Arizona Democrats Are Playing Politics On Trade Deal

May 12, 2015 by

Category: AR PAC

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: Bailouts, Healthcare, Ohio
April 30, 2012 by

Who are those Rhode Island and South Carolina lawyers funding Heitkamp’s campaign?  They’re the ones who took millions from North Dakota when Heidi was Attorney General.

Heitkamp hired Jack McConnell, who has been accused before of pay-to-play scandals by The Wall Street Journal, to help negotiate the Master Settlement Agreement where tobacco companies would have to pay billions.  McConnell admitted years later to collecting as much as $70 million in fees that are still being paid.  McConnell has since been steering thousands of dollars to Heitkamp’s campaigns for the last decade through his law firm; a law firm located in Rhode Island and South Carolina.

 

Heitkamp And Jack McConnell Were Both Deeply Involved In The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement:

Heitkamp Was One Of Only Seven Attorneys General At The National Press Club Announcing The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. “MEDIA BRIEFING WITH ATTORNEYS GENERAL FROM SEVEN STATES, SUBJECT: NEW TOBACCO AGREEMENT,  PARTICIPANTS: WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL DENNIS VACCO, NORTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL HEIDI HEITKAMP, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE FISHER, OKLOHAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL DREW EDMONDSON, COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL GALE NORTON, IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL TOM MILLER, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON, DC.” (“Tobacco Settlement News Conference,” http://www.c-spanvideo.org/, 11/16/98)

Heitkamp Was “A Big Player” In Negotiating The Master Settlement Agreement. DENNIS VACCO, Attorney General, New York: “And one of those people representing, as we referred to the states in the negotiating team as a ‘small state,’ a small state but a big voice and a big player in this — Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota.” (“Tobacco Settlement News Conference,” http://www.c-spanvideo.org/, 11/16/98)

Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire Singled Out McConnell For His Help Negotiating The Case. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, Attorney General, Washington: “And with him, Jack McConnell (sp) of the Ness, Motley firm. Thank you, Jack, for a tremendous amount of time and effort, all- nighters that we spent with you. We thank you.” (“Tobacco Settlement News Conference,” http://www.c-spanvideo.org/, 11/16/98)

Heitkamp Hired Jack McConnell In 1999 To Assist North Dakota In Suing Tobacco Companies, And McConnell Was Paid Millions For His Services:

Heitkamp, Serving As North Dakota’s Attorney General, Selected A Rhode Island Lawyer, Jack McConnell, To Run North Dakota’s Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies. “In Washington DC, the Senate voted today to block a Republican filibuster on the judicial nomination proceedings of Jack McConnell to the US District Court of Rhode Island, while here in Bismarck, former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp is refusing to answer questions on the subject. Heitkamp hired McConnell in 1999 to serve as a legal consultant for North Dakota in the tobacco case, and consequently received large campaign contributions to her 2000 gubernatorial run.” (Kate Bommarito, “Heitkamp Silent On McConnell ‘Pay-for-Play’ Contributions,” Plains Daily, http://plainsdaily.com/, 5/4/11)

  • McConnell Was Appointed By Heitkamp As A “Special Assistant Attorney General” To Handle The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements. “It has come to my attention that your legal services to the State of North Dakota have concluded and that you no longer require an appointment as a special assistant attorney general to assist the North Dakota Office of Attorney General in the implementation and enforcement of the terms of the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Smokeless Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.” (Letter To John J. McConnell, Office Of The Attorney General, http://northdakota.areavoices.com/, 2/13/09)

McConnell Admitted To Being Compensated By The Law Firm For His Work On The Lawsuit As Much As $3 Million Per Year Through 2024. “My prior firm (MRRM, P.A.) received attorney fees pursuant to the Master Settlement Agreement for its work on tobacco litigation.  As a result of my work for the firm, I have receved between $2-3 million dollars [sic] per year since 1999.  I anticipate receiving future deferred compensation for work performed and completed for the firm on tobacco litigation of approximately $2.5 million to $3.1 million each year through 2024.” (John J. McConnell, Jr., “Letter To Senator Jeff Sessions,” http://www.judicialwatch.org/, 7/7/10)

  • Heitkamp Claimed That McConnell Did Not Receive Any Compensation. “On Wednesday, Heitkamp provided the pages of the master settlement agreement that refer to ‘Designation of Outside Counsel.’ While other states have outside lawyers named to receive compensation for representation, next to North Dakota is the word ‘none.’ ‘Jack McConnell didn’t receive a dime for any legal work that he ever did for the state of North Dakota,’ Heitkamp said. ‘He served without compensation.’” (“Heitkamp: ‘Pay To Play’ Claims False,” Fargo-Moorehead, https://secure.forumcomm.com/, 5/5/11)

Heitkamp Has Taken $50,000 (11%) Of Her Contributions From Motley Rice Lawyers And Associated PACs:

Heitkamp Has Raised $10,000 From The Trial Lawyers Association PAC, American Association For Justice Political Action Committee (AAJ PAC) On December 21, 2011. (FEC Disclosure Database, http://query.nictusa.com/, Accessed 2/7/12)

  • Ronald Motley, Founding Member Of Motley Rice, Sits On The Board Of Governors For AAJ PAC. (“AAJ Board Of Governors,” American Association For Justice, http://www.justice.org/, Accessed 2/7/12)

Employees For Motley Rice Contributed $40,000 To Heitkamp’s Campaign, All On December 21, 2011. (FEC Disclosure, Heidi For Senate, http://query.nictusa.com/, Filed 2/2/12)

McConnell Directed $73,000 To Heitkamp’s 2000 Gubernatorial Campaign, And Has Been Accused Of Pioneering Pay-To-Play Schemes:

After Being Selected, McConnell Directed $73,000 In Contributions To Heitkamp From Himself And His Law Firm. “In North Dakota, Mr. McConnell and his wife contributed $30,000 to the gubernatorial Campaign of the attorney general who appointed him as ‘special assistant attorney general for purposes of representing that state in tobacco litigation.’ Mr. McConnell and his law firm contributed an additional $73,000 to that same attorney general’s state political party during the campaign cycle, making them the number-four campaign contributor to that organization.” (Senator John Cornyn, “Cornyn Outlines Objections To Nomination Of Jack Mcconnell,” Press Release, http://cornyn.senate.gov/, 5/3/11)

McConnell Was Accused Of Pay To Play Scandals In 2009 By The Wall Street Journal Over Arrangements With Public Officials. “Mr. McConnell and his firm helped pioneer the practice of soliciting public officials to bring lawsuits in which the private lawyers are paid a percentage of any judgment or settlement. The law firms front the costs of litigation and are compensated if the suit is successful. But such contingency-fee arrangements inevitably raise questions of pay to play.” (Editorial, “Fools For Motley,” Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/, 4/24/09)

