Populist Hero Hillary Clinton Rubbed Elbows With 250 Top Donors For Each “Everyday American” She Met Last Week

May 11, 2015 by

Category: AR PAC

April 5, 2012 by

Chairman Tim Kaine recently unveiled his economic plan. One of the main components of Chairman Tim Kaine’s economic blueprint focuses on higher education and the need to build a “talent economy.”  However, one can easily question the sincerity of Kaine’s education proposal by taking a glimpse at his record as governor.

If Chairman Kaine wanted to make investment in higher education a top priority why did funding for higher education decline 25 percent and tuition increase during his tenure in the Governor’s Mansion?  While states across the nation were forced to make cuts to education in response to the economic downturn which in turn drove tuition costs up, tuition for Virginia’s four-year colleges increased substantially more than most state’s.  During this period the national average for tuition increased 23 percent for 4-year colleges, while in Virginia the increase was 31.2 percent. 

Kaine’s tenure as governor was marked by irresponsible budgets that increased spending when the economic forecast was grim.  One newspaper called his 2008 budget a “$77 billion behemoth fashioned against the backdrop of a possible recession.”  When the recession hit, Virginia’s budget shortfalls got bigger and bigger.  From an initial shortfall estimated at $300 million which Kaine dismissed as “not a huge emergency,” to a massive $4.2 billion.  Kaine looked to higher education to bridge the gap, and told Virginia’s colleges and universities to cut their budgets which one college president called “devastating.”  Then, colleges had to raise tuition.  Kaine even proposed transferring $19 million from Virginia’s public schools to the general fund. 

Virginia’s colleges and universities took an especially hard hit during the recession because Tim Kaine did not listen to people calling for fiscal restraint.  Now Kaine wants to focus on improving higher education even though his fiscal irresponsibility made a college education unavailable for many Virginians.  Kaine’s “talent economy” would have had a head start five years ago if he had exercised better judgment. 

 

 

Kaine’s Three Pronged Economic Plan Included Reforming Education.  “The three-pronged plan includes reforming education; investing in infrastructure, such as roads and airports; and a combination of cuts and spending to help close the federal deficit and pay down the national debt.” (Anita Kumar and Ben Pershing, “Kaine Hits The Road To Tout Economic Plan,” The Washington Post, 4/4/12)

 

Kaine Noted The Importance Of Higher Education And College Access In His Economic Plan. “Virginia’s higher education system has been the key contributor to our efforts to build a Talent Economy…We must have an equally robust effort to expand college access and degree attainment across the nation.” (Kaine For Virginia Website, www.kaineforva.com, Accessed 4/5/12)

 

At An Event On The Economy, Kaine Said There Needed To Be “More Work On College Affordability.” “Kaine and Warner fielded questions about budget cuts and corruption but stressed the need to build a talent-based economy.  ‘Whether it’s early childhood education, smart thinking about how ‘No Child Left Behind’ can be revised or reauthorized, more work on college affordability so it’s not so expensive or — a passion of mine — broader career and technical education . . . the driving force is we’ve got be the most talented place on Earth,’ Kaine said.” (Anita Kumar and Ben Pershing, “Kaine Hits The Road To Tout Economic Plan,” The Washington Post, 4/4/12)

 

The Virginia GOP Released A Statement In February 2012 Noting That Kaine Reduced Higher Education Funding 25 Percent Forcing Tuition Hikes.  “The Republican Party of Virginia sent out a prepared statement by Del. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William on Feb. 22, saying if Kaine was serious about developing a talent-based economy ‘he wouldn’t have reduced higher education funding by 25 percent when he was governor, driving up tuition costs and making college less affordable for Virginia families and students.’” (PolitiFact Virginia, “GOP says Tim Kaine Cut Colleges By 25 Percent,” www.politifact.com, Accessed 4/5/12)

 

  • According To The Department Of Education Tuition Rose 23 Percent Nationwide For 4-Year Colleges, In Virginia 4-Year College Tuition Rose 31.2 Percent.  “Sure enough, tuition did go up during Kaine’s term. The average costs for in-state tuition and instructional fees at four-year institutions — not including room and board — rose from $3,812 in the 2005-2006 school year to $5,003 in 2009-2010. That’s a 31.2 percent increase… Virginia’s experience was not unique; tuition and fees for in-state students at four-year public universities rose across the nation during Kaine’s term. The U.S. Department of Education said the national average increased by 23 percent during that span, the College Board says they rose by 29 percent.” (PolitiFact Virginia, “GOP says Tim Kaine Cut Colleges By 25 Percent,” www.politifact.com, Accessed 4/5/12)

 

  • “We Rate Lingamfelter’s Statement Mostly True.” (PolitiFact Virginia, “GOP says Tim Kaine Cut Colleges By 25 Percent,” www.politifact.com, Accessed 4/5/12)

 

Despite Repeated Projections Of Low Revenue Growth, Kaine Said The Projected $300 Million State Budget Shortfall Was “Not A Huge Emergency.” “A projected $300 million state budget shortfall this year is ‘not a huge emergency’ and should not force cuts to government services unless the national economy weakens, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Tuesday.” (“Kaine Says Shortfall Won’t Force Cuts,” The Virginian-Pilot, 5/30/07)

 

While Virginia Faced A Two-Year Shortfall Of $641 Million, Kaine’s Remedy For The Budget Was A 5% Spending Cut For State Agencies And A Possible Dip Into The Rainy-Day Fund. “Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s remedy for Virginia’s battered budget is a 5 percent spending cut for state agencies and a possible dip into the rainy-day fund. With housing sales down – and dragging with them a slew of tax revenue – Virginia is facing a cash shortfall of $641 million.” (Pamela Stallsmith and Jeff E. Shapiro, “Kaine Urges Cuts In State Spending,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8/21/07)

 

“Kaine’s Budget Cuts Return Virginia To The Oh-So-Familiar Pattern Of Reducing State Funding For Colleges Every Time State Revenues Fail To Grow As Fast As Anticipated.” (“Here We Go Again,” [Newport News] Daily Press, 10/14/07)

 

  • “Kaine’s Decision To Take A Disproportionate Share Of The Money He Now Needs Out Of Colleges’ Budgets Comes At A Bad Time.” (“Here We Go Again,” [Newport News] Daily Press, 10/14/07)

 

  • Kaine Asked Public Colleges To Reduce Spending By An Average Of 5 Percent. “Kaine told the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia that he won’t resort to across-the-board cuts to offset a $641 million shortfall in the state’s two-year budget, even though he has asked state agencies — including public colleges — to prepare reduction plans averaging 5 percent. Virginia Tech has been asked to reduce its budget for the current fiscal year by about $14.8 million, which amounts to about 5.3 percent of its state support. Radford University has been asked to cut $2.4 million from its operating budget, about 5 percent of which it receives from the state’s general fund.” (Michael Sluss, “Kaine: Budget Cuts Won’t Hurt Colleges,” The Roanoke Times, 9/12/07)

 

In February 2008, In Order To Cover An Additional $1.4 Billion Projected Budget Shortfall For The Remainder Of The Fiscal Year, Kaine Proposed A Number Of Budget Cuts. “Gov. Timothy M. Kaine asked the General Assembly on Tuesday to cut off state aid for public school construction and scale back a proposed pay raise for teachers to help the state overcome an additional budget shortfall of $1.4 billion projected over the next 2½ years. Local governments would lose state funding under Kaine’s proposal, as would some of the governor’s favored initiatives. (Warren Fiske, “Kaine Proposes Spending Cuts To Reduce Budget Deficit,” The Virginian-Pilot, 2/13/08)

 

The 2008 Budget Was A “$77 Billion Behemoth Fashioned Against The Backdrop Of A Possible Recession.” “Slathered through Virginia’s pending budget – a two-year, $77 billion behemoth fashioned against the backdrop of a possible recession – are taxpayer-bankrolled goodies sought by legislators for the folks back home.” (Jeff E. Schapiro, “Big Bucks Found In Small Print,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/20/08)

