Sense of the Senate amendments are non-binding resolutions which lack the force of law; their purpose is often symbolic in nature. During debate on the 2006 Budget Resolution-a non-binding budgetary blueprint for taxing and spending goals for the upcoming year and beyond-Senator Nelson (D-FL) proposed an amendment which would have expressed the sense of the Senate that "Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt. Congress should take action to address Social Security solvency." The text of Nelson's amendment was similar to a previous amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) but contained one important distinction (see Roll Call Vote 48 for a description of DeMint's amendment). While DeMint's amendment contained language indicating that a failure to act on Social Security would result in massive debt, deep benefit cuts and tax increases, Nelson's amendment simply stated that Congress should work to address Social Security solvency. Progressives supported Nelson's alternative to DeMint's measure based on their view that failing to reform Social Security would not spur tax increases as stated in DeMint's amendment. "I cannot agree with that because it is just not accurate," explained Senator Conrad (D-ND). Conservatives overwhelming opposed Nelson's amendment but did not offer any explanations for their votes during Senate floor debate. On a tie vote of 50-50, the Nelson amendment was defeated and the measure was not added to the 2006 Budget Resolution. (Tie votes result in defeat unless the Vice President, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, casts a tie-breaking vote in favor of the proposal.)