  • In 1993, Heitkamp Said That State Ethics Laws Were Adequate But That It was Important To Avoid “Any Kind Of Appearance Of Impropriety.” “Additionally, Heitkamp said ethics is an issue coming to the fore in state government. She believes the state’s government ethics laws are adequate… ‘This becomes more complicated as we see government moving more into public-private partnerships,’ she said. ‘It’s important that the individuals in government understand the expectation of avoiding any kind of appearance of impropriety.’” (Deneen Gilmour, Bismarck Tribune, 6/26/93)

Senators Whitehouse And Reed (D’s-RI) Recommended McConnell For The Federal Bench. “U.S. Senators recommend people for the federal bench all the time. So when trial attorney Jack McConnell was tapped last week for a seat on the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island by Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, the announcement received much less scrutiny than it deserves.” (Editorial, “Fools For Motley,” Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/, 4/24/09)

Heitkamp’s Former Aid Took A Job At McConnell’s Firm In Rhode Island:

“One Of Heitkamp’s Top Deputies, Laurie Loveland, Subsequently Took A Job In Ness Motley’s Office In Providence, R.I.”  “Heitkamp’s supporters also include a sprinkling of attorneys who have sued tobacco companies. Six attorneys from one South Carolina firm, Ness Motley, have donated a total of $38,000, her disclosure form shows. Ness Motley helped to negotiate settlements of state lawsuits against the nation’s largest tobacco companies. The firm did not represent North Dakota, although Heitkamp worked closely with some of its attorneys during the process. The negotiations resulted in a settlement involving 46 states, including North Dakota, that is expected to bring the state more than $800 million over 25 years. One of Heitkamp’s top deputies, Laurie Loveland, subsequently took a job in Ness Motley’s office in Providence, R.I.” (Dale Wetzel, “Heitkamp Filings Show She’s Raised $1 Million For Gov Race,” Associated Press, 10/27/00)

Jack McConnell Is A Partner At Ness Motely (Now Motely Rice). “‘At Motley Rice LLC, we will build on the wonderful tradition we established under Ness Motley winning justice for Rhode Islanders and Americans harmed by the wrongdoing of others,’ said Motley Rice LLC senior member Jack McConnell, who directs the firm’s Providence office.” (Motley Rice, “Motley Rice LLC Launched By Ness Motley Attorneys, Hundreds Of Staff; Remains One Of Nation’s, Providence’s Largest Plaintiffs’ Firm; Known For Leadership In Asbestos, Tobacco, Lead Paint, Terrorism And Other Complex Mass Tort Litigation,” Press Release, http://goliath.ecnext.com/, 4/28/03)

 

Categories: North Dakota
April 29, 2012 by

Martin Heinrich holds a lot of liberal positions, but his most disturbing views may be on our only Democratic ally in the Middle East – Israel.

When the U.N released a report condemning Israel while giving a pass to the terrorist organization Hamas, Heinrich refused to condemn it.

When a city councilman attacked Israel for “oppression and genocide,” Heinrich endorsed him.

When far-left anti-Israel groups held a rally condemning Israel, Heinrich sent a representative from his congressional office.

And in case that weren’t enough, here’s Heinrich giving a speech right in front of a Free Palestine banner. 

Heinrich Refused To Vote To Condemn The “Irredeemably Biased” Goldstone Report:

On November 3, 2009, Congress Overwhelmingly Passed A Resolution Criticizing The UN Goldstone Report For Being “Irredeemably Biased” Against Israel. “The nonbinding House resolution, passed Nov. 3 on a 344-36 vote, describes the report as ‘irredeemably biased’ in examining Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip in December and January. The document, called the Goldstone Report, was compiled by an independent team led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone. The report says Israel and the Palestinian Hamas group, which controls Gaza, both committed war crimes during the three-week clash. However, Israel’s offensive, which human rights organizations say resulted in about 1,400 Palestinian deaths, bore most of the criticism in the report.” (Michael Coleman, “’Present’ Votes On Israel Issue; Luján, Heinrich Refused To Take Sides On Resolution On U.N. Report,” Albuquerque Journal, 11/11/09)

Heinrich Voted Present On The Resolution Opposing The Goldstone Report. “Berman, D-Calif., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution that would call on the president and secretary of State to continue to oppose any endorsement of a report by the United Nations on the conflict in Gaza and reaffirm the support of the House for the state of Israel.” (H.Res. 867, CQ Vote #838: Motion agreed to 344-36: D 179-33; R 165-3; I 0-0, 11/3/09, Heinrich Voted Present)

Heinrich Refused To Vote On The Resolution, Taking No Position. “A U.N.-sponsored report that accuses both Hamas and Israel of war crimes – and is especially tough on Israel – was overwhelmingly denounced by the U.S. House last week, but Reps. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján avoided an up or down vote on the issue. Instead of voting yea or nay, Heinrich of Albuquerque and Lujan if Santa Fe, both Democrats, voted ‘present.’” (Michael Coleman, “’Present’ Votes On Israel Issue; Luján, Heinrich Refused To Take Sides On Resolution On U.N. Report,” Albuquerque Journal, 11/11/09)

Heinrich Said He Voted Present Because He Claimed The Resolution “Does Nothing To Resolve The Ongoing Conflict.”  “Heinrich said he continues ‘to be a strong supporter of the state of Israel and its right to both exist and defend its citizens,’ but he did not consider the House resolution helpful to the Middle East peace process. ‘The unequivocal position in the nonbinding resolution last week does nothing to resolve the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, and it detracts from our ability to help negotiate a lasting peace which is in both the national security interests of Israel and the United States,’ Heinrich said in a statement provided to the Journal.” (Michael Coleman, “’Present’ Votes On Israel Issue; Luján, Heinrich Refused To Take Sides On Resolution On U.N. Report,” Albuquerque Journal, 11/11/09)

Heinrich Sent A Representative To Address A Rally Calling For An End To The “Occupation Taking Place In…Palestine”:

In March 2009, A Rally Was Held In Albuquerque Opposing The “Occupation Taking Place In…Palestine.” “This local rally is in solidarity with the massive national March on the Pentagon being organized by ANSWER in Washington, DC on the 6th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. The rally is calling for an end to the expansion by the administration and Congress of the wars of occupation taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, and the impending invasion or Iran.” (“This Weekend: ABQ Protests Of Wars Of Occupation, Rally To Bring Troops Home,” Democracy For New Mexico, http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/, 3/20/09)

Heinrich Reportedly Sent An Aid To Address The Rally That Is Calling On Him To Stop Foreign Aid To Israel. “The Y6 Coalition is calling on Rep. Heinrich to work with the national S30 movement to stop the next $30 billion installment of U.S. weapons to Israel. A representative for the Congressman’s office will also address the rally.” (“This Weekend: ABQ Protests Of Wars Of Occupation, Rally To Bring Troops Home,” Democracy For New Mexico, http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/, 3/20/09)

