HYPOCRISY ALERT: Clinton Campaign Coordinating Directly With “Unaccountable Money” Group

May 13, 2015 by

Category: AR PAC

June 6, 2012 by

Today is June 6, 2012, the 68th Anniversary of the Normandy invasion – D Day.  Along with Memorial Day, today is a day to remember veterans and their sacrifice to protect our country.  Veterans deserve to be respected by citizens and government officials alike, but the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seems to take their admiration with a grain of salt.  In 2009, a DHS report was uncovered which said returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan could become “lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”  A footnote in the report specified that DHS was most concerned about hate crimes.  Even the Democratic chair of the House Homeland Security Committee was “dumbfounded” the report even existed. 

However, when pressed, Tim Kaine said he had “no” problem with the report suggesting America’s fighting men and women could resort to racist, domestic terrorism.  At the time Kaine was Obama’s #1 political spokesman, but even members of his own party were speaking out.  When something as offensive and egregious as this report came out, Kaine continued to tow the Obama line. 

 

Kaine Said He Did Not Have A Problem With DHS’s Policy That Suggested Veterans Coming Back From Afghanistan And Iraq Could Be Terrorists. SCARBOROUGH: “But do you have a growing concern that, culturally, that this White House may be a bit tone deaf?  And I speak of, of course, of what’s been going on the past couple days regarding the Department of Homeland Security suggesting that veterans may come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and be potential terrorists… So you’ve got a lot of veterans in Virginia. Overall, you don’t really have any concerns about this DHS report?” KAINE: “No.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/17/09)

 

The DHS Report Said Veterans Who Had Trouble Reintegrating Could Turn To Extreme Right Wing Groups Or Become “Lone Wolf Extremist” Who Could Commit Terrible Crimes.  “In the report, dated April 7 but begun last year, the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence section stated: ‘The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.’ A footnote that defined right-wing extremist groups as primarily hate-oriented or anti-government also stated: ‘It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.’” (Spencer Hsu, “Napolitano Offers Apology To Veterans,” The Washington Post, 4/17/09)

 

DHS Secretary Napolitano Apologized To Veterans For The Wording. “Acknowledging criticism by veterans groups, Napolitano said yesterday on CNN: ‘I apologize for that offense. It was certainly not intended.’  She told Fox News, ‘If there’s one part of that report I would rewrite, in the wordsmithing Washingtonese that goes on after the fact, it would be that footnote.’” (Spencer Hsu, “Napolitano Offers Apology To Veterans,” The Washington Post, 4/17/09)

 

  • However, Napolitano Stood By The Report Itself. “Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.” (Andrey Hudson and Eli Lake, “Napolitano Stands By Risks Report,” The Washington Times, 4/16/09)

 

The Democratic Chair Of The Homeland Security Committee Was “Dumbfounded” By The Report. “But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was ‘dumbfounded’ that such a report would be issued.  ‘This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans – including war veterans,’ said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night.  The letter was representative of a public furor over the nine-page document since its existence was reported in The Washington Times on Tuesday.” (Andrey Hudson and Eli Lake, “Napolitano Stands By Risks Report,” The Washington Times, 4/16/09)

 

KAINE: “I Want To Promote This President’s Agenda. I Want To Carry The Proud Banner Of A Proud Party.” (“Remarks By President-Elect Barack Obama And Virginia Governor Time Kaine,” Press Release, 1/8/09)

 

“As National Committee Chair, Kaine Works As The Top Political Messenger For President Barack Obama.” (Fred Clasen-Kelly, “Top Dem Mum On Charlotte As 2012 Site,” Charlotte Observer, 7/31/2010)

Categories: Virginia
June 6, 2012 by

Rep. Shelley Berkley votes with her party about 94 percent, but you would think when she knows a bill is bad she would vote against it.  As the wife of a physician, Berkley has a very close source on healthcare.  In a conversation with one of her biggest supporters, casino magnate Steve Wynn, Berkley said she knew Obamacare was “terrible” and her husband hated it too.  Berkley went on to say that if she voted against Obamacare “she will punish me,” the “she” being Nancy Pelosi.  Pelosi may have a lot of power, but she can’t force a member to vote one way or the other.  Of course Berkley denied the conversation, but why would Wynn lie?  Wynn and his company contributed nearly $50,000 to Berkley’s campaigns and supported President Obama.  Clearly Berkley is not the leader Nevadans need—she votes how the party leadership in Washington tells her to. 

