Inaction on $700B bailout is unacceptable leadership
Noriega assailed Cornyn over his steadfast support of President Bush and his vote for a $700 billion economic bailout, saying Cornyn demonstrated a "herd mentality" on a bailout bill that was loaded with pork projects and intended to help Wall Street mor
than Texas families. Cornyn argued that Noriega wouldn't have taken any action, which he said isn't acceptable for an elected leader.
The Senate candidates both said those who committed wrongdoing in the financial crisis should be held accountable.
Source: 2008 Texas Senate Debate reported in Dallas Morning News
Oct 17, 2008
Voting for $700B bailout demonstrates leadership
The nation's struggling economy and the $700 billion bailout package Congress approved figured prominently in the debate. Noriega has criticized the bailout as lacking enough reform and Wall Street accountability, while
Cornyn--who voted for the package--has said elected leaders must make difficult decisions on big issues.
Source: 2008 Texas Senate Debate reported in Dallas Morning News
Oct 17, 2008
Supports fewer lawsuits, regulations, & taxes
Cornyn knows that jobs matter most to Texas families. Stable employment and economic growth solves more problems than government ever can.
He will support President Bush in his efforts to create long-term economic growth by cutting taxes, generating jobs, opposing unsound government regulations, and ending frivolous lawsuits that make trial lawyers rich and put other people out of work.
Source: Campaign website, www.JohnCornyn.com, "Issues"
Jun 20, 2002
Voted YES on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness.
Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
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.
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.
Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act;
Bill S. 1932
; vote number 2005-363
on Dec 21, 2005