Heinrich Associates With Anti-Israel Groups And Individuals:

Heinrich Gave A Speech In Front A Banner That Reads: “Free Palestine.” (0:14 – 0:36, “Martin Heinrich introduces Delores Huerta,” http://www.youtube.com/, Uploaded 4/2/11)

Albuquerque City Councilor Isaac Benton Attacked Israel For “Oppression And Genocide.” “In Albuquerque earlier this year, City Councilor Isaac Benton was criticized for calling Israel’s actions ‘oppression and genocide’ at a protest rally in the city in January. Local Jewish leaders objected to the genocide remark, and Benton said he regretted the comment.” (Michael Coleman, “’Present’ Votes On Israel Issue; Luján, Heinrich Refused To Take Sides On Resolution On U.N. Report,” Albuquerque Journal, 11/11/09)

 

Categories: New Mexico
April 25, 2012 by

 

When Tim Kaine was running for governor he said he would never try to raise the gas tax unless there was a constitutional amendment protecting the transportation trust fund.  The gas tax funded the transportation trust fund which was raided by the legislature in 2002 to cover a general fund budget shortfall.  Kaine took a common-sense stance when he said they couldn’t talk about raising taxes until the people were convinced the money would be spent “the right way.”

 However, like many politicians, once the election was over he twisted his campaign pledge.  With none of the safeguards he talked about in place, Kaine proposed raising the gas tax 1 percent in Hampton Roads.  This seemingly small tax increase would have little effect on the profits of major corporations, but it is a big deal for small businesses.  Luckily for Virginia’s small businesses, Kaine’s proposed tax (that he said he would never propose) didn’t make it through the state house. 

 

 

Kaine Said He Would Not Increase The Gas Tax Unless There Was A Constitutional Amendment. “And Kaine, who is Kilgore’s likely opponent in the governor’s race, vowed never to seek an increase in the gas tax unless Virginia approves a constitutional amendment to prevent the legislature from raiding the state’s transportation fund in tight budget times.” (Michael D. Shear and Chris Jenkins, “Va. Surplus Eyed For Transportation,” The Washington Post, 11/18/04)

 

“We Can’t Just Tax And Pave Our Way Out Of The Problem, Kaine Said.” (Steven Ginsberg, “Transportation Problems Are Short On Details,” The Washington Post, 10/5/05)

 

KAINE: “We Can’t Really Talk About New Revenue Until We Convince People That We’re Spending The Money We Have The Right Way.” (Christina Bellantoni, “Kaine Details Plans For Roads,” The Washington Times, 9/16/04)

 

Kaine Would Not Consider Anything Until The Assembly Safeguarded The Transportation Trust Fund. “Kaine said he would not consider increases in the gas tax or other transportation-related levies until the General Assembly takes steps to safeguard the state’s transportation trust fund, which supports road-building, mass transit and port and airport construction.” (Michael Sluss, “Kaine Outlines Plan To Avoid Crisis In Transportation  System,” The Roanoke Times, 6/24/05)

 

  • In 2002, The Transportation Trust Fund Had Been Raided To Cover A Budget Shortfall. “The General Assembly in 2002 diverted about $300 million in dedicated sales tax revenue from the trust fund to the general fund to help cover a budget shortfall.” (Michael Sluss, “Kaine Outlines Plan To Avoid Crisis In Transportation  System,” The Roanoke Times, 6/24/05)

 

KAINE: “I’m Not Going To Take Anything Off The Table. But Until We Lock Up The Transportation Fund, I’m Not Talking About New Revenue.” (Editorial, “The Rape Of The Lock” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1/30/06)

 

KAINE: “I Always Said I Wasn’t Going To Raise Taxes In Respect To The General Fund. The Transportation Issue Is Different,” (Chris Jenkins, “Va. House Leaders Defend Plan,” The Washington Post, 2/22/06)

 

Kaine Plan Would Raise The Sales Tax In NoVa And Hampton Rds. “Kaine’s plan called for an array of state and regional taxes that included increasing the sales tax by one penny on the dollar in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia…” (Warren Fiske, “House Kills Gov. Kaine’s Transportation Funding Bill,” The Virginian-Pilot, 6/26/08)

 

  • Hampton Rds. Would Also Have A 1 Percent Gas Tax Increase. “In addition, residents of Hampton Roads would pay an additional penny-on-the-dollar sales tax and a 1 percent increase in the tax on retail gas.” (Warren Fiske, “House Kills Gov. Kaine’s Transportation Funding Bill,” The Virginian-Pilot, 6/26/08)

 

Richmond Times-Dispatch: NFIB Member Said A 1 Cent Increase In The Sales Tax Or The Gas Tax Will Have A Very Negative Impact On Small Businesses. “I hope my legislators understand that you can’t ignore small businesses and claim to speak for Virginia’s business community… A PENNY increase in the sales tax or gasoline tax isn’t going to matter much to the corporations that sit on the Chamber’s board of directors – companies such as ExxonMobil, Philip Morris, and Bank of America – but it’s going to mean a lot to the small businesses like mine. Roughly 82 percent of NFIB’s [National Federation of Independent Business] members in the commonwealth have fewer than 20 employees; 62 percent have fewer than 10. Most have sales of $500,000 or less a year. That’s a rounding error to some of the companies on the Chamber’s board.” (Editorial, “Listen To Small Businesses,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 5/20/08)

Categories: Virginia
April 25, 2012 by

Jon Tester and President Obama know each other very well.  Obama was one of the few out-of-state Democrats who helped Tester get elected in 2006.  Obama was nice enough to contribute $5,000 to Tester’s PAC and even headlined a fundraiser for him…in San Francisco.  Tester called Obama the “real deal” and the partnership has continued.  Since Obama got to the White House, Tester has voted for Obama’s agenda 95 percent of time.  When Obama needed him, Tester was there to vote for his $1.18 trillion stimulus, the $1.76 trillion healthcare bill, and Obama’s numerous “irresponsible” trillion-dollar spending sprees.  This isn’t the independent leadership Montana needs.

