OnTheIssuesLogo

Claire McCaskill on Budget & Economy

 


Take on sacred cows that gave us $8 trillion debt

As Missouri's state auditor, Claire has won high praise for her tough approach to wasteful spending. She has cracked down on government waste by targeting no-bid contracts, frivolous spending, and bureaucratic incompetence. Claire pledges to take on the sacred cows in DC and force them to take deficit reduction seriously. Our national debt is now at a staggering $9 trillion. In Washington, Claire will fight to restore pay-as-you-go funding so that Washington is forced to put its fiscal house in order.
Source: New York Times Election Profiles Oct 8, 2006

$300 billion in Iraq is a lot of money

TALENT: What we've spent in Iraq & Afghanistan in total is 1% of the GDP. Look what Iraq is NOT doing. They're not competing with Iran to sponsor terror in the region. They're not threatening Kuwait. We don't have to station troops in Saudi Arabia. They're not trying to restart the nuclear weapon program. This is the part of the mission that's been progressing because we know how to fight and we know how to train people how to fight.

McCASKILL: He just said the $300 billion was not a lot of money Both of them had brave troops that we support. Both of them, our military was doing a wonderful, magnificent job. This administration is not being held accountable for its mistakes. No one is asking the questions, no one is holding them accountable.

Source: 2006 MO Senate Debate on NBC Meet The Press Oct 8, 2006

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.

Reference: Allard Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.491 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-090 on Mar 22, 2007

Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages.

McCaskill co-sponsored requiring full disclosure about subprime mortgages

Sen. DODD: Today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market.

One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007 is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will:

It is important to keep in mind that only about 10% of subprime mortgages have been made to first time home buyers. This market has not been primarily about creating a new set of homeowners; a majority of subprime loans have been refinances. While maintaining access to subprime credit on fair terms is important, too much of the subprime market has actually put the homes and home equity of American families at risk.

In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure.

Source: Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act (S.2452 ) 2007-S2452 on Dec 12, 2007

Other candidates on Budget & Economy: Claire McCaskill on other issues:
MO Gubernatorial:
Matt Blunt
MO Senatorial:
Kit Bond


2008 Senate retirements:

Wayne Allard(R,CO)
Larry Craig(R,ID)
Pete Domenici(R,NM)
Chuck Hagel(R,NE)
Trent Lott(R,MS)
Craig Thomas(R,WY)
John Warner(R,VA)

2008 Presidential Contenders:

Rep.Bob Barr(L)
Sen.Hillary Clinton(D)
Sen.Mike Gravel(L)
Alan Keyes(C)
Sen.John McCain(R)
Rep.Cynthia McKinney(G)
Ralph Nader(I)
Sen.Barack Obama(D)
Rep.Ron Paul(R)
2008 Senate Races:
AK:Stevens v.Begich v.Cuddy
AL:Sessions v.Figures
AR:Pryor v.Formicola
CO:Schaffer v.Udall
DE:Biden v.O`Donnell
GA:Chambliss v.Cardwell
IA:Harkin v.Rathje
ID:Risch v.LaRocco
IL:Durbin v.Sauerberg v.Stafford
KS:Roberts v.Jones v.Slattery
KY:McConnell v.Fischer
LA:Landrieu v.Kennedy
MA:Kerry v.O`Reilly v.Ogonowski
ME:Collins v.Allen
MI:Levin v.Baron
MN:Coleman v.Franken v.Cavlan
MS4:Wicker v.Musgrove
MS6:Cochran v.Fleming
MT:Baucus v.Bushman
NC:Dole v.Hagan v.Neal
NE:Johanns v.Kleeb
NH:Sununu v.Shaheen
NJ:Lautenberg v.Andrews v.Pennacchio
NM:Wilson v.Pearce v.Udall
OR:Smith v.Merkley v.Novick
OK:Inhofe v.Rice
RI:Reed
SC:Graham v.Cone
SD:Johnson v.Kephart v.Dykstra
TN:Alexander v.Padgett v.Tuke v.Lugo
TX:Cornyn v.Noriega v.Jameson
VA:Gilmore v.Warner
WV:Rockefeller v.Wolfe v.Raese
WY4:Barrasso v.Carter v.Goodenough
WY6:Enzi v.Rothfuss
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
House of Representatives
SenateMatch (matching quiz)
Senate Votes (analysis)
House Votes
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings

Page last updated: 3/31/2008