|
|
Amy Klobuchar on Budget & Economy |
KLOBUCHAR: We have had a 50% increase in discretionary spending. The Cato Institute identified that.
Q: What specifically?
KLOBUCHAR: Let's start with the Rep. Kennedy voted for, the bridges to nowhere, the rain forest in Iowa, the waterless urinals in Michigan.
Q: Will you go after Medicare and pensions?
KLOBUCHAR: I believe that if we can shore up this deficit and balance the budget, that we can then start shoring up Social Security.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.