 

Tester Has Voted With Obama’s Position 94.667 Percent Of The Time:

TESTER’S VOTES WITH THE PRESIDENT’S   POSITION

 

Voting
Participation

Presidential
Support

Party
Unity

Conservative
Coalition

Year

Support

Oppose

Support

Oppose

Support

Oppose

2011

99%

90%

10%

87%

13%

2010

99%

97%

3%

89%

11%

—

—

2009

99%

97%

3%

92%

8%

—

—

2008

98%

30%

70%

92%

8%

—

—

2007

99%

37%

63%

84%

16%

—

—

(CQ Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 4/24/12)

 

Obama Was One Of The Few Out-Of-State People Who Helped Tester Fundraise And Campaign. “Although Tester appeared recently at a fundraiser in San Francisco with Democratic Party headline-grabber Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, he has limited his campaign help, in Montana at least, to veterans such as former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost three of his limbs in the Vietnam War, and former NATO supreme allied commander Gen. Wesley Clark.” (High-Ranking Guardsman Touts Tester,” Great Falls Tribune, 11/2/06)

 

  • Barack Obama’s PAC, The Hope Fund, Contributed $5,000 To Tester’s 2006 Campaign.  (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed12/8/11)

 

  • In 2006, Then-Sen. Obama Raised Money For Tester At A Fundraiser In San Francisco. “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will raise money for Democratic Senate candidate Jon Tester in San Francisco Wednesday.  Tester is challenging Montana Sen. Conrad Burns, a Republican, in one of the most closely watched Senate races this year. Spokesman Matt McKenna said Tester will attend the fundraiser.  Obama, a freshman senator elected in 2004, made headlines Sunday when he acknowledged he is considering a run for president in 2008. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.” (Mary Clare Jalonick, “Obama Will Raise Money For Tester,” The Associated Press, 10/23/06)

 

TESTER: “He’s [Obama] The Real Deal…” (John Adams, “Tester Tours Obama’s ‘Real Deal’ Credentials,” Great Falls Tribune, 8/29/08)

 

Tester Voted In Favor Of The Stimulus Package.  “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide an estimated $787.2 billion in tax cuts and spending increases to stimulate the economy, plus provisions to prevent the alternative minimum tax from applying to millions of additional taxpayers in 2009 and to increase the ceiling on federal borrowing by $789 billion to $12.104 trillion. The tax provisions, estimated to cost $211.8 billion through 2019, would include extending current accelerated depreciation allowances for businesses, suspending taxes on the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits per recipient for 2009, and expanding a number of other individual tax credits, including the first-time homebuyer tax credit to $8,000. Mandatory spending increases, expected to cost $267 billion through 2019, include an extension of unemployment and welfare benefits, Medicaid payments to states, health insurance assistance for individuals and grants for health information technology. Discretionary spending, estimated at $308.3 billion through 2019 and include grants to state and local schools and funds for public housing, transportation and nutrition assistance.”  (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #61: Adopted 61-37 NV-1: R 3-37; D 56-0; I 2-0, 2/10/09, Tester 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)

 

Tester Voted For The FY 2010 Senate Budget That Would Allow Up To $1.08 Trillion In Spending. “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would set broad spending and revenue targets over the next five years. The resolution would allow up to $1.08 trillion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2010 and increase discretionary spending by $490 billion over five years. It would assume a three-year adjustment to prevent additional taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax. It would create numerous exceptions to the discretionary spending limit, including one to allow for health care changes and one for a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions. It also would assume a deficit of $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2009 and $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2010.” (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #154: Adopted 55-43: R 0-41; D 53-2; I 2-0, 4/2/09, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • The Union Leader Called The Budget “The Most Fiscally Irresponsible Budget In The History Of The Federal Government.” “The Republicans under President Bush were far from prudent with the people’s money. They are pikers compared to Democrats under President Obama, who just passed the most fiscally irresponsible budget in the history of the federal government.” (Editorial, “Reckless; A Historic Failure,” The Union Leader, 4/5/09)

 

Tester Voted For The $1.1 Trillion FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $446.8 billion in discretionary spending for federal departments and agencies covered by six unfinished fiscal 2010 spending bills. The measure incorporates the following previously separate appropriations bills from the 111th Congress: Commerce-Justice-Science; Financial Services; Labor-HHS-Education; Military Construction-VA; State-Foreign Operations; and Transportation-HUD. It also would prohibit the release or transfer of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States, for any reason other than prosecution.” (H.R. 3288, CQ Vote #374: Adopted 57-37: R 3-32; D 52-3; I 2-0, 12/13/09, Tester Voted Yea)

 

Tester Voted For The Senate Version Of The Health Care Overhaul Bill. “Passage of the bill, as amended, that would overhaul the nation’s health insurance system and require most individuals to buy health insurance by 2014. It would create a system of national private insurance plans supervised by the Office of Personnel Management and create state-run marketplaces for purchasing health insurance. Those that do not obtain coverage would be subject to an excise tax. Excluded from the mandate would be those exempt from filing income tax and others with a hardship waiver, religious objection or those who cannot afford coverage. Employers with 50 or more workers would have to provide coverage or pay a fine if any employee gets a subsidized plan on the exchange. The bill would provide tax credits to certain small businesses for providing coverage and provide subsidies to individuals making up to four times the federal poverty level, excluding illegal immigrants. It would bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in the new programs created under the bill, except in the cases of rape, incest or if the woman’s life is in danger. It would bar insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions beginning in 2014, and also bar them from dropping coverage of people who become ill. It would expand eligibility for Medicaid, shrink the coverage gap under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program and create an advisory board to reduce the per capita growth rate in Medicare spending.” (H.R. 3590, CQ Vote #396: Passed 60-39: R 0-39; D 58-0; I 2-0, 12/24/09, Tester Voted Yea)

 

Tester Voted For The Health Care Reconciliation Bill. “Passage of the bill that would make changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, revise student loans programs and include revenue-raising provisions. It would increase federal subsidies to help low- and moderate-income families purchase coverage through new health insurance exchanges established by the overhaul measure, phase out the coverage gap for Medicare prescription drug enrollees and adjust the federal matching funds for Medicaid. It would increase penalties levied on employers that do not offer health benefits and change the formula used to calculate penalties on employers with workers who obtain subsidies to obtain health insurance through the exchanges. It would freeze Medicare Advantage payments in 2011 and then re-formulate payments according to local costs. It also would specify that in all states, the federal government would cover 100 percent of the cost of coverage to newly eligible Medicaid recipients from 2014 to 2016. It would delay for five years, until 2018, the effective date of a tax on high-cost health plans and adjust the dollar amounts used to determine who would be affected by the tax. It would repeal a provision to allow the cellulosic biofuels producer credit to be claimed by producers of certain paper products. It also would make the federal government the sole originator of federal student loans and direct the savings generated to education programs, including Pell grants. It would shift all new federal student lending to the Direct Loan Program beginning July 1, 2010. It would increase the maximum annual Pell Grant scholarship to $5,975 in 2017 and provide $2.6 billion for minority-serving institutions.”(H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #105: Passed 56-43: R 0-40; D 54-3; I 2-0, 3/25/10, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • In March 2012, CBO Reported That ObamaCare Will Cost $1.76 Trillion Over Ten Years, Nearly Twice The Amount Of The Original Forecast. “President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law. Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost ‘around $900 billion over 10 years.’” (Philip Klein, “CBO: Obamacare To Cost $1.76 Trillion Over 10 Yrs,” Washington Examiner, 3/13/12)

