding our military, including restoring our nuclear capabilities, protecting the nation and securing the border, enforcing the laws currently on the books, taking care of vets and increasing school choice.

The No. 1 priority of the United States government is to defend the nation.

We have to figure out why we're always in debt and always in deficit, and the right time to have that is over the debt ceiling.

If you want to know, members of Congress, why you have Donald Trump, go look in the mirror, because we've over-promised and under-delivered for so long.

You could never do that in America – at least not easily.

If you let in the wrong Irishman, the downside is really not that serious. You let in the wrong Syrian refugee – one – and people could die.

No quotes...
More Mick Mulvaney quotes
|< <
{{currentQuotePage}}/{{numberPage}}
> >|
<
>