During debate on the 2006 Budget Resolution-a non-binding budgetary blueprint for taxing and spending goals for the upcoming year and beyond-Senator Conrad (D-ND) proposed an amendment which would have required Congress to address future shortfalls in Social Security before considering new tax cuts or spending programs. More specifically, Conrad's amendment would have subjected any proposal which drains taxpayer money from the U.S. Treasury to a procedural point of order until Congress had restored solvency to the Social Security program for the next seventy-five years. Sixty votes are needed to overcome a point of order, a difficult task in the upper chamber of Congress. Progressives voted in support of Conrad's measure because, in their view, the projected shortfalls in the Social Security Trust Fund required immediate action; additional tax cuts could wait. Social Security, they argued, has played a vital role in providing financial stability for America's elderly and has vastly improved the quality of life for elderly Americans. Conservatives opposed Conrad's amendment and characterized the Social Security program as "1930s economics." In the words of Budget Chairman Gregg (R-NH), "the 1930s economics that the other side subscribes to-which is that you can simply tax your way to prosperity, that Americans really should not own their own assets, that the Government owns your assets, that we here in the Senate have a better way of spending your money than you have-that philosophy has been proven to be not only unconscionable but counterproductive to a strong economy in this day and age." On a perfectly party-line vote of 45-55, Conrad's amendment was defeated and Congress was not impelled to immediately address future revenue shortfalls in Social Security.