Quotes About Government

Democrats call their flagship voting bill the 'For the People Act.' But a better, and more fitting title is the Nancy Pelosi Power Grab Act.

If I were a Democrat, I'd siphon the power of states to the federal government. I'd ignore the Constitution and prevent states from determining their own voting practices.

Whether it is access to voting rights, representation in government, or the outsized influence of money in our political system, the opportunity to interact with and participate in democracy is available to some, but blocked for many.

Parts of the Voting Rights Act are due to expire next year if Congress doesn't extend them, including the section that guarantees that voting rights will be protected by the federal government.

In many cases, the Treasury will get preferred or convertible preferred stock for the money it gives to banks. These shares typically don't have voting rights, possibly to give more of a hands-off appearance to the government.

There's a lot that can and should be done, not just in terms of elections administration with respect to the voting rights, but the protections of voters themselves.

If all schools become privatized in the U.S., the poor wouldn't be given vouchers for 'school choice.' They would have no choices.

I'm totally opposed to vouchers. I will fight them tooth and nail.

President Bush and I had asked Congress to appropriate a half-billion dollars to school vouchers. We didn't get it, and we were disappointed. But we did not go out and form a corporation to pay for it. That would have been a problem.

If you're going to have a public subsidy to education, vouchers are clearly a better way of delivering it. They should result in some loosening up and privatization of the government school system.

When you're elected to Congress, you take a vow to uphold the Constitution and its system of checks and balances. That vow doesn't say, 'Unless it's politically uncomfortable.'

We vow to achieve a new political landscape that is clean.

If nothing else, the cyber attacks that occurred during the 2016 presidential election have laid bare the very real vulnerabilities that exist across our government and the private sector. Imagine the harm that could be done if our enemies ever hack into the Department of Defense or Homeland Security.

I consider anybody a twerp who hasn't read 'Democracy in America' by Alexis de Tocqueville. There can never be a better book than that one on the strengths and vulnerabilities inherent in our form of government.

When a foreign adversary knows that an American official has deceived or withheld vital information from our government, it creates a fundamental counterintelligence vulnerability that can render that official irreparably compromised.

Democratic forms of government are vulnerable to mass prejudice, the so-called tyranny of the majority.

The Tunisian blogger and activist Sami Ben Gharbia has written passionately about how U.S. government involvement in grassroots digital spaces can endanger those who are already vulnerable to accusations by nasty regimes of acting as foreign agents.

We are vulnerable in the military and in our governments, but I think we're most vulnerable to cyber attacks commercially. This challenge is going to significantly increase. It's not going to go away.

Let me put it like this: I am not prepared to officiate over on behalf of the British government what I think is a disastrous strategy which will impact on some of the most vulnerable and poorest people within our society.

The NSA has the greatest surveillance capabilities in American history... The real problem is that they're using these capabilities to make us vulnerable.

We have a failing Medicaid system, and you know who that's going to hurt in the end are the most vulnerable in people in our society.

The U.S. government is actually exceptionally vulnerable.

This was a theme of Sen. Akaka's career - to advocate for people who did not have power, for people who were vulnerable. He was a champion for the federal government employees who continue to this day to be a punching bag for some.

Consistent conservatives believe people should keep more of the money they work so hard to earn - not because the vulnerable don't deserve assistance, but because individuals can and will make better and more effective financial and charitable choices with their money than government bureaucrats.