 

 

BERKLEY’S VOTES WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Congress

Percentage

106th   Congress

91

107th   Congress

92

108th   Congress

94

109th   Congress

93

110th   Congress

97

111th   Congress

99

112th   Congress

90

Average

93.7

(The Washington Post’s Votes Database, www.washingtonpost.com, Accessed 6/1/112

 

Steve Wynn In November 2008: “I Think We Got A Very Bright Guy [Obama] As President Of The United States.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live” 11/25/08)

 

“Wynn, With His Then-Wife, Backed Obama In 2008…”  (Ben Smith, “Berkley Denies Wynn’s Claim She Was Forced Into Health Care Vote,” Politico, 10/24/11)

 

WYNN: “I Supported A Democratic Congresswoman Named Shelley Berkley.” (Fox News’ “Cavuto,” 10/21/11)

  • Wynn Resorts Have Contributed At Least $36,100 To Berkley’s Campaigns.  (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 11/29/11)

 

  • Wynn Has Personally Given At Least $13,400 To Berkley’s Campaigns. (Federal Elections Commission, www.fec.gov, Accessed 12/15/11)

Wynn Suggested Berkley Was Coerced Into Voting For Obamacare. “Wynn in particular had strong words for U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., suggesting she was cowed into voting for health care reform.”  (Steve Tetreault, “POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Wynn’s Wrath Doesn’t Spare Berkley,” Las Vegas Review Journal, 10/31/11)

 

In A Conversation During The Obamacare Debate, Berkley Told Wynn Pelosi Would “Punish” Her If She Did Not Vote For Healthcare Reform.  WYNN: “I supported a Democratic congresswoman named Shelley Berkley. I called her during ObamaCare. I said, ‘Shelley, what are you doing? How do you do this? This is killing the unions and all of us that are supplying health care to our employees.’ And so she told me, quote — quote. Now this is not hearsay. Shelley said to me — and she’s running for the Senate. ‘Steve, I know it’s terrible. My husband is a doctor. He hates it, too.’ CAVUTO: ‘Wow!’ WYNN: ‘But if I don’t vote for it, she will punish me’ — she being Nancy Pelosi.’ CAVUTO: ‘Wow!’ WYNN: ‘And I said — I said, Shelley, every politician that’s ever sold out their constituency has had a lame, terrible rationalization like the one you just gave me. Don’t ever call me again.’” (Fox News’ “Cavuto,” 10/21/11)

 

A Berkley Spokeswoman Said Wynn Misremembered The Phone Conversation. “Berkley spokeswoman Jessica Mackler suggested Wynn had misremembered the conversation. ‘Steve Wynn is a busy person who has numerous phone conversations a day, so it’s not surprising that his recollection of the conversation is different than the congresswoman’s she said.” (Ben Smith, “Berkley Denies Wynn’s Claim She Was Forced Into Health Care Vote,” Politico, 10/24/11)

Categories: Healthcare, Nevada
June 5, 2012 by

A recently published article in The Washington Post asserted that Brown “consistently votes on the wrong side on energy interests and in favor of the Obama agenda.” One such vote from the irresponsible Brown-Obama energy agenda was his enthusiastic support to begin debate on cap-and-trade legislation in 2008.

Under the reckless cap-and-trade energy tax agenda that Brown supported, the average Ohio family would incur a cost of more than $1,700, or an equivalent of facing a 15% tax increase. Not only would cap-and-trade increase taxes, but it also threatens to make Ohio’s precarious employment situation significantly worse. One non-partisan think tank found that under cap-and-trade, Ohio could stand to lose over 195,000 much-needed jobs. Brown’s vote to support Obama’s reckless cap-and-trade program is just one more reason his 95% voting record with President Obama is wrong for Ohio.

According An Article Published By The Washington Post, Brown “Consistently Votes On The Wrong Side On Energy Interests And In Favor Of The Obama Agenda.” “The good news for Josh Mandel, the Republican challenger to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is that he is running against a career politician at a time when career politicians are greatly out of favor. Brown, for that matter, consistently votes on the wrong side on energy interests and in favor of the Obama agenda.” (Jennifer Rubin, Op-Ed, “Josh Mandel Thinks He Can Win This,” The Washington Post, 6/5/12)

In 2008, Brown Voted For The Cloture Motion On The Lieberman-Warner Cap-And-Trade Bill. “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the motion to proceed to the bill that would cap greenhouse gas emissions nationwide and set up a trading system for companies to buy and sell emissions allowances.” (S. 3036, CQ Vote #141: Adopted 74-14: R 32-13; D 40-1; I 2-0, 6/2/08, Brown Voted Yea)

  • The Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill Marked The First Time Cap-And-Trade Legislation Made It To Senate Floor For Consideration. “Senators voted 74-14 to proceed to debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036), which aims to control global warming through the establishment of a federal cap-and-trade scheme. The debate marks the first times such legislation has come to the floor in either chamber after passing through a committee.” (Geof Koss, “Senate Launched Historic Climate Change Debate,” CongressNow, 6/2/08)
  • After The Vote, Brown Said That Climate Change Is “The Defining Issue Of A Generation” And Argued For “An Immediate Mandatory, Cap-And-Trade Policy.” “We have an opportunity to address the defining issue of a generation, and to do that in a way that is economically responsible. Done right, this legislation can stem the tide of destructive climate change and create new green jobs in Ohio. Done wrong, this bill could accelerate already devastating job loss in Ohio and in manufacturing states across the nation. We need an immediate mandatory, cap-and-trade policy to solve the problem of climate change. We also need to invest in alternative energy development and manufacturing in Ohio. It is not a matter of ‘if’ a climate change bill passes, but ‘when.’ Ohio’s interest must be represented in any final climate change bill.” (Sen. Sherrod Brown, “Brown Votes To Begin Debate On Climate Change Bill,” Press Release, 6/2/08)