 

The Budget Shortfall Could Reach As High As $3.5 Billion, $1 Billion More Than Kaine Projected In October.  “The Senate Finance Committee of the Virginia General Assembly is projecting a budget shortfall of at least $3.2 billion for the 2008-10 biennial budget – an even bleaker projection than the $2.5 billion Gov. Timothy M. Kaine had forecast previously. And the shortfall in the $77 billion budget could reach as high as $3.5 billion if lawmakers retain an additional $350 million in high-priority, mandated programs approved last session, according to the committee’s report, ‘Fiscal Issues Facing the Commonwealth.’” (Jim Nolan, “Va. Shortfall Tops $3.2 Billion,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 11/21/08)

 

Kaine’s 2008 Proposal To Address The $2.9 Billion State Budget Shortfall: “Key cuts, savings and revenue increases in amendments to the 2008-2010 budget Gov. Timothy M. Kaine submitted to the General Assembly on Wednesday: Total Budget Shortfall: $2.9 billion…” (“Key Points Of Gov. Tim Kaine’s Budget Amendments,” The Associated Press, 12/18/08)

 

  • “Education: $340 million cut from non-teaching school support staff, approximately 13,000 positions affected statewide. $27.5 million eliminated in state school construction grants. $55 million in Lottery funds redirected from school construction to base instructional needs. $2 million from closing the Southwestern Mental Health Institute in Marion and Commonwealth Center of Adolescents and Children in Staunton. $6 million from eliminating the eminent scholars program at state colleges and universities. 15 percent reductions ordered to the base budgets of all state-supported colleges and universities except for the community colleges and Richard Bland College, where the reductions are only 10 percent.” (“Key Points Of Gov. Tim Kaine’s Budget Amendments,” The Associated Press, 12/18/08)

 

In February 2009, Kaine Announced That The State’s Budget Shortfall Had Increased From $2.9 Billion To $3.7 Billion. “In December, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine projected that Virginia faced a $2.9 billion budget shortfall. He increased that estimate to $3.7 billion on Monday based on much-lower-than-expected tax payments.” (Warren Fiske, “Stimulus Buffers Bad News,” The Virginian-Pilot, 2/17/09)

 

Kaine’s 2010 Budget Proposed An End To The State’s Car Tax And Replace It With A New 1 Percent Income Tax Surcharge To Close The $4.2 Billion Shortfall. “Gov. Tim Kaine handed state lawmakers a two-year budget proposal Friday that calls for a major change in tax policy and more deep spending cuts to offset a $4.2 billion shortfall, and his efforts drew sharp criticism from the Republican who will succeed him and from GOP legislators. With just four weeks remaining in his term, Kaine called for an end to the state’s car tax relief program and the complete abolition of the local personal property tax that localities levy on vehicles. Localities that eliminate the personal property tax instead would receive the proceeds from a new 1 percent income tax ‘surcharge’ that would generate $2 billion by the 2012 fiscal year.” (Michael Sluss, “Kaine Proposes Sweeping Changes,” The Roanoke Times, 12/19/09)

 

  • A Richmond Times-Dispatch Editorial Called Kaine’s Budget A “Shoddy Little Trick.” “Departing Gov. Tim Kaine’s shoddy little trick last week adds another item to the General Assembly’s to-do list: Fix the state budget process.” (Editorial, “Broken Process,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/22/09)

 

 

“Students At Virginia’s Public Colleges Will Face Tuition Increases And Larger Class Sizes As A Result Of Budget Cuts Proposed By Gov. Tim Kaine, College Presidents Told A House Of Delegates Committee Wednesday.” (Mike Sluss, “Brace For Tuition Increases, College Leaders Tell Lawmakers,” The Roanoke Times, 1/22/09)

 

  • “Kaine Has Cut Budgets At Four-Year Colleges By As Much As 7 Percent In The Current Fiscal Year And Has Proposed A 15 Percent Cut For The Fiscal Year That Begins July 1.” (Mike Sluss, “Brace For Tuition Increases, College Leaders Tell Lawmakers,” The Roanoke Times, 1/22/09)

 

Radford President, Penelope Kyle: “These Cuts Are Devastating…” (Mike Sluss, “Brace For Tuition Increases, College Leaders Tell Lawmakers,” The Roanoke Times, 1/22/09)

 

Daily Press: It Was Kaine’s Plan To Aim Budget Cuts At Colleges Because Schools Will Make Up For The Money By Raising Tuition And Fees. “It’s actually in the plan of Gov. Tim Kaine and the General Assembly: They know that if they aim their budget cuts at colleges, the schools will make up for the money they’re losing by raising tuition and fees.” (Editorial, “Good Cause, Wrong  Solution,” [Newport News] Daily Press, 2/16/09)

 

Daily Press: Cutting Higher Education “Amounts To Shunting Off The State’s Responsibility To Protect And Nurture” The Public Higher Education System. “It amounts to shunting off the state’s responsibility to protect and nurture our admirable system of public higher education, which is a legitimate and even necessary state obligation because higher education benefits Vrginia’s economy, its citizens and its quality of life.” (Editorial, “Good Cause, Wrong  Solution,” [Newport News] Daily Press, 2/16/09)

 

The General Assembly Adopted A Budget That Cut $360 Million From Health And Human Services And $253 Million From Public School Funding. “The general fund budget, which contains the state’s discretionary spending, totals $28.6 billion – $6 billion less than the previous budget passed two years ago. The general fund is only part of the state budget, which also includes federal money funneled to Virginia. The upcoming two-year spending package slices $360 million from health and human services and $253 million from public school funding – two of the biggest state expenses.” (Julian Walker, “Budget: Done Deal,” The Virginian-Pilot, 3/15/10)

 

 “Kaine’s Budget Would Reduce Total State Funding For Public Schools By $357 Million, Though Federal Stimulus Money Would Offset A Portion Of That Amount.” (Michael Sluss, “Kaine Proposes Sweeping Changes,” The Roanoke Times, 12/19/09)

 

Kaine Proposed A Budget Amendment To The 2010 Budget That Would Transfer $19 Million Of Projected Funds From Public Universities To The State. “A budget amendment proposed by former Virginia governor Tim Kaine would transfer $19 million of projected funds from public universities to the state if it passes. Kaine included as an amendment to his 2010-12 budget a proposal that would move money from student fees in the higher education auxiliary fund, which supports public universities, to the general fund, which supports the state’s various needs.” (Liana Byrne, “Budget Amendment Could Cost State Universities Millions,” Collegiate Times, 2/2/10)

 

  • The General Assembly Allowed State Colleges To Keep The $18.1 Million That Kaine Proposed Transferring To The General Fund. “Virginia’s new two-year budget would slash funding for public schools and health care programs, reduce aid to localities and increase some fees to offset a $4.2 billion shortfall, reflecting a fiscal crisis Gov. Bob McDonnell described as ‘the most difficult period of time in modern Virginia history.’ State colleges would get to keep the $18.1 million in fees that Kaine proposed transferring to the general fund.” (Michael Sluss, “Va. Slashes Pubic Services,” The Roanoke Times, 3/15/10)

 

Kaine’s Cut To Public Colleges And Universities All But Guaranteed Tuition Hikes. “Kaine’s budget proposal cut public school funding and slashed spending at state-supported colleges and universities. At the local level, Kaine said school divisions should limit the growth of support staffers and focus on folks in the classroom. State colleges that have already faced cuts in recent years lost big chunks of funding, all but guaranteeing tuition hikes to make up for the loss.” (Kimball Payne, “Public Can Weigh In On State Budget Today,” [Newport News] Daily Press, 1/7/10)

 

 

Categories: Virginia
April 3, 2012 by

As Senator Bob Casey begins to campaign around Pennsylvania it’s become apparent that he’s forgotten one thing: Casey has voted to support President Obama’s liberal agenda 96 percent of the time! Beginning his desperate election-year attempt to distance himself from Obama’s dismal record, Casey said there’s a very strong case to be made that he’s been an independent Senator in Washington.

