Home 2012 races Kaine-Allen “People’s Debate” in Richmond: Tim Kaine Easily Wins Another One

Kaine-Allen “People’s Debate” in Richmond: Tim Kaine Easily Wins Another One

206
23
SHARE



Are you watching the Kaine-Allen debate, which starts at 8 pm tonight? Here is a list of stations you can watch it on. Personally, I’ll probably check it out on C-SPAN, and attempt to live blog it (we’ll see how that goes). Anyway, feel free to use the comments section to discuss the debate, and go Kaine!

P.S. Oh, and if you’re following the debate on Twitter, I hear that hashtags to use are #peoplesdebate and #VASEN, while folks you might want to follow are @timkaine, @moelleithee, @adamslily, and @brandihoffine. Enjoy!

UPDATE 10:11 pm: Turns out moderator Bob Holsworth was totally wrong. In fact, he himself announced the rules 90 seconds-90-60 (for rebuttal) at the beginning of the debate, then didn’t follow them at all and even told both candidates they were wrong! Amazing, apparently it’s impossible to find a decent moderator, either one extreme (Jim Lehrer passive/wuss #FAIL) or the other (Holsworth control freak/dead wrong #FAIL).

UPDATE 8:56 pm: Once again, Tim Kaine dominated George Allen in terms of substance, not even close. Kaine also dominated in terms of honesty and truthfulness, whereas Allen just spouted ideological talking points, no matter how crazy or false. Finally, in terms of style, they were both fine I guess (although I find Kaine far more sincere than Allen, and Allen to be oily and insufferable to listen to), but the bottom line with these political debates is we should focus on SUBSTANCE not on who’s more “energetic” or whatever other idiocy the corporate media loves to focus on.

UPDATE 8:54 pm: We’re on the verge of economic breakthrough, Congress is holding us back. Need new ways of thinking in Congress. Need to invest in infrastructure. I’ve got a record of being fiscally responsible. We were at top of all accolades when I was governor. My opponent has a different record, turned huge surplus into deficit, wrecked both sides of balance sheet and hasn’t said anything today about how to balance it. Allen said his job was to enjoy knocking Dems soft teeth down their whiny throats, he ridiculed John Warner for trying to reach a compromise. We need to work together.

UPDATE 8:52 pm: Closing statements. Allen says he’ll be there for the same people as when he was chair of the DNC. Says he wants to see change in Washington, send message that America’s open for business. Anyone who pays taxes, uses electricity, drives a car, agree that doctors and patients should be making health care decisions, work for a living or want a job…should be on our side. (Note: all of that is demonstrably, almost absurdly, false.) Says he hopes to be “your voice” in Washington (more like the voice of powerful corporations and wealth individuals!)

UPDATE 8:49 pm: Question on affirmative action. Kaine – We want to have a university system that looks like our state, diverse! Hopes that Supreme Court affirms right of public institutions to try to make sure student body looks like the state. Certainly should use factors other than race, such as income, but need diversity, it’s a strength. Allen – Some agreement with Kaine, supports affirmative recruitment. Don’t want people better qualified denied the opportunity, either. Repeats the Big Lie about repealing Obamacare saving $1 trillion. Blah blah blah drill baby drill.

UPDATE 8:45 pm: Question on sequestration. Allen – Should never have done it in the first place (did Allen tell that to all his Republican allies who voted for it and supported it?). It’s all about a “vibrant economy” (yeah, Republicans have been great on that – not!). (Lies again, claims repealing Obamacare will save money, which is NOT what the non-partisan CBO says.) Unleash energy resources (what on earth does this have to do with sequestration? this guy just babbles and babbles, blah blah blah). Kaine – Allen dodged sequester question, other than repeal Affordable Care Act, which CBO says would REDUCE the deficit (THANK YOU!). Let Bush tax cuts expire for over $500k, take away subsidies for Big 5 oil companies, fix piece of Medicare I talked about earlier. Fix those three things, we only have $225 billion not $1 trillion of cuts we need to find.

UPDATE 8:41 pm: Question on Medicare financial ground going into future. Kaine – Medicare is challenging because of something good, we’re living longer. There are right solutions and wrong solutions. We should cut costs and save costs rather than shift costs onto seniors’ shoulders. Medicare Part D – provision made it unlawful for government to negotiate on price of prescription drugs. Make that one change, will save $240 billion over next 10 years. Should pay for healthy outcomes, not for # of procedures. Allen – Tim criticizes me for supporting Medicare Part D (that is NOT what Kaine said, he criticized Allen for the WAY he passed Medicare Part D and for the prohibition on negotiating prescription drug costs). Raise eligibility age, means test. Allow people to use 401ks and IRAs to purchase long-term care insurance.

UPDATE 8:38 pm: Question on illegal immigrants, DREAM Act. Allen – we need immigration reform, immigrants can contribute a great deal to our country, Obama ignored the law (WTF?). Need to secure the border. There are positive, constructive reforms we can make. Be magnet for talent. Don’t reward illegal behavior. Kaine – We need some visa reform, make process easier for tourists to visit US. I do support the DREAM Act, comprehensive immigration reform that would have significant financial penalty to people here illegally and they can get in line to get a green card. Allen actually proposed to eliminate birthright citizenship.

UPDATE 8:34 pm: Question on DISCLOSE Act. Kaine says he’ll support it, says current way of funding campaigns needs to be changed. No secret money. I offered George to make a deal on that for this campaign, he turned that down. I tried again in February with deal on SuperPACs disclosing their donors, once again he turned us down. What you see on TV is huge #s of ads by these organizations, often labeled false. George will defend this status quo.  Allen – Says he’s strongly in favor of freedom (what does THAT mean in this context?).  Says Kaine is running ads attacking Allen for raising his own pay, says he returned his salary as governor, Kaine didn’t cut his pay at all, except half-heartedly and late. Shouldn’t be any pay increases for Congress, should withhold their pay.

UPDATE 8:30 pm: Question about ultrasounds, personhood amendment. Allen – Says they’re state issues (dodge!), says he’d never prohibit contraceptives (sorry, George, but personhood WOULD do that!). Claims this is some sort of attack on religion, which of course it isn’t. Goes back to budget deficit (notice how he TOTALLY dodged that question rather than be seen as the extremist he is? I hope Kaine calls him on this.). Kaine – Allen repeatedly voted to raise his own pay. On women’s health, the spectacle in General Assembly was horrifying, invasive ultrasound against their will, horrible bill. Allen says on his website that we should pass personhood legislation, overturn Roe v. Wade, supports Blunt amendment to deny women contraceptive coverage, I’m against that, I’ll protect women’s rights.

UPDATE 8:27 pm: Kaine – On taxes, we have a balance sheet that’s broken. When Allen went into Senate, we had a surplus, but he broke both sides of the balance sheet. When he left, the balance sheet was completely out of whack. Have to fix it on both sides of the balance sheet. $2-$3 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. George has never shown an ability to make any kind of cuts. Let Bush tax cuts expire for those making more than $500k per year, that will raise $500 billion over next 10 years and avoid sequestration cuts. Allen won’t fix either side of balance sheet. Allen – Needs to be cuts made in federal spending, need to grow economy (notice no revenues?). Repeal Obamacare (note: CBO says Obamacare REDUCES the deficit). Comprehensive tax reform, reduce rates (note: that will INCREASE the deficit). Blah blah blah drill baby drill blah blah blah.

UPDATE 8:23 pm: Question on unemployment. Kaine – there are signs economy’s starting to move forward, lowest unemployment rate in 4 years, but Congress is the anchor weight. Senate Republicans filibustered veterans jobs bill. Over summer, the Senate passed a farm bill, but House bottled it up. Parties won’t work together, we can’t afford to put people in Congress who want to add to partisan rancor, we need bridge builders. Allen ridiculed John Warner’s efforts to find compromise. Allen – We need to repeal and replace Obamacare. Says he’s worked across aisle on a bunch of different things. Empower individuals, don’t take away choices from doctors and patients (of course, nobody’s doing that). Claims Obamacare is an impediment to small business (FALSE). Health savings accounts…

UPDATE 8:21 pm: Question on Ryan plan, whether candidates support it. Allen dodges, attacks Obamacare, lies about $716 billion being taken out of Medicare, except he says “million” not “billion” (does he know the difference?).  Kaine – Points out that Allen voted for risky privatization scheme. I will fight that to my last breath. On Medicare, Allen says $716 billion is to end overpayments to insurance company and helping people receiving Medicare benefits. Says Allen would take that $716 billion from seniors and give it back to insurance companies. (GREAT formulation by Tim Kaine – nice!)

UPDATE 8:19 pm: Very different strategy from Allen on how to deal with Soc. Security and Medicare. Notes that Allen voted to privatize Soc. Sec., would have been a “huge catastrophe.” Adjust payroll tax cap upwards. Don’t turn Medicare into a voucher system, instead work to save costs without jeopardizing benefits.

UPDATE 8:17 pm: Question on Social Security benefits. Allen says we need to preserve Social Security benefits. Vibrant economy, more people working will help fund Social Security. For those under 50, have gradual increase in age of eligibility, have some income adjustments (aka, “means testing”). Again, uses the words “increase taxes” and “Tim Kaine” in the same sentence. Sensing a theme here? 🙂

UPDATE 8:14 pm: Question about Libya. Kaine says he supports military action against al Qaeda, including in North Africa. Al Qaeda terrorists have declared war on the United States, we need to go get them wherever they are, they’ve committed an act of war against our country. Allen – We ought to go after the terrorist who killed our ambassador. Reminder of how wrong and dangerous it is to have cuts to military preparedness. Claims Tim and his allies don’t want to avert these cuts, but want to raise taxes instead, which will cause job losses. Cut off aid to Egypt.

UPDATE 8:12 pm: Lots of efforts to block women’s progress, Allen and I differ on this issue. Supports paycheck equity, Lily Ledbetter, Family and Medical Leave, women’s right to choose, Allen opposes those things.

UPDATE 8:10 pm: Question to Allen on women earning less than men. Allen – noone works harder than women, I see that in my wife Susan. Says he cares a lot about pay gaps. Need to get economy moving in right direction. Women have disproportionately been feeling the brunt of the economy. Mentions high gasoline prices and need for more affordable energy.

UPDATE 8:09 pm: Allen says Kaine could have said “no” when President Obama asked him to serve as DNC chair, could have said people are hurting in Virginia, you needed to give all your attention to the people of Virginia.

