Very effective new DSCC Musgrove ad with fact sheet

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

DSCC ad "Right"

I am trying to get all of the Musgrove ads posted on here for everyone to see. This one was released this week. I hope I do not repeat an ad, but it might happen.

DSCC ad "Schools"

New DSCC Ad "Pain"

I don't think this one has been posted yet.

Ad Highlights Wicker's Votes With Insurance Against Patients

The ad focuses on his votes for HMO's at the expense of doctors and patients.

This ad isn't particularly good (as is the tradition with political advertising), but it is true.

I don't know which markets it is airing in.

Bought by Big Oil

The DSCC launched a new website highlighting the GOP Senators who have been bought by big oil. Right smack dab in the middle of their front page picture is our friend Roger Wicker.

http://www.boughtbybigoil.com/

Tax loopholes that save the oil industry $5 billion were removed from the original Senate version of the $70 billion GOP tax bill in 2006 but under pressure Congressional negotiators put them back in the final bill. The $5 billion for big-oil could have been used instead to partially offset an increase in middle class taxes. Not only did Wicker vote for the final tax bill with the big-oil tax breaks, but he also voted against a Democratic motion to repeal the big-oil tax breaks. [Republican Policy Committee, 2/7/06; Washington Post, 4/26/06; Joint Tax Committee, 5/9/06; Vote 135, 5/10/06; Vote 109, 4/27/06, USA Today, 4/27/06]

They even have some nice graphs that display the profits for Big Oil in contrast with your rising prices at the pump.

DSCC Ad In Support of Ronnie Musgrove

A tip of the hat to The Thorn Papers

DSCC Ads Tout Musgrove's Record Of Independence And Fiscal Responsibility as Governor

The ad features footage of Musgrove looking friendly and talks touts him breaking from his party and not raising taxes during his time as governor.

My first thought was that though it was well shot it wasn't a particularly effective ad, but then I compared it to the ads by Wicker and they aren't trying to be particularly persuasive. They're simply trying to introduce (or in this case reintroduce) the candidates to the public. They do a fine job at that.

It's 30 seconds long and is playing in Jackson and South Mississippi for sure and I suspect statewide. (Let us know in the comments.)

I expect to have the script of the ad soon and should have it up tomorrow.


(I realize some of y'all have an irrational hatred of Ronnie Musgrove, but please stick to criticizing the ad on this post. I think that would be more interesting all in all. )

DSCC To Air Ads In Support Of Ronnie Musgrove Starting Today (Tuesday)

Roll Call:

"As Sen. Roger Wicker (R) continues to air a series of campaign ads in central and Gulf Coast Mississippi this month, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is going up on television in the Magnolia state beginning today.

The DSCC television purchases in Mississippi means the party will be on the air in the Magnolia State ahead of the Democratic Senate nominee, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, who has yet to buy television ads in the special Senate election."

Swing State Project

Roger Wicker has been on the air in South Mississippi for more than a month painting himself falsely as a champion of the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

MS-SEN: DSCC internal poll has Musgrove with 8 point lead

Read the official press release from the DSCC here.

From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic,

A rule of sorts for this blog: don't cite partisan polls. I'm going to make an exception for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's latest survey of Mississippi voters. They give former governor Ronnie Musgrove (D) an eight point lead over Republican incumbent Roger Wicker. Even if the DSCC were inclined to fudge the poll (or their pollster was) -- no evidence that they have or will, but I'm just saying -- they wouldn't show their candidate in the lead by that much. Expectations are raised -- and if future polls consistently show Musgrove behind Wicker, we'll know that (a) the DSCC poll was misleading or (b) Wicker has regained a lead. The DSCC poll is consistent with Democratic energy in the state, with Republican pessimism, and with Musgrove's broad popularity.

Colorado Break

Just to take a break from Mississippi for a moment, check out this hilarious DSCC release on the Colorado Senate race.


After Schaffer's "Mt. Macaca" Moment, Democrats Send GOP Candidate A Geography Quiz
2008-05-15
Matthew Miller, DSCC
In an event that is already being dubbed his “Mt. Macaca moment,” Bob Schaffer launched his first TV commercial of the 2008 campaign yesterday, claiming in it that “Colorado is my life.” Odd, then, that Schaffer’s commercial highlights a mountain…in Alaska. (Or at least it did before Schaffer’s campaign manager told the Denver Post that “the ad would be pulled and re-edited with Colorado mountains.”)