An Obama Administration Study Concluded That Cap-And-Trade Would Be The Equivalent Of A 15 Percent Tax Increase, Or $1,761 On Average Per Family. “The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.” (Declan McCullagh, “Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year,” The Associated Press, 9/15/09)

A Report By The Economic Policy Institute Estimates That 195,200 Jobs In Ohio Could Be In Jeopardy Under Proposed Climate-Change Legislation. “The report, produced by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, estimated that 4.1 million jobs nationally could be at risk under proposed climate-change legislation. The institute focuses its research on how policies affect low- and middle-income families. The report estimates that 3.6 percent of Ohio’s workforce, or 195,200 jobs, could be in jeopardy. That means Ohio ranks No. 3 out of 51, including the District of Columbia, in the number of jobs supported by energy-intensive manufacturing industries. Ranked by share of state employment, Ohio is ninth.” (Emily Mullin, “Report Claims ‘Cap-And-Trade’ Endangers Thousands Of Ohio Jobs,” The Athens News, 10/8/09)

  • The Economic Policy Institute In A Non-Profit, Non-Partisan Think Tank. “The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a non-profit, non-partisan think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.” (Economic Policy Institute Website, www.epi.org, Accessed 6/5/12)

Brown Has Supported Obama An Average Of 95 Percent Of The Time:

In 2011, Brown Supported Obama 92 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.media.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

In 2010, Brown Supported Obama 98 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.innovation.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

In 2009, Brown Supported Obama 96 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.innovation.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

Categories: Energy, Ohio
May 24, 2012 by

When Martin Heinrich was on the Albuquerque City Council, he got a call from everyone’s now-defunct “community organizing” group, ACORN.  They wanted a favor – raise the minimum wage, and he was all too quick to respond.  In fact, less than a week after ACORN called Heinrich, he tried to force through their minimum wage rule over the objections of the city council.

Then he tried to take it to the voters, who sided with Albuquerque’s small businesses in rejecting the law.  ACORN pushed hard, but small businesses and working class voters in Albuquerque stood up and said no.

Heinrich, never one to let the voters make decisions on their own, went back to the city council, and dictated a new minimum wage law.

Since Martin got his way, Albuquerque has lost 17,740 jobs.

 

The Albuquerque Metro Area Has Lost 17,740 Jobs Since Heinrich’s Wage Law Went Into Effect:

Albuquerque Metro Area Had 388,848 Jobs In January 2007. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/, Accessed 4/24/12)

Albuquerque Metro Area Had 371,108 Jobs In April 2012 (Most Recent Data Available). (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/, Accessed 5/21/12)

Heinrich Bowed To ACORN And Labor Unions By Fighting For A Higher Minimum Wage Even After Voters Rejected The Proposal:

Heinrich First Decided To Pursue A Higher Minimum Wage After Speaking With Representatives Of ACORN. “City Councilor Martin Heinrich says he might sponsor a minimum wage law for Albuquerque after he was contacted by groups promoting the idea. Proponents include ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, he confirmed Tuesday. The group deals with a variety of issues centering on low-income families. Heinrich said there are other parties involved. He would not discuss details and emphasized that the matter remains under study. ‘I talked to those folks and I’m looking at the issue — trying to look at all sides and doing some research,’ Heinrich said.” (Jim Ludwick, “Councilor May Back A ‘Living Wage,’” Albuquerque Journal, 4/27/05)

  • Heinrich Now Claims He Ran For City Council To Raise The Minimum Wage. “It was the reason why when I ran for city council I carried the legislation to raise the minimum wage.” (0:47 – 0:56, “Martin Heinrich introduces Delores Huerta,” YouTube.com, Uploaded 4/2/11)

5 Days Later, Heinrich Proposed A Minimum Wage Hike To Put On The October Ballot. “City Councilor Martin Heinrich on Sunday proposed asking voters to approve an Albuquerque minimum wage of $7.15 per hour. It would be $2 higher than the federal minimum wage but below Santa Fe’s controversial ‘living wage’ ordinance, which provides $8.50 per hour and will increase to $10.50 by 2008. Heinrich said he will introduce formal legislation today and will seek council approval to put the issue on the ballot Oct. 4, the day of the mayoral election.” (Jim Ludwick, “Voters May Decide Local Minimum Wage,” Albuquerque Journal, 5/2/05)

Albuquerque City Council Voted Against Putting The $7.15 Minimum Wage On The Ballot. “Councilors recently voted against putting a $7.15 minimum wage on the ballot. Proposed by Councilor Martin Heinrich, it would have been $ 2 higher than the federal minimum wage.” (Jim Ludqick, “Albuquerque, N.M., Voters To Decide Wage Issue,” Albuquerque Journal, 8/10/05)

ACORN Led The Petition Drive To Include The Minimum Wage Question On The Ballot But At $7.50/Hr. “The petition-drive proposal calls for a minimum wage of $7.50 per hour for regular employees and $4.50 per hour for tipped employees. It would be increased annually to keep pace with inflation….Matthew Henderson of ACORN, the group that spearheaded Albuquerque’s petition drive, said the provision stemmed from the experience in Santa Fe with its local minimum wage. He said there were allegations employers tried to avoid paying the higher amount.” (Jim Ludqick, “Albuquerque, N.M., Voters To Decide Wage Issue,” Albuquerque Journal, 8/10/05)