UPDATE 8:07 pm: Kaine points out he worked closely with Bush administration on a number of key initiatives, such as rail to Dulles, aftermath of shootings at Virginia Tech. Great track record of working across party lines, as mayor and governor. Best managed state, etc. Points out that Allen served in a partisan role as well while governor. Lists success stories as governor.

UPDATE 8:03 pm: Allen says he has a detailed plan for “America’s comeback.” Which one of us can be counted upon? Says he was one of the most accomplished modern governors, worked across the aisle. Attacks Kaine for serving as national party chair rather than focusing on Virginia’s economic crisis, says Kaine proposed to raise taxes, claims Kaine supported sequestration. Says he’ll work to create jobs.

UPDATE 8:01 pm: Tim Kaine goes first with opening statement. Pledges not to fire Big Bird or defends public broadcasting. Will work to invest in talent, infrastructure, grow the economy. We have a ball and chain, that’s Congress, they’re holding us back. We need to change Congress. Need people who are more fiscally responsible, who know how to work together. Governed during tough times. I know how to be fiscally responsible. My opponent has a different record…turned surpluses into deficits. Allen bragged about knocking Dems’ soft teeth down their whiny throats.

UPDATE 8:00 pm: Moderator Dr. Bob Holsworth introduces the candidates, lays out the rules, introduces panel.

  • ALLEN’S SHAM PLAN WON’T AVOID SEQUESTRATION

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, George Allen claimed to have a “plan” to deal with sequestration. But Allen’s so-called plan falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. Set aside the fact that many of Allen’s proposals are so partisan they will never win the votes needed to pass, what George Allen has is a patchwork of recycled proposals that will either make the problem worse or take so long to implement they will never stave off sequestration.

    Here are George Allen’s three policy prescriptions for dealing with a $1 trillion problem that takes effect in two months:

    First up – Full repeal of the ACA: The non-partisan CBO has affirmed repealing the Affordable Care Act would actually INCREASE the federal deficit. So before George Allen has even taken a single crack at the $1 trillion sequestration problem, he would make the hole deeper by taking a 34th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

    Second – Waste, fraud and abuse: We’ll believe it when we see it. It’s hard to trust George Allen, who voted for more than 52,000 earmarks, runaway spending, turning a huge surplus to a massive deficit, and to add trillions to our national debt.

    And Finally – “Unleash energy”: It would take years to start production of offshore energy, even if the process were started today, making it virtually impossible for revenues from offshore drilling to lessen the sequestration cuts that occur in less than 3 months if Congress doesn’t act. In addition, oil production is at record levels which hasn’t made a dent in sequestration.

    ALLEN WOULD REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BUT THE HOUSE HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY VOTED TO REPEAL IT 33 TIMES

    The House Has Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act 33 Times. In a piece headlined “Health Care Repeal Effort: Worth The Time?” CBS news reported, “The House of Representatives voted to repeal the president’s health care law Wednesday. It is the 33rd time that House Republicans have done that, even though they know the repeal won’t pass the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. Even if it did, the President would veto it. When there’s urgent business before the House, why spend so much time voting to repeal the law over and over again?” [CBS News, 7/11/12]

    REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD ADD TO THE DEFICIT

    According To The Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Repealing The Affordable Care Act Increases The Deficit By A Trillion Dollars Over The Next 20 Years And Would Cost Taxpayers $109 Billion Over The Next Ten Years. According to the CBO, repealing the Affordable Care Act “would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period…CBO estimates that the total increase in deficits during the 2013-2032 period…would lie in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.” [CBO, 7/24/12]

    ALLEN’S OPTIONAL FLAT TAX WOULD ADD TO THE DEFICIT

    As One Of His “Vague Solutions” To Sequestration, Allen Proposed An Optional Flat Tax That Analysts Say “Would Likely Increase The Deficit.” The New York Times reported, “Mr. Allen, who has made those defense cuts the centerpiece of his campaign of late, offered only vague solutions. He said repealing President Obama’s health care law would help, although the Congressional Budget Office says repeal would raise the deficit over 10 years, not lower it. And he proposed a flat tax that households could voluntarily choose over the existing tax code. Tax analysts say that too would likely increase the deficit by giving taxpayers the ability to choose whichever tax code saved them money.” [New York Times, 9/20/12]

    ALLEN WANTS TO UNLEASH OUR AMERICAN ENERGY RESOURCES, WHICH ARE AT RECORD HIGHS

    U.S. OIL PRODUCTION IS MUCH HIGHER THAN WHEN ALLEN WAS IN THE SENATE

    U.S. Oil Production Recently Reached Its Highest Level Since January 1997 And “America Met 83 Percent Of Its Energy Needs In The First Six Months Of The Year.”  Bloomberg reported, “U.S. oil production surged last week to the highest level since January 1997, reducing the country’s dependence on imported fuels as new technology unlocks crude trapped in shale formations. Crude output rose by 3.7 percent to 6.509 million barrels a day in the week ended Sept. 21, the Energy Department reported today. America met 83 percent of its energy needs in the first six months of the year, department data show. If the trend continues through 2012, it will be the highest level of self- sufficiency since 1991. Imports have declined 3.2 percent from the same period a year earlier.” [Bloomberg, 9/26/12]

    NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

    U.S. Natural Gas Production In 2011 Was An All-Time High. U.S. Natural Gas Production in 2011 was just over 24 trillion cubic feet, according to the Energy Information Administration. That is the most the U.S. has ever produced, the closest previous year being 1973. [U.S. Energy Information Administration, 12/6/11]

    “US Natural Gas Production On Track To Top 2011 Record In 2012.” In an article headlined, “US Natural Gas Production On Track To Top 2011 Record In 2012,” The State Journal reported, “U.S. natural gas producers are on track in 2012 to top their record 2011 production. Gas produced in the first six months of 2012 came to 11.9 trillion cubic feet, or tcf, compared with 11.2 tcf in the first six months of 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Total production in 2011 of 23 tcf exceeded 2010 production by 7.8 percent and topped the previous record, set in 1973, of 21.7 tcf. Volume has been higher in every month of 2012 compared with 2011.” [The State Journal, 9/14/12]

    EXPORTS OF REFINED PETROLEUM ARE AT RECORD LEVELS

    U.S. Exports Of Finished Petroleum Products Are At Record Levels. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2011 the U.S. exported 2,503,000 barrels of finished petroleum products, a modern-day record. [U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7/28/11]

    Bloomberg: “U.S. Was Net Oil-Product Exporter for First Time Since 1949.” In an article headlined, “U.S. Was Net Oil-Product Exporter for First Time Since 1949,” Bloomberg reported, “The U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said. Shipments abroad of petroleum products exceeded imports by 439,000 barrels a day, the department said today in the Petroleum Supply Monthly report.” [Bloomberg, 2/29/12]

  • FACT CHECK: ALLEN REJECTED NOT ONE, BUT TWO OFFERS TO GET RID OF SECRET MONEY

    Richmond, VA – In today’s debate, Tim Kaine reiterated his opposition to the millions in outside spending and secret money that have blanketed the airwaves in the Virginia Senate race.

    Since the beginning of this campaign, Tim Kaine has extended two offers to George Allen to keep millions in outside, secret money from influencing the U.S. Senate election. Last fall, Kaine offered an agreement to Allen in their first debate to keep outside groups from airing false, negative ads in the race. Allen said no. Kaine then offered an agreement to require these outside groups to at least disclose the donors and interest groups that pay for these ads. Allen once again refused to uphold Virginia’s tradition of disclosure and transparency.

    Allen Rejected Kaine’s Offer To Keep Secret Money Out Of The Campaign

    Kaine Extended An Offer To Allen To Keep Secret Money Out Of The Campaign. During the AP Day Debate between Kaine and Allen, Kaine said that he would be willing to make an agreement to keep outside groups that don’t disclose their donors out of the campaign. Allen Declined. [AP Day Debate, 12/7/12]

    Then, Allen Rejected Kaine’s Offer To At Least Disclose Donors And Interest Groups Paying For False, Negative Ads

    Kaine Requested That Allen Accept A ‘No Secret Money’ Pledge. Allen Declined. On WVIR-NBC 29 (Charlottesville), UVA political analyst Larry Sabato said, “Kaine recently fired off this letter, requesting Allen accept a ‘no secret money’ pledge, and disclose money going to any super PACs, organizations that can freely spend money in support of the candidate, without any official ties. Allen declined…” [WVIR-NBC 29 (Charlottesville), 3/19/12]

    ALLEN HAS DONE AN “ABOUT-FACE” ON DONOR DISCLOSURE

    Washington Post Editorial: “The Real Gimmick Is Mr. Allen’s About-Face On An Issue Where He Once Took A Principled Stand.”  In an editorial entitled, ‘George Allen’s Inconvenient Principles,’ The Washington Post Editorial Board wrote, “Mr. Allen, tailoring his views to fit his circumstances, now says that keeping deep-pocketed donors’ names secret is all right since they might otherwise be subject to intimidation. Please. Since when have Americans ceased having the courage to stand up publicly for their convictions?  In March, Mr. Kaine proposed that both campaigns agree to limit the influence of secretive outside groups, as Republican Sen. Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren, have done in Massachusetts. (In that case, each pledged to pay fines to charities if they were the beneficiary of advertising by outside groups.) Mr. Allen refused, calling the idea a ‘gimmick.’ The real gimmick is Mr. Allen’s about-face on an issue where he once took a principled stand.”  [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/19/12]

    ALLEN NOW SAYS INDEPENDENT GROUPS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE THEIR DONORS

    2011: Allen Said Independent Groups, Like Karl Rove’s, Should Not Have To Disclose Their Donors, Because – Like Civil Rights Groups – Their Donors Might Suffer Intimidation. In a post-debate interview in December 2011, Allen was asked whether “independent committees like Mr. Rove’s committee and Democrat committees [should] disclose their donors.  How do you feel?” Allen responded, “You know Mark, you probably look back – if you look at history and why those aren’t disclosed – and a lot of it is because of intimidation for donors of certain organizations. Some were civil rights organizations back 40-50 years ago. And so there’s a reason why those organizations are allowed to keep the confidentiality of their donors.” [Allen Post-Debate Interview, 12/7/11]

    THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER, HE’S SUPPORTED DISCLOSURE

    George Allen Said That Virginia’s Campaign Finance Laws, “Based On Freedom And Disclosure,” Were “The Way It Ought To Be”. In an interview on Meet the Press, George Allen said the following: “I like the way we do things in Virginia. It’s based on freedom and disclosure, and that’s the way it ought to be.” [Meet the Press, NBC, 8/22/04]

    Allen: “Individuals And PACs Can Contribute What They Want And Disclose It Immediately . . . I Like The Concepts Of Freedom And Disclosure.” The Washington Post reported, “During the hour-long show, Allen addressed a range of issues, including campaign finance reform. . . . ‘Individuals and PACs can contribute what they want and disclose it immediately,’ he said. ‘I like the concepts of freedom and disclosure.'” [The Washington Post, 8/3/00]

    IN 2000,  HE EVEN CRITICIZED THE NAACP FUND FOR NOT REPORTING THEIR DONORS

    2000: The Washington Times: “Mr. Allen Himself Criticized The Fact That The Donors To The NAACP Fund Don’t Have To Be Reported.” [Washington Times, 10/6/00]

  • ALLEN OPENLY CRITICIZED JOHN WARNER’S GANG OF 14

    Richmond, VA – During George Allen’s last term as senator, his colleague Republican Virginia Senator John Warner served in the the Gang of 14 effort, a bipartisan group focused on breaking gridlock. However, instead of praising the work Warner did to bridge the divide between the two parties, Allen openly criticized the effort, calling their work  “disappointing.”