Independent?! Casey must have already forgotten that he provided the key vote for some of Obama’s most far-reaching priorities including the $2.6 billion ObamaCare bill and the $1.17 trillion failed stimulus bill. Despite his election year gimmicks, it is clear that Casey’s loyal support of Obama’s policies have done little to protect Pennsylvania families while burdening future generations with reckless spending.

CASEY: “I Think There’s A Very Strong Case To Be Made That I’ve Been An Independent Senator.” (“Sen. Bob Casey Wishes Rick Santorum The Best,” CBS News Pittsburgh, www.pittsburgh.cbslocal.com, Posted 4/2/12)

Casey Has Supported Obama An Average Of 96 Percent Of The Time:

In 2011, Casey Supported Obama 93 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.media.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

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

In 2009, Casey Supported Obama 97 Percent Of The Time. (CQ Voting Studies, www.innovation.cq.com, Accessed 3/21/12)

Obama-Casey Reckless Spending Agenda:

Casey 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, Casey Voted Yea)

Casey Voted For The Final Health Care Reconciliation Bill. (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #105: Passed 56-43: R 0-40; D 54-3; I 2-0, 3/25/10, Casey 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)

Casey Voted To Approve The Stimulus Bill, Which Included An Estimated $1.17 Trillion In Spending Increases And Raised The Federal Deficit To $12.104 Trillion. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #64: Adopted 60-38: R 3-38; D 55-0; I 2-0, 2/13/09, Casey Voted Yea)

Categories: Healthcare, Pennsylvania
March 29, 2012 by

Prior to running for Congress, Shelley Berkley was an attorney in Las Vegas working for Sheldon Adelson at The Sands.  Berkley advised Adelson to do favors for at least two Clark County officials so they would vote in favor of a construction project.  According to Adelson, at a meeting with County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson-Gates, which Berkley arranged, Atkinson-Gates demanded he allow her to open one of her daiquiri stands in his new hotel.  Berkley told Adelson if he didn’t give in to her demand she would vote against the project, but Adelson refused to do business with an elected official. Subsequently, Atkinson-Gates voted against the project.  Atkinson-Gates denied the demand, but was later investigated for using her position to promote her daiquiri business.

 In a tape recording, Berkley can be heard saying she urged Adelson to do favors to win the support of elected officials.  Berkley defended herself by saying she was just explaining to Adelson the realities of doing business in Las Vegas.  Even if Berkley didn’t commit a crime herself, she sure felt comfortable being in the same room.  Adelson fired Berkley soon after, but she wasn’t unemployed long.  Berkley went to Washington and is once again at the center of an ethics investigation.

 

Berkley Was Adelson’s Vice President Of Government And Legal Affairs.  “Berkley’s legal advice about the way to win the commissioners over and the need for campaign contributions was an important part of Adelson’s decision to fire her as the vice president of government and legal affairs, Weidner said.” (Jean Ann Morrison, “Berkley Ripped For Advocating Favors,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6/5/98)

 

As A County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson-Gates Was In Charge Of Approving Permits And Licenses For All The Major Hotels, Casinos, And Resorts In Las Vegas. “MGM Grand Inc. Chairman J. Terrence Lanni; Primadonna Resorts Inc. Chairman Gary Primm; Circus-Circus Development Corp. Senior Vice President Mike Sloan; former New York-New York Vice President of Administration Lou Silvestri; and Las Vegas Sands Inc. Chairman Sheldon Adelson, developer of the Venetian.  As a county commissioner, Atkinson Gates is responsible for zoning and other licensing decisions pertaining to those resorts. The ethics board plans to question executives about whether she approached them seeking leases or used her position in county government to gain a business advantage.” (Susan Greene, “Panel Calls Execs,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/10/98)

 

“Berkley, A Former Counsel For The Sands Hotels, Told Sheldon Adelson, The Chairman Of Las Vegas Sands Inc., In 1996 To Give…Another Commissioner A Daiquiri Concession If He Wanted [Her] Support For A Hotel Project.” (“Nevada Berkley Dogged By Advice To Casino Exec,” Roll Call, 6/11/98)

 

In A 1997 Tape Recording Berkley Can Be Heard Saying She Encouraged Adelson To Do Favors For Two Clark Commissioners To Get Their Votes.  “In a May 1997 tape recording, Berkley told an unidentified person that she urged Las Vegas Sands Inc. Chairman Sheldon Adelson to offer Clark County Commissioner Erin Kenny’s uncle a job and give Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates a daiquiri concession to win their support for The Venetian hotel. Berkley, who was fired by Adelson, confirmed the conversation last month.” (Tony Batt, “Berkley’s Political Fund Raising Not Hindered By Disclosures,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7/15/98)

 

Berkley Arranged A Meeting Between The Two, But Adelson Refused To Do Business With An Elected Official. “Accompanied by two attorneys and two bodyguards, Adelson testified that Atkinson Gates approached him about a possible lease in his forthcoming Venetian during a 1996 fund-raiser. His former lobbyist, Regent Shelley Berkley, had arranged the conversation.  Adelson said he had another talk about a daiquiri lease during a meeting with Atkinson Gates and Berkley in the old Sands coffee shop later in 1996.  ‘It was very clear that she said she wanted this,’ he said of the county chairwoman. He rejected the idea, he said, because he doesn’t do business with elected officials and didn’t want to ‘subject myself to something that might be considered an attempt at bribery.’” (Susan Greene, “Gates Says She Only Sought Friendly Advice,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/23/98)

 

However, Sheldon Adelson (Berkley’s Boss) Said It Was More Of A “Demand” Rather Than Advice. “Four said they weren’t intimidated by her solicitations, but Las Vegas Sands Inc. Chairman Sheldon Adelson said he was shocked when she sought a shop lease in his Venetian resort, currently under construction. He described her approach as ‘flexing her muscles.’  ‘To me that was a demand,’ he testified. ‘I think it was an abuse of her power.’” (Susan Greene, “Gates Says She Only Sought Friendly Advice,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/23/98)

 

Berkley Made It Clear To Adelson That He Needed To Help Atkinson-Gates To Receive Her Support. “[Adelson] said Berkley lobbied for the business on behalf of Atkinson Gates, her friend and fellow Democrat.  ‘Usually you have to go to a lot of effort to shut her up,’ he said of Berkley, who is running for Rep. John Ensign’s congressional seat.  And he added, ‘Shelley made it very clear that by not doing these things for the commissioners, that they would never vote for us.’” (Susan Greene, “Gates Says She Only Sought Friendly Advice,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/23/98)

 

  • Adelson Concluded His Refusal Was The Reason Atkinson-Gates Voted Against The Venetian Project. “Adelson said he believed Atkinson Gates voted against his Venetian project last fall in retaliation for his refusal to grant her a lease.” (Susan Greene, “Gates Says She Only Sought Friendly Advice,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/23/98)

 

Atkinson-Gates Was Investigated For Using Her Position To Promote Her Daiquiri Business.  “The state Ethics Commission is subpoenaing a dozen witnesses – including a congressional candidate and several hotel executives—to testify about whether Yvonne Atkinson Gates used her position as Clark County chairwoman to snag leases for her frozen daiquiri business.” (Susan Greene, “Panel Calls Execs,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/10/98)

 

  • Multiple Hotel Executives And A Mall Operator Testified That Atkinson-Gates Solicited Leases For Her Business. “Clark County Commission Chairwoman Yvonne Atkinson Gates claimed during her ethics hearing Thursday that she approached friends and business people seeking only advice about her frozen daiquiri company.  But four resort executives and one mall operator testified under oath that she personally solicited leases for her venture.” (Susan Greene, “Gates Says She Only Sought Friendly Advice,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/23/98)

 