  • The New Minimum Wage Question, Supported By Heinrich, Included A “Workplace-Access Provision” That “Would Allow Any Member Of The Public To Have Access To Certain Non-Work Areas ‘To Inform Employees Of Their Rights Under This Ordinance And Other Laws.’”  (Jim Ludwick, “Albuquerque, N.M., Voters To Decide Wage Issue,” Albuquerque Journal, 8/10/05)
  • Heinrich Joined With Labor Unions To Support The New Minimum Wage Law. “Heinrich also expressed optimism. ‘Since this issue left the City Council, it’s been in the hands of the public, so I expect a grass-roots campaign. It’s going to do very well,’ he said. It will be promoted by the Albuquerque Living Wage Campaign, which includes labor unions, church groups, community organizations and others.” (Jim Ludwick, “Albuquerque, N.M., Voters To Decide Wage Issue,” Albuquerque Journal, 8/10/05)

The October Vote On The Minimum Wage Was Rejected By Voters. “Heinrich tried last year to get council support of a minimum wage proposal, but he lost on a 5-4 vote. A proposal on the October city ballot was narrowly defeated, and Gov. Bill Richardson failed to win support from the Legislature for a statewide increase.” (Jim Ludwick, “Chávez Clears Way For $6.75 Minimum Wage,” Albuquerque Journal, 5/4/06)

In April 2006, Albuquerque Passed Heinrich’s Minimum Wage Law. “Albuquerque will have a minimum wage of $6.75 per hour on Jan. 1, thanks to last-minute negotiations that cleared the way for approval Thursday. The figure will increase to $7.15 the following year, and to $7.50 on Jan. 1, 2009, under legislation approved by the City Council. The federal minimum wage is $5.15. ‘It is not a silver bullet, and I realize that. It is a start – it is a compromise’ said Council President Martin Heinrich, who sponsored the legislation that was approved on a 6-3 vote.” (Jim Ludwick, “Wage Increase Passes,” Albuquerque Journal, 4/21/06)

  • The Law Also Gave A $1 Deduction On The Minimum Wage If The Employer Paid At Least $2,500 Towards The Employees Health Insurance. “There also will be a credit if an employer pays at least $2,500 per year for health care or child care benefits. At the $2,500 threshold, the payment of those benefits will get the employer a $1 discount from the minimum-wage requirement.” (Jim Ludwick, “Chávez Clears Way For $6.75 Minimum Wage,” Albuquerque Journal, 5/4/06)

 

Categories: New Mexico
May 22, 2012 by

Career politician U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown has made trade one of his signature issues in Congress over the last 19 years. Brown has argued that he would fix Ohio’s economy by overhauling U.S. free trade policies, yet he completely ignores the reality that Ohio benefits from increased free trade opportunities. According to the Ohio Department of Development, Ohio’s free trade exports were valued at over $41 billion in 2010. In fact, more than 650 Ohio companies and over 120,000 Ohioans benefited from free trade in 2010 alone.

But don’t just take our word for it. During Brown’s 2006 campaign, several Ohio newspapers criticized Brown’s trade policy and endorsed the other candidate. The Dayton Daily News said Brown “is wrong on his biggest issue.” The Cincinnati Enquirer complained that “most troubling about Brown is how he exploits Ohio workers’ fears with his faux-populist, anti-free trade rhetoric.” It’s clear that Brown’s anti-free trade position could significantly obstruct Ohio’s economic recovery and Ohioans deserve far more from their senior Senator in Washington.

Brown Said He Would Fix Ohio’s Economy By Overhauling U.S. Free Trade Policies. “Ask Brown how he would fix Ohio’s economy, and the answer is similar: One of the first things he would do is overhaul U.S. trade policies.” (Elizabeth Austere, “Brown Puts Hopes On Trade Issue,” Plain Dealer, 5/21/06)

According To The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 120,963 Total Jobs In Ohio Were Directly Supported By Exports In 2010. (U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, www.tradesupportsjobs.com, Accessed 9/28/11)

According To The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, There Were 657 Ohio Companies That Exported Their Products In 2010. (U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, www.tradesupportsjobs.com, Accessed 9/28/11)

According To The Ohio Department Of Development, Ohio Merchandise Exports Were Valued At $41.4 Billion In 2010, An Increase Of 21.5 Percent From 2009. (“Ohio Exports 2010 Origin Of Movement Series,” Ohio Department Of Development Policy Research And Strategic Planning Office, March 2011)

The Dayton Daily News Said Brown “Is Wrong On His Biggest Issue.” “Rep. Brown’s signature issue has been trade. He has written a book about how American workers are victimized by the government’s support of free trade. He has voted against the big trade treaties, insisting they should be renegotiated to put more pressure on foreign countries to increase wages, improve working conditions and protect the environment. He believes that these reforms and commitments – which cost money – would reduce the advantage that foreign companies have over U.S. companies and would help slow the movement of jobs overseas. In truth, however, renegotiation would be more likely to result in no treaties or in cosmetic changes. Trying to change thing dramatically in Mexico or China from Washington would be like trying to change Iraq from Washington – without troops. So he is wrong on his biggest issue.” (Editorial, “Mike DeWine Still Best For Ohio,” Dayton Daily News, 10/15/06)