    Allen Routinely Opposed Bipartisan Compromises

    Allen Was The “Leading Voice For Conservatives Unhappy With The McCain-Led Compromise” On Judicial Nominees, Known As The Gang Of 14.  Time Magazine reported, “Virginia Senator George Allen has emerged as leading voice for conservatives unhappy with the McCain-led compromise that ended the judicial filibuster debate and has called on Frist to bring up more controversial nominees to force a vote.” [Time, 6/16/05]

    Allen On Gang Of 14: “A Group Of Fourteen Senators Got Together And Made A ‘Deal.’ … This So-Called Deal Is Disappointing.” In a constituent newsletter, Allen stated, “The Judicial Compromise. This past month, I was optimistic that members of the Senate would finally get up from their cushy seats and vote to end the unprecedented filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominees. However, a group of fourteen senators got together and made a ‘deal’ to end the filibuster of some of the nominees, but not others. I am one who believes that you don’t compromise your principles; so, I thought this deal was a disappointment. . . . Thus, this so-called deal is disappointing.” [Allen Constituent Newsletter, 6/1/05]

    John Warner Helped Form The “Gang Of 14.”Roll Call reported, “Warner was one of the leading Senators who, along with McCain, helped form the ‘Gang of 14’ that came together in 2005 to try to avert a showdown over Bush’s judicial nominations.” [Roll Call, 3/7/07]

  • FACT CHECK: ALLEN PRAISES RYAN PLAN AS ‘WORTHWHILE’

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Tim Kaine again rejected the divisive and destructive Ryan budget that George Allen has called a “worthwhile approach.”

    The Ryan budget would force 1.2 million Virginia seniors onto health care vouchers when they retire, increase out of pocket health care costs by nearly $6,000, and force more than 870,000 seniors off of free preventive care. In addition, the Ryan plan would harm programs that are critical to Virginia’s economic future including reductions in Pell Grants that would remove 8,700 Virginia students from the program, the elimination of thousands of Head Start spots for young children, and remove $12 million in education resources directed to Virginia.

    A “worthwhile approach”? George Allen seems to think so.

    Allen Called The Ryan Budget A “Worthwhile” Approach.

    “Allen Praised Ryan’s Budget… Calling It A ‘Constructive Plan’ In 2011 And A ‘Worthwhile’ Approach This Year.” The Washington Post wrote, “For two consecutive years, Allen steadfastly avoided saying how he would have voted on the budget proposals of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). If Allen had endorsed Ryan’s blueprint, which includes significant changes to Medicare, he would have risked alienating moderates and seniors. But if he had criticized Ryan, that could have angered conservatives who revere the House budget chairman. Yet Allen praised Ryan’s budget enough – calling it a ‘constructive plan’ in 2011 and a ‘worthwhile’ approach this year – that the Kaine campaign has already sought to link Allen to the proposals.” [Washington Post, 6/24/12]

    Under The Ryan Budget…

    The Ryan Plan Would Force Over 1.2 Million Virginia Seniors Onto Vouchers When They Retire. According to the DPCC, “Starting in 2023, all Virginia seniors will receive a voucher to purchase either private insurance or traditional Medicare. There are more than 1,214,000 near-elderly Virginians who are now ages 47-56 who, instead of getting Medicare as we know it when they retire, would only get a voucher to purchase their insurance. Private insurance plans will aggressively pursue the healthiest, least expensive enrollees, thereby allowing Medicare – currently the lifeline for 1,155,428 Virginia seniors – to ‘wither on the vine.'” [CBPP 3/20/12, Census, accessed on3/20/12; CBPP 12/21/11; KFF, accessed on 3/21/12; NCPSSM, 3/20/12; DPCC]

    According To The CBO, The Ryan Plan Could Increase Out Of Pocket Health Care Costs For Virginia Seniors By As Much As $5,900 Per Person. According to the DPCC, “The Republican budget would cap these vouchers for individuals at growth levels that are lower than the existing increases in health care costs. In other words, seniors could be forced to pay higher premiums in order to access the same benefits they would receive under the current system. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the plan could increase out of pocket costs by $5,900 and lead to diminished access to quality care.” [CBPP, 12/21/11; CAP,3/20/12; DPCC]

    Under The Ryan Budget, 871,126 Virginia Seniors Would Be Forced To Pay More For Preventive Services, Including Cancer Screenings And Annual Wellness Visits. According to the DPCC, “The Republican budget will require that seniors pay deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments for many preventive services currently covered by Medicare; including cancer screenings such as mammograms and colonoscopies as well as annual wellness visits. As a result, fewer seniors will access these preventive services, thereby dramatically increasing Medicare spending in the long-term.” [CMS, 2/15/12; DPCC]

    The Ryan Plan Would Remove 8,758 Virginia Students From The Pell Grant Program, Compared To President Obama’s Budget.[Pell Grant State Comparison, AY 2013-2014]

    The Ryan Plan Would Eliminate Thousands Of Head Start Opportunities For Young Virginians. According to the National Education Association, the Ryan Plan would eliminate 925 Head Start openings in fiscal year 2013, and 2,869 Head Start openings in fiscal year 2014. [NEA, FY 2013 Budget Resolution, 3/26/12]

    The Ryan Budget Would Remove $12 Million In Education Resources Directed To Virginia. [NEA, 3/26/12]

    RYAN BUDGET PROPOSES SAME $700 BILLION IN MEDICARE SAVINGS AS THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BUT WOULD DOES NOT REINVEST THE MONEY IN HEALTH CARE BENEFITS

    Paul Ryan’s Budget Retains Obama’s Medicare Savings, But Uses The Savings For Tax Cuts, While Obama Uses The Savings To Increase Health Care Benefits. The Los Angeles Times reported, “On Monday, as Romney campaigned on Florida’s Gold Coast, he argued that Ryan and Republicans sought to protect the healthcare program for the elderly and that President Obama would gut it. Ryan has ‘come up with ideas that are very different from the president’s. The president’s idea, for instance, for Medicare was to cut by $700 billion,’ he said, prompting boos from supporters gathered on the steamy West Lawn of Flagler College. . . . Romney’s line, a regular one since the Republican team started pushing back on Democratic criticisms of Ryan, misstates Obama’s plan. It does not slash benefits for recipients, nor does it cut spending — it slows future growth in spending, which will affect providers. Ryan’s budget proposal would not restore any of that $700 billion in provider payment cuts. (Obama would use the money to finance the expansion of healthcare; in Ryan’s plan it would be used to offset loss of revenue from tax cuts.)” [Los Angeles Times, 8/14/12]

    Washington Post Factchecker: “It’s Rather Rich For Republicans To Complain About $500 Billion In Supposed Cuts To Medicare That They Themselves Would Retain.” In an article entitled “Fact Checking the GOP debate: $500 billion in cuts to Medicare?” The Washington Post reported, “In the House Republican budget, lawmakers repealed the Obama health care law but retained all but $10 billion of the nearly  $500 billion in Medicare savings, suggesting the actual policies enacted to achieve these spending reductions were not that objectionable to GOP lawmakers. . . . It’s rather rich for Republicans to complain about $500 billion in supposed cuts to Medicare that they themselves would retain, even under the cover of helping Medicare” [Washington Post, Factchecker Blog 6/15/11]

  • ALLEN HAS PROMISED FEDERAL PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Tim Kaine reminded Virginia’s women, families, and businesses that while he remains focused on finding common ground to create jobs, Allen is committed to bringing divisive federal personhood legislation to the U.S. Senate.

    As Kaine has stated, a personhood bill wouldn’t just drive a wedge between the two parties and further partisan gridlock. It could also, if successful, jeopardize the legality of some FDA approved birth control. This is not the first time Allen has opposed increased access to contraception. During his time in the Senate, Allen opposed an amendment co-sponsored by Virginia’s Republican U.S. Senator John Warner that would have guaranteed contraceptive equity for women in insurance plans.

    Allen Stated Support For Federal Personhood Legislation

    Allen: “I Believe That Life Begins At Conception And Support Legislation Declaring The Personhood Of Every Individual Life.” [George Allen Campaign Website,11/19/11]

    Allen Backed Personhood At The Federal And State Levels. The Washington Post VA Politics Blog reported, “Allen backs so-called personhood legislation on conception on both the state and federal level.” [Washington Post, VA Politics Blog, 3/1/12]

    Allen Supported The Personhood Legislation Passed By Virginia’s House Of Delegates And Said He Would Push To Make It National Policy. In an interview on WLNI’s Brian and Mari Show, Allen was asked: “The Virginia House of Delegates has passed the so-called fetal personhood bill that defines life as beginning at conception. You said that you support this measure. Would you push for the same kind of measure in the U.S. Senate?” Allen responded: “Well, I think that human life does begin at conception and I think that we ought to have policies that try to protect innocent unborn life – one of the more – yes and I would at the federal level as well for national policy.” [WLNI, The Brian and Mari Show, 2/15/12]

    New York Times: “Personhood Amendments Bar Some Forms Of Birth Control.” The New York Times reported, “Personhood amendments bar some forms of birth control that prevent fertilized eggs from being implanted in a uterus, like IUD’s.” [New York Times, 11/4/11]

    New York Times: Personhood Measures “Would Not Only Ban Virtually All Abortions But Also Some Forms Of Contraception.” The New York Times reported, “The ‘personhood amendment,’ granting legal rights to human embryos, might have seemed to be a political nonstarter after voters in Mississippi, arguably the most conservative and anti-abortion state in the nation, rejected such a proposal last month. . . . Mississippi voters said they thought twice about the proposal when they heard that it would not only ban virtually all abortions but also some forms of contraception like I.U.D.’s.” [The New York Times, 12/23/11]

