Press Releases

 

Entries in NRSC (211)

Saturday
Apr122014

NRSC - SNAP: Top Senate Democrat Campaign Group Caught in Pay Gap Hypocrisy 

Washington Examiner | By Paul Bedard

The Senate Democratic arm threatening to hang the GOP's refusal to OK equal pay legislation around the neck of every Republican in the midterm elections suffers from an even worse gender “pay gap” than the much-advertised 77 cents for women for every $1 a man makes.

According to an analysis of recent salary information from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the group pays women 70 cents for every $1 a male employee works.

Even with employing more women than men, many at top levels, the DSCC in its latest salary filings with the Federal Election Committee covering September-November 2013, paid males an average of $18,576 for the three months to $13,044 for women.

The analysis provided to Secrets by the Republicans appeared to include a sizable bonus to long-serving DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil. Eliminating that, the group still pays less to women, about 82-cents per $1 for men.

The DSCC retaliated with a pay breakdown of the National Republican Senatorial Committee that shows the group paying 77 cents for every $1 a male makes.

Democrats argued that their calculation should not include the highly-paid and experienced executive director of either group because it skews the numbers. Eliminate the salary of the top men at both groups, and the figures show that the DSCC pays women $1.13 and the NRSC 87 cents per $1 for men.

But that waters down their pro-woman argument, said the GOP. "That's the weakest, most embarrassing and hypocritical excuse that a Democrat has made this week, and that is saying something. If the men at the DSCC don't believe that male bosses should count against the pay gap, it destroys their entire argument, doesn't it?" said NRSC press secretary Brook Hougesen.

While nailing down exact employment figures for the DSCC or NRSC is complicated, they indicate that paying women the same as men isn’t as easy as just diving payroll equally among the sexes.

It also highlights a potential problem for the DSCC which has launched a “GOP Pay Gap” campaign to hold Republican candidates accountable for their opposition to legislation on the issue. They have mounted an outrage campaign via social networks and President Obama this week attacked Republicans for voting down a pay gap proposal in the Senate.

The GOP calls the issue a political gotcha that builds on a claim that women earn 77 cents for the $1 a man makes.

Click here to read the entire article

Friday
Apr112014

NRSC - Obama's Medicare Cut Announcement a Cynical Ploy to Fool New Hampshire Seniors, Protect Shaheen

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Democrats in the Senate voted to slash Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare.  At the time, she promised Granite Staters dependent on Medicare that ObamaCare wouldn't cut Medicare and would in fact strengthen the program. That promise was false, causing Democrats facing voters in 2014 to plead with the Obama Administration to stop the Medicare cuts.

It’s no secret that ObamaCare will negatively impact Medicare meaning that Jeanne Shaheen and other vulnerable Democrats were desperate for political cover from the Obama Administration. That is why the White House unilaterally delayed proposed cuts to Medicare (intended to pay for ObamaCare). Once the midterm elections are over, it is a matter of time until Democrats reinstate these cuts to Medicare.  

"Jeanne Shaheen cut $200 billion from ObamaCare to pay for Medicare and has repeatedly deceived New Hampshire voters with one false promise after another about the unpopular law," said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. "Unfortunately Democrats are more interested in protecting their vulnerable Senators than New Hampshire seniors and will most certainly reinstitute these Medicare cuts after the elections. Seniors should not be used as pawns by Democratic Senators like Jeanne Shaheen desperate to hold onto power."