Berkley Told Adelson They Would Have Gotten Her Vote If Adelson He Had Let Atkinson-Gate Open Her Daiquiri Concession.  “Berkley urged Adelson to give Commissioner Kenny’s uncle a job and to give Commissioner Atkinson-Gates a daiquiri concession in order to win their support for The Venetian, which would need county approval. ‘That’s how you could have gotten Erin because she would have been very, very grateful,’ she said in May 1997, a few days after Adelson fired her.” (Jane Ann Morrison, “Berkley’s 1996 Advice To Adelson May Haunt Campaign,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/16/11)

 

Berkley Defended Herself, Saying She Was Explaining The Realities Of Las Vegas Business. “A tape recording emerged that featured Berkley talking about giving Adelson political advice. If he wanted his hotel project approved, she told him, he should do favors for commissioners, like giving jobs to their relatives. In company memos, she urged him to contribute to judges’ campaigns in exchange for favors.  Berkley defended herself, saying she was just explaining the realities of doing business in Las Vegas and didn’t condone the way the system works.” (Molly Ball, “Calls Target Berkley, And She’s Pretty Sure Who’s Responsible,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6/8/08)

 

Berkley Is Under Review By The House Ethics Committee.  “Berkley, a Democrat who represents Nevada’s 1st U.S. House District, is under review by the House Ethics Committee with the potential for a full-scale investigation.  In a nutshell, Berkley’s ethics have come under question because of a New York Times story that reported that Berkley might have used her position as a congresswoman to push health care legislation that helped the medical practice of her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner.” (Ray Hagar, “Berkley’s Ethics Inquiry Hobbles U.S. Senate Race,” Reno Gazette Journal, 4/15/12)

 

Categories: Nevada
March 29, 2012 by

As the Supreme Court continues to review the constitutionality of ObamaCare, Pennsylvanians are again reminded of the false promises of Senator Bob Casey. Back in 2009 (before Casey was on the ballot for re-election), Casey assured Pennsylvanians that the health care overhaul bill would cut the deficit and lower health-care costs for Pennsylvanians. Oops, I guess Casey thinks his 60th vote for Obamacare doesn’t count. 

Casey broke his promise to Pennsylvanians because his $1.76 trillion government health care takeover will actually increase deficits by $701 billion. Not only will ObamaCare increase deficits, it will also increase health care costs for Pennsylvania families and businesses. Small businesses alone face a tax increase of $87 billion under ObamaCare! Broken promises on ObamaCare are just another example of career politician Casey’s penchant for saying one thing in Pennsylvania and voting another way in Washington.

Casey Claimed That The Health Care Bill Would Save Taxpayer Money And Reduce The Federal Deficit. “Casey, D-Pa., says the plan would provide more security and stability for Americans who too often are bankrupted from health care costs. The reform package is fully funded and would reduce the national deficit by $130 billion during the next 10 years and by another $700 billion in the following decade, Casey said. Over time as people and businesses pay in, the cost is offset, which enables the reduction in the deficit. ‘Reports have focused on the bill costing $848 billion,’ Casey said. ‘However, because the bill is fully paid for and includes offsets to spending, that money wouldn’t be added to the deficit. It actually saves taxpayer money and reduces the deficit.’ (Kathy Stevens, “Pa. Lawmakers Weigh In On Health Reform,” The York Dispatch, 12/7/09)

Casey 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, Casey Voted Yea)

Casey Voted For The Final Health Care Reconciliation Bill. (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #105: Passed 56-43: R 0-40; D 54-3; I 2-0, 3/25/10, Casey 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)

ObamaCare Included $525 Billion In Taxes. “Two laws that were enacted in late March—the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA (Public Law 111-148), and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152)—have had a substantial impact on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) projections of mandatory spending and revenues. … Taking into account all of the provisions related to health care and revenues, the two pieces of legislation were estimated to increase mandatory outlays by $401 billion and raise revenues by $525 billion.” (The Congressional Budget Office Website, www.cbo.gov, Accessed 11/21/11)

A Kaiser Family Foundation Study Found That Employer-Based Health Insurance Premiums For A Family Increased By 9% in 2011. “Most Americans saw their insurance bills jump this year, according to a new study from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The average employer-based premium for a family increased a startling 9% in 2011. Over the next decade, rates are expected to double.” (Sally Pipes, Op-Ed, “Higher Health Insurance Premiums This Year? Blame ObamaCare,” Forbes, 10/10/11)

  • Kaiser Foundation CEO Drew Altman Credited ObamaCare For 20 Percent Of The Premium Increases. “Most Americans know that medicine is getting more expensive, but a new survey puts a shocking sticker price on the rapid increase. The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust report that between 2010 and 2011, family premiums increased by 9 percent and for individual premiums by 8 percent. According to the survey, ‘The average premium for single coverage in 2011 is $452 per month or $5,429 per year … The average premium for family coverage is $1,256 per month or $15,073 per year.’ What’s driving those costs? In large part, Obamacare. According to Kaiser Family Foundation CEO Drew Altman, the President’s health care legislation was responsible for approximately 20 percent of the increase in premiums.” (Mike Brownfield, “Morning Bell: Obamacare’s Soaring Price Tag,” The Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry”, 9/29/11)

The $87 Billion Health Insurance Tax (HIT) Will Make Insurance For Small Businesses More Expensive.  “One of the main goals of health reform is to make coverage more affordable for small businesses, but the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) only makes that goal harder to achieve. In fact, the new healthcare law includes an $87 billion health insurance tax (HIT) that will fall hard on small businesses. The HIT, which is levied on health insurance companies, will almost entirely be passed onto consumers in the fully insured marketplace, where nearly all small businesses and the self-employed purchase their coverage. This new tax on small businesses will raise insurance costs for already struggling small businesses and is contrary to the goals of healthcare reform.” (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, Accessed 11/2/11)

 

Categories: Healthcare, Pennsylvania
March 29, 2012 by

As the Supreme Court continues to review the constitutionality of ObamaCare, Ohioans are again reminded of the false promises of Senator Sherrod Brown. Back in 2009, Brown assured Ohioans that the health care overhaul bill would help fix the economy.

Brown broke his promise to Ohioans, however, when he provided the 60th vote for Obama’s $1.76 trillion government health care takeover that will actually increase deficits by $701 billion. Not only will ObamaCare increase deficits, it will also increase health care costs for Ohio families and businesses. Small businesses alone face a tax increase of $87 billion under ObamaCare! Ohio’s families and businesses can’t afford more of the liberal Brown-Obama spending agenda.  

Brown Argued That Health Reform Was No Longer Just A Moral Imperative, But That It’s Become An “Economic Imperative” That Will Help Fix The Economy. “‘Americans know the challenges to our health-care system, our economy and our nation are too big for opponents of health-care reform to just say no,’ Brown said, noting the defeat of previous plans. ‘Staying the course of a broken system is simply no longer an option. Finally, most of America recognizes that health-care reform is not just a moral imperative, it’s become an economic imperative. There’s no way to fix our economy without fixing our health-care system. There’s no way to fix our health-care system without cutting costs and without covering everyone.’” (Tom Feran, “Health-Care Bill Likely This Year, Brown Says,” Plain Dealer, 5/28/09)

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)

Brown Voted For The Final Health Care Reconciliation Bill. .”(H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #105: Passed 56-43: R 0-40; D 54-3; I 2-0, 3/25/10, Brown 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)

ObamaCare Included $525 Billion In Taxes. “Two laws that were enacted in late March—the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA (Public Law 111-148), and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152)—have had a substantial impact on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) projections of mandatory spending and revenues. … Taking into account all of the provisions related to health care and revenues, the two pieces of legislation were estimated to increase mandatory outlays by $401 billion and raise revenues by $525 billion.” (The Congressional Budget Office Website, www.cbo.gov, Accessed 11/21/11)