    Allen Opposed Bipartisan Proposal To Ensure Contraception Coverage Equity

    2005: Allen Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Given Women The Same Access To Prescription Contraception That Men Have For Viagra.  In 2005, Senator Clinton offered an amendment to expand women’s access to preventive health care. Her amendment would have put the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage (EPICC) bill in place, which would have required insurance plans that cover prescription drugs like Viagra to offer equitable coverage of FDA-approved contraception. [Vote 75,3/17/05]

    2003: Allen Voted Against Sen. Warner’s Measure To Improve Women’s Access To Contraception. In 2003, Allen voted against an amendment that would have enacted the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act of 2003 (EPICC).  EPICC required insurance plans that covered prescription drugs to also offer equitable coverage of FDA-approved contraception. The EPICC bill had previously been introduced twice by Senator Olympia Snowe, as S104 in 2001, and as S1214 in 2003.  Both bills were co-sponsored by Senator John Warner. [Vote 45, 3/11/03]

    Los Angeles Times: Senate Refused To Require Health Plans To Cover Prescription Birth Control For Women In The Same Way They Cover Viagra. An editorial in the Los Angeles Times stated, “Here’s what a majority of senators refused to do last week . . . * Require private health plans to cover prescription birth control for women in the same way they do other doctor-prescribed drugs, including Viagra for men. . . . * Pass a proposal to make emergency contraception — the so-called morning-after pill — more widely available to women who fear becoming pregnant as a result of unprotected sex, including rape. The pill prevents ovulation or, when ovulation has already occurred, can prevent fertilization or implantation in the uterus. . . . The Senate’s summary rejection of Murray’s contraceptive amendments, aside from its hypocrisy, also fuels fear of a broader attack on women’s reproductive rights.” [Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 3/19/03]

    Measure Would Have Required Insurance Companies To Cover FDA-Approved Contraception Just As They Do Viagra. The Portland Press Herald reported, “CONTRACEPTION: Senators failed, 49-47, to reach 60 votes needed to add provisions on contraceptives to a bill (S 3, above) that bans ‘partial-birth’ abortions. A yes vote was, in part, to require health insurers to cover the ‘morning-after’ pill just as they do Viagra. Collins and Snowe both voted yes.” [Portland Press Herald, 3/16/03]

  • FACT CHECK: FORMER NRSC CHAIR ALLEN GRASPS AT STRAWS WITH DNC ATTACK

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, George Allen, a former party committee chair, attacked Tim Kaine for serving as…a former party committee chair.

    During his term as senator, George Allen accepted the post as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee saying he would give all his commitment to electing more Republicans. During his time as chairman, Allen traveled far and wide to places like Alaska and California, raising money and campaigning for Republicans.

    As Virginians know, Kaine served Virginia for all four years of his term. And in Kaine’s last year as governor when he served as chair of the DNC, Virginia was named the best state for business for the fourth year in a row and Kaine recruited companies like Hilton and SAIC to expand or relocate to the Commonwealth during the worst recession in 70 years. While Tim Kaine reduced spending by more than $5 billion during his term as governor and kept economic output above average, Virginia economic output lagged under George Allen’s term in the booming 90’s and he increased the Commonwealth’s general fund spending by 45%.

    As Senator And NRSC Chairman, Allen Said He Would Give All His Commitment To Electing More  Republicans

    Allen Upon Becoming NRSC Chairman: “I’m Going To Give All My Commitment To This Cause Of Enhancing Our Majority.” The Daily Press reported, “‘It is exciting,’ Allen said of the prospect of joining the Senate leadership. . . . The campaign committee chairmanship would increase Allen’s national exposure, which already has been on the rise after less than two full years in the Senate. He has become a familiar face on the cable news networks. . . . The new position could also fuel speculation that the still-boyish-looking senator, who turned 50 this year, harbors presidential ambitions. . . . A 2008 campaign for the White House, however, assumes Allen wins re-election to his Senate seat in 2006. Allen brushed off such speculation in an interview Friday, but declined to rule out a future presidential race. ‘I’m going to give all my commitment to this cause of enhancing our majority,’ he said. ‘The future can take care of itself.'” [Daily Press, 11/10/02]

    2004: After The Election Allen Enjoyed Detailing His Travel As NRSC Chairman And Mentioned How Little He Had Been In Virginia. In a news conference after the 2004 election, Allen discussed his extensive travel as NRSC chairman. He said, “I was up in Alaska in January. They were very impressed that I went there in January as opposed to the summer. I threw a snowball at every building I went into knowing that it would stick there for months and not melt off. Without a coat you have to be invigorated! Some of you might remember my inauguration. It was warmer in Antarctica than it was in Richmond. At any rate, Alaska several times, Washington, California, South Dakota, east and west South Dakota, Missouri, Wisconsin, ranger Tim Michaels actually brought a football we threw it up and down the field at Lambeau Field there, Florida several times, Louisiana, I’ve been to New Orleans several times, Cajun country, North Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado several times, I’ve been a lot with our candidates. [In the future] I’ll be spending a lot of time with my friends in Virginia. Again, I’m up for reelection if I’m still alive in 2006. I’ll certainly be doing less national travel in that my role will not be as head of the Republican Senatorial Committee. I’ve loved going all around the country I’ve loved being with our candidates. . . . I love being in Louisiana. It’s great fun for Virginia and its easy being in places like North Carolina and South Carolina. There’s so many similarities. Heck I was in South Carolina and it seemed like a fifth of the people once lived in Virginia. There was even a constituent who had moved down there and had constituent service work for us to do with a waiver he needed to sign to help him out with certain projects. This is a beautiful country with wonderful people and I thoroughly enjoyed being in it but I’m looking forward to spending more time a) with my family and b) with the people of Virginia.” [Allen News Conference, 11/3/04]

    During Kaine’s Last Year As Governor,  He Kept Economic Output Above Average, Recruited Companies Like Hilton And SAIC,  And Cut State Spending By $5 Billion During The Worst Recession In 70 Years

    Forbes Ranked Virginia “Best State For Business” For All Four Years Of Kaine’s Term. The Virginian-Pilot reported, “Forbes.com has ranked Virginia the ‘best state for business’ for the fourth consecutive year, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s office said Wednesday.” [The Virginian-Pilot, 9/24/09]

    Virginia Was Named Top State For Business By CNBC In 2007 And 2009.[CNBC.com, 2007, 2009]

    CNBC: Virginia “Has What It Takes” To Emerge From “An Economy Turned Upside Down.”CNBC reported, “It has been a year of seismic shifts in American business and in the competitive landscape. An economy turned upside-down. What state has what it takes to emerge from all that? America’s top state for business 2009, Virginia.” [CNBC, Street Signs, 7/23/11]

    Kaine: Multimillion Dollar Relocation Of The Hilton Hotels Corporation Headquarters To Fairfax County, Virginia Would Create More Than 300 Permanent, Full-Time Jobs.According to a February 2009 press release issued by Kaine’s office, “Governor Timothy M. Kaine today announced global hotel powerhouse Hilton Hotels Corporation will invest at least $17 million to relocate its headquarters from Beverly Hills, California, to Fairfax County, Virginia. The project will create more than 300 permanent, full-time jobs in Fairfax County within the next 36 months. Virginia successfully competed with Maryland and the District of Columbia for the project. ‘Hilton is a globally recognized brand that will be a great corporate addition to Fairfax County,’ Governor Kaine said. ‘Adding this hospitality industry leader to the Commonwealth’s list of corporate headquarters is a major coup for Virginia. I commend everyone involved in bringing Hilton to the Commonwealth.'” [Office of Governor Kaine, 2/4/09]

    SAIC Moved Headquarters To McLean In 2009.According to the Virginian-Pilot, “The technology and defense contractor SAIC has moved its headquarters from San Diego to the company’s McLean campus, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine announced. […] SAIC will invest $25 million in the region and will add 1,200 jobs over the next three years, Kaine’s office said. SAIC also has offices in Chesapeake, Hampton, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach. It has 45,000 employees worldwide, including 17,500 in the Washington area.” [Virginian-Pilot, 9/25/09]

    Richmond Times-Dispatch: “In Reality, Kaine Worked With Legislators To Cut More Than $5 Billion To Offset Dwindling Revenue And Balanced The Budget As Required By State Law.” The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported, “In reality, Kaine worked with legislators to cut more than $5 billion to offset dwindling revenue and balanced the budget as required by state law.” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/25/12]

    AP: Kaine Cut Nearly $6 Billion And Balanced The Budget. The Associated Press reported, “While the recession depleted revenues, Kaine and the General Assembly cut nearly $6 billion and never finished a fiscal year with insufficient funds…” [Associated Press, 11/10/11]

    Virginia’s Economy, As Measured By GDP, Performed Above The National Average Under Kaine And Below The National Average Under Allen

    Virginia’s Economy – Measured By State GDP – Performed Below The National Average Under Allen And Above The National Average Under Kaine.  According to numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Virginia’s economic performance as measured by GDP was ranked 30th among the states from 1994-1998. From 2006 to 2010, Virginia ranked 17th. [Bureau of Economic Analysis]

    Virginia’s Unemployment Rate Was Lower Relative To The Nation When Kaine Was Governor Than When Allen Was Governor.  

    Virginia’s Unemployment Rate Was Lower Relative To The Nation When Kaine Was Governor Than When Allen Was Governor.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Virginia’s unemployment rate relative to other states – and the national average – was better all four years Kaine was Governor than it ever was under Allen. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

  • aznew

    It wasn’t so much that Allen did a bad job. I actually thought he was fairly average. But Kaine simply demolished him, exposing both Allen’s poor qualifications for the Senate, and more broadly, how old, tired, and insufficient Conservative ideology and GOP ideas are for addressing today’s problems.

  • FACT CHECK: BIPARTISAN? ALLEN VOTED WITH GOP 95% OF THE TIME

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Republican candidate George Allen continued to insist he would work in a bipartisan manner when all the evidence of his career suggests otherwise. The truth is, there are few who can match George Allen’s hardline partisanship that he displayed as a governor and as a senator.

    Ever since he infamously said Republicans should “enjoy knocking [Democrats’] soft teeth down their whining throats,” Allen has consistently chosen party orthodoxy over finding common ground. Appropriately, the Virginian-Pilot labeled him, “Virginia’s most openly partisan governor in memory.” As a senator he voted with the Republican Party 95 percent of the time and opposed major bipartisan packages like comprehensive immigration reform.