Schaffer’s had a few other geography-related ‘oops’ so the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee put together some practice questions for the next time he has a geography quiz – or a Senate campaign.


1. In a TV commercial where you talk about proposing to your wife on Pikes Peak, what mountain should you show in the background?


a. Pikes Peak in Colorado
b. Mt. McKinley in Alaska


Correct Answer: a. But Schaffer’s commercial features shots of the famous Alaskan mountain. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich’s spokeswoman commented: "While Alaskans can understand why Bob Schaffer would promote our beautiful mountain, I hope he doesn’t expect Alaska to cede North America’s highest peak to the State of Colorado."


2. Where is your favorite place to go for outdoor sports?
a. Skiing at Mary Jane
b. Hiking in the Great Sand Dunes
c. Climbing in Eldorado Canyon
d. Fly Fishing in the Fryingpan River
e. Parasailing in the Mariana Islands while on a “fact-finding” trip – paid for by a Jack Abramoff front group, of course.


Correct Answer: Coloradans would probably accept a, b, c or d. But Schaffer seems to prefer the last option, as the Denver Post reported in several front page stories.


3. If you’re a Congressman elected to represent Colorado’s 4th district, what part of the world should you accomplish the most for?
a. The Eastern Plains of Colorado
b. Ukraine


Correct Answer: a. But Schaffer once bragged to the Denver Post that, “I’ve accomplished more in that country [Ukraine] with less effort than I have in my own district.” [Denver Post, 12/15/02]


4. Just to cover all the bases…where is Colorado?



Hopefully Bob Schaffer can at least get the last one right.

Governor Ronnie Musgrove At Choir Practice

How people spend their time reveals their character. Whether it was coming to the Coast dozens of times after Hurricane Katrina to help in a private capacity (and without media coverage) or being one of many in his church's choir. Governor Ronnie Musgrove shows character.

Roger Wicker Says College Is Valuable, But Is Unwilling To Assist Students In Paying

DSCC:

In a column in (Cotton Mouth Note: (in his weekly column statewide)), Roger Wicker touts his position on the Community College Caucus and praises the “important role community colleges play in our educational system.” But Wicker has voted against higher education initiatives throughout his career, including the very Pell Grant funding that he says plays an “integral role in the success of our community colleges.” Wicker has even been the lone member of the Mississippi delegation to oppose proposals that would save students and taxpayers money.

“It’s great that Roger Wicker says he supports higher education, but it’d be a lot more helpful to Mississippians if he actually voted in support of it,” DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. “Penning a column from his Washington office won’t generate the results that families in Mississippi want and need. With the rising cost of college a major concern for all families, maybe Roger Wicker should spend more time fighting for the people of Mississippi and less time spouting empty rhetoric.”

