On the recordFebruary 29, 2000
My argument or observation was we want all families to consider higher education and educational opportunities, regardless of what they are earning. I will just concede for the sake of this debate that the Senator from Georgia is correct, and the $500 IRA that was proposed by the administration, supported by all of us, probably does benefit those who can save. Generally, those are people in higher income categories. My question to the Senator from Georgia is, if he is proposing a new program in addition to this, would it not be better now to focus on those who were not served by that $500 IRA and really focus on those families who may not have the benefit of it if we are going to expand our investment in education? The Treasury Department estimates that under the Senator's bill, the wealthiest 20 percent, the upper one-fifth of families in America, will receive nearly 70 percent of the benefits. Wouldn't it be more fair, since the initial IRA, as my colleague noted, really helps those families, that additional money spent should go to working families and those who maybe have been overlooked by both the administration and the Senate to this point? Why do we want to continue this path of subsidizing families who are the wealthiest in our country?
Source
govinfo.gov