    Few Can Match George Allen’s Hardline Partisanship

    During The 1994 Virginia Republican Convention, Allen Said Of Democrats: “Let’s Enjoy Knocking Their Soft Teeth Down Their Whining Throats.” [1994 Virginia Republican Convention, C-Span, 6/4/1994]

    Virginian-Pilot Editorial: Allen Was “Virginia’s Most Openly Partisan Governor In Memory.” [Editorial, Virginian-Pilot, 12/31/95]

    As Senator, Voted Lock-Step With Republicans 95% Of The Time

    CQ: George Allen Voted With Republicans 95% During Senate Career.  According to Congressional Quarterly, during his career Senator George Allen had voted with his party 95%. [Congressional Quarterly Annual Almanacs 2001-2006]

    As Senator And NRSC Chairman, Allen Said He Would Give All His Commitment To Electing More  Republicans

    Allen Upon Becoming NRSC Chairman: “I’m Going To Give All My Commitment To This Cause Of Enhancing Our Majority.” The Daily Press reported, “‘It is exciting,’ Allen said of the prospect of joining the Senate leadership. . . . The campaign committee chairmanship would increase Allen’s national exposure, which already has been on the rise after less than two full years in the Senate. He has become a familiar face on the cable news networks. . . . The new position could also fuel speculation that the still-boyish-looking senator, who turned 50 this year, harbors presidential ambitions. . . . A 2008 campaign for the White House, however, assumes Allen wins re-election to his Senate seat in 2006. Allen brushed off such speculation in an interview Friday, but declined to rule out a future presidential race. ‘I’m going to give all my commitment to this cause of enhancing our majority,’ he said. ‘The future can take care of itself.'” [Daily Press, 11/10/02]

    2004: After The Election Allen Enjoyed Detailing His Travel As NRSC Chairman And Mentioned How Little He Had Been In Virginia. In a news conference after the 2004 election, Allen discussed his extensive travel as NRSC chairman. He said, “I was up in Alaska in January. They were very impressed that I went there in January as opposed to the summer. I threw a snowball at every building I went into knowing that it would stick there for months and not melt off. Without a coat you have to be invigorated! Some of you might remember my inauguration. It was warmer in Antarctica than it was in Richmond. At any rate, Alaska several times, Washington, California, South Dakota, east and west South Dakota, Missouri, Wisconsin, ranger Tim Michaels actually brought a football we threw it up and down the field at Lambeau Field there, Florida several times, Louisiana, I’ve been to New Orleans several times, Cajun country, North Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado several times, I’ve been a lot with our candidates. [In the future] I’ll be spending a lot of time with my friends in Virginia. Again, I’m up for reelection if I’m still alive in 2006. I’ll certainly be doing less national travel in that my role will not be as head of the Republican Senatorial Committee. I’ve loved going all around the country I’ve loved being with our candidates. . . . I love being in Louisiana. It’s great fun for Virginia and its easy being in places like North Carolina and South Carolina. There’s so many similarities. Heck I was in South Carolina and it seemed like a fifth of the people once lived in Virginia. There was even a constituent who had moved down there and had constituent service work for us to do with a waiver he needed to sign to help him out with certain projects. This is a beautiful country with wonderful people and I thoroughly enjoyed being in it but I’m looking forward to spending more time a) with my family and b) with the people of Virginia.” [Allen News Conference, 11/3/04]

    Allen Routinely Opposed Bipartisan Compromises

    Allen Was The “Leading Voice For Conservatives Unhappy With The McCain-Lead Compromise” On Judicial Nominees, Known As The Gang Of 14.  Time Magazine reported, “Virginia Senator George Allen has emerged as leading voice for conservatives unhappy with the McCain-lead compromise that ended the judicial filibuster debate and has called on Frist to bring up more controversial nominees to force a vote.” [Time, 6/16/05]

    Allen On Gang Of 14: “A Group Of Fourteen Senators Got Together And Made A ‘Deal.’ … This So-Called Deal Is Disappointing.” In a constituent newsletter, Allen stated, “The Judicial Compromise. This past month, I was optimistic that members of the Senate would finally get up from their cushy seats and vote to end the unprecedented filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominees. However, a group of fourteen senators got together and made a ‘deal’ to end the filibuster of some of the nominees, but not others. I am one who believes that you don’t compromise your principles; so, I thought this deal was a disappointment. . . . Thus, this so-called deal is disappointing.” [Allen Constituent Newsletter, 6/1/05]

    John Warner Helped Form The “Gang Of 14.”Roll Call reported, “Warner was one of the leading Senators who, along with McCain, helped form the ‘Gang of 14’ that came together in 2005 to try to avert a showdown over Bush’s judicial nominations.” [Roll Call, 3/7/07]

    ALLEN BROKE WITH SENATOR JOHN WARNER AND 23 OTHER REPUBLICANS TO OPPOSE BIPARTISAN COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

    2006: Allen Broke With John Warner In Voting Against The Bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act Of 2006. On May 25, 2006 Allen broke with Virginia’s senior Senator, John Warner, and voted against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The bill passed the Senate 62-36, with 23 Republicans voting yes. It was co-sponsored by Republican senators Brownback, Hagel, McCain, Mel Martinez and Lindsey Graham. Allen voted no. The day before, Allen was one of only 25 Senators to vote to filibuster the bill on a vote of 73-25. The bill “would overhaul U.S. immigration policies and offer a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country. . . . It also would authorize increased border security and enforcement provisions, including a requirement for businesses to verify documents of all prospective employees through an electronic system managed by the Department of Homeland Security.”  [Vote 157, 5/25/06; Vote 144, 5/24/06; CQ Floor Votes]

    John Warner Said Allen’s Approach To Immigration Would Be Bad For Business. The Richmond Times Dispatch reported, “Congress has so far failed to vote on a compromise bill that would create a temporary-workers program and offer a path to citizenship. . . . U.S. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., a potential presidential candidate in 2008, is against legalizing unauthorized immigrants. ‘Ultimately, I think they’re going to have to go back to their country and reapply,’ he said last month. U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., has said Allen’s approach would harm businesses.” [Richmond Times Dispatch, 4/10/06]

  • ALLEN’S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN – PRIVATIZE, RAISE, REDUCE

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Republican candidate George Allen left out a key strategy he’s pursued on Social Security: privatization.  No matter which way you slice it, George Allen’s plans for Social Security are to raise the retirement age, reduce benefits, and shift hard earned retirement money to private accounts subject to volatile stock markets.

    While in the Senate the last time, George Allen endorsed and voted for a plan to move Social Security dollars to private accounts. Had he been successful, millions of retirees in America, including hundreds of thousands of Virginians, would have taken a devastating hit to their retirement savings when the stock market bottomed out. Seniors can’t trust George Allen to look after their retirement savings – just look at what he did the last time.

    2005: ALLEN WANTED SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS INVESTED IN THE HOUSING MARKET

    2005: Allen Said That If Personal Accounts Are Added To Social Security, Citizens Should Be Able To Invest In The Housing Market, In Addition To Stocks And Bonds. In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Allen said he was open to raising the retirement age or adjusting cost-of-living increases to reform Social Security. Allen then added, “But then you also need to look at a package that also ought to be looking at making sure that investments in stocks or bonds or others are – the taxes are low so that people of, let’s say, middle or lower income can avail themselves of these investments. And moreover, in the event that a personal savings account approach is taken, allowing them to invest in a home in addition to right now it’s stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 5/1/05]

    Allen Has Said He Would Raise The Retirement Age For Social Security

    2010: Allen Said That Raising The Retirement Age For Social Security Should Be On The Table. In October 2010, Allen appeared on CNN. Host Elliot Spitzer asked, “…What will you do on Social Security? You — will you go with Paul Ryan and raise the retirement age? As Paul Ryan has suggested?” Allen responded, “There’s actually a logic in doing that. People are living longer, healthier lives, more productive lives and it may be that that is something that ought to be looked at.” Spitzer followed up, “So looked at or is — you want it to be…” Allen said, “Well, I think it should be part of consideration of Social Security. That’s something that should be on the table and you have to look at what that specific proposal is, but that’s one that does have some logic and rational reasoning behind it.” [CNN, 10/26/10]

    Allen Has Said He Wants To Reduce Benefits For Social Security

    2005: Allen Opposed Raising Taxes To Fix Social Security, But Was Open To Changing Cost-Of-Living Increases. In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Allen and Tim Russert had the following exchange: SEN. ALLEN: “I’m one who doesn’t believe you ought to be increasing taxes. . . . There are a variety of other options that can be looked at as far as the solvency of Social Security, but then there are others…” MR. RUSSERT: “Such as?” SEN. ALLEN: “Oh, you could look at a lot of different things.” MR. RUSSERT: “Raise eligibility age?” SEN. ALLEN: “That’s one.” MR. RUSSERT: “Cost-of-living increases?”  SEN. ALLEN: “Correct.” MR. RUSSERT: “You’d look at all those?” SEN. ALLEN: “Well, I think they all have to be on the table and see the entire package.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 5/1/05]

    As Senator, Allen Endorsed And Voted For A Plan To Move Social Security Dollars To Private Accounts

    Allen Voted For An Amendment Designed To Divert Social Security Funds Into Private Accounts. In 2006, Allen voted for an amendment sponsored by Senator DeMint (S.Amdt. 3087) that would have diverted Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve fund, which would have been used to set up private accounts. [Vote, #68, 3/16/06]

    Roll Call: Senators Go On Record On “Bush’s Proposal To Set Up Personal Investment Accounts Under Social Security.”In an article headlined, “Private Account Language Fails; But Vote Puts Senators on Record,” Roll Call reported, “In a little-noticed vote last Thursday, the Senate went on record, apparently for the first time, against President Bush’s proposal to set up personal investment accounts under Social Security, with some unexpected Republicans helping a unified Democratic Caucus defeat the nonbinding proposal. . . . Eight Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in opposing the DeMint amendment, which would have directed the creation of a reserve fund for Social Security, but only after the Senate produced legislation allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts or permitting some other type of ‘legally binding ownership’ of a worker’s Social Security money. . . . Though the Senate voted on several Social Security-related amendments during last year’s budget debate, this is the first time Senators have actually voted on anything resembling Bush’s personal account proposal.” [Roll Call, 3/20/06]

    Senator Olympia Snowe’s Spokeswoman: “This Clearly Was A Way To Try to Advance Private Accounts Under Social Security.” Roll Call reported, “Eight Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in opposing the DeMint amendment . . . ‘This clearly was a way to try to advance private accounts under Social Security, and Sen. Snowe has been clear that she’s not against private accounts, per se, but she does have concerns about diverting money away from the traditional Social Security program in order to create private accounts,’ said Snowe spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier.”[Roll Call, 3/20/06]

  • FACT CHECK: ALLEN PEDDLES WIDELY DEBUNKED MEDICARE CLAIM

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, George Allen yet again peddled the debunked Medicare claim that’s been blasted by multiple fact checking organizations and media outlets.After being called “recycled rubbish” by Politifact Virginia and “false” by national Politifact, George Allen’s attack lands with a thud. But no amount of rhetoric can distract from the facts – George Allen is committed to putting insurance companies back in charge of the health care system, and removing the rights and protections that have expanded affordable health care options for millions of Virginians.