BACKGROUND

In 2010 Jeanne Shaheen Voted To Slash Medicare Advantage To Pay For ObamaCare. (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #72: Motion agreed to 56-42: R 0-40; D 54-2; I 2-0, 3/24/10, Shaheen Voted Yea)

Facing Rocky Midterm Elections, The Obama Administration Is Delaying Proposed Cuts To Medicare. The federal agency that runs Medicare has reversed at least some proposed cuts to private Medicare Advantage plans—the second time in two years that insurers have persuaded the agency to abandon cuts.  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Monday it would turn a roughly 2 percent cut first proposed in February into a 0.4 percent payment increase for Medicare Advantage plans.  Insurers, however, have said the proposed cut was much bigger—closer to 6 percent. They argued that payment reductions would cause plans to either cut benefits or raise premiums.  (Sam Baker, “Administration Backs Down On Medicare Cuts,” National Journal, 04/07/14)

According To The Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO): ObamaCare Cuts $716 Billion From Medicare. (Congressional Budget Office, Letter To Speaker John Boehner, 7/24/12)

Democrats Paid For ObamaCare In Part “By An Estimated $206 Billion” In Medicare Advantage Cuts. “Consumers who choose Advantage plans are opting for managed care with benefits including lower out-of-pocket costs over the traditional government-run Medicare program for the elderly and disabled. Government payments have been under pressure since 2010, when the U.S. health expansion was financed in part by reducing spending on Advantage plans by an estimated $206 billion over a decade.” (Alex Wayne and Caroline Chen, “Humana, UnitedHealth Face About 3.6% Advantage Rate Cuts,” Bloomberg, 2/21/14)

Wednesday
Apr092014

NRSC - Misleading Paycheck Fairness Act 

All Republicans support equal pay for equal work. And while we all know workplace discrimination still exists, we need real solutions that focus on job creation and opportunity for women. Not more regulations that cut flexibility and cut bonuses.

But on Tuesday, Democrats have said that they will be using “Equal Pay Day” to push their misleadingly named, “Paycheck Fairness Act.” These are the same Democrats who controlled the White House and Senate for the last five years but always seem to wait for an election year to push another empty promise.

The truth is the “Paycheck Fairness Act” is a desperate political ploy.  And Democrats are cynically betting that Americans aren’t smart enough to know better. They’re forgetting the millions of women who belong to the Republican Party who will speak out. They’re missing the fathers, husbands, and sons who believe that women deserve real solutions.

The “Paycheck Fairness Act” doesn’t provide paycheck fairness for women. In fact, it will cut flexibility in the work place for working moms and end merit pay that rewards good work—the very things that are important to us.

Here’s why:

First, it is already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. It’s been against the law to pay a woman less than a man with comparable experience in the same job since the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

The “fix” that Democrats propose, then, won’t change that. It would, however, tightly regulate how employers can pay their employees. This law will not create “equal” pay, but it will make it nearly impossible for employers to tie compensation to work quality, productivity and experience, reduce flexibility in the workplace, and make it far easier to file frivolous lawsuits that line the pockets of trial lawyers.

Ultimately, this bill will hurt all workers, especially women.

Democrats would respond to that by saying that women still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. That statistic is misleading. And more importantly, the Democrats know it is because they only use it when it’s convenient to their talking points.

That number comes from the average earnings of women in all positions and contrasts it with the average earning of men in all positions. But women and men hold different jobs in different industries and varying levels of experience. (Interestingly, some estimates show that younger women actually out-earn younger men.)

There’s a disparity not because female engineers are making less than male engineers at the same company with comparable experience. The disparity exists because a female social worker makes less than a male engineer—just as a female engineer would out-earn a male social worker. The difference isn’t because of their genders; it’s because of their jobs. The “Paycheck Fairness Act” wouldn’t change that.

When you use the similar methodology to evaluate White House salaries, it turns out that the median pay for women in the Obama White House is 88 cents for every dollar a man makes. When presented with this information, the White House says it’s not a fair calculation. You have to compare people in equal positions, they say.

Exactly! But their “77 cents” statistic doesn’t do that. When you compare unequal work, of course you’ll come up with a statistic that shows unequal pay.

So, here’s the question for the White House and Democrats: why is the White House judged by one standard and the rest of the country by another?

