Carper pledged to protect Social Security and Medicare; pay down the debt; lower taxes responsibly; and invest in education and health. He contrasted these priorities with Bill Roth’s tax package, which splurges the entire surplus, and asked Roth to
debate the issue.Carper’s “four point plan” for federal budget management would:
Make Social Security and Medicare sound for the long term by putting the surpluses in an ironclad lock box. Use savings from debt-reduction to extend the program’s
solvency.
Work to pay off our national debt. Long-term savings on interest payments will help secure Medicare and can be invested in our schools and for our seniors.
Use half of the remaining surplus for broad-based tax reductions, including
responsible marriage-penalty and estate tax relief.
Invest in our future by improving public education; expanding health care for our children and families; extending prescription drug benefits to our seniors and increasing access to child care.
Source: Press Release, “Criticizes ‘Splurging Away’ Surplus”
Aug 24, 2000
Voted NO 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 NO 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