A Kaiser Family Foundation Study Found That Employer-Based Health Insurance Premiums For A Family Increased By 9% in 2011. “Most Americans saw their insurance bills jump this year, according to a new study from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The average employer-based premium for a family increased a startling 9% in 2011. Over the next decade, rates are expected to double.” (Sally Pipes, Op-Ed, “Higher Health Insurance Premiums This Year? Blame ObamaCare,” Forbes, 10/10/11)

  • Kaiser Foundation CEO Drew Altman Credited ObamaCare For 20 Percent Of The Premium Increases. “Most Americans know that medicine is getting more expensive, but a new survey puts a shocking sticker price on the rapid increase. The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust report that between 2010 and 2011, family premiums increased by 9 percent and for individual premiums by 8 percent. According to the survey, ‘The average premium for single coverage in 2011 is $452 per month or $5,429 per year … The average premium for family coverage is $1,256 per month or $15,073 per year.’ What’s driving those costs? In large part, Obamacare. According to Kaiser Family Foundation CEO Drew Altman, the President’s health care legislation was responsible for approximately 20 percent of the increase in premiums.” (Mike Brownfield, “Morning Bell: Obamacare’s Soaring Price Tag,” The Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry”, 9/29/11)

The $87 Billion Health Insurance Tax (HIT) Will Make Insurance For Small Businesses More Expensive.  “One of the main goals of health reform is to make coverage more affordable for small businesses, but the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) only makes that goal harder to achieve. In fact, the new healthcare law includes an $87 billion health insurance tax (HIT) that will fall hard on small businesses. The HIT, which is levied on health insurance companies, will almost entirely be passed onto consumers in the fully insured marketplace, where nearly all small businesses and the self-employed purchase their coverage. This new tax on small businesses will raise insurance costs for already struggling small businesses and is contrary to the goals of healthcare reform.” (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, Accessed 11/2/11)

Categories: Healthcare, Ohio
March 28, 2012 by

When Jon Tester was running for the Senate in 2006 he criticized his opponent for spending too much time with “lobbyists” on the East Coast rather than dealing with Montanans at home.  Well, the tables have turned. 

 In the 2012 election cycle, Tester is the number one recipient of lobbyist money and three quarters of all his donations have come from out-of-state.  While Tester has raised nearly $3 million from out-of-state, he has barely raised a million back at home.  In fact, since first running for office he has received more contributions from New York City alone than from Missoula, Billings, and Great Falls combined.  Looks like Tester has been spending a little too much time looking for campaign support on the East Coast with big money lobbyists than making his case for a second term back in Montana.

 

 

TESTER: “I Think It’s Unfortunate That Sen. Burns Feels It’s More Important To Deal With The Big-Money Lobbyists On The East Coast Rather Than Stand Here And Deal With Montanans” (Gwen Floria, “Burns’ Absence Makes The Barbs Grow Sharper,” Great Falls Tribune, 6/11/06)

 

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)

 

 

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)

 

In State/ Out Of State Breakdown – 2012

In State

$1,015,905

26%
Out Of State

$2,941,583

74%
No State

$4,100

0%

(Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 4/24/12)

Top 5 Metro Areas – 2012 

Washington,   D.C. Metro

$609,868
New   York

$450,277
Missoula

$226,619
San   Francisco

$179,031
Los   Angeles

$176,560

(The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 4/24/12)

Categories: Montana
March 28, 2012 by

Tester unapologetically voted for Obamacare, calling it a “good” bill that would solve a number of America’s most pressing issues.  Tester claimed Obamacare would make “Medicare stronger.”  But the healthcare program cut $500 billion in Medicare spending.  When given the opportunity to prevent these cuts from taking place, Tester voted “no” on the measure. 

 Tester also said Obamacare would cut the deficit and control costs.  After only two years the deficit reducing and cost controlling arguments are harder and harder to back up.  A recent CBO report showed that Obamacare is expected to cost much more than originally estimated, and some critics have said the healthcare program will contribute over a $1 trillion to the deficit. 

 However, possibly the worst part of Obamcare is the onerous regulations the bill puts on small businesses.  The Health Insurance Tax (HIT) requires small businesses to report any transaction over $600.  When a measure came up to take this out of the bill, Tester voted against it.  Other regulations in the healthcare bill encourage small businesses to downsize, and even the head of the CBO has said the bill will shrink the American job market by hundreds of thousands in the future.  It appears the reasons Jon Tester voted for healthcare reform will probably not happen, but he has not backed away from his vote. 

 

 

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)

 

Tester Said The Health Care Bill Makes Medicare Stronger. “Today we make Medicare stronger by going after waste and fraud. We take the first steps to save our country hundreds of billions of dollars with smart reforms that slow down the runaway cost of health care.” (Sen. Jon Tester, “Tester: “‘We’re Now Moving Forward’ To Fix Broken Insurance System,” Press Release, 3/23/10)

 

Tester Said Through His Healthcare Vote He Was Cutting The Deficit, Saving Lives, And Saving Medicare. “This morning I voted to keep the government out of our health care decisions while making insurance affordable for all Americans.  I voted to stop insurance companies from denying coverage to folks with pre-existing conditions.  And I voted to cut our national deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. This health care reform bill saves lives, saves money and saves Medicare.  I voted for it because it’s right for Montana’s families, kids, seniors, small businesses and family farms and ranches.” (Sen. Jon Tester, “Tester Statement On Passage Of Health Care Reform Bill,” Press Release, 12/24/09)

 

TESTER: “I Thought It Was A Good Bill When It Passed The Senate And I Still Think That…” (Mike Dennison, “Baucus Hails Reform Bill’s Passage,” Missoulian, 3/23/10)

 

In A Release Tester Said The Reform Would Control Costs, Strengthen Medicare, And Cut The Deficit. “Today’s vote was a bold ‘yes’ to reforming our broken health insurance system, controlling health care costs and making Medicare stronger-all while cutting the national deficit by more than a trillion dollars.” (Sen. Jon Tester, “Tester: Today’s Vote A ‘Yes’ To Reforming Broken Health Insurance System,” Press Release, 3/21/10)

 

 

The $87 Billion Health Insurance Tax (HIT) Will Make Insurance For Small Businesses More Expensive.  “One of the main goals of health reform is to make coverage more affordable for small businesses, but the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) only makes that goal harder to achieve. In fact, the new healthcare law includes an $87 billion health insurance tax (HIT) that will fall hard on small businesses.  The HIT, which is levied on health insurance companies, will almost entirely be passed onto consumers in the fully insured marketplace, where nearly all small businesses and the self-employed purchase their coverage. This new tax on small businesses will raise insurance costs for already struggling small businesses and is contrary to the goals of healthcare reform.” (National Federation of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, Accessed 11/2/11)

 

Obamacare Required Businesses To Report Any Transaction Over $600. “Many small businesses will be forced to add more administrative staff to handle the increasingly complicated regulations on coverage and the tax compliance regulations, such as those related to filing corporate tax forms for business-to-business transactions of $600 or more.” (“Obamacare: Hurting Small Businesses and Doctors,” The Heritage Foundation, 6/23/10)

 

  • Tester Voted Against The Amendment To Repeal The $600 Reporting Requirement. “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Johanns, R-Neb., amendment no. 4596 to the Nelson, D-Fla., amendment no. 4595 to the Baucus, D-Mont., and Landrieu, D-La., substitute amendment no. 4594. The Johanns amendment would repeal a tax information-reporting requirement from the 2010 health care overhaul law, offset by increasing the affordability exemption to the individual mandate in the health care law and cutting funding allocated for prevention programs. The Nelson amendment would exempt businesses with fewer than 25 employees from the tax compliance provision in the health care law and would raise the reporting threshold for the remaining companies from $600 to $5,000. The substitute would provide for a variety of small-business tax initiatives, including a revival of an expired bonus-depreciation provision to allow companies to write off assets more quickly, and authorize a small-business lending fund.” (H.R. 5297, CQ Vote #231: Rejected 46 – 52: R 39 – 0; D 7 – 50; I 0 – 2, 9/14/10, Tester Voted Nay)