The Cincinnati Enquirer Complained That “Most Troubling About Brown Is How He Exploits Ohio Workers’ Fears With His Faux-Populist, Anti-Free Trade Rhetoric.” “Most troubling about Brown is how he exploits Ohio workers’ fears with his faux-populist, anti-free-trade rhetoric. He posits cause and effect where such relationships are not clear. He says he’s very pro-trade yet opposes efforts to free up tariff structures that often have disadvantages American firms more than those of other nations.” (Editorial, “We Endorse DeWine For Senate,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/22/06)

Categories: Ohio
May 21, 2012 by

Heinrich is so independent that Nancy Pelosi adopted him to be trained by Democratic party lobbyists in Washington on how to run for office.  True story. No doubt their first piece of advice was “pretend to be an independent.”  And he’s certainly following their lead.  Of course, there are those pesky facts.

Heinrich, always the “loyal Democratic soldier” (Santa Fe New Mexican), gets large contributions and perfect scores for his votes in Congress from…fringe environmental radicals like The WildEarth Guardians and The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, groups that surely must be putting New Mexicans first.

Heinrich put party first when he voted for ObamaCare, a bill so poorly written it’s actually going to reduce Medicare Advantage enrollees in New Mexico by over 50%.

So whenever Martin Heinrich tries to claim he’ll do anything but be a far-left Democratic party vote, remember that’s the only thing he’s ever been.

 

“Loyal Democratic Solider” Heinrich Claims He’ll Vote Against The Democratic Party When It Harms New Mexico’s Interests. “Heinrich is clearly the favorite of traditional Democratic interest groups. He’s been backed by various labor unions, environmental groups and at least eight Indian pueblos and other tribal governments. In a Congress known for gridlock and a hard — some say toxic — partisan divide, Heinrich has been a loyal Democratic soldier in Congress, voting his party’s line more than 90 percent of the time.” (Steve Terrell, “Dems: Heinrich Out To Prove He’s Not Just Pretty Face,” Santa Fe New Mexican, http://www.santafenewmexican.com/, 5/19/12)

Heinrich Has Voted With Democrats 95% Of The Time In Congress On Over 2,400 Votes:

In The 111th Congress, Heinrich Voted With The Democrats 97% Of The Time On 1,654 Votes. (The U.S Congress Vote Database, “Martin Heinrich (D),” Washington Post, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/, Accessed 11/14/11)

In The 112th Congress, Heinrich Voted With The Democrats 91% Of The Time On 835 Votes. (The U.S Congress Vote Database, “Martin Heinrich (D),” Washington Post, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/, Accessed 11/14/11)

Nancy Pelosi And The DCCC Enlisted K-Street Lobbyists Who Back Extreme Liberal Causes To “Adopt” Heinrich:

Nancy Pelosi Asked K-Street Lobbyists To Help Vulnerable House Members With Fundraising And Campaigning. “Facing a tough political cycle, the DCCC is redoubling its efforts to enlist K Streeters to help its most vulnerable ‘Frontline’ program Members with fundraising, messaging and campaign strategy. The ask was formalized Wednesday evening at a dinner at Acqua Al 2, an Italian restaurant on Capitol Hill, organized by Jennifer Crider, political director for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and deputy executive director at the DCCC. The effort is being driven by Pelosi loyalists, such as Democratic bundlers Tony Podesta of the Podesta Group, Ben Barnes of the Barnes Group, Steve Elmendorf of Elmendorf Strategies and Brian Wolff, a former DCCC executive director who is now a lobbyist at the Edison Electric Institute. That’s a notable development considering Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is the Caucus’ point man when it comes to fundraising from the downtown business community.” (Anna Palmer, “DCCC Seeking Savvy K Street Reinforcements,” Roll Call, http://www.rollcall.com/, 6/14/10)

  • “‘They Basically Asked Us To Adopt A Member,’ according to another lobbyist at the dinner, who declined to speak on the record.” (Anna Palmer, “DCCC Seeking Savvy K Street Reinforcements,” Roll Call, http://www.rollcall.com/, 6/14/10)

Heinrich Was One Of Those Selected By Pelosi. “Reps. Harry Teague and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Steve Driehaus and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio, Debbie Halvorson of Illinois, Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania and Betsy Markey of Colorado were among the lawmakers the DCCC picked.”  (Anna Palmer, “DCCC Seeking Savvy K Street Reinforcements,” Roll Call, http://www.rollcall.com/, 6/14/10)

Heinrich Has A 100% Voter Rating From The Defenders Of Wildlife:

In The 112th Congress, Heinrich Has Voted With The DOWAF 100% Of The Time. (“Conservation Report Card,” Defenders Of Wildlife Action Fund, Accessed 10/27/11)

ObamaCare, Which Heinrich Voted For, Will Reduce Medicare Advantage Enrolles In New Mexico By Over 50%:

Heinrich Voted To Pass Health Care Reconciliation Act. (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #167: Adopted 220-211: R 0-178; D 220-33, 3/21/10, Heinrich Voted Yea)

New Mexico Statewide Medicare Advantage Cuts Will Total $415,422,000 After ObamaCare. (Robert A. Book, Ph.D. and James C. Capretta, “Effects of Medicare Advantage Changes under PPAC,” Heritage Foundation, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/, 9/14/10)

New Mexico Statewide Medicare Advantage Enrollee Projections Are Reduced From 99,451 In 2017 To 48,624 After ObamaCare (51.11%). (Robert A. Book, Ph.D. and James C. Capretta, “Effects of Medicare Advantage Changes under PPAC,” Heritage Foundation, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/, 9/14/10)

 

Categories: New Mexico
May 8, 2012 by

Senator Jon Tester recently put up a campaign ad and a campaign website devoted to his supposed transparency on ethics.  The ad noted Tester asked “retired Montana judges” to conduct “tough ethics audits.”  What the ad didn’t tell you is that one of those judges is a supporter of Tester’s and contributed $3,350 to his campaign in 2006.  And while Tester pats himself on the back for not accepting any gifts or services from lobbyists, he left out how much he likes their campaign contributions. 

Tester is the #1 recipient of lobbyist donations, with nearly $350,000, that’s almost $100,000 more than he’s raised from Billings—Montana’s largest city.  Tester says he has opposed pay raises, but as recently as February he voted against a measure to extend the current federal pay freeze.  Jon Tester tries to sound like an ethics crusader, but the facts tell a different story. 

 

Ret. Judge Gordon R. Bennett Of Helena, Montana Contributed $3,350 To Tester’s 2006 Campaign. (Federal Election Commission, www.fec.gov, Accessed 5/8/12)

 

Tester Has Taken $348,031 From Lobbyist In The 2012 Cycle. (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/12)

 

  • Tester Is The #1 Recipient Of Lobbyist Money In The 2012 Cycle. (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/12)

 

  • When Asked About His Lobbyist Contributions, Tester Said He Had High Standards And The Fact That People Knew About The Money Proved There Was Transparency. BLOCK: “You know, Senator Tester, that your opponent’s campaign says that you’re hypocritical for talking about restricting campaign finance. They call you the number-one recipient of lobbyist campaign cash out of any Washington politician this election cycle. How do you respond to that?”  TESTER: “Well, first of all, I’ve put up incredible standards in my office for lobbyists — went far, far, far above the Senate standards, number one. Number two, the fact that you know that people give money to my campaign shows that there’s transparency there. But the fact is, you know about it.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 1/30/12)

 

Top 10 Metro Areas-Career
NEW YORK $1,042,076
WASHINGTON,   DC-MD-VA-WV $816,011
MISSOULA $466,479
SAN FRANCISCO $367,362
BOSTON, MA-NH $283,528
BILLINGS $267,701
LOS ANGELES-LONG   BEACH $261,385
CHICAGO $260,175
SEATTLE-BELLEVUE-EVERETT $253,550
GREAT FALLS $142,814

(The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 6/18/12)

 

According To The 2010 Census, With 104,170 People, Billings Is Montana’s Largest City.  (KRTV Website, www.krtv.com, Accessed 6/18/12)

 

Tester’s Salary Has Increased From $165,200 To $174,000 Since He’s Been In The Senate. (Legistorm, www.legistorm.com, Accessed 11/28/11)

 

 

NOTE: Members Of Congress Automatically Receive A Salary Increase Unless It Is Voted Down.

 

In 2010, The Senate Passed H.R. 5146 By Unanimous Consent, Which Prevented Members Of Congress From Receiving A Pay Increase In FY 2011.  (Participatory Politics Foundation, www.opencongress.org, Accessed 12/7/11)

 

In 2009, Tester Voted In Favor Of The Bill That Included A Pay Freeze For Members Of Congress In FY 2010. “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the bill that would provide $410 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2009 for federal departments and agencies covered by nine unfinished fiscal 2009 spending bills. Those bills are: Agriculture; Commerce-Justice-Science; Energy-Water; Financial Services; Interior-Environment; Labor-HHS-Education; Legislative Branch; State-Foreign Operations; and Transportation-HUD. It would also provide $100 million for the U.S. Secret Service and block the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for members of Congress in 2010.” (H.R. 1105, CQ Vote #96: Motion agreed to 62-35: R 8-32; D 52-3; I 2-0, 3/10/09, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • Tester Voted Against A Measure To Table An Amendment That Would Repeal The Automatic Pay Raise For Members Of Congress. “Reid, D-Nev., motion to table (kill) the Vitter, R-La., amendment no. 621 that would repeal the provision of current law that provides for automatic cost of living adjustments for members of Congress.” (H.R. 1105, CQ Vote #95: Motion agreed to 52-45: R 5-35; D 45-10; I 2-0, 3/10/09, Tester Voted Nay)

 

