First the new ad you have all already probably seen on your teevee...
Now the fact sheet that tells all you need to know...
Narrator: Sometimes, Roger Wicker and Ronnie Musgrove may look alike... But there are some big differences.
Visual: There are big differences
Narrator: Roger Wicker supports sending your Social Security savings to Wall Street.
Visual: Wicker
Sending Social Security Savings to Wall Street
Get the facts at WickerVotes.com
Wicker Still Advocated Social Security Privatization in March 2008. In March 2008, Wicker “said he would back an independent commission to reform Social Security, saying there are ways for the program to get a better interest rate than the 2 percent returned by investing in the U.S. treasury. ‘I don’t like to say private investment,’ he said, ‘but individual accounts where the Social Security payer can get a better deal.’” [Enterprise-Journal, 3/25/08]
Wicker Voted Against Barring Social Security Dollars From Being Diverted to Create Private Accounts. In 2005, Wicker voted against a Democratic proposal that “said money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used to establish the private investment accounts Bush favors.” [Vote #78, 3/16/05; AP, 3/16/05]
Wicker Voted To Put Social Security At Risk Through Privatization. In 2001, Wicker voted in favor of privatizing Social Security by opposing an amendment prohibiting implementation of the final report of President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. The commission offered a bleak appraisal of a “broken” system, warning that deep benefit cuts, tax increases or “massive” federal debt are inevitable unless Congress allows the personal retirement accounts the White House favors. [Vote #273, 7/25/01; Washington Post, 7/20/01]
Wicker Was Sold On Bush’s Privatization Plan in ’05. Even before Bush visited Mississippi on his 2005 tour to sell his privatization plan, Wicker “said he already was sold on the idea of personal accounts and on the need to curb benefits for wealthier Americans. ‘We have a system that's going broke,’ Wicker said. ‘Everybody's benefits are going to be cut unless we fix the problem.’” [Gannett News Service, 4/30/05]
Wicker Cosponsored 2005 Bill to Create Private Accounts for Social Security. In 2005, Wicker cosponsored a bill to create private investment accounts for Social Security by taking the annual Social Security surplus to create the accounts. The Growing Real Ownership for Workers or GROW accounts would be created for workers who were under the age of 55 at the beginning of 2005, unless they don't participate. The accounts, which let workers put part of their payroll taxes into U.S. Treasury bonds that they would own, would end in 2017. [HR 3304, introduced 7/14/05; The Advocate, 7/27/05; Washington Times, 8/18/05]
Nonpartisan CBO Said Wicker-Backed GROW Accounts Would Cost More Than $1 Trillion. CBO said the plan to create voluntary individual “Growing Real Ownership for Workers” accounts out of the Social Security surplus would “increase federal outlays by more than $1 trillion” between 2007 and 2021. “Under H.R. 3304, the reduction in traditional retirement benefits would result in lower Social Security outlays from 2012 through 2052,” CBO found. “That would delay trust fund exhaustion, and the automatic benefit reductions that exhaustion entails, until 2063.” [National Journal’s CongressDaily, 9/15/05; CBO Report, 9/13/05]
Narrator: Musgrove will strengthen Social Security.
Visual: Musgrove Will Strengthen Social Security
Musgrove Spoke Out Against Wicker’s Privatization Plan. In a campaign press release, Musgrove stated “These selfish, greedy Wall Street tycoons have robbed us coming and going. They couldn't manage the money they bilked us out of in the first place and now they want us to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of our hard earned tax dollars to bail them out. Even worse, Roger Wicker and his special interest allies want these same institutions in control of our Social Security. The current chaos on Wall Street is bad enough. We don't need the people who drove the economy into the ground destroying Social Security too. This week it is clearer than ever. The special interest-Wicker plan to privatize Social Security would be devastating, and we would be left holding the bag.” [Musgrove Press Release, 9/17/08]
Musgrove: Move Past Partisan Bickering On Social Security. In an interview with the Jackson Free Press, Musgrove said “the partisan bickering stalls the process and keeps real issues left on the table…People know there are serious looming problems with Social Security and Medicare, and they know the partisan bickering is stalling any improvements.” [Jackson Free Press, 4/23/08]
Narrator: Wicker voted 13 times against the minimum wage.