    Allen Said Obamacare Was Taking Over $700 Billion From Medicare In Order To Help Pay For The ACA. During an interview on WTTG, Allen said, “…this law is taking over $700 billion, raiding it, from Medicare to pay for the rest of this program, which I think is wrong and I think most seniors do as well.” [WTTG-Fox 5, 9/04/12]

    MULTIPLE FACT-CHECKERS, INCLUDING POLITIFACT VIRGINIA, HAVE ALREADY DEBUNKED THIS CLAIM. THE HEALTH CARE LAW ADDS NEW BENEFITS

    Washington Post’s Fact Checker: “As We Have Repeatedly Explained, Medicare Spending Is Not Being Reduced.” In an article headlined, “Did Obama cut $700 billion from Medicare?” the Washington Post’s Fact Checker wrote, “As we have repeatedly explained, Medicare spending is not being reduced. It still goes up year after year.  The $700 billion figure (technically, $716 billion) comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as “the baseline”) and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. Moreover, the savings mostly are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.” [Washington Post, 8/28/12]

    Factcheck.Org: Health Care Law “Stipulates That Guaranteed Medicare Benefits Won’t Be Reduced, And It Adds Some New Benefits.” FactCheck.Org wrote, “Misrepresentations of the new health care law have been a staple of Republican campaigns. . . . A common theme is that the law contains a $500 billion Medicare ‘cut’ that will translate into less benefits, but that’s misleading. The law calls for reducing the future growth of Medicare spending over the next 10 years by about 7 percent. Plus, the law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.” [FactCheck.org, 10/26/10]

    PolitiFact VA Rated Claim That Kaine Urged $500 Billion In Medicare Cuts “False,” Called It “Recycled Rubbish” And “An Old, Discredited Charge.”  PolitiFact Virginia gave American Crossroads a “False” rating for claiming in their ad “Behind” that Governor Kaine supported $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. PolitiFact described the claim as “Recycled Rubbish,” and wrote, “American Crossroads GPS, a conservative advocacy group, has a new TV ad attacking Democratic Senate candidate Tim Kaine that airs an old, discredited charge. . . . The CBO, in a new estimate in March 2011, said the health care law would reduce the projected cost of Medicare by $564 billion from 2012 through 2021. But again, here’s the key fact: the health care law, according to Kaiser, does not cut $500 billion from current Medicare spending. Rather, the law will slow the program’s future growth. Medicare spending will still increase. The CBO projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. . . . Our ruling: American Crossroads says Kaine promoted a $500 billion cut to Medicare. . . . Kaine did advocate for the health care reform legislation, but he never called for a $500 billion cut to Medicare. We rate American Crossroad’s statement False.” [PolitiFact Virginia, 6/20/12]

    Factcheck.Org: Health Care Law “Stipulates That Guaranteed Medicare Benefits Won’t Be Reduced, And It Adds Some New Benefits.” FactCheck.Org wrote, “Misrepresentations of the new health care law have been a staple of Republican campaigns. . . . A common theme is that the law contains a $500 billion Medicare ‘cut’ that will translate into less benefits, but that’s misleading. The law calls for reducing the future growth of Medicare spending over the next 10 years by about 7 percent. Plus, the law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.” [FactCheck.org, 10/26/10]

    PAUL RYAN’S BUDGETS WOULD REPEAL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BUT RETAIN THE EXACT SAME $700 BILLION IN MEDICARE SAVINGS.

    PolitiFact: Paul Ryan Confirmed That His Budget Has The Same $700 Billion In Medicare Savings As The Affordable Care Act. PolitiFact reported, “Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Ryan’s budget relies on the same $700 billion in savings from Medicare that Mitt Romney and other Republicans have been attacking Democrats about. Ryan has confirmed that, and we rated it True.” [PolitiFact, 8/15/12]

    AP: Ryan Budget Calls “For The Repeal Of Obama’s Health Care Plan But Also Would Retain The $700 Billion In Medicare Cuts That Were Part Of It.”  Romney: “‘The president’s idea for Medicare was to cut it by $700 billion. That’s not the right answer. We want to make sure that we preserve and protect Medicare.’ The former Massachusetts governor did not say so, but the tax-and-spending plans Ryan produced in the past two years as chairman of the House Budget Committee call for the repeal of Obama’s health care plan but also would retain the $700 billion in Medicare cuts that were part of it.” [Associated Press, 8/14/12]

    Washington Post Fact Checker: “It’s Rather Rich For Republicans To Complain About $500 Billion In Supposed Cuts To Medicare That They Themselves Would Retain.” In an article entitled “Fact Checking the GOP debate: $500 billion in cuts to Medicare?” The Washington Post reported, “In the House Republican budget, lawmakers repealed the Obama health care law but retained all but $10 billion of the nearly  $500 billion in Medicare savings, suggesting the actual policies enacted to achieve these spending reductions were not that objectionable to GOP lawmakers. . . . It’s rather rich for Republicans to complain about $500 billion in supposed cuts to Medicare that they themselves would retain, even under the cover of helping Medicare” [Washington Post, Fact Checker Blog 6/15/11]

    Paul Ryan’s Budget Retains Obama’s Medicare Savings, But Uses The Savings For Tax Cuts, While Obama Uses The Savings To Increase Health Care Benefits. The Los Angeles Times reported, “On Monday, as Romney campaigned on Florida’s Gold Coast, he argued that Ryan and Republicans sought to protect the healthcare program for the elderly and that President Obama would gut it. Ryan has ‘come up with ideas that are very different from the president’s. The president’s idea, for instance, for Medicare was to cut by $700 billion,’ he said, prompting boos from supporters gathered on the steamy West Lawn of Flagler College. . . . Romney’s line, a regular one since the Republican team started pushing back on Democratic criticisms of Ryan, misstates Obama’s plan. It does not slash benefits for recipients, nor does it cut spending — it slows future growth in spending, which will affect providers. Ryan’s budget proposal would not restore any of that $700 billion in provider payment cuts. (Obama would use the money to finance the expansion of healthcare; in Ryan’s plan it would be used to offset loss of revenue from tax cuts.)” [Los Angeles Times, 8/14/12]

  • KAINE HAS LAID OUT SPECIFIC PLAN TO AVOID SEQUESTRATION

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Tim Kaine laid out his three point plan to blunt the effects of looming sequestration cuts to avoid making harmful cuts to defense, education, Medicare, and other key priorities. George Allen, has opposed each piece of Kaine’s plan, and instead has demanded an all cuts approach that would jeopardize the economy.

    Kaine Plan to Avoid Sequestration

    Kaine Proposal: Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to Expire for Income Over $500,000

    Savings: $500 billion in revenue

    Allen Opposition: Allen: “We Want To Make Sure President Bush’s Tax Cuts Are Permanent.” [C-Span, 4/6/04]

    Kaine Proposal: End Ban on Prescription Drug Price Negotiation in Medicare

    Savings: $240 billion in revenue

    Allen Opposition: Voted Against Allowing The Secretary Of HHS To Negotiate Prescription Drug Prices Under Medicare. [Vote 302, 11/3/05; CQ Floor Votes]

    Kaine Proposal: End subsidies to the big 5 oil companies

    Savings: $24 billion in revenue

    Allen Opposition: Voted Against Bipartisan Effort To Eliminate Tax Breaks For Big Oil. [Vote 332, 11/17/05; E&E News, 11/17/05; CQ Today, 11/17/05]

    KAINE HAS OFFERED A THREE PART PLAN TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT AND AVOID DEFENSE SEQUESTRATION CUTS

    ALLOWING THE BUSH TAX CUTS TO EXPIRE FOR THOSE MAKING OVER $500,000

    Allowing The Bush-Era Tax Cuts To Expire For Income Over $500,000 Per Year Would Save Over $500 Billion Over The Next Ten Years. Data from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggests that the cost for extending the Bush tax cuts for income over $500,000 would cost over $500 billion, including interest costs. [CBPP, 5/30/12]

    Richmond Times-Dispatch Praised Kaine For His Middle-Ground Position On The Bush Tax Cuts, Noting “Taxes And Spending: Kaine Is Right.” In an editorial headlined, “Taxes And Spending: Kaine Is Right,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch wrote, “Democrats, led by the White House, want to extend the tax cuts for most Americans but insist on jacking up taxes for any family earning $250,000 or more. Republicans refuse to raise taxes even on the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Virginia senatorial candidate Tim Kaine has provided the obvious answer: compromise. Draw a line at $500,000 and raise taxes for anybody making more than that.” [Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8/5/12]

    Richmond Times-Dispatch: “If Congressional Republicans And The Obama White House Were Interested In Accomplishing Something, Then They Would Agree To Kaine’s Compromise.” A Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial said, “Kaine – former governor of Virginia, former head of the Democratic National Committee, and current candidate for U.S. Senate – says the two sides should split the difference and extend the tax cuts for those making less than $500,000 a year. ‘If everyone sets partisanship aside, we can find the right balance,’ he says. . . . If congressional Republicans and the Obama White House were interested in accomplishing something, then they would agree to Kaine’s compromise and take half a loaf each.” [Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 7/15/12]

    ALLOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NEGOTIATE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES UNDER MEDICARE

    Allowing The Federal Government To Negotiate Prescription Drug Costs Could “Potentially [Save] Up To $24 Billion Annually,” $240 Billion In Ten Years. According to the National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare, “Allowing the Secretary to negotiate drug prices has the potential to save billions of dollars – potentially up to $24 billion annually – assuming that the mean reduction in drug prices obtained through the limited use of VA’s negotiation techniques could be applied to the Part D program’s overall prescription drug cost of $49 billion.” [National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare, 10/09]

    ELIMINATE TAX SUBSIDIES TO BIG OIL

    Eliminating Tax Subsidies To Big 5 Oil Companies Would Target Over $2 Billion Annually And $24 Billion Over Ten Years. The Los Angeles Times reported, “The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would target more than $2 billion in annual tax subsidies to the so-called Big Five oil companies – BP, Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips. Had the measure passed Congress, about half of the $24 billion in savings over 10 years would have been reinvested in tax breaks for biodiesel, wind, cellulosic ethanol and energy-efficiency programs. The other half would have been used to reduce the federal deficit.” [The Los Angeles Times, 3/30/12]

    DPCC: “Repealing These Taxpayer Subsidies For Big Oil Is Projected To Save Nearly $24 Billion Over 10 Years.” [DPCC, 3/23/12]

  • FACT CHECK: ALLEN’S LONG RECORD OF OPPOSING ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Republican candidate George Allen attempted to moderate his record of opposition to affordable contraception.