 

 

In April 2009, Tester Voted For The Conference Report Of The FY 2010 Budget. “Adoption of the conference report on the concurrent resolution that would allow up to $1.086 trillion in non-emergency discretionary spending for fiscal 2010, plus $130 billion in fiscal 2010 for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would assume $764 billion in tax cuts over five years, including an extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for households earning less than $250,000 annually, a three-year adjustment to prevent additional taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax and a permanent extension of the 2009 estate tax levels. It includes reconciliation instructions to House and Senate committees to report a total of $2 billion in savings, presumably from health care and student loan program, by Oct. 15. It would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for health care and climate change legislation.” (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #173: Adopted 53-43: R 0-40; 51-3, I 2-0, 4/29/09, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • The Final Budget Resolution Represented A $3.4 Trillion Spending Plan. “The Democratically controlled Congress yesterday easily approved a $3.4 trillion spending plan, setting the stage for President Obama to pursue the first major overhaul of the nation’s health-care system in a generation along with other far-reaching domestic initiatives.” (Lori Montgomery, “Congress Approves Obama’s $3.4 Trillion Spending Blueprint” The Washington Post, 4/30/09)

 

  • Under The Budget Resolution, The Federal Deficit Was Expected To Exceed $1.2 Trillion In FY 2010. “The budget resolution did not win a single vote from Republican lawmakers, who were enraged that the deficit is projected to exceed $1.2 trillion next year.” (Lori Montgomery, “Congress Approves Obama’s $3.4 Trillion Spending Blueprint” The Washington Post, 4/30/09)

 

CBO’s 2012 Deficit Projection Means Obama Has Run A Deficit Of Over $1 Trillion For Each Of His First Four Years In Office. “If the CBO estimate is correct, it would mean that the U.S. recorded a deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of Obama’s first term… The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. The largest deficit recorded before that was $458 billion in 2008.” (Erik Wasson, “CBO Projects $1.08T Deficit, Higher Unemployment,” The Hill, 1/31/12)

 

  • Tester Voted For The Massive 2010 Omnibus Spending Bill Conference      Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would      provide $446.8 billion in discretionary spending for federal departments      and agencies covered by six unfinished fiscal 2010 spending bills. The      measure incorporates the following previously separate appropriations      bills from the 111th Congress: Commerce-Justice-Science; Financial      Services; Labor-HHS-Education; Military Construction-VA; State-Foreign      Operations; and Transportation-HUD. It also would prohibit the release or      transfer of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United      States, for any reason other than prosecution.” (H.R. 3288, CQ Vote #374: Adopted 57 – 35: R 3 – 32; D 52 – 3; I 2      – 0, 12/13/09, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • Tester Voted For The Continuing Resolution To Fund The Government      Through 12/3/10. “Passage of the bill that would make would provide      continuing appropriations through Dec. 3, 2010, for all federal      departments and agencies, none of whose fiscal 2010 appropriations bills      have been enacted. It would provide several spending adjustments including      an increase of $624 million for the National Nuclear Security      Administration and $23 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.      It would reduce spending for the Census Bureau to $964 million. It also      would extend year-round child nutrition programs and the Federal Emergency      Management Agency’s pre-disaster mitigation operations. The bill would      allow the District of Columbia to implement its local budget beginning on      Oct. 1, 2010.” (H.R. 3081, CQ Vote #247: Passed      69-30: D 56-1; R 11-29; I 2-0, 9/29/10, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • Tester Voted For The Continuing Resolution To Fund The Government      Through 3/4/11. “Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment      to the Senate amendment with a further Reid substitute amendment no. 4885      that would continue most appropriations at fiscal 2010-enacted levels      through March 4, 2011. The measure would provide an overall annualized      spending rate that is $1.16 billion more than fiscal 2010 levels. It would      provide additional funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance      Program (LIHEAP) and Pell grants. It also would allow the awarding of a      Navy contract for shipbuilding of Littoral Combat Ships to multiple      suppliers.” (H.R. 3082, CQ Vote #289: Motion      agreed to 79-16 : D 52-2; R 25-14; I 2-0, 12/21/10, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • Tester Voted For The FY 2012 Minibus, Which Funded Specific      Departments Through 12/16/11. “Adoption of the conference report on      the bill that would provide about $128.1 billion in discretionary funds      for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation,      Housing and Urban Development, and for science programs and other related      programs in fiscal 2012. Excluding emergency funding, the bill would      provide roughly $19.8 billion for Agriculture programs, $52.7 billion for      Commerce, Justice and science agency programs and $55.6 billion for      Transportation and HUD programs. The measure would provide approximately      $2.3 billion in emergency-relief funding. It also would include provisions      to make continuing appropriations for all other programs through Dec. 16,      2011.” (H.R. 2112, CQ Vote #208: Passed      69-30 : D 51-0; R 16-30; I 2-0, 11/17/11, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • Tester Voted For The FY 2012 Omnibus“Adoption of the      conference report on the bill that would provide approximately $915      billion in discretionary appropriations for fiscal 2012. Included in that      total is approximately $518.8 billion in base Defense funding, $32.1      billion for the Energy Department and related agencies, $21.5 billion in      discretionary funding for Financial Services, $41.3 billion for Homeland      Security, $29.2 billion for Interior-Environment, $156.3 billion in      discretionary funding for Labor-HHS-Education, $4.3 billion for Legislative      Branch, $73.7 billion in discretionary funding for Military      Construction-VA and $33.5 billion for the State Department and foreign      assistance.” (H.R. 2055, CQ Vote #235:      Adopted 67-32 : D 50-1; R 16-30; I 1-1, 12/17/11, Tester Voted Yea)

 

CBO Estimated A “Nearly $1.1 Trillion” Deficit In 2012. “As specified in law, and to provide a benchmark against which potential policy changes can be measured, CBO constructs its baseline estimates of federal revenues and spending under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged. On that basis, the federal budget will show a deficit of nearly $1.1 trillion in fiscal year 2012 (see Summary Table 1).” (“The Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 To 2022,” Congressional Budget Office, 2/12)

 

 

Categories: Montana
April 25, 2012 by

Jon Tester said he supports cap-and-trade, but also said he would protect Montana consumers.  Just like a politician, Tester is trying to have it both ways.  Unfortunately for Tester, you cannot vote both ways. 

Tester has voted for multiple bills that support cap-and-trade and would subsequently threaten the economic future of Montana.  As Warren Buffett put it, cap-and-trade is a “huge tax,” and the Obama administration concluded it would cost the average American household $1,761 a year.  In Montana, cap-and-trade would increase the cost of utilities for 250,000 homes and businesses and could eliminate up to 8,600 jobs.  Tester’s votes and his pledge to “protect” Montanans are blatantly inconsistent. 