 

The Health Care Law Contains Approximately $500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare. “It would cut an additional $60 billion from Medicare, bringing total cuts to the program to more than $500 billion over the next 10 years. And it would delay a tax on high-cost insurance polices [sic] until 2018, replacing the lost revenue by imposing the Medicare payroll tax on investment income for families earning more than $250,000 a year.” (Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery, “In Senate, GOP Has Last Chance To Change Health-Care Overhaul,” Washington Post, 3/24/10)

  • “In a March 20, 2010 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Reconciliation Proposal Combined with H.R. 3590 as Passed by the Senate would result in a $455 billion net reduction in Medicare spending over the 2010-2019 period.” (Congressional Budget Office, “Letter To The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, 3/20/10)

 

  • “The reform plan includes cutting the costs of Medicare, the government-run health plan for seniors, by about $500 billion.” (“Pelosi: GOP Used Fear To Turn Elderly Against Health Care Bill,” CNN’s Politcal Ticker Blog, www.cnn.com, 3/29/10)

 

Tester Voted Against An Amendment That Would Prevent $558.6 Billion In Cuts To Medicare And Medicare Advantage. “McCain, R-Ariz., motion to commit the bill to the Finance Committee with instructions that it be reported back after striking provisions that would cut $440.5 billion from Medicare programs, including $118.1 billion from Medicare Advantage and $150 billion from providers. It would express the sense of the Senate that any savings to health trust funds resulting from the bill be used to strengthen Medicare.” (H.R. 3590, CQ Vote #358: Rejected 42-58: R 40-0; D 2-56: I 0-2, 12/3/09, Tester Voted Nay)

 

In March 2012, The CBO Estimated That The Gross Cost Of Obamacare Would Be $1.762 Trillion. (Congressional Budget Office, “Updated Estimates For The Insurance Coverage Provisions Of The Affordable Care Act,” March 2012)

 

  • At The Time Of Obamacare’s Passage, It Was Estimated To Cost $940 Billion. “Combined with the Senate bill, the package would increase the overall cost of expanding insurance coverage to $940 billion over the next decade. But the two measures combined would also lower budget deficits by $143 billion by 2019.” (Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery, “Divided House Passes Health Bill,” The Washington Post, 3/22/10)

 

Nita Ghei, Op-Ed: Obamacare Will Increase Deficits $1.08 Trillion.  “Spending on Obamacare will increase federal deficits by $1.08 trillion – a far cry from President Obama’s initial promise of “bending the cost curve” with a “deficit-neutral” program.” (Nita Ghei, Op-Ed, “Obamacare’s Mounting Costs,” The Washington Times, 3/16/12)

 

The Employer Mandate Will Hamper Growth And Incentivize Businesses To Downsize. “The employer mandate imposes costly and confusing penalties on businesses with more than 50 full-time employees or full-time equivalents. It adversely affects small employers by raising payroll costs, eroding competitive positions, and increasing operating costs, making it particularly difficult for firms operating on small margins. Adding one new employee or having one more employee qualify for insurance subsidies can result in employer penalties of thousands of dollars. This structure gives businesses a powerful incentive to downsize, replace full-time employees with part-timers, or outsource.” (National Federation Of Independent Businesses, “Small Businesses Look To The New Congress To Repeal The Healthcare Law,” www.nfib.com, Accessed 11/2/11)

 

The Director Of The CBO Estimated That By 2020 Obamacare Would Cost The Labor Force 800,000 Jobs. CAMPBELL: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we’ll — and Dr. Elmendorf — and we’ll continue this conversation right now.  First on health care, before I get to — before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe — or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there’s 160 million full-time people working in ’20-’21. That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in ’20-’21. Is that correct?”  ELMENDORF: “Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that the household (ph) employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade.  Half a percent of that is 800,000. That means that if the reduction in the labor used was workers working the average number of hours in the economy and earning the average wage, that there would be a reduction of 800,000 workers.” (Committee On The Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing, 2/10/11)

 

 

Categories: Healthcare, Montana
March 28, 2012 by

Shelley Berkley voted for Obamacare and was a strong advocate for the bill. Obamacare cuts Medicare spending by $500 billion, will stretch the nation’s already fragile budget another $1.76 trillion, and will threaten the number of jobs for thousands of Americans.  After the bill passed, Berkley went so far as to say she would “gladly burn in hell” for voting in favor of Obamacare. 

 Despite Berkley’s rhetoric in support of the new healthcare law, she was not always so passionate.  Berkley was a little squeamish about the bill and did not initially commit to it, but Nancy Pelosi whipped her into line.  In a telephone conversation with a major donor, casino magnate Steve Wynn, Berkley acknowledged it was a “terrible” bill.  Being the wife of a physician, Berkley said she knew it was no good.  However, Berkley said Nancy Pelosi would “punish” her if she didn’t vote for healthcare reform. 

 Berkley had the opportunity to buck her party, but instead she gave in and voted for a bill that she knew was “terrible.”  Unfortunately for Nevadans and Americans, Berkley was more concerned about pleasing her party than doing what she knew was right for the country.

 

 

Berkley Voted For The House Healthcare Reform Bill That Included A Public Option. “Passage of the bill that would overhaul the nation’s health insurance system and require most individuals to buy health insurance by 2013. It would create the Health Choices Administration tasked with establishing a federal health insurance exchange, including a government-run public health insurance option, to allow individuals without coverage to purchase 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. Employers would be required to offer health insurance to employees or contribute to a fund for coverage. Businesses that fail to provide coverage could face penalties of up to 8 percent of their payroll. It would provide tax credits to certain small businesses for providing coverage; provide subsidies to individuals making up to four times the federal poverty level, excluding illegal immigrants; and allow states to enter into compacts to facilitate coverage purchase across state lines. The bill would bar the use of federal funds to provide abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or if the woman’s life is in danger. It also would bar insurance companies from denying or reducing coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions.” (HR 3962, CQ Vote #887, Passed 220 – 215: R 1 – 176; D 219 – 39, 11/7/09, Berkley Voted Yea)

 

Berkley Voted For The Final Version Of Healthcare Reform. “Spratt, D-S.C., motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill 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 who 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 more than 50 workers would have to provide coverage or pay a fine if any employee gets a subsidized plan on the exchange. Certain small businesses would get tax credits for providing coverage, and those with low incomes, excluding illegal immigrants, could get subsidies. It would bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in the new programs, except in the cases of rape or incest or if the woman’s life is in danger. Insurance companies could not deny coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions beginning in 2014, and could not drop 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.” (HR 3590, CQ Vote #165, Agreed To: 219 – 212: R 0 – 178; D 219 – 34, 3/21/10, Berkley Voted Yea)

 

The Health Care Law Contains Approximately $500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare. “It would cut an additional $60 billion from Medicare, bringing total cuts to the program to more than $500 billion over the next 10 years. And it would delay a tax on high-cost insurance polices [sic] until 2018, replacing the lost revenue by imposing the Medicare payroll tax on investment income for families earning more than $250,000 a year.” (Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery, “In Senate, GOP Has Last Chance To Change Health-Care Overhaul,” Washington Post, 3/24/10)

 

  • “In A March 20, 2010 Letter To Speaker Nancy Pelosi, The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The Reconciliation Proposal Combined With H.R. 3590 As Passed By The Senate Would Result In A $455 Billion Net Reduction In Medicare Spending Over The 2010-2019 Period.” (Congressional Budget Office, “Letter To The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, 3/20/10)

 

  • “The Reform Plan Includes Cutting The Costs Of Medicare, The Government-Run Health Plan For Seniors, By About $500 Billion.” (“Pelosi: GOP Used Fear To Turn Elderly Against Health Care Bill,” CNN’s Politcal Ticker Blog, www.cnn.com, 3/29/10)

 

In March 2012, The CBO Estimated That The Gross Cost Of Obamacare Would Be $1.762 Trillion. (Congressional Budget Office, “Updated Estimates For The Insurance Coverage Provisions Of The Affordable Care Act,” March 2012)