Democrats have resorted to these misleading tactics because they don’t have other issues to run on. They have no credible ideas to ensure women have the opportunity to secure high-paying jobs, and the Democrat Senate has refused to pass any of the 40 jobs bills the Republican House has sent them.

ObamaCare is deeply unpopular, and they don’t want to talk about how policy cancellations are hurting women, or about how women are losing access to the doctors of their choice, or about how it’s meant smaller paychecks for working women (and men).

So instead they’re talking about the “Paycheck Fairness Act” using dishonest rhetoric and inaccurate math. It’s a political ploy designed to funnel money into the pockets of trial lawyers and to mislead the American people. But, of course, it wouldn’t be the first time Democrats have tried to sell a bill with deliberate lies.

Friday
Apr042014

NRSC - Jeanne Shaheen: Rubber Stamp for Obama's Tax Agenda 

April 3, 2014

OBAMA'S RUBBER STAMP

Jeanne Shaheen Works With President Obama to
Raise Granite Staters' Taxes

Votes with Obama an Astonishing 99% of The Time





Though Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen claims to be an independent voice for New Hampshire, her record falls well short of her rhetoric. Jeanne Shaheen has been a rubber stamp for Barack Obama's liberal agenda, voting with the unpopular President a shocking 99% of the time - even to the detriment of workers, families, and businesses in New Hampshire.

When it comes to taxes, Jeanne Shaheen's rhetoric is drastically different from her actions. Jeanne Shaheen has voted with Obama to raise taxes on middle class families and workers, destroying jobs and stifling investment and innovation. Jeanne Shaheen supports the same destructive agenda that Barack Obama champions including: 

  • Devastating: Jeanne Shaheen's vote for ObamaCare means $810 billion in taxes that hurt job growth.
  • Irresponsible: Jeanne Shaheen voted for the Obama-Reid tax bill that would have increased taxes on millions of families and small businesses.
  • Destructive: Jeanne Shaheen voted against a permanent repeal of the Death Tax.
  • Reckless: Jeanne Shaheen voted for the Senate Democrats’ budget that raised taxes nearly $1 trillion.

"President Obama's agenda is basically Jeanne Shaheen's agenda, since one doesn't support someone they disagree with 99% of the time," said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. "In Washington, Jeanne Shaheen has consistently supported President Obama's policies, even when they hurt job growth and create uncertainty and unnecessary burdens for Granite Staters. Granite Staters deserve a Senator that isn't just a rubber stamp for the liberal Obama agenda, but someone who will always stand up for the best interests of New Hampshire."

BACKGROUND

Shaheen Voted With Obama To Raise Taxes On The Middle Class, Small Businesses Owners And Farmers And Ranchers

The Joint Committee On Taxation Report Found That ObamaCare Raises Taxes On Middle-Class Americans. “There are a number of tax provisions in the health care bill that may directly increase taxes on some individuals and families earning less than $200,000 and $250,000 per year. Furthermore, other tax provisions in the bill that directly affect businesses may ultimately affect individuals and families earning less than $200,000 and $250,000, respectively, to the extent that increased taxes results in higher prices for the products of the affected businesses.” (Joint Committee On Taxation, Letter To Senator Tom Coburn, 3/20/12)

  • Shaheen Pays For ObamaCare With $810.8 Billion In Job-Killing Taxes On Small Businesses, Investments And Innovation. (“Updated Estimates For The Insurance Coverage Provisions Of The Affordable Care Act,” Congressional Budget Office, 3/12; “Estimated Revenue Effects Of A Proposal To Repeal Certain Tax Provisions Contained In The ‘Affordable Care Act,’” Joint Committee On Taxation, 6/15/12)

In July 2010, Shaheen Voted Against A Permanent Repeal Of The Death Tax. (H.R. 4213, CQ Vote #213: Motion Rejected 39-59: D 2-54; R 37-3; I 0-2, 7/21/10, Shaheen Voted Nay)

