As state leaders I think its important for us to provide our perspectives on issues we face every day - like access to school spending access to health care and governing in a global economy.

When Medicare was created for senior citizens and America 's disabled in 1965 about half of a senior's health care spending was on doctors and the other half on hospitals.

The fact is if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill to end the bailouts cut spending and shrink the size and scope of government the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things.

But you say does it represent change? The change is that we are fighting an insurance industry that has killed health reform for generations. They're spending tens of millions of dollars right now to defeat this bill and we're on the doorstep of winning a great victory for the American people.

We are spending most of our time in American health care fixing the mistakes that either we in the profession are causing or our patients are without recognizing it causing to themselves.

Rising health care spending occurs because it is beneficial not a burden on the economy.

Inequality makes everyone unhappy the poor most of all and that is well within the remit of the state. More money gives less extra happiness the richer we get yet we are addicted to earning and spending more every year.

Motherhood is a great honor and privilege yet it is also synonymous with servanthood. Every day women are called upon to selflessly meet the needs of their families. Whether they are awake at night nursing a baby spending their time and money on less-than-grateful teenagers or preparing meals moms continuously put others before themselves.

I think women as well as men are concerned about jobs and the economy and spending and and other issues. They're concerned that when their kids graduate from college they have an economy and they have a future in this country and they they have the same opportunity that we've had and our grandparents have had.

You've got the Democratic Party that now depends on more government spending and actual building the dependence on government in order to increase their political party.

I think people are confused about what the Tea Party is. I mean they were a broad cross-section of Americans who came together concerned about our debt and our spending. And they're interested in constitutional limited government. And so they're not one group of people. They're thousands of small groups all over the country.

Now I learned soon enough that among the three two don't trust the third one - the third one is the government. Both industry and unions feel the government is a talking organization and a spending organization.

Government does not have a revenue problem government has a spending problem. Government does not have a revenue problem government has a priority problem. It is time that we begin to fine tune our focus and decide what the priority of government ought to be.

Someone has to stay on the line and say no we can do this by cutting spending and reducing the size of government. That's what I was committed to doing.

People spending more of their own money on routine health care would make the system more competitive and transparent and restore the confidence between the patients and the doctors without government rationing.

I believed the only thing that could turn around this government spending and mounting debt would be if the people rose up.

Under the administration of George W. Bush you will recall federal spending grew pretty significantly. At the same time the number of people directly employed by the federal government shrank. One of the factors that explained the difference was contracting.

Clinton's successor in the White House George W. Bush was committed to expanding government spending for faith-based initiatives.

I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.

There is nothing inherently fair about equalizing incomes. If the government penalizes you for working harder than somebody else that is unfair. If you save your money but retire with the same pension as a free-spending neighbor that is also unfair.

'Hello my name is the Republican Party and I got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government.' I'd like one of them just to stand up and say that.

And you can't have a prosperous economy when the government is way overspending raising tax rates printing too much money over regulating and restricting free trade. It just can't be done.

It is time we passed a balanced budget amendment and return this government to limited spending.

To reduce deficit spending and our enormous debt you reign in spending. You cut the budget. You don't take more from the private sector and grow government with it. And that's exactly what Obama has in mind with this expiration of Bush tax cuts proposal of his.