 

  • 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)

 

The Director Of The CBO Estimated That By 2020 Obamacare Would Cost The Labor Force 800,000 Jobs. CAMPBELL: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we’ll — and Dr. Elmendorf — and we’ll continue this conversation right now.  First on health care, before I get to — before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe — or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there’s 160 million full-time people working in ’20-’21. That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in ’20-’21. Is that correct?”  ELMENDORF: “Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that the household (ph) employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade.  Half a percent of that is 800,000. That means that if the reduction in the labor used was workers working the average number of hours in the economy and earning the average wage, that there would be a reduction of 800,000 workers.” (Committee On The Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing, 2/10/11)

 

Berkley Was Open To A Public Option. “At this point, Urey said Berkley is keeping her options open. If a public plan can hold down costs, she would be supportive, he said.  ‘She wants to make sure we know what we’re doing,’ said Urey, who added that Berkley is studying many proposals. ‘She is for extending coverage to 47 million people, that’s for sure.’” (Paul Harasim, “Nevada Lawmakers Agree About Change,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6/25/09)

 

Berkley Said She Would “Gladly Burn In Hell” For Her Healthcare Vote. “She also recounted her response to a person she said told her she was going to ‘burn in hell’ for her health care vote.  ‘I would gladly burn in hell if I knew doing so would give one of my fellow Americans access to affordable health care in this country,’ Berkley said.” (Alan Choate, “Gore Tells Fellow Democrats To Stay United,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/28/10)

 

Berkley Was Hesitant To Commit To The Final Version Of The Healthcare Bill At First. “Days before the House could vote on health care reform, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley remains a hold-out, unwilling to tip her hand on how she will vote.  Berkley has had phone calls from two Obama administration cabinet secretaries this week, sources said, showing the lengths the president is going to make certain every yes vote is rounded up.  It’s hard to imagine that Berkley, a six-term Democrat, would switch and vote against the bill after having supported an earlier version in November.” (Lisa Mascaro, “Shelley Berkley Still Undecided On Health Vote?,” Las Vegas Sun, 3/18/10)

 

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 That 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)

Categories: Healthcare, Nevada
March 27, 2012 by

Even though Virginia is a right-to-work state, Chairman Tim Kaine has a cozy relationship with unions. Organized labor has given Kaine nearly $1.7 million in campaign contributions.  In contrast, Senator Mark Warner, a fellow Democrat, has only raised about $425,000 from unions since first running for governor.  Kaine has also credited his political success to unions and admitted that he knows “the power of labor.” 

 

While organized labor has supported Kaine financially, his decisions as governor have given them a leg up too.  After over 20 years of control, Kaine gave the Dulles Toll Road to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA), which put them in charge of the Dulles Rail Project.  The MWAA, controlled by representatives from union-friendly D.C. and Maryland, requires union workers for their construction projects, projects that Virginians will largely pay for.  This puts Virginia contractors at a disadvantage because only 4 percent of Virginia’s construction workers are unionized.  One Virginia leader was concerned the union rules would inflate the costs of the billion-dollar Dulles project by up to 18 percent. A recent cost estimate of Phase I of the project (which is 64 percent complete) shows that the first half is already $150 million over budget.  Thanks to Tim Kaine, Virginians have less control over what goes on in their backyards, and unions get overpriced contracts that Virginians get to pay for. 

 

 

Virginia Is A Right-To-Work State.  (National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, www.nrtw.org, Accessed 10/20/11)

 

Kaine Credited Labor Leaders For His Political Success. KAINE: “I Am Here With Great Friends In Labor To Jim And Doris And Larry And The Other Labor Leaders Who Are Here, I Wouldn’t Be Here If It Werent For You.” (Quote Appears At 1:06: http://youtu.be/7MX0op_4ZC4)

 

KAINE: “I Know The Power Of Labor” (Quote Appears At 1:37: http://youtu.be/7MX0op_4ZC4)

 

  • The 150,000 Member National Treasury Employees Union Plans To Funnel Money To Kaine. “The National Treasury Employees Union has put together a list of more than 20 pending bills in Congress that it calls ‘harmful’ to the federal workforce – such as extending the pay freeze or imposing mandatory unpaid furloughs.  With a Democratic Senate and a Democrat in the White House, chances seem slim that those measures would become law. But Colleen Kelley, who is the president of the 150,000-member union, said she’s still concerned that those stand-alone bills could become part of a larger, must-pass package, such as a measure to fund the federal government.  The union’s political arm is funneling money to a handful of Democrats running for Senate this year, including Cardin, Tim Kaine of Virginia…” (Seung Min Kim, “Federal Workers Under Siege,” Politico, 3/11/12)

 

  • 2012: “Today, The Virginia AFL-CIO Announced The Unanimous Endorsement Of Tim Kaine For U.S. Senate.” (Virginia AFL-CIO, “Virginia AFL-CIO Announces Endorsement Of Tim Kaine For Unites States Senator,” Press Release, 1/29/12)

 

Thus Far, Kaine Has Received $1,694,981 In Campaign Contributions Since He Ran For Lieutenant Governor In 2001:

 

 

 

  • Kaine Has Raised $125,500 From Labor In His 2012 Senate Race. (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/23/12)

 

Since Running For Governor, Mark Warner Has Received $425,247 From Organized Labor For His Campaigns:

 

  • In Mark Warner’s Campaign For Governor In 2001, Mark Warner Accepted $127,847 From Labor.  (National Institute On Money In State Politics, www.followthemoney.org, Accessed 3/27/12)

 

  • Warner Has Raised $297,400 For His Senate Campaigns. (The Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 3/27/12)

 

In March 2006, Plans Were Finalized To Transfer Control Of The Dulles Toll Road To The Washington Airport Authority (MWAA.) “Virginia leaders yesterday put the Washington airports authority in control of the Dulles Toll Road and construction of a Metrorail line to Dulles International Airport, a decision that cheered advocates of the rail project but led many others to question whether the authority would act in the best interests of commuters and the community.” (Steven Ginsberg and Alec MacGillis, “Dulles Rail Decision Met With Praise And Doubts,” The Washington Post, 3/28/06)

  • The Commonwealth Of Virginia Had Operated The Toll Road Since 1984. “When the federal government decided to build Dulles Airport in the 1950s, it also acquired a 17-mile highway corridor to provide access to the airport. Today, the corridor includes the Dulles Toll Road and the Dulles Access Road. Virginia operates the toll road, which opened in 1984, under an agreement with the authority that runs until 2082.” (Michael D. Shear and Steven Ginsburg, “Toll Road To Fund Rail Line To Dulles,” The Washington Post, 3/27/06)

 

  • By Transferring The Authority From Virginia To The MWAA, The MWAA Would Assume Responsibility For The State’s Portion Of The Cost For The Dulles Rail Project. “The deal would remove much of the uncertainty surrounding the nearly $4 billion project to build a rail line through Tysons Corner, Reston, the airport and Loudoun County because the airports authority would assume responsibility for the state and federal portion of the cost. If the memorandum of understanding is signed today, it would give the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority the ability to guarantee that the train line would extend to Dulles — a part of the project that is not fully funded.”  (Michael D. Shear and Steven Ginsberg, “Toll Road To Fund Rail Line To Dulles,” The Washington Post, 3/27/06)

 

On December 29, 2006, Virginia Officially Gave Control Of The Dulles Toll Road To The Airport Authority. “State officials said last week that on or around Dec. 29 they will sign documents to hand over control of the toll road to the authority, which runs Dulles and Reagan National Airport…” (Alec MacGillis, “Va. Handing Airports Authority Keys to Toll Road, Dulles Rail,” The Washington Post, 12/21/06)

 