Visual: Wicker
13 Votes Against the Minimum Wage
In 2007, Wicker voted against raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. Wrote the Louisville Courier-Journal, “the veto-proof vote by the House this week to boost the minimum wage – for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over two years – is a welcome move by the new Democratic leadership…After six years of one-party Republican rule that placed its highest priority on tax cuts and other benefits for the most affluent Americans, the Democrats' interest in the most struggling workers is refreshing.” Wicker voted against the wage increase. [Vote 18, 1/10/07; Louisville Courier Journal, 1/13/07]
In 2006, Wicker Twice Voted Against Raising Minimum Wage to $7.25. In Committee in 2006, Wicker voted twice against increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour by 1/1/09. [CQ Committee Coverage, House Appropriations Committee Markup, 6/13/06; CQ Committee Coverage, House Appropriations Committee Markup, 6/20/06]
In 2000, Wicker voted against increasing the federal minimum wage by $1 over two years. According to the Chicago Sun Times, “The House voted 246-179 for a bipartisan amendment boosting the wage by $ 1 over two years -- a $ 2,000 raise for a full-time worker -- instead of a GOP plan for the same raise over three years.” Wicker voted against the wage increase. [Vote 43, 3/9/00; Chicago Sun Times, 3/10/00]
In 1996, Wicker twice voted against raising the minimum wage by 90 cents over two years. According to the Chicago Tribune, “By a 266-162 vote, the House passed an amendment to raise the minimum wage by 90 cents over two years, to $5.15 an hour.” According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “Democrats and moderate Republicans pushed through the House today legislation increasing the minimum wage by 90 cents, thwarting attempts by the GOP leadership to exempt many businesses. The final vote was 281-144 on the package that would raise the current $ 4.25-an-hour minimum wage by 90 cents over the next 13 months.” Wicker voted against the wage increase. [Vote 192, 5/23/96; Vote 195, 5/23/96; Chicago Tribune, 5/24/96; Chicago Sun-Times, 5/23/96]
In 2006, Wicker Blocked Minimum Wage Vote Seven Times in Five Weeks. In June and July 2006, Wicker joined his Republican colleagues in blocking seven separate attempts to offer a minimum wage increase before the House of Representatives. [Vote #308, 6/22/06; Leadership Document, 6/22/06; Vote #313, 6/22/06; National Journal’s CongressDaily, 6/23/06; Vote #319, 6/27/06; Vote #353, 6/29/06; Vote #360, 7/11/06; Congressional Record, 7/11/06; Vote #364, 7/12/06; Hoyer Statement, 7/12/06; Vote #366, 7/12/06; Wall Street Journal, 7/13/06]
Wicker Said He Would Rather Cut Taxes Than Raise Minimum Wage, Even As He Acknowledged Wage Hike Would Help Millions. “A minimum wage hike would help about 3.7 million people,” Wicker said in 1996. “I would rather increase the take-home pay of 50 million people with a tax cut.” [Commercial Appeal, 5/12/96]
Narrator: Musgrove will increase it.
Visual: Musgrove Will Increase Minimum Wage
Musgrove: It’s Wrong Not To Vote To Help Workers Get Paid What They Deserve. In a speech announcing his candidacy, Musgrove said “Roger Wicker voted ten times against raising the minimum wage. He voted eight times against extending unemployment benefits or to help workers whose jobs were outsourced. And he voted for $40 billion in tax breaks for foreign corporations that ship jobs overseas. Roger Wicker will vote to spend money on a New York music hall, but he won’t vote to help Mississippi middle class workers keep their jobs, find a new job, or get paid what they deserve on the job. I think Mr. Wicker is wrong.” [Musgrove Campaign Announcement, 1/8/08]
Musgrove: Only Paycheck a Senator Should Raise Is Yours. Referring in a 2008 campaign ad to Roger Wicker’s votes to raise his own salary while opposing minimum wage hikes, Musgrove said, “the only paycheck your Senator should be focused on raising is yours.” [Musgrove Ad: “Where Did Our Jobs Go?“]
Musgrove Suggested He Would Counter Wicker on Minimum Wage Votes. At the 2008 state Democratic convention, Musgrove said, “When my opponent has voted…against raising the minimum wage, it’s time for Ronnie Musgrove to be in the United States Senate.” [Musgrove Convention Speech, 6/7/08]
Narrator: And Wicker supported tax breaks for CEOS
Visual: Wicker
Tax Breaks for CEOs and Oil Companies