 

Tester Said He Generally Supports The Idea Of Cap-And-Trade. “Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both Democrats, say they generally support the idea of capping greenhouse gases, which are seen as a primary cause of global warming and climate change. President Barack Obama is behind the idea, as well.  Tester and Baucus say Congress should act sooner rather than later on this thorny subject, not only because they believe climate change is harming the state, but also because they don’t want the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to trump Congress by creating EPA’s own rules this year for regulating greenhouse gases.” (Mike Dennison, “Next Up: Energy, Climate,” Missoulian, 2/14/10)

 

Tester Said There Needed To Be Climate Change Policy That Protected Montana Consumers. “[Tester] said that as a farmer he knows the effects of climate change. He echoed Baucus’ statements about the need for any climate change policy to protect Montanans.  ‘It is clear from that meeting that Montana common sense and ingenuity will lead the way in developing new technologies to harness our natural resources,’ Tester said. ‘But I will look carefully at any bill that comes before the Senate to make sure it works for Montana’s consumers, small business, and family farms and ranches.’” (Tom Lutey, “Delegation Pressed On Climate, Energy,” The Billings Gazette, 2/5/10)

 

Tester Voted For The Cloture Motion For The Warner-Lieberman 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, Tester Voted Yea)

 

Tester Voted For Cloture On A Warner-Lieberman Amendment That Would Set Up A Nationwide Cap-And-Trade System. “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Boxer, D-Calif., substitute amendment no. 4825 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 #145: Rejected 48-36: R 7-32; D 39-4; I 2-0, 6/6/08, Tester Voted Yea)

 

  • Lieberman-Warner Would Cost Montana 2,779 Manufacturing Jobs By 2030.  (William Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “How Montana Would Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation,” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 5/20/08))

 

  • Lieberman-Warner Would Diminish Montana’s GDP $273.1 Million By 2030. (William Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “How Montana Would Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation,” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 5/20/08))

 

  • Lieberman-Warner Would Decrease The Personal Incomes Of Montanans $337.6 Million By 2030. (William Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “How Montana Would Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation,” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 5/20/08)

 

  • Under Lieberman-Warner Montanans Would Pay An Additional $399 (20%) For Gasoline By 2025. (William Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “How Montana Would Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation,” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 5/20/08)

 

  • Under Lieberman-Warner Montanans Would Pay An Additional $136 For Natural Gas By 2025. (William Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “How Montana Would Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation,” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 5/20/08)

 

  • Under Lieberman-Warner Montanans Would Pay An Additional $274 For Electricity By 2025. (William Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “How Montana Would Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation,” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 5/20/08)

 

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)

 

Buffett Said Cap And Trade Was A “Huge Tax.” BECKY QUICK: “you didn’t like cap and trade especially in this economy though because it puts a tax on people? BUFFETT: “well I think, I think, if you get into the way it was written it’s a huge tax.” (CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” 6/24/09)

 

Tester Voted For A Bill To Allow Discretionary Spending For A Cap-And-Trade Program. “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would set broad spending and revenue targets over the next five years. The resolution would allow up to $1.08 trillion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2010 and increase discretionary spending by $490 billion over five years. It would assume a three-year adjustment to prevent additional taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax. It would create numerous exceptions to the discretionary spending limit, including one to allow for health care changes and one for a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions. It also would assume a deficit of $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2009 and $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2010.” (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #154: Adopted 55-43; R 0-41; D 53-2; I 2-0, 4/2/09, Tester Voted Yea)

 

At Least 250,000 Montana Homes And Businesses Would See Their Utilities Increase If Energy Taxes Were Applied. “Cooperatives serve roughly 250,000 Montana homes and businesses and rely on coal power, which they fear will become extremely expensive under proposed greenhouse gas caps and pay-to-pollute policies.” (Tom Lutey, “Co-Ops Worry About  Costs Of Cap-And-Trade Approach,” The Billings Gazette, 6/21/09)

 

Jake Cummins, Op-Ed: An Independent Economist Said Cap-And-Trade Would Cost Montana 8,600 Jobs. “In fact, when former Speaker Nancy Pelosi forced the House of Representatives to vote on it, not only did our only Congressman Denny Rehberg vote no, but he was joined by every single member from the surrounding states of Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah. That includes both Republicans and Democrats. We are glad he did. An independent economist predicted that if cap-and-tax had passed, it would have cost Montana 8,600 jobs.” (Jake Cummins, Op-Ed, “Cap-And-Trade A Bad Deal For Energy-Producing States,” Great Falls Tribune, 5/9/11)

Categories: Energy, Montana
April 24, 2012 by

Earlier this week, Senator Bob Casey addressed a group of Pennsylvanians on economic recovery and tackling the nation’s deficit and debt. Casey’s solution to the problem? Raising taxes!

That’s right, Casey suggested raising taxes on some high income earners. However, his tax increase could also affect almost 1 million small businesses in Pennsylvania that have benefitted from the added relief during fragile economic times. It’s clear that Casey is using election-year gimmicks in Pennsylvania to distract voters from his tax-and-spend agenda in Washington. It’s time for Casey to get serious about tackling the federal debt that has skyrocketed by more than $6.9 trillion under his watch in the Senate.

Casey Said Tax Cuts For High Income Earners “Is No Longer Sustainable In This Economy.” CASEY: “We can no longer afford tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. On the heels of the recession- and some of you may know this, on the hells of this recession I voted to extend tax cuts for all Americans, middle income and even the wealthiest to provide a level of economic certainty at that time. That is no longer sustainable in this economy with the deficit and debt challenges that we have.” (CBS21 Website, www.whptv.com, Accessed 3/24/12)

The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts Provided Tax Relief To More Than 4.7 Million Pennsylvania Taxpayers. (U.S. Department Of Treasury, Office Of Tax Policy Website, “2008 Tax Relief Kit,” http://web.archive.org, Accessed 8/9/11)

At Least 982,000 Businesses In Pennsylvania Received Tax Relief From The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. (U.S. Department Of Treasury, Office Of Tax Policy Website, “2008 Tax Relief Kit,” http://web.archive.org, Accessed 8/9/11)

The National Debt Has Increased By More Than $6.9 Trillion Since Casey Entered Congress:

  • When Casey Was Sworn In To Office On January 4, 2007, The Total Public Debt Outstanding Was $8,670,596,242,973. (Treasury Direct Website, www.treasurydirect.gov, Accessed 1/17/12)
  • As Of April 24, 2012, The Total Public Debt Outstanding Was $15,628,266,498,708. (Treasury Direct Website, www.treasurydirect.gov, Accessed 4/24/12)
Categories: Pennsylvania
April 23, 2012 by

Heitkamp’s not getting her campaign cash from North Dakotans.  It’s coming from everywhere else – Washington, DC, California, Washington, DC, South Carolina, Washington, DC, Hawaii, and, predictably, Washington, DC.