  • In April 2009, Shaheen Voted For President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Which Would Have Instituted A 45% Estate Tax, With An Exemption Level Of $3.5 Million. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #173: Adopted 53-43: R 0-40; D 51-3; I 2-0, 4/29/09, Shaheen Voted Yea; Editorial, “Night Of The Living Death Tax,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/31/09)

In 2012, Shaheen Voted For The Obama-Reid Tax Bill That Would Have Increased Taxes On Single Filers Earning More Than $200,000, And Joint Filers Earning More Than $250,000. “Passage of the bill that would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for one year on taxable income of up to $200,000 for single filers or up to $250,000 for joint filers. The bill would set the tax rate for adjusted gross income above $250,000 at 33 percent and for adjusted gross income above $400,000 at 35 percent. It also would expand the child tax credit and extend the college tuition tax credit and the earned income tax credit. It would set tax rates for long-term capital gains and dividends at 20 percent. The bill also would allow a business property deduction of $250,000 and extend the alternative minimum tax provisions for 2012 income.” (S. 3412, CQ Vote #184: Passed 51-48: R 0-46; D 50-1; I 1-1, 7/25/12, Shaheen Voted Yea)

In 2010, Shaheen Voted For A Bill That Would Have Let The Republican Tax Cuts Expire On Income Up To $200,000 For Individuals And $250,000 For Joint Filers. “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with a further Baucus, D-Mont., substitute amendment no. 4727 that would make permanent the 2001- and 2003-enacted tax cuts on income up to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing joint returns. The extensions would include current lower tax rates for capital gains and dividends, elimination of the ‘marriage penalty’ and an expansion of the increased child tax credit. It also would extend unemployment insurance benefits for 13 months.” (H.R. 4853, CQ Vote #258: Motion rejected 53-36: R 0-31; D 52-4; I 1-1, 12/4/10, Shaheen Voted Yea)

In March 2013, Shaheen Voted For The Senate Democrats’ Budget That Raised Taxes Nearly $1 Trillion. “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would set broad spending and revenue targets over the next 10 years. It would allow up to $966 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2014, the statutory level reflecting automatic cuts known as sequestration, but would call for replacing the sequester with a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts. It would direct the Finance Committee to produce legislation that would increase revenue by $975 billion over 10 years. It would call for $275 billion in cuts from mandatory health programs without making major structural changes to entitlements. It also would call for $23 billion in cuts to agriculture programs and an increase of $100 billion for infrastructure and worker training programs. As amended, the resolution would allow for a repeal of the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices and the creation of a biennial budget and appropriations process.” (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #92: Adopted 50-49: R 0-45; D 48-4; I 2-0, 3/23/13, Shaheen Voted Yea)

  • Shaheen Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Removed The Tax Increases From The Budget. “Grassley, R-Iowa, amendment no. 156, that would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to pay for the impact of any legislation to implement a revenue-neutral tax overhaul. The amendment would strike reconciliation instructions that would direct the Finance Committee to produce legislation that would increase revenue levels by $975 billion over the next 10 years.” (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #49: Rejected 45-54: R 45-0; D0-52; I 0-2, 3/21/13, Shaheen Voted Nay)
Thursday
Apr032014

NRSC - Shaheen: Obama's Rubber Stamp on Energy Policy

Shaheen Supports Obama's Energy Agenda Instead of
What's Best For New Hampshire

Votes with Obama an Astounding 99% of the Time





Despite the fact that a majority of Granite Staters disapprove of President Obama, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) remains a loyal proxy vote for the liberal Obama agenda. Shaheen has voted with Obama an astonishing 99% of the time and has supported policies harmful to American energy that could cripple entire industries, destroy jobs, and hurt workers in New Hampshire. 