Tester Voted Against A Bill That Would Extend The Federal Employee Pay Freeze Through 2013.  “Roberts, R-Kan., amendment no. 1826 that would extend energy tax credit programs, excluding the production credit and the stimulus grant program that expired in 2011. It also would approve the Keystone XL pipeline and expand oil and gas drilling in new areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Provisions would be partially offset by extending the federal employee pay freeze through 2013.” (S. 1813, CQ Vote #38: Rejected 41-57 : D 3-48; R 38-7; I 0-2, 2/13/12, Tester Voted Nay)

 

Tester Voted Against A Motion To Proceed On A Bill That Would Extend The Payroll Freeze Through 2012.  “McConnell, R-Ky., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend current payroll tax rates for individuals through 2012. It would be offset by requiring increased Medicare payments from higher-income earners. It also would extend the current pay freeze for federal workers for three years and reduce the federal civilian work force through attrition. Note: By unanimous consent, the Senate agreed to raise the majority requirement for adoption of the McConnell motion to proceed to 60 votes. A ‘nay’ was a vote in support of the president’s position.” (S. 1931, CQ Vote #225: Motion Rejected 22-76 : D 0-49; R 22-25; I 0-2, 12/8/11, Tester Voted Nay)

 

Tester Voted Against A Motion To Proceed On A Bill That Would Extend The Payroll Freeze Through 2012.  “McConnell, R-Ky., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend current payroll tax rates for individuals through 2012. It would be offset by requiring increased Medicare payments from higher-income earners. It also would extend the current pay freeze for federal workers for three years and reduce the federal civilian work force through attrition.  Note: By unanimous consent, the Senate agreed to raise the majority requirement for adoption of the McConnell motion to proceed to 60 votes. A “nay” was a vote in support of the president’s position.”  (S. 1931, CQ Vote #220: Motion rejected 20-78 : D 0-50; R 20-26; I 0-2, 12/1/11, Tester Voted Nay)

 

NOTE: The House Passed A Bill Extending The Pay Raise, The Senate Has Yet To Vote On It.

 

In February 2012, The House Passed A Bill To Extend The Congressional Pay Raise Through December 2013, It Has Not Been Voted On In The Senate.  “Ross, R-Fla., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would extend an existing pay freeze on federal employees for an additional year, through Dec. 31, 2013, and apply the same pay freeze to members of Congress.”  (H.R. 3835, CQ Vote #19: Motion agreed to 309-117 : R 237-2; D 72-115, 2/1/12)

 

  • The Bill Was Referred To The Senate Homeland Security And Government Affairs Committee.  “Feb. 2nd: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.” (Open Congress Website, www.opencongress.org, Accessed 5/3/12)
Categories: Montana
May 4, 2012 by

QUESTION: … took so long for the families to be told the real story?

MANCHIN: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Why did it take so long for the families to be told the real story?

MANCHIN: We’re trying to get confirmed information so they don’t have misinformation more. And that is a very… QUESTION: Did you confirm the rescue of the 12 miners to the Associated Press center (ph) down there? I’ve heard one report one time that (inaudible).

MANCHIN: I was coming down there and I said, “Miracles do happen.”

QUESTION: Did any member of your staff or…

Categories: Uncategorized
May 1, 2012 by

Following this week’s Senate primary election in Pennsylvania, Casey’s pro-life record has again been called into question. While Casey maintains that he is pro-life and opposes federal funding of abortion in Pennsylvania, in Washington, his pro-life record has recently received a failing grade.

According to National Right To Life, Casey has a 44% voting record on pro-life issues in the Senate. Most recently, Casey provided the 60th vote to approve ObamaCare, which indirectly allows individuals to purchase abortion-covered health insurance with federal funds. Although Casey argues that it’s critical to maintain restrictions on federal funding of abortion he has also voted more than 4 times against prohibiting foreign non-governmental organizations from receiving U.S. aid unless they agree to strict restrictions on abortion-related activities. It’s clear from Casey’s failing grade with National Right To Life and his voting record in the Senate that he says one thing in Pennsylvania and votes a very different way in Washington.

Casey Is A Pro-Life Catholic. “Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a pro-life Catholic, said religious-affiliated universities and hospitals should not be forced to buy insurance policies that ‘violate their religious and moral convictions.’” (Scott Wong, “GOP Seizes On Contraceptives Issue,” Politico, 2/7/12)

National Right To Life Gave Casey A 44% Voting Record On Pro-Life Issues. “In a five-way Republican primary race to run against incumbent Senator Bob Casey, pro-life businessman Tom Smith prevailed, winning 39.5% of the vote. Smith will challenge Senator Casey (D) who has a mixed voting record (44%), according to National Right To Life.” (National Right To Life Website, www.nationalrighttolifenews.org, Accessed 5/2/12)

CASEY: “It Is Critical To Maintain Restrictions On Federal Funding Of Abortion.” (Sen. Bob Casey, “Faith Leaders Support Casey Alternative,” Press Release, 12/18/09)

Casey Was The 60th Vote For ObamaCare.(H.R. 3590, CQ Vote #396: Passed 60-39: R 0-39; D 58-0; I 2-0, 12/24/09, Casey Voted Yea; H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #105: Passed 56-43: R 0-40; D 54-3; I 2-0, 3/25/10, Casey Voted Yea)