    Virginia women and families already know that George Allen has promised to bring federal personhood legislation to the U.S. Senate that could jeopardize the legality of some forms of birth control. And they remember his votes as a senator to oppose a bipartisan proposal to ensure contraception coverage equity, and his endorsement of the Blunt Amendment that would put a woman’s employer in charge of her health care.

    No amount of general election pivoting can change the facts – George Allen’s last term in the Senate was marked with votes against the priorities of women’s health care, and that’s exactly what he’d do if Virginia sent him back.

    Allen Has Promised To Bring Federal Personhood Legislation To The U.S. Senate That Could Jeopardize The Legality Of Some Forms Of Birth Control

    Allen: “I Believe That Life Begins At Conception And Support Legislation Declaring The Personhood Of Every Individual Life.” [George Allen Campaign Website,11/19/11]

    Allen Backs Personhood At Federal And State Levels. The Washington Post VA Politics Blog reported, “Allen backs so-called personhood legislation on conception on both the state and federal level, but he has steadfastly declined to take a position on the ultrasound measure.” [Washington Post, VA Politics Blog, 3/1/12]

    Allen Supported The Personhood Legislation Passed By Virginia’s House Of Delegates And Said He Would Push To Make It National Policy. In an interview on WLNI’s Brian and Mari Show, Allen was asked: “The Virginia House of Delegates has passed the so-called fetal personhood bill that defines life as beginning at conception. You said that you support this measure. Would you push for the same kind of measure in the U.S. Senate?” Allen responded: “Well, I think that human life does begin at conception and I think that we ought to have policies that try to protect innocent unborn life – one of the more – yes and I would at the federal level as well for national policy.” [WLNI, The Brian and Mari Show, 2/15/12]

    New York Times: “Personhood Amendments Bar Some Forms Of Birth Control.” The New York Times reported, “Personhood amendments bar some forms of birth control that prevent fertilized eggs from being implanted in a uterus, like IUD’s.” [New York Times, 11/4/11]

    New York Times: Personhood Measures “Would Not Only Ban Virtually All Abortions But Also Some Forms Of Contraception.” The New York Times reported, “The ‘personhood amendment,’ granting legal rights to human embryos, might have seemed to be a political nonstarter after voters in Mississippi, arguably the most conservative and anti-abortion state in the nation, rejected such a proposal last month. . . . Mississippi voters said they thought twice about the proposal when they heard that it would not only ban virtually all abortions but also some forms of contraception like I.U.D.’s.” [The New York Times, 12/23/11]

    As Senator, Allen Voted Against A Bipartisan Proposal To Ensure Contraception Equity

    2005: Allen Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Given Women The Same Access To Prescription Contraception That Men Have For Viagra.  In 2005, Senator Clinton offered an amendment to expand women’s access to preventive health care. Her amendment would have put the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage (EPICC) bill in place, which would have required insurance plans that cover prescription drugs like Viagra to offer equitable coverage of FDA-approved contraception. [Vote 75,3/17/05]

    2003: Allen Voted Against Measure To Improve Women’s Access To Contraception. In 2003, Allen voted against an amendment that would have enacted the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act of 2003 (EPICC).  EPICC required insurance plans that covered prescription drugs to also offer equitable coverage of FDA-approved contraception. The EPICC bill had previously been introduced twice by Senator Olympia Snowe, as S104 in 2001, and as S1214 in 2003.  Both bills were co-sponsored by Senator John Warner. [Vote 45, 3/11/03]

    Measure Would Have Required Insurance Companies To Cover FDA-Approved Contraception Just As They Do Viagra. The Portland Press Herald reported, “CONTRACEPTION: Senators failed, 49-47, to reach 60 votes needed to add provisions on contraceptives to a bill (S 3, above) that bans ‘partial-birth’ abortions. A yes vote was, in part, to require health insurers to cover the ‘morning-after’ pill just as they do Viagra. Collins and Snowe both voted yes.” [Portland Press Herald, 3/16/03]

    Allen Endorsed The Blunt Amendment, Which Would Put A Woman’s Employer In Charge Of Her Health Care

    Allen Supported The Blunt Amendment. The Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog reported, “Allen supports the Blunt amendment, campaign spokeswoman Katie Wright said.” [Washington Post, VA Politics Blog, 3/1/12]

    CBS: “The Senate On Thursday Struck Down A Controversial Amendment That Would Allow Any U.S. Employer, Not Just Those Affiliated With A Religious Institution, To Deny Contraceptive Health Coverage To Its Employees Based On Religious Or Moral Objections.” [CBS, 3/1/12]

    American Cancer Society Opposed Blunt Amendment, Citing Concern It Would Allow Employers To Deny Coverage For Mammograms. The New York Times reported, “The lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society also opposed the Blunt amendment, saying it would allow employers to deny coverage of life-saving preventive services like mammograms and smoking cessation programs, based on ‘undefined religious beliefs or moral convictions.'” [The New York Times, 3/1/12]

  • ALLEN VOTED FOR “DEEP CUTS” TO MEDICARE

    Richmond, VA – Whether it’s past or present, George Allen’s actions on Medicare haven’t been to strengthen and protect, they’ve been to privatize and deny resources for care. His praise for Paul Ryan’s budget that turns Medicare into a voucher program, his commitment to repeal the Affordable Care Act that provides free preventive care to Medicare recipients, and his plan to raise the eligibility age should be troubling to Virginia seniors. But equally disturbing are Allen’s votes for massive cuts to Medicare. As a senator, Allen voted at least seven times to cut billions from the Medicare program and to deny essential prescription drug coverage for beneficiaries.

    ALLEN VOTED FOR “DEEP CUTS” TO MEDICARE

    2005: Allen Voted To Cut Billions In Medicare Spending. George Allen voted for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which cut billions in Medicare spending along with cuts to Medicaid and student loans. The bill passed 50-50 with Vice President Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. [Senate Vote 363, 12/21/05; CQ Floor Votes; 2005 Congressional Quarterly Almanac]

    Five Republicans Joined Democrats To Vote Against “Deep Cuts to Federal Student Loans, Medicare, And Medicaid.” The Boston Globe reported, “Five Republicans voted with Democrats against the cuts, forcing Cheney to cast the deciding vote on a bill to make deep cuts to federal student loans, Medicare, and Medicaid. Republicans hailed it as a strong statement for fiscal discipline, but Democrats and interest groups predicted a backlash against Republicans at the polls during next year’s congressional elections. . . . Democrats and Jeffords voted unanimously against the budget cuts. They were joined by Republican Senators Chafee, DeWine, Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, and Gordon Smith of Oregon.” [The Boston Globe, 12/22/05]

    Senator Olympia Snowe Called Bill “A Cynical Piece Of Legislation that Punishes Our Most Vulnerable Citizens.” Investor’s Business Daily reported, “Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, among the five GOP holdouts, called the bill ‘a cynical piece of legislation that punishes our most vulnerable citizens.'” [Investor’s Business Daily, 12/22/05]

    UPI: Measure “Slashes . . . Medicare By More Than $6 Billion.” UPI reported, “The Senate passed a $40 billion budget-cutting plan by a single vote Wednesday, but only after Vice President Dick Cheney broke a tie on the controversial measure that slashes the Medicaid program by $4.8 billion and Medicare by more than $6 billion over the next five years.” [UPI, 12/21/05]

    ALLEN VOTED AGAINST CLINTON AMENDMENT ON MEDICARE FUNDING

    Allen Voted Against Providing $4.1 Billion To Extend Medicare Funding For Six Months. Allen voted against an amendment from Senator Clinton “that would provide $4.1 billion to extend for six months Medicare funding due to expire April 1.” [Vote 21, 1/23/03; CQ Floor Votes]

    ALLEN CONSISTENTLY VOTED AGAINST EFFORTS TO LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS

    2003: Allen Voted Against $60 Billion To Eliminate The “Doughnut Hole” Gap In Coverage For Drug Costs Between $4,500 And $5,800 Annually. Allen voted against an “amendment that would extend prescription drug cost sharing between Medicare and beneficiaries up to $5,800, when full catastrophic coverage would take over.”  The AP reported that “Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., led the fight to eliminate a feature of the bill that would deny coverage for drug costs between $4,500 and $5,800 annually. ‘We should not have a plan that stops and starts,’ she said, advocating an extra $60 billion to close the gap.”  [Vote 236, 6/24/03; CQ Floor Votes; AP, 6/24/03]

    Boxer Explained That Because Of The “Doughnut Hole,” “Seniors Will Face A $1,300 Deficit Before They Start Getting The (Catastrophic) Benefit.”  CBS MarketWatch reported, “The Senate on Tuesday turned back an amendment to fill a ‘coverage gap’ in a proposed Medicare prescription drug bill . . . Under the Senate plan, seniors who choose to enroll in private prescription-drug plans would pay an average monthly premium of $35. They would also pick up the first $275 in drug costs each year and half of drug costs between $276 and $4,500. They would receive no help with costs between $4,500 and $5,800 — a feature that’s been dubbed the ‘donut hole’ by lawmakers and policy experts. . . . The amendment, offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., which would have filled the $1,300 gap between $4,500 and $5,800, was killed in a 54-42 procedural vote. ‘Seniors will face a $1,300 deficit before they start getting the (catastrophic) benefit,’ Boxer said before the vote.” [CBS MarketWatch, 6/24/03]

    2003: Allen Voted Against Funding A Study Of The “Effectiveness And Safety Of Major Drugs Covered By Medicare In Order To Allow Consumers To Make Informed Choices.” Allen voted against the “Clinton, D-N.Y., amendment that would authorize $75 million in fiscal 2004 and such sums as needed in the future for the National Institutes of Health to compare the effectiveness and safety of major drugs covered by Medicare in order to allow consumers to make informed choices. The results of such studies would be provided to physicians and consumers.” [Vote 246, 6/25/03; CQ Floor Votes]