Wicker: “We Must Slow The Rate” Of Student Loans. "We have to deal with the deficit on two fronts, we must slow the rate of growth of mandatory entitlement programs like student loans, Medicare and Medicaid, that's where the money is. Those programs have been growing at twice the rate of inflation ... growth on the appropriations side has been flat the last two years," Wicker said in 2005. [AP, 12/27/05]
Wicker Has Voted At Least Nine Times Against Pell Grant Funding. [Vote 864, 9/7/07; House Appropriations Committee Markup, 6/13/06; Vote 301, 6/24/04; AP, 6/25/04; Washington Times, 6/25/04; House Appropriations Committee Markup, 6/9/04; House Appropriations Committee Markup, 6/25/03; Vote 415, 7/19/00; House Appropriations Committee Markup, 5/24/00; Vote 124, 5/5/98; House Appropriations Subcommittee Markup, 6/13/96]
Wicker Voted Against Largest Student Aid Increase Since the GI Bill. In September 2007, Wicker voted against the bipartisan bill to boost financial aid for college students by cutting some $20 billion in government subsidies to banks that make student loans. The bill also increased the maximum Pell Grant from $4,310 a year to $5,400 a year and would cut interest rates on federally backed student loans to poor and middle-class students from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over four years. [Vote 864, 9/7/07; AP, 9/7/07]
Wicker Was Only Member of MS Delegation to Oppose Initial Student Loan Rate Cut Plan in 2007 That Could Save Students $2,300. In January 2007, Wicker was the only member of the Mississippi delegation to vote against the House student loan bill, which passed 356-71. The bill was“designed to cut interest rates on college loans, creating a plan that potentially could save students $2,300 over the course of a loan.” It cut the federal student loan rate from 6.8% to 3.4%, with the reduction sun setting after five years. [Vote 32, 1/17/07]
Wicker Voted For The Largest Cuts To Federal Student Aid In History At A Time Of Rising Tuition Costs. In 2006, Wicker voted for the largest cuts to federal student aid in history at a time of rising tuition costs. The measure cut $12.7 billion from student loan programs – the largest single cut in history. It imposed higher fees on students, increased the interest rate on parent loans and cut subsidies to lenders. The bill also put billions of dollars in student aid at risk by cutting all of the critical funds ($2.2 billion) used to carry out and administer the student aid programs. [Vote 4, 2/1/06; House Budget Committee Minority Staff, 12/19/05; Rep. George Miller Press Release, 12/18/05; CQ Today, 2/1/06; Washington Post, 2/1/06]
Wicker Voted Against Closing Student Loan Loophole. In 2005, Wicker was the only member of the Mississippi delegation to vote against closing a student loan loophole. The amendment Wicker voted against stopped a scam in the college student loan program that allowed certain lenders to pocket billions of dollars in excess profits at the expense of both taxpayers and students. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the so-called “9.5% loan scam” cost taxpayers billions of dollars. The amendment closed this loophole ensuring that federal education dollars were available to help students and families afford college. The 9.5% guarantee was established in the high interest rate year of 1980. Congress intended for it to be phased out of existence beginning in 1993, but through a regulatory loophole, the guarantee continued. [Van Hollen Press Release, 6/24/05; Vote 316, 6/24/05]
Wicker Voted Against Making College More Affordable Through Tax Credits. In 1997, Wicker voted against amending the tax code to make college more affordable. The motion would have instructed House negotiators on the budget reconciliation bill to provide “$500-per-child tax credit to working families, support a HOPE Scholarship credit for the first two years of a college education, and include tax benefits for families paying tuition costs for the second two years of a college education out of wage and salary income.” [Vote 258, 7/10/97]

Thanks to Senate 2008 Guru

DSCC Launches Site Highlighting Roger Wicker's Record

The Real Roger Wicker

The site highlights his history with Aurora Flight Sciences, his relationship with Lobbyists, and his votes in opposition to the needs of Mississippi.

From their e-mail:

Yesterday, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in favor of Republican Governor Haley Barbour and disenfranchised millions of Magnolia State voters by denying the state Attorney General's efforts to hold the special Senate election to replace Trent Lott on or before March 19.

The governor has been fighting hard for this delay - even though it seems to circumvent the state's constitution - because he is terrified the Republicans are going to lose this seat.

Today, the DSCC is going on offense and declaring that we're ready to win in November. We're launching a brand new website detailing the real record of Republican candidate and interim Senator Roger Wicker.

The $6 million earmark Wicker secured for a company represented by his former chief of staff is just the tip of the iceberg. Thanks in no small part to your past support, the DSCC has the resources to make sure Wicker can't cover up who he really is.

Click here to learn more about Roger Wicker's real record. We can't afford another Trent Lott in the United States Senate.

Remember, the latest polling shows at least one Democrat, former Governor Ronnie Musgrove, is already winning this seat. If you and I do our jobs between now and Election Day, we can make the worst fears of Trent Lott and his Mississippi Republican friends come true.

An Awkward and Interesting Race To Come?

From a Sun Herald article I learn that:

Musgrove and Wicker are longtime friends and shared an apartment in Jackson when they served together in the state Senate.

I'm curious as to how this might effect the tone of a Musgrove vs. Wicker race.

Are their bonds still so strong that they would stay away from the low blow?

Will both use surrogates and independent expenditures to do their attacks to avoid looking like they are attacking a friend?

Or will all be fair in love war and (add) politics?


If Musgrove or the DSCC decide that attacking Wicker is a good idea (and it is) Will Bardwell suggests some attacks:

SCHIP: Wicker opposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program earlier this year in an effort to deny extension of government-funded health care to 9 million uninsured children. Nearly 50 Republicans supported the bill in the House of Representatives despite the White House's opposition, but Wicker wasn't one of them. Undoubtedly, he'd defend the vote as an exercise in fiscal conservatism, but weighed against the health of 9 million children, that argument could sound hollow -- particularly in a cash-strapped state like Mississippi.