Wicker Supported Bush’s 2004 Multitrillion-Dollar Tax Breaks for Wealthy. In 2004, Wicker supported Bush’s budget that permanently locked in multitrillion-dollar tax breaks that mostly benefit the nation’s wealthiest. According to the AFL-CIO, “To finance these taxes cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the Republican budget resolution—which mirrored Bush’s proposal—inflated the record-high $477 billion U.S. deficit and by $120 billion shortchanged or cut funds for the domestic programs working families need most—from job creation to health care, transportation and education. It also accelerated the repeal of the estate tax and made permanent tax cuts—such as the estate tax repeal, the capital gains and dividend rate cuts and the reduction in marginal rates—that provide huge benefits to families with the highest incomes.” [Vote #92, 3/25/04; 2004 AFL-CIO Scorecard]
Wicker Voted For $350 Billion Bush Tax Cut For The Rich in 2003. In 2003, Wicker voted for an irresponsible tax cut package that deepened the nation’s fiscal crisis and left middle-income households out in the cold. Some 53 percent of all U.S. households — or 74 million — will receive a tax cut of $100 or less in 2003 from the bill. Additionally, 36 percent of households — or 50 million — will receive no tax cut whatsoever in 2003, while tax filers who make $1 million or more per year will receive an average tax cut in 2003 of $93,500. [Vote #225, 5/23/03; Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, 5/28/03]
Wicker Voted For 2001 Bush Tax Cuts That Gave Most Benefits To The Rich. In 2001, Wicker voted for the final, $1.35 trillion tax cut package. Under the final agreement, the typical tax cut for the median income taxpayer would be $600 a year. For the 78 million taxpayers in the lowest 60 percent of the income scale, the tax cut would average $347 a year. In contrast, at the top of the income scale the average tax cut would be $53,000 annually--virtually identical to the $54,000 annual tax cut proposed by the President. As a result of the plan, after-tax income was estimated to rise about three times as much among the top one percent of families as among those in the middle class, and more than seven times faster among the top one percent of families than among the bottom 20 percent of families. [Vote #149, 5/26/01; Citizens for Tax Justice, 5/26/01; CBPP, 5/26/01]
> Sen. McCain Said 2001 Tax Cuts Benefited Wealthy “At the Expense of Middle-Class Americans.” Sen. John McCain, who voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, “said the measure cut tax rates for the wealthy ‘at the expense of middle-class Americans.’” [AP, 5/26/01]
> Bush Tax Cuts Shifted Tax Burden to the Middle Class. Reporting on a Congressional Budget Office Study in 2004, the Washington Post noted that “President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families.” The CBO report “found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent…saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.” On the other hand, “taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.” [Washington Post, 8/13/04]
Wicker Voted to Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. In 2002, Wicker voted to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts, many of which were set to expire in 2010. This included the income tax rate cut, marriage penalty relief and the estate tax repeal. [Vote 103, 4/18/02]
Narrator: and Oil companies.
Visual: Wicker
Tax Breaks for CEOs and Oil Companies
Wicker Supported 1999 Tax Break Worth Over A Billion A Year For Big Oil. Wicker voted for the final 1999 GOP Tax package, which included a provision that would give oil companies a special tax benefit for their foreign operations. According to USA Today, “One of the biggest targeted breaks in the newly approved measure is for multinational oil companies, courtesy of Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, R-Texas. Archer pushed through a provision that would repeal rules limiting tax credits that oil and gas companies can claim from foreign operations. By 2009, the companies would save $ 1.2 billion a year.” According to the New York Times, the bill contained other measures beneficial to the oil industry as well, including allowing tax write-offs for wells that are “marginally productive.” Schaffer also voted for the initial House passage of the bill.[Vote 333, 7/22/99; Vote 379, 8/5/99; USA Today, 8/17/99; New York Times, 7/21/99]
> Additional Sourcing for “Tax Breaks”: According to the New York Times, “Mr. Archer, whose district is in Houston, put into the House bill several tax breaks for his constituents in the petroleum industry. One, for example, allows more favorable tax treatment for Americans who have income from foreign oil and gas. Another allows new write-offs for wells that are marginally productive.” [New York Times, 7/21/99]