    Allen Voted Against $2.4 Billion To Lower Premiums For Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Enrollees. Allen voted against an amendment “that would authorize $2.4 billion a year from fiscal 2009 through fiscal 2013 to be used by the administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to lower premiums for enrollees in a Medicare prescription drug benefit plan.” [Vote 254, 6/26/03; CQ Floor Votes]

    ALLEN EVEN VOTED AGAINST PROVIDING DRUG COVERAGE TO BENEFICIARIES WITH CANCER WHO FALL INTO THE “DOUGHNUT HOLE”

    2003: Allen Voted Against Preventing Beneficiaries With Cancer From Losing Drug Coverage Due To The “Doughnut Hole.”  Allen voted against an “amendment that would prevent any loss of drug coverage for beneficiaries with cancer before catastrophic care begins.” [Vote 250,6/26/03; CQ Floor Votes]

    ALLEN OPPOSED ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR TREATMENT FOR BENEFICIARIES WITH CANCER, HEART DISEASE, ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AND DIABETES

    2003: Allen Voted Against $12 Billion For “Additional Treatment For Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer, Heart Disease, Alzheimer’s Disease And Diabetes And Its Complications.” Allen voted against an “amendment that would allocate $12 billion for additional treatment for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes and its complications.” [Vote 253, 6/26/03; CQ Floor Votes]

  • FACT CHECK: ALLEN’S CLAIM U.S. WAS HEADED TO BALANCED BUDGET WHEN HE LEFT SENATE IS 100% FALSE

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, George Allen falsely claimed the federal budget was headed toward a balanced budget when he left the U.S. Senate.

    The record actually reflects that George Allen’s votes for trillions in new debts and spending that drove up massive deficits led the Congressional Budget Office to project increasing deficits over a decade. This isn’t the first time Allen has made false claims of fiscal responsibility. When he entered the Senate, Allen told Virginians his policies would “completely eliminate the national debt.” In actuality, his approach led to trillions in new debt.

    IN 2006, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PROJECTED SWELLING DEFICITS OVER A DECADE

    CBO In 2006: Deficits Projected To Continue For Another Decade, Swelling Even Higher In 2016. According to the Washington Post, “After a year of political battles over budget cuts and pork-barrel spending, the federal budget deficit will be slightly higher than a year ago, with red ink ending in 2012 only if President Bush’s tax cuts are allowed to expire, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said yesterday. The CBO forecast a $337 billion deficit for this fiscal year and lingering deficits through the end of the decade, offering a pessimistic backdrop as Bush prepares to release his 2007 budget request in the coming weeks. The deficit fell to $318 billion last year after three years of sharp increases, and Republicans had hoped the tide of red ink was finally receding. But spending on hurricane relief will push the deficit back up in 2006. . . . CBO projected that Bush will not meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009. Indeed, under those assumptions, the deficit would dip no lower than $222 billion before swelling back to more than $300 billion by 2016.” [Washington Post, 1/27/06]

    2001: ALLEN SAID HIS POLICIES WOULD “COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL DEBT” OVER TEN YEARS

    Allen In 2001: “By Using That Fiscal Discipline Over 10 Years, We’ll Completely Eliminate The National Debt.” In 2001, Allen was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, and they had the following exchange: BLITZER: “As you know, there are some Republicans like Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, suggesting they also agree it’s too much, it should be a more modest tax cut.” ALLEN: “What we Republicans are trying to come up with, along with President Bush, is a very responsible approach, where you, first and foremost, I think, take a businesslike approach, and every dollar that comes in from Social Security gets put into a lockbox. And that discipline helps reduce the national debt. And indeed, by using that fiscal discipline over 10 years, we’ll completely eliminate the national debt.”  [CNN, Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, 2/18/01]

    In 2000, Congressional Budget Office Projected That On The Current Path, The Public Debt Could Have Been Fully Redeemed In 2012.  According to a Brookings report in 2000, “After nearly 30 straight years of deficit spending, the fiscal position of the US government has experienced a dramatic turnaround. In the fiscal years 1998 and 1999, for the first time since the 1950s, the federal government ran back-to-back budget surpluses. With the government no longer a net borrower, the Treasury has started paying down the federal debt: debt held by the public fell from $3.5 trillion in March 1998 to $3.0 trillion in July 2000. And both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office are forecasting that these surpluses will continue over the next decade, in amounts large enough that the public debt will be fully redeemed in 2012.” [Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, “The Tax Smoothing Implications Of The Federal Debt Paydown,” Vol. 2000]

  • ALLEN OPPOSES THE DREAM ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDER TO ALLOW YOUNG IMMIGRANTS TO STAY IN U.S.

    Richmond, VA – As George Allen attempts to rewrite his record of opposing bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform, he said tonight he’d support giving a green card to the diplomas of non-citizen college graduates.

    Since when?

    But George Allen has been an opponent on the two most important policies that make it easier for young immigrants to stay in this country. Allen has consistently opposed the DREAM Act that a study recently showed would have a positive $5 billion economic impact in Virginia and create more than 20,000 jobs in the Commonwealth. In addition, Allen vocally opposed President Obama’s executive order to stop the deportation of DREAM eligible students.

    ALLEN OPPOSES THE DREAM ACT

    Allen On Dream Act: “Washington Liberals Push For Amnesty.” In a press release headlined, “Washington Liberals Push For Amnesty,” George Allen said: “If the government rewards illegal behavior, we will encourage more illegal behavior. The so-called ‘Dream Act’ being pushed by Washington liberals like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Durbin and Kerry is a flawed piece of legislation that rewards illegal behavior with benefits paid for by taxpayers. As the son of a legal immigrant, I believe in the American dream where immigrants legally come to these shores to seek religious, economic and political freedom. I strongly oppose rewarding illegal behavior through amnesty and believe our first priority needs to be securing our borders. As Senator, I supported numerous measures to enhance border security, to ensure that felons and criminals are not given citizenship, to protect the integrity of Social Security, to establish English as the official language of the United States, while also working to encourage legal immigration to attract the best and brightest to the United States. We need to be serious in addressing illegal immigration, and once again, Congress is choosing politics over sound policy.”  [Allen release, 12/18/10]

    ALLEN OPPOSED OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT FOR YOUNG ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

    Allen Offered “Scathing Critique” Of Obama’s Immigration Executive Order, Said Obama Was Ignoring His Proper Constitutional Responsibilities. ABC News’ The Note wrote, “Some Senate candidates are walking fine lines on immigration policy after Friday’s announcement by the Department of Homeland Security. . . . Immigration’s political ambiguities did not extend to Virginia’s Senate race, where differences were refreshingly partisan. Democrat Tim Kaine, the former governor and Democratic National Committee chairman, offered a full-throated backing of the DHS announcement, while former GOP senator George Allen offered up a scathing critique: ‘For blatant political purposes President Obama is ignoring the proper Constitutional responsibilities of elected representatives and making it more difficult to enact reasonable long-term immigration reforms. This short-term ploy is disappointing in that it disregards the proper role of case-by-case judgment in these individual matters,’ Allen said.” [ABC News, The Note, 6/15/12]

  • FACT CHECK: ALLEN’S CALL TO REPEAL ACA WOULD COST MILLIONS OF VIRGINIANS

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Republican candidate George Allen said that he’d like to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a move which would kick 66,000 young Virginians off their family insurance plans, prevent over 1 million Virginians on Medicare from receiving free preventive care, cost seniors an additional $600 each year for prescription drugs, deny free access to cancer screenings and contraception without copays to over 47 million women nationwide, and empower insurance companies to deny coverage to children with preexisting conditions.

    INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL PAY $1.1 BILLION IN REBATES IN 2012 UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, OVER $43 MILLION IN VIRGINIA

    Insurance Companies Will Pay $1.1 Billion In Rebates In 2012 Under Affordable Care Act, Benefitting Nearly 13 Million Americans, Including 686,738 Virginians. The Washington Post reported, “Millions of consumers and businesses will receive rebates totaling $1.1 billion this summer from health insurance plans that failed to meet a requirement of the new health-care law, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. That Affordable Care Act rule requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of subscriber premiums on health-care claims and quality-improvement initiatives. The other 20 percent is left for administrative costs and profits. Health insurance plans that don’t meet that threshold will send a rebate to consumers to cover the difference. . . . In a new report, the Obama administration found that 12.8 million Americans will receive rebates this year, with an average value of $151. . . . The rebates, which must be sent out by Aug. 1, will go to those in both individual and group plans, with the amount varying by state. . . . Rebates will average…$115 for 686,738 in Virginia. Not all the money will flow directly to consumers: For those who receive insurance through their workplace, the health insurance plan will send a rebate to the employer. It is then the employer’s responsibility to either pass that rebate on to the individual or use it in other ways that may benefit the employee, such as lowering premiums for the next year.” [Washington Post, 6/21/12; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report, 6/21/12]

    Insurance Companies Will Pay $43 Million In Rebates To Virginia Consumers And Businesses. A report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated that insurance companies will pay over $43 million in rebates to Virginia consumers and businesses under the Affordable Care Act’s 80/20 rule. A total of 686,738 Virginians will benefit from the rebates, with the average rebate per family totaling $115. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report, 6/21/12]

    66,000 Young Adults In Virginia Are Now On Family Insurance Plans

    66,000 Young Adults In Virginia Gained Insurance Coverage As A Result Of The Affordable Care Act. From Healthcare.gov: “Health plans are now required to allow parents to keep their children under age 26 without job-based coverage on their family coverage, and, thanks to this provision, 3.1 million young people have gained coverage nationwide. As of December 2011, 66,000 young adults in Virginia gained insurance coverage as a result of the health care law. For more details on these numbers, visit here.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 7/16/12]

    OVER 1 MILLION VIRGINIANS ON MEDICARE HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF FREE PREVENTATIVE SERVICES

    In 2011, 837,645 Virginians On Medicare Received Free Preventive Services, Including Mammograms And Colonoscopies, Because Of The Affordable Care Act. [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 7/16/12]

    In The First Six Months Of 2012, 474,827 People With Medicare Received Free Preventive Services Because Of The Affordable Care Act. [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 8/22/12]

    1,155,428 Virginians Are Enrolled In Medicare. [Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts, Accessed 7/20/12]

    VIRGINIA’S SENIORS HAVE SAVED AN AVERAGE