Big Oil: Way back in January, Wicker opposed a Democratic-led bill to repeal tax breaks for U.S. oil companies and fund renewable energy programs. Wicker also has accepted nearly $330,000 from energy companies over his congressional career. Wicker's not the only one, but that only goes to paint him into the just-another-Washington-insider corner. I can't think of any good answer that Wicker could muster.

Iraq: Mississippi is as conservative a state as there is, but Wicker's voting history on the Iraq war might still provide Musgrove some traction. Back in June, a poll showed that more than 40 percent of Republicans favored some form of troop withdrawal from the region, but Wicker has been as steady a rubber stamp for the White House as any member of Congress; as far as I can tell, Wicker has voted to approve all $482 billion for Iraq war funding. That's a big number to have hanging around one's neck for such an unpopular (and continuing) engagement. Even in deep-red Mississippi, this issue can play with moderate-to-mildly conservative voters that usually vote Republican.

Minimum wage: Wicker opposed the narrowly successful effort to raise the minimum wage to $7.25. That vote could be used to hurt Wicker among rural, blue-collar voters that hurt Musgrove in 2003.

College loans: Mississippi has plenty of education problems on its own without Wicker's opposition to a bipartisan effort to cut the interest rates on federally subsidized student loans in half. More than 120 Republican congressmen supported the College Student Relief Act, but Wicker wasn't one of them. Musgrove would do well to make him explain why.

I do hope that whomever we Democrats choose can take the fight with proper financing to the Mississippi and National Republican machines.

Update: Wicker gave Barbour $10,000 in 2003 in his race against Musgrove so I doubt that friendship is still as strong.

Dan Gilgoff, John Arthur Eaves, and the way the National Stuff Works

I just posted the article from this Sunday's Dallas Morning News about John Arthur Eaves, and it seemed necessary to talk about the article in one post and do the analysis in another.

Dan Gilgoff is a widely respected author who puts a lot of rubber on the road. I think however, that he's missing the angle on this one and attributing to The National Democratic Party a thing that is inherently local. He makes the assumption that the DNC is involved in recruiting for the Governorships in the way that they're involved in recruiting Congressional and Senate candidates. It's not entirely the same.

I don't want to be misinterpreted as saying that the Eaves campaign doesn't have the support of the DNC or DGA or whatever. That is a separate conversation. Although I hear that he and Gov. Dean do have a good relationship.

Legislative calculus goes on for months or years. Thus legislating is a team sport. In 2006 the DCCC in conjunction with (at the time) Rep. Pelosi's office put together a national policy plan. They said, this is what our team is going to do. And the folks who were top and second tier congressional candidates got on board with that package. They became the local representatives of the larger national organizations. "We're going to be on the Anti-Iraq, pro environment, minimum wage raising team," they said. Senate races work the same way. Sen. Schumer gets on the phone and says "Mr. Webb, this is what we're going to do and it's a great way to sell yourself to the folks back home in Manassas." And in order to get those agendas passed, those organizations are heavily invested in each targeted race. There are weekly, and then nightly conference calls with staff and the DSCC or DCCC folks assigned to your race.

Gubernatorials don't work that way. They're races about leadership and character and completely determined by the local political circumstances. In Ohio, Ted Strickland got elected by saying "Ohio Republicans are corrupt. They steal your money, falsify elections, and have for sale signs sitting on their desks. And the national Republican party has the same problems" among other things. There's a harder time nationalizing elections for state offices. If the problem is in Jackson, talking about DC probably won't get the job done.

So the DGA, DLGA, DAGA, and all of the other state office associations function differently than DCCC and DSCC. My experience with them is that they serve primarily as information clearing houses. They store institutional memories. If you need a good media guy, you call and get a recommendation. You need advice on how to target your field plan, they can talk to you about what's worked in the past. They serve other functions, but that's how my involvement with those organizations has gone. My impression has always been that my campaign was a box on a grid. Their purpose is not to be heavily invested in the local political circumstances. It's resource allocation.

The reason that's important to know is that although the DNC and the DGA will be involved in this election, the Eaves candidacy is ultimately a thing generated, sustained by, and ultimately judged by local circumstances. The fact that there's a guy running as a Pro-Life, Pro-School Prayer, Baby Baptizing Democrat in Mississippi says more about Mississippi than it does the National Democratic Party. That's a point that Dan Gilgoff seems to ignore.