|
|
Debbie Stabenow on Budget & EconomyDemocratic Jr Senator; previously Representative (MI-8) |
BOUCHARD: She's ranked the #1 biggest spending Senator. It's a real problem. If a Republican's going to waste your money, I'm gonna kick it hard. We need line-item veto, her amendments and votes belie the fact that she's a big spender.
STABENOW: When I came in 2001, we had a surplus, now we have a deficit. The reality is hundreds of billions of dollars in tax subsidies for fuel companies - Halliburton - no bid contracts - this has to stop.
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.