Half of all the money she’s raised has come from Democratic Party leaders in Washington, California liberals and, shockingly, one East Coast law firm. 

For every dollar Heitkamp raises from North Dakota, $3 are coming to her from outside special interests, the Democratic Party establishment, and her liberal friends.

Heidikamp wants to represent North Dakota, but if she’s elected, the only people she’ll owe are the ones that bought her campaign.

 

Heitkamp Has Raised $462,818 (40%) From PAC’s And Committees Run By Democratic Party Insiders:

Heitkamp Has Raised $462,818 From PAC’s, Authorized Committees, And Party Committees. (FEC Campaign Finance Reports And Data, http://query.nictusa.com/, Accessed 4/23/12)

Heidi’s Fundraising Committees Are Run By Democratic Party Insiders. “Heitkamp’s six joint-fundraising committees are similarly connected to Democratic Party insiders, but Heitkamp’s most significant boost comes from a fellow Senate hopeful.” (Kristen Daum, “National Donors Aim To Influence Berg, Heitkamp,” InForum, http://www.inforum.com/, 4/21/12)

  • “Meanwhile, Heitkamp Is Using The Help Of Six Joint-Fundraising Committees, Which Her Campaign Directly Authorizes To Help Raise Dollars On Her Behalf.” (Kristen Daum, “National Donors Aim To Influence Berg, Heitkamp,” InForum, http://www.inforum.com/, 4/21/12)

Heitkamp’s Travelled Across The Country Raising Money For Her North Dakota Campaign Including Multiple Stops In California. “In March, Heitkamp spent a day each in Colorado, California (two separate stops) and Washington to help raise campaign dollars to promote women seeking U.S. Senate seats this year. FEC filings show Heitkamp received $32,700 from the fundraising tour, the fourth-highest amount among the 11 women who participated in the four West Coast appearances.”

Heitkamp Raised $773,762 (77% Of Itemized Contributions) From Outside North Dakota:

Heitkamp Raised $1,162,134 Since Entering The Race. (FEC Disclosure, Heidi For Senate, http://query.nictusa.com/, Filed 2/2/12)

  • Heitkamp Raised At Least $152,000 In Non-Itemized Contributions. (Kristen Daum, “More Details On U.S. Senate Candidates’ First-Quarter Fundraising,” Flickertales, http://ndpolitics.areavoices.com/, 4/24/12)

Heitkamp Raised $298,091 From PACs. (FEC Disclosure, Heidi For Senate, http://query.nictusa.com/, Filed 2/2/12)

Heitkamp Raised $43,100 From Party Committees. (FEC Disclosure, Heidi For Senate, http://query.nictusa.com/, Filed 2/2/12)

Heitkamp Raised $121,625 From Joint Fundraising Committees. (FEC Disclosure, Heidi For Senate, http://query.nictusa.com/, Filed 2/2/12)

Heitkamp Raised At Least $310,946 From Outside North Dakota In Individual Contributions:

Heitkamp Raised A Total Of $427,600 In Individual Contributions In 2012. (Kristen Daum, “More Details On U.S. Senate Candidates’ First-Quarter Fundraising,” Flickertales, http://ndpolitics.areavoices.com/, 4/24/12)

  • Heitkamp Raised Only $168,116 From Outside North Dakota In Itemized Contributions. “Of the $275,600 in itemized individual donations: 39 percent came from North Dakotans, while 61 percent came from out-of-state contributors.” (Kristen Daum, “More Details On U.S. Senate Candidates’ First-Quarter Fundraising,” Flickertales, http://ndpolitics.areavoices.com/, 4/24/12)

Heitkamp Raised A Total Of $264,501 In Individual Contributions In 2011.  (FEC Disclosure, Heidi For Senate, http://query.nictusa.com/, Filed 2/2/12)

  • 54% Of Heitkamp’s Contributions Came From Outside North Dakota. “An analysis of all of the candidates’ FEC reports for this campaign cycle showed only four contenders have collected less than half of their individual donations from North Dakotans: Sand, 20 percent, Berg, 33 percent; Heitkamp, 46 percent; and GOP House candidate Kevin Cramer, 46 percent.” (Kristen Daum, “More Than $3.3 Million Has Been Donated So Far To North Dakota Candidates – Who Is Funding Them?,” Fargo-Moorhead Inforum, 2/20/12)

 

Categories: North Dakota
April 18, 2012 by

 Debit/credit card swipe fees are the “invisible” sales tax that all consumers pay when they buy things with their cards.  In the 2010 financial overhaul bill the government lowered the fees from an average of 44 cents to between 7 and 12 cents.  Before the law changed, the average American household spent $427 a year in swipe fees.  But Jon Tester tried to prevent these fees from going down by sponsoring a bill that would delay the new rule. 

 Tester said he was standing up for rural America and small banks, but small banks were already exempt from the new swipe fees and Montana’s small businesses wanted him to stop.  The only other people trying to keep the swipe fee cuts from happening were big banks and major credit card companies.  Coincidentally, big banks and credit card companies are some of Jon Tester’s biggest donors.  Instead of putting extra money in Montanans’ pockets, Tester was going out of his way to help the guys who finance his campaigns keep some of their massive profits. 

 

 

“Every Time You Use A Debit Or Credit Card, You Shell Out An Invisible Sales Tax In The Range Of 1% To 3%. That’s How Much Retailers Have To Pay The Banks That Issue The Plastic.” (“In Battle Over ‘Swipe Fees,’ Retailers Make Better Case,” USA Today, 4/5/11)

 

“In 2009, The Fees Totaled More Than $16 Billion In The United States.” (Ben Weyl, “Higher Debit Card Fees Blocked,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly,” 6/11/11)

 

  • “That’s An Average Of $427 Per Household.” (“In Battle Over ‘Swipe Fees,’ Retailers Make Better Case,” USA Today, 4/5/11)

 

“Limits On Big Banks’ Debit Card Charges Will Lower Revenue Mainly For The Biggest Banks — Bank Of America, JP Morgan Chase And Wells Fargo, For Example — And The Biggest Credit Card Companies, Visa And Mastercard.” (“Behind The Debit Card Battle,” Chattanooga Times-Free Press, 6/12/11)

 

The 2010 Financial Overhaul Bill Required The Federal Reserve To Put New Limits On Swipe Fees In Place. “Tester and Corker were looking to reverse the votes of at least a dozen senators who voted for the restrictions when the matter first came up, as an amendment to last year’s overhaul. Senators voted 64-33 to adopt that amendment, which required the Federal Reserve to put the new limits in place. In December, the Fed proposed capping the fees at 12 cents per swipe regardless of the size of the purchase, down from an average of 44 cents.” (Ben Weyl, “Higher Debit Card Fees Blocked,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly,6/11/11)

 