For voters in New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen's propensity to support President Obama on energy issues will mean more red tape regulation, higher taxes, and increased costs that would destroy local businesses and hurt the middle class. The Shaheen-Obama agenda is simply too extreme for New Hampshire: 

  • Crippling: Jeanne Shaheen supported liberal California Senator Barbara Boxer's cap-and-trade scheme that would have increased New Hampshire energy prices and killed jobs.
  • Harmful: Jeanne Shaheen voted for an amendment that provided for the establishment of a tax on carbon.
  • Dangerous: Jeanne Shaheen voted against an amendment that that would have blocked the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide.

"Jeanne Shaheen promised to be an independent voice for New Hampshire but instead voted with President Obama 99% of the time, and supported a reckless cap-and-trade plan," said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. "Those who don't agree with Barack Obama on energy issues don't agree with Jeanne Shaheen either, which is why voters will replace her with a Senator that they can trust to protect families, seniors, and workers in New Hampshire."

BACKGROUND:

Independence Rhetoric

In An Interview With WMUR, Jeanne Shaheen Said She Only Votes With Obama When It's Good For New Hampshire. SHAHEEN: “I support what’s good for New Hampshire, and when the President agrees with that, that’s great. When the President doesn’t, then I disagree with the President.” (WMUR, 3/20/14)

In 2008, Shaheen Attacked John Sununu For Voting With President Bush 90% Of The Time. SHAHEEN: “Well, I’ve acknowledged that John Sununu has voted ten percent of the time independently. He’s voted ninety percent of the time with President Bush, and the reason that’s a concern is because it is those votes, for those policies, that have gotten us into the economic crisis that we’re in, because you have voted down the line with George Bush on his economic policies, to support his budgets, to support raising the debt to ten trillion dollars. You’ve taken the biggest surplus in the history of the country and turned it into a  near record deficit.” (Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Senate Debate, 10/21/08)

Anti-Energy Policies

In March 2013, Shaheen Voted In Favor Of Establishing A New Tax On Carbon. “Whitehouse, D-R.I., amendment no. 646 that would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would provide for a fee on carbon pollution and use revenues collected to reduce the deficit.” (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #58: Rejected 41-58: R 0-45; D 39-13; I 2-0, 3/22/13, Shaheen Voted Yea)

In 2008, Shaheen Supported The Lieberman-Warner Cap-And-Trade Legislation To Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 80 Percent By 2050. “‘She supports many of the aims of the Warner-Lieberman bill,’ Shaheen spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said in a statement. ‘She supports the goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and in the U.S. Senate will push for a comprehensive plan to achieve that goal that includes economy-wide emissions reductions, aggressive research and development for new energy technologies , work with international partners to achieve global emissions reductions, and incentives for energy efficiency and clean alternative energy sources.’” (John P. Gregg, “N.H. Senators Face Pressure,” [White River Junction, VT] Valley News, 6/6/08)

In March 2013, Shaheen Voted Against An Amendment That Would Assume For A Ban On The EPA Regulating Carbon Emissions. “Inhofe, R-Okla., amendment no. 359 that would adjust the resolution to assume for a ban on the EPA regulation of carbon emissions.” (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #76: Rejected 47-52: R 44-1; D 3-49; I 0-2, 3/23/13, Shaheen Voted Nay)

In April 2011, Shaheen Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Blocked The EPA From Regulating Carbon Dioxide And Other Greenhouse Gasses. “McConnell, R-Ky., amendment no. 183 that would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.” (S. 493, CQ Vote #54: Rejected 50-50: R 46-1; D 4-47; I 0-2, 4/6/11, Shaheen Voted Nay)

In 2013, Shaheen Voted Against A Bipartisan Amendment To Provide Congressional Approval For The Construction Of The Keystone Pipeline. “Hoeven, R-N.D., amendment no. 494 that would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would provide for the approval and construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline as long as the legislation's costs are offset without raising revenue.” (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #61: Adopted 62-37: R 45-0; D 17-35; I 0-2, 3/22/13, Shaheen Voted Nay)