ObamaCare Indirectly Allows For The Purchase Of Abortion-Covered Health Insurance With Federal Tax-Payer Funds. “Casey backed a Senate compromise that – while prohibiting federal funds from paying directly for an abortion – allows low-to-middle-income people who receive health care subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion. In doing so, he alienated anti-abortion advocates.” (Colby Itkowitz, “Casey, Pitts At Center Of Abortion Compromise,” The [Allentown] Morning Call, 1/14/10)

Casey Has Voted At Least 4 Times Against Protecting The Mexico City Policy. (H.R. 2764, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 53-41: R 7-40; D 44-1; I 2-0, 9/6/07, Casey Voted Yea; H.R. 2764, CQ Vote #320: Rejected 40-54: R 39-8; D 1-44; I 0-2, 9/6/07, Casey Voted Nay; H.R. 2764, CQ Vote #325: Passed 81-12: D 44-0; R 35-12; I 2-0, 9/6/07, Casey Voted Yea; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #19: Rejected 37-60: R 36-4; D 1-54; I 0-2, 1/28/09, Casey Voted Nay)

  • The Mexico City Policy Prohibits Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations From Receiving U.S. Aid Unless They Agree To Strict Restrictions On Abortion-Related Activities. “On Monday, Bush signed a directive reinstituting a 1984 policy – known to abortion opponents as the ‘Mexico City Policy’ and to abortion rights advocates as the ‘gag rule’ – that prohibits foreign non-governmental organizations from receiving U.S. population aid funds unless they agree to sharp restrictions on all abortion-related activities, no matter who pays for them.” (Karen DeYoung, “Abortion Aid Ban’s Global Impact Debated,” The Washington Post, 1/26/01)
Categories: Healthcare, Pennsylvania
May 1, 2012 by

As Senator Brown continues to campaign around Ohio he has complained that partisan politicians have tried to deceive the public by talking narrowly about his record. So let’s talk generally about his record in Washington. For 2011, The National Journal ranked Brown the 5th most liberal Senator. In fact, Brown has voted on a partisan basis his entire Congressional career. Not only has Brown voted with the Democratic party an average of 96 percent of the time, but he has also voted to support President Obama’s liberal agenda 95 percent of the time!

Is it really deceiving to point out the fact that Brown provided key votes for some of Obama’s most far-reaching priorities including the $2.6 trillion ObamaCare bill and the $1.18 trillion failed stimulus bill? Despite his election year gimmicks to distort his record, it is clear that Brown’s loyal support of Obama’s policies have done little to protect Ohio families while burdening future generations with reckless spending.

Brown Complained That “Partisan Politicians” Deceive The Public By Narrowly Talking About His Record.  “Partisan politicians, says Brown, who of course cites Republicans, ‘so often will say something about me or about progressives or about the president that in a narrow sense may be true, but it is really deceiving the public about the bigger picture.” (Stephen Koff, “Politifact Ohio At One,” Plain Dealer, 7/24/11)

For 2011, The National Journal Ranked Sherrod Brown The 5Th Most Liberal Senator.(The National Journal Website, www.nationaljournal.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

From 1993-2011, Brown Has Supported The Democratic Party An Average Of 96.3 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.media.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

Brown Has Supported Obama An Average Of 95 Percent Of The Time:

In 2011, Brown Supported Obama 92 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.media.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

In 2010, Brown Supported Obama 98 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.innovation.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

In 2009, Brown Supported Obama 96 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.innovation.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

Obama-Brown Reckless Spending Agenda:

Brown Was The 60th Vote For The Senate Version Of The Health Care Overhaul Bill. (H.R. 3590, CQ Vote #396: Passed 60-39: R 0-39; D 58-0; I 2-0, 12/24/09, Brown Voted Yea; H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #105: Passed 56-43: R 0-40; D 54-3; I 2-0, 3/25/10, Brown Voted Yea)

  • The True Cost Of ObamaCare Once It Is Fully Implemented Will Be $2.6 Trillion. (Office Of The Speaker Of The U.S. House Of Representatives, Report, 1/6/11)

Brown Voted To Approve The $1.18 Trillion Stimulus Bill. H.R. 1, CQ Vote #64: Adopted 60-38: R 3-38; D 55-0; I 2-0, 2/13/09, Brown Voted Yea)

The Total Cost Of The Stimulus With Interest Is $1.18 Trillion:

  • In February 2012, The Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office Revised Their Estimated Cost Of The Stimulus Up To $831 Billion. “When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009-2019 period will amount to about $831 billion.” (Douglas Elmendorf, “Estimated Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act On Employment And Economic Output From October 2011 Through December 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, February 2012)
  • CBO Estimated The Government’s Interest Costs From The Stimulus Would Total $347 Billion Between 2009-2019. “Under CBO’s current economic assumptions and assuming that none of the direct budgetary effects of H.R. 1 are offset by future legislation, CBO estimates that the government’s interest costs would increase by $0.7 billion in fiscal year 2009 and by a total of $347 billion over the 2009-2019 period (see enclosed table).” (Congressional Budget Office Website, www.cbo.gov, 1/27/09)
Categories: Healthcare, Ohio