|
|
Hillary Clinton on Budget & EconomyDemocratic Jr Senator (NY) |
A: Well, fiscal responsibility is a very high priority for me. We don't have to go back very far in our history, in fact just to the 1990s, to see what happens when we do have a fiscally responsible budget that does use rules of discipline to make sure that we're not cutting taxes or spending more than we can afford. I will institute those very same approaches. You can't do it in a year. It'll take time. But the economy will grow again when we start acting fiscally responsible. And then we can save money in the government by cutting out private contractors, closing loopholes, getting the health care system to be more efficient. We'll do all of this at the same time, but the results will take awhile for us to actually see.
A: I'm glad they did what they did. But it can't be just left to a bail-out for the banks. We've got to figure out how we're going to figure out people facing foreclosures. And I have recommendations on that, that do not lend themselves to an easy yes or no
And we know that for those who worry about passing on this huge debt that has been blown up in the last six years--because remember, six years ago we had a balanced budget and a surplus--well, if you're a grandparent worried about passing that debt on to your grandchildren, you're invisible.
CLINTON: Six years ago, we didn't yet have a recession. We didn't have the 9/11 attack. We didn't have high deficits. We didn't have the Bush policies. Thankfully we escaped a plague of locusts, but we've had some challenges in the last 6 years. So I'm not discouraged I'm just changing direction, trying to work in different ways to help people right here at home create these opportunities for themselves.
SPENCER: Well, if we did have a plague of locusts, you know who's fault it would be, right? George Bush. He's responsible for everything. When are you responsible, Sen. Clinton? When are you responsible, after 6 years? You pledged 200,000 jobs. If you're not responsible, then you're ineffective. You're ineffective as a United States Senator from New York.
In 2003 and 2004 Clinton grew even more generous with the taxpayers' dollars. She sponsored or co-sponsored 211 bills to increase spending and just three bills to reduce it, yielding a total net cost of $378 billion. This made Clinton the second most "expensive" senator during that time.
CLINTON: I don’t think that’s a good use of that space or of taxpayer dollars. There is work we need to do to upgrade the infrastructure. That’s why I support the Second Avenue subway. That’s why I support the East Side connector, a rail link to La Guardia and to JFK. I will go to the Senate to continue the work on Penn Station and others that Senator Moynihan has started.
LAZIO: I think it’s important to get the Jets and Giants back. This is not just a plan for a stadium; it’s also a plan for expansion of convention space. I don’t think this should be funded with public money entirely. But I believe that this is an important initiative to build jobs for New York.
A: We have a surplus after 7 years of good economic leadership in our country. We should pay down the national debt, secure Social Security, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and provide affordable tax cuts. I have been very careful to cost out my plan because I believe in a balanced budget. That’s why I reject the large tax cut that independent experts have said is more than a trillion dollars that my opponent has proposed.
CLINTON: I’m a very strong supporter of these changes that are needed to stimulate the upstate economy. And many of those changes can only take place at the state and local level. Because what I have laid forth in my economic plan for upstate is a way to use tax credits to stimulate business, to expand the high tech industry that is coming to Buffalo.
LAZIO: I do believe that the upstate economy has turned the corner. It also needs new partnerships, alliances, something I’ve been doing down in Long Island. Creating technology incubators, building on our assets in the upstate economy. Making sure that we build good partnerships and a first-class educational system. One of the things you can do is to begin to address the issue of taxation. We need to make sure that people don’t pay taxes on top of income that they’ve already paid taxes on.
LAZIO: I don’t believe that it’s a good idea for us to be building casinos. I would allow the state of New York to make these decisions. But in the end, I’m not a big fan of gambling. Economic development in the area is an important issue, but I would not focus on the quick hit, the cheap hit in gambling. I’d focus on the kind of jobs where our children can afford to stay here, raise a family, buy their own home.
CLINTON: I know how hard the people in Niagara are working to try to turn their economy around, and if they believe that a casino would help attract more tourists back, I would support that. I leave that to their judgment. But there has to be more of a strategy about the upstate economy --tax credits to help jobs be created, creating the regional skills, alliances, commitment to work force development, etc.
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.