  • The MWAA Board Members Are Appointed, 5 By The Governor Of Virginia, 3 By The Mayor Of Washington, 2 By The Governor Of Maryland, And 3 By The President. “The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is governed by a 13-member Board of Directors with five members appointed by the Governor of Virginia, three by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, two by the Governor of Maryland and three by the President of the United States.” (Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, www.mwaa.com, Accessed 3/22/12)

 

  • Maryland And The District Of Columbia Are Not Right-To-Work States. (National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, www.nrtw.org, Accessed 10/20/11)

 

A Virginia Delegate Was Concerned Union-Friendly Agreements Could Increase Costs 12-18 Percent. “Del. Tom Rust, R-Loudoun, said he was concerned about the airports authoritys decision to require contractors building the second phase of the rail project to institute a union-friendly labor agreement, which opponents argue could drive up the ever-ballooning cost of the project by 12 percent to 18 percent.” (David Sherfinski, “Virginia Panel To Grill Board On Dulles Project,” Washington Examiner, 5/25/11)

 

As Of March 2012, Phase 1 Was 64 Percent Complete.  (Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Website, www.dullesmetro.com, Accessed 3/27/12)

 

  • According To A February 2012 Cost Summary, Phase 1 Is Estimated To Be $150 Million Over Budget. (Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, www.mwaa.com, Accessed 3/27/12)

 

James Bacon, Op-Ed: MWAA Requires Contractors To Use Union Workers. “… [A]lso to require contractors to use union labor – despite the $6.6 billion project’s massive cost overruns and Virginia’s status as a right-to-work state.” (James Bacon, Op-Ed, “Metrorail’s Taxation Without Representation,” The Washington Times, 5/19/11)

 

  • MWAA Voted To Require Contractors To Offer Union Wages, Union Benefits, And Hire Union Workers. “The MWAA boards 11-2 decision last week to mandate a project labor agreement, or PLA, for the second phase of Dulles Rail construction, will not preclude nonunion contractors from bidding on the multibillion-dollar project. If they win the bid, however, it will require they follow specific wage guidelines, offer union benefits and hire union workers. The move comes on the heels of the boards decision to spend $330 million more on the Washington Dulles International Airport train station, against the wishes of state and local officials.” (Leah Fabel, “Airport Agencys Pro-Union Pact Angers Va. Officials,” Washington Examiner, 4/15/11)

 

Phase 2, Most Recent Funding Formula: 54% Dulles Toll Road, 4.9% Virginia, 21% Loudon & Fairfax Counties, 4.1% MWAA, 16% Federal Grants.  “Until recently, it was not clear how the second phase of the Dulles rail project, from Wiehle Avenue to Dulles Airport and Loudoun County, would be paid for. Last month, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood helped broker a dealon financing the estimated $2.8 billion Phase 2 project.  Nearly 54 percent of the cost of Phase 2 is expected to come from Dulles Toll Road users. An additional 16 percent is to come from federal grants, 4.9 percent from Virginia, 4.1 percent from the airports authority, and the rest from Loudoun and Fairfax counties.” (Dana Hedgpeth, “Open House On Dulles Toll Road,” The Washington Post, 12/7/11)

 

Phase 1 Funding:

  • 41% MWAA (Dulles Toll Road)
  • 15% Fairfax County
  • 10% Virginia
  • 34% Federal Grants  (Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Website, www.dullesmetro.com, Accessed 3/27/12)

 

Only 4 Percent Of Virginia Construction Workers Are Unionized. “Only about 4 percent of Virginias construction workers are union members, according to Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. an association of nonunion companies.” (Leah Fabel, “Airport Agencys Pro-Union Pact Angers Va. Officials,” Washington Examiner, 4/15/11)

 

The Airport Authority Said They Would Fund Virginia’s Share Of The Rail Project By Regularly Raising Tolls. “Authority officials have said they would fund the state and federal share of the rail line by regularly raising tolls on drivers, but they have not provided any specifics about how often and how much they would raise prices.” (Michael D. Shear and Steven Ginsberg, “Toll Road To Fund Rail Line To Dulles,” The Washington Post, 3/27/06)

 

The Current Finance Formula (Phase 2): MWAA: 4 Percent; Fairfax Co.: 16 Percent; Loudon Co.: 5 Percent; Dulles Toll Road: 75 Percent. “Under the agreed- to funding formula, financing the second phase of Dulles Rail construction will be split between the authority at 4 percent, Fairfax at 16 percent, Loudoun at 5 percent, and toll revenue at 75 percent.” (Leah Fabel, “Va. Officials Wary Of MWAA Offer On Dulles Rail,” Washington Examiner, 5/27/11)

Categories: Virginia
March 26, 2012 by

Martin Heinrich made a meaningless flip for political convenience, supporting only half of the Keystone XL pipeline after opposing the entire pipeline for months.  The President isn’t needed to construct the Southern edge of the pipeline, and he is still holding up the section that connects oil production with refineries on the gulf.

Heinrich vocally opposed the entire pipeline for months, calling it dirty and foreign even as it brings hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil a day to American refineries and create tens of thousands of jobs. But now he’s supporting Obama’s meaningless “political ploy” that will have absolutely no impact on oil production.

 

Heinrich Flipped On Supporting Only The Southern Half Of The Keystone XL Pipeline:

Heinrich Opposed The Entire Keystone Pipeline In January. HEINRICH: “I’m committed to an energy future for our nation that is both clean and domestic. The tar sands pipeline is neither.” (Rep. Martin Heinrich, “Heinrich Statement On The Tar Sands Pipeline,” Press Release, http://heinrich.house.gov/, 1/18/12)

Heinrich Opposed The Entire Keystone Project On March 2nd. HEINRICH: “I don’t think that tar sands are the future of our energy. I think the future of our energy should be clean and domestic. Tar sands are neither, especially given the fact that the idea with that pipeline was to ship it across the US with no American-made steel and export it from the Gulf of Mexico. But I do support domestic production of oil and gas and I do support additional investments in making sure that renewables create jobs here in America and not just abroad.” (“Heinrich Gets Endorsement, Talks About Senate Run, Says He Would Oppose XL Pipeline Project,” Capitol Report New Mexico, http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/, 3/2/12)

Heinrich Now Supports Obama’s Decision To Fast Track The Southern Half Of The Pipeline. “On Friday, Heinrich said he supported Obama’s decision to speed reviews on the southern portion of the pipeline. ‘We should focus our infrastructure efforts on moving American oil and natural gas to market as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not on developing Canadian tar sands for sale in Chinese markets,’ he said.” (Michael Coleman, “Bipartisan Spirit Propels Tech Transfer,” Albuquerque Journal, 3/24/12)

Energy Groups Called Obama’s Decision On The Southern Half Of The Pipeline A “Political Ploy.” “The President is speaking in Payne County this Thursday morning. It may be rural Oklahoma, but when it comes to pipelines, it’s the Capitol. The President is expected to talk about energy, though many in that industry are not impressed.  They are even planning to protest his visit, calling it a political ploy more than a genuine interest. Mike Cantrell with the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance says, ‘For the last three years he’s been anti-fossil fuels.’” (Chellie Mills, “Petroleum Producers Plan Presidential Protest,” KFOR-TV Oklahoma City, http://www.kfor.com/, 3/20/12)

  • The President’s Approval Of The Southern Half Of The Pipeline Is Unnecessary. “Industry experts say while his support for the southern end is welcome, it’s not needed. They build pipelines in the country all the time without needing presidential approval.” (Chellie Mills, “Petroleum Producers Plan Presidential Protest,” KFOR-TV Oklahoma City, http://www.kfor.com/, 3/20/12)

The Keystone Pipeline Will Create Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs. “The pipeline project is expected to create more than 20,000 high-paying construction and manufacturing jobs in the near term and more than 250,000 permanent jobs in the long run (The Perryman Group, 2010).” (“Key Vote Alert Letter In Support Of H.R. 1938, The ‘North American-Made Energy Security Act,’” U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, http://www.uschamber.com/, 7/22/11)

 

Categories: Energy, New Mexico