> McCain Said Oil Companies Got $5 Billion In Tax Cuts For Their Efforts to Pass The Bill. According to the Durham Herald-Sun, Sen. John McCain “cited the influence of special interests on the passage of this summer's $792 billion tax bill. Had the president signed it, banks and securities firms, which spent $34.6 million in soft money contributions, would have received $30 billion in tax cuts, a good investment according to McCain. Similarly, restaurants and hotels spent $9.9 million and received $8.4 billion; oil and gas companies spent $14.3 million and got $5 billion; steel companies contributed $990,000 and got $187 million, McCain said.” [Durham Herald-Sun, 10/13/99]
Wicker Voted for 2001 Energy Bill With $13 Billion in Tax Breaks to Big Oil. Wicker voted for the 2001 House energy bill, which included $33.5 billion in tax breaks over 10 years. According to the New York Times, “The bulk of the credits and breaks -- $27 billion, according to government watchdog groups -- go to traditional energy producers, both to drill for more oil and gas, develop nuclear energy and produce cleaner coal.” The Orlando Sentinel reported that the House energy bill “would bestow $33.5 billion of tax breaks during 10 years, the bulk of it to encourage production of new energy supplies. They include: $13.3 billion for oil and gas companies.” [Vote 320, 8/1/01; New York Times, 8/2/01; Orlando Sentinel, 8/19/01]
Headline: “In the End, Energy Bill Fulfilled Most Industry Wishes.” According to the Washington Post, “By winning more than $ 30 billion in tax incentives” in the 2001 energy bill, “industry received much of what it wanted. But its success raised questions about how lawmakers and the administration plan to pay for it in a period of declining budget surpluses.” [Washington Post, 8/3/01]
Additional Sourcing for “Tax Breaks”:
> The Times-Picayune reported that the 2001 House energy bill included a number of stipulations that “were good news for the oil and gas industry, which could gain $10 billion worth of tax breaks and a two-year extension of royalty breaks for deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.” [Times-Picayune, 8/2/01]
> The Christian Science Monitor reported that the 2001 House energy bill “contained many of the most important provisions of the administration's original energy outline, including billions of dollars in tax breaks for petroleum producers.” [Christian Science Monitor, 8/3/01]
Wicker Voted for Final 2003 Energy Bill With $11.9 Billion for Oil and Gas Industries. In November 2003, Wicker voted for the final version of the 2003 energy bill. The bill provided an estimated $23 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, with $14.5 billion going to the coal, oil, natural gas industries. Specifically, CQ Monitor reported, “Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, said the tax breaks were expanded to satisfy demands from congressional backers of the oil and gas industry. He said the final version of the bill includes $11.9 billion in tax breaks for the industry.” [Vote 630, 11/18/03; Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/18/03; Wichita Eagle, 11/19/03; CQ Monitor, 11/18/03]
Wicker Voted For 2005 Energy Bill With $2.6 Billion in Tax Breaks For Big Oil And Gas Companies. Wicker voted to adopt the final 2005 Energy Bill, which provided for $14.6 billion in energy-related tax incentives, according to Congressional Quarterly Weekly. The tax package, “provides far less support for alternative energy and efficiency than many lawmakers had urged,” with 58% going to “traditional energy industries, including oil, natural gas, coal, electric utilities and nuclear power,” according to the Washington Post. Specifically, “the bill provides $2.6 billion in tax benefits for oil and gas production and refining.” [Vote 445, 7/28/05; Washington Post, 7/28/05; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 7/29/05]
Additional Sourcing for $2.6 Billion:
> Discussing the 2005 energy bill, The Hill reported, “In total, the energy bill included $2.6 billion in oil and gas tax breaks.” [The Hill, 5/9/06]
> The AP reported, “the legislation would provide $14.5 billion in energy tax breaks, including $2.6 billion for oil and gas industries.” [Associated Press, 7/28/05]
Narrator: Musgrove says cut taxes for middle-class families.
Visual: Musgrove Cut Taxes for Middle-Class
Musgrove: Tax Less. In a speech announcing his candidacy for Senate, Musgrove said “We need a senator who will make the hard choices and the smart choices in the federal budget. And the way to put more money into the pockets of our people is to not take it out in the first place.” [Musgrove Campaign Announcement, 1/8/08]
Musgrove: Stand For Rights Of Taxpayers, Middle Class. In a speech announcing his candidacy for Senate, Musgrove said “I believe in rights of taxpayers, and my loyalties are to middle class families here at home in Mississippi.” [Musgrove Campaign Announcement, 1/8/08]
Narrator: The difference?
Visual: Musgrove
The Difference?
Narrator: Ronnie Musgrove is on your side.
Visual: Musgrove On Your Side
No comments:
Post a Comment