|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 17, 2005 11:05:41 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
The changes I have proposed reform a paralyzed government in red tape. We must scale back programs that are not providing the results intended.
On the other note, these changes make an opening to earmark funds for Child Tax Credits, which will greatly benefit our working families, so they may save for their children's future.
I yield.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Retton on Dec 18, 2005 8:41:08 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker:
If we're going to be trimming programs that aren't providing results that were intended, why aren't we looking at some of the most bloated figures in this budget: our defense expenditures? Many presidents before Mr. Warder have been able to rein in defense spending while still providing a greater level of protection for Americans.
Saying that we're slashing red tape by instead cutting support to those Americans who need our hope the most is an outrage.
While I wasn't happy with the amounts that the president listed for these items in the budget, at least I could stomach them easier than pinning my hopes on child tax credits which haven't even been passed into law yet and that the gentleman from Texas seems to think will be a magic cure.
In short, the gentleman from Texas can expect little support from me for these changes.
I yield.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Green on Dec 18, 2005 21:26:59 GMT -5
"While i support many of the cuts made by the gentleman from Texas it is in my conscience to object from the cuts to needy families. In my past i have worked with those families. Most of them are needy and cannot help it. Those who can work, those who can help it should be given the tools to do so. But using a broadsword instead of a knife will harm and hurt alot of America's citizens who need our help the most. I yield..."
|
|
|
Post by jamestaggert on Dec 19, 2005 12:44:37 GMT -5
Mr Speaker,
"I think even considering touching the defense budget in terms of cutbacks or reduced investment, as proposed by my colleague from West Virginia, in this time of great uncertainy is ludicrous. Our troops in Iraq are already lacking certain types of necessary equipment, mainly body armor and good quality armor plating for military vehicles amongst other things. And with a possible upcoming conflict with Syria looming in the near future, our men and women in the armed forces are going to need as much financial support as they can get. Hence, I support the current defense figures as they stand, in fact, I'd even go as far as saying that they should be increased."
"I support my colleague from Texas in the changes he proposes. Trimming down useless governmental fat and sharpening current existing infrastructure should be something everyone can appreciate. "
"However, I hear and understand the statement made by my colleague from Colorado. I think more thought should be given to where the cuts are made. My own state has a rather high unemployment rate. Also, in the state of Lousiana, your typical family has a lower than average income in comparison to other states in this country. With these hard facts, I cannot in good conscience support such drastic cuts to programs that will improve or at least contain the bleak economic reality in my state."
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 19, 2005 12:55:02 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I remind the gentleman from Colorado that these cuts are designed to incorporate Child Tax Credits, which will enable single mothers and hard working families - mostly in lower tax brackets - to get much needed tax relief. Rather than having the government pay to support families, its more efficient to return tax money to the taxpayer.
Why bulster government welfare programs when we can help let people keep their hard earned tax dollars so they can afford to give their children a good education, provide school clothing and purchase school lunches.
I yield
|
|
|
Post by Ken Green on Dec 19, 2005 13:01:59 GMT -5
"Sir in addressing the gentleman from Texas i want to state that yes a Child Tax Credit is a great thing. However these people your talking about cutting aid from dont get those. True alot of these families are on the system unneccsarily. (sorry for botched spelling.) But alot of those families are trying to become trained, to make themselves better. To be able to work and qualify for the Tax Credit. No sir you will not have my support on this amendment. You want to cut away the fat fine, but use a scapel not a broadsword. Place requirements and restrictions on families recieving aid to either improve themselves and join the workforce. We must use the scapel not the broadsword. You wanna trim fat from those programs fine. Do it with more legislation placing limits on the length of time aid can be recieved. And educational and work requirements to continue recieving aid while bettering themselves. But to cut this in its current form i do not support and i hope my esteemed friends and supporters make the same choice. Revise the amendment and you will recieve my blessing. I yield.."
|
|
|
Post by jamestaggert on Dec 19, 2005 13:11:28 GMT -5
Mr.Speaker,
"I agree with much of what my colleague from Colorado has stated. The fact of the matter is, a tax credit can only go so far in improving a family's situation. It is only a short term solution, that while relieving some financial stress, a tax credit will not change the overall condition of a low income family. Cutting spending to programs that provide work experience and work training, programs that allow a person to better themselves and self-actualize, to increase their income by acquiring better paying and more meaningful jobs, is the wrong way to go in the long run.
Therefore, I too would like to see a revision of this amendment."
"I yield."
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 20, 2005 14:17:07 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
Tax Relief is not short term. As has proved in the past, Tax Relief (including credits) help American families by allowing them to keep their hard earned money, rather than giving it to the government.
I do agree with Mr. Taggert that job training is a great form of workforce development. However, the government has time and time again proven that things done by the federal government are slow, inefficient, and ineffective.
The good news is that the private sector continually offers job training options, including free training and grants.
However, I understand Mr. Taggert's hestitancy. Therefore, I withdraw my previous amendment and offer the following:
|
|
|
Post by jamestaggert on Dec 20, 2005 17:49:09 GMT -5
(OOC: You confused me for a moment there, by referring to my character as: "Mr.Staggery." *lol* I was wondering who you were talking to...thats okay. Just for future reference, my character's name is Taggert.)
"Mr.Speaker,
While we can debate the merits of tax relief versus job training for hours, I am pleased that my colleague from Texas has again modified the budget in lieu of the opinions voiced by myself and others who represent districts that are not faring so well in the current economic climate. With the 12% increase in this area of spending, I no longer have any problems with the budget as it stands."
"I Yield."
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 20, 2005 18:17:31 GMT -5
OOC: My sincere apologies, Jim. I modified my post for you.
Mr. Speaker,
I was happy to hear the good natured pleas of my colleage, Mr. Taggert, and answer them with a well planned out compromise that met both of our goals.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call a vote on this Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Speaker Hastert on Dec 20, 2005 18:27:11 GMT -5
*Amendment updated with new changes accepted as friendy by the Majority Leader*
The Majority Leader has called the McLaughlin Amendment to a vote. 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay or Present. *gavel*
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 20, 2005 19:20:04 GMT -5
Aye
|
|
|
Post by jamestaggert on Dec 20, 2005 21:30:40 GMT -5
Aye.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Retton on Dec 20, 2005 22:00:54 GMT -5
Nay.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Green on Dec 21, 2005 10:26:00 GMT -5
Abstain (Present)
|
|