“The Federal Reserve Has Tentatively Set The Fees At 7 Cents To 12 Cents Per Transaction, Down From The Current Average Of 44 Cents.” (“In Battle Over ‘Swipe Fees,’ Retailers Make Better Case,” USA Today, 4/5/11)

 

The Senate Rejected Tester’s Measure To Block New Limits On Swipe Fees. “The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected a high-profile measure co-sponsored by Montana Sen. Jon Tester to block new limits on the swipe fees that banks and credit card companies charge stores for debit card transactions, clearing the way for the limits to take effect next month.” (Mike Dennison, “Senate Rejects Tester Measure On Swipe Fees,” The Billings Gazette, 6/9/11)

 

  • “Tester, D-Mont., amendment no. 392 that would postpone limits on fees charged to merchants by issuers of debit cards for one year and establish new reporting requirements on implementation of the restrictions. The fee limits were proposed by the Federal Reserve following the 2010 financial regulatory overhaul.” (S. 782, CQ Vote #86: Rejected 54-45: R 35-12; D 19-32; I 0-1, 6/8/11, Tester Voted Yea)

 

Banks, Facing Billions In Lost Revenue, Are Fighting Back, Supporting A Measure Championed By Tester To Delay Swipe Fee Limit. “Now the banks, facing billions in lost revenue, are fighting back. They are prodding Congress to delay, and ultimately kill, the measure, set to go into effect in July. A two-year delay, championed by Sen. John [sic] Tester, D-Mont., is circulating in the Senate.” (“In Battle Over ‘Swipe Fees,’ Retailers Make Better Case,” USA Today, 4/5/11)

 

TESTER: “Despite Earning A Majority Of Votes, The Senate Today Missed An Opportunity To Stand Up For Consumers, Small Businesses And Community Banks In Rural America.” (Mike Dennison, “Senate Rejects Tester Measure On Swipe Fees,” The Billings Gazette, 6/9/11)

 

However, The Rule Doesn’t Apply To Banks With Less Than $10 Billion In Assets, Exempting All But Few Banks In Montana. “The rule also doesn’t apply to banks with less than $10 billion in assets, essentially exempting all but a few banks in Montana.” (Mike Dennison, “Senate Rejects Tester Measure On Swipe Fees,” The Billings Gazette, 6/9/11)

 

“In Montana, Convenience Stores, Restaurants And Other Retailers Fought The Tester Amendment And Hailed Its Defeat On Wednesday.” (Mike Dennison, “Senate Rejects Tester Measure On Swipe Fees,” The Billings Gazette, 6/9/11)

 

“Finance/ Credit Companies” Have Contributed $99,100 To Tester’s Campaigns. (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/22/12)

 

With $71,750 In Contributions, Tester Is The #3 Recipient Of Donations From “Finance/Credit Companies” In The 2012 Cycle.  (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/22/12)

 

  • Tester Has Received $43,000 From J.P. Morgan In The 2012 Cycle      (Their #6 Senate Recipient). (The Center      For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 4/18/12)

 

  • Tester Has Received $33,500 From Visa Inc. In The 2012 Cycle. (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/5/12)

 

  • Tester Has Received $23,500 From Wells Fargo In The 2012 Cycle.      (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/5/12)

 

  • Tester Has Received $16,200 From U.S. Bancorp In The 2012 Cycle.      . (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/5/12)

 

  • Tester Has Received $12,300 From Goldman Sachs In The 2012 Cycle.      . (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/5/12)

 

Tester Has Raised $396,052 From Lobbyists, Making Him The #1 Recipient Of Lobbyist Money In The 2012 Cycle. (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/1/12)

Categories: Economy, Montana
April 18, 2012 by

Earlier this week, in a desperate election-year gimmick, Senate Democrats forced a vote on the so-called “Buffet rule.” Named for investor Warren Buffet, the Buffet rule would increase taxes on wealthier Americans to decrease our national debt. While Democrats like Casey hope to highlight his vote on the Buffet rule in an election year, analysis of the Buffet rule has shown that it would do little to increase revenue at a time when the federal government is adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.

In fact, Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found that the Buffet rule would increase federal revenue by $1.1 billion, or less than .01% of Obama’s expected $1.2 trillion deficit for this year. Although Casey claims to be working to improve the economy, the national debt has increased by more than $6.9 trillion under Casey’s watch! The Buffet rule is yet another excuse for Casey and his liberal pals in Washington to force their tax-and-spend agenda on hard-working Pennsylvanians who deserve better economic solutions from their Senators.

Casey Voted For Cloture On The Bill That Would Instate “The Buffet Rule.” “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would require taxpayers with more than $2 million in income to pay an alternative minimum of 30 percent in federal taxes, with a phase-in of the higher rate starting at the $1 million level.” (S. 2230, CQ Vote #65: Motion Rejected 51-45: R 1-44; D 49-1; I 1-0, 4/16/12, Casey Voted Yea)

  • The Buffet Rule Would Tax Millionaires At A Higher 30 Percent Federal Rate. “The rule, names for billionaire investor Warren Buffet, calls for taxing millionaires at a higher 30 percent federal rate, and is based on the idea that Buffet shouldn’t pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.” (Scott Wong, “Dems: We’ll Push Buffet Rule ‘All Year Long,’” Politico, 4/5/12)

Congress’s Joint Committee On Taxation Found That The Buffet Rule Would Increase Federal Revenues By $1.1 Billion, Or Less Than .01 Percent Of Obama’s Scheduled $1.2 Trillion Deficit For 2012. “In one fell swoop on Wednesday, Congress’s tax scorekeeper punctured both phony claims. The analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation also showed less wealthy taxpayers why the Buffet ruse would eventually end up exposing them to higher taxes. … Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) quickly drafted legislation to turn this re-election posturing into law. Joint Tax dutifully studied the bill and has delivered the official score: This year, the Buffet rule would increase federal revenues by all of $1.1 billion. That’s less than one-tenth of one percent of the $1.2 trillion budget deficit Mr. Obama is scheduled to run this year.” (Editorial, “The Bottom 0.1%,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/22/12)

“Through 2022 Joint Tax Expects Less Than $47 Billion In Total New Revenues From The Buffet Rule While The Government Will Be Adding Trillions Of Dollars To The National Debt.” (Editorial, “The Bottom 0.1%,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/22/12)

The National Debt Has Increased By More Than $6.9 Trillion Since Casey Entered Congress:

  • When Casey Was Sworn In To Office On January 4, 2007, The Total Public Debt Outstanding Was $8,670,596,242,973. (Treasury Direct Website, www.treasurydirect.gov, Accessed 1/17/12)
  • As Of April 18, 2012, The Total Public Debt Outstanding Was $15,660,736,663,887. (Treasury Direct Website, www.treasurydirect.gov, Accessed 4/18/12)
Categories: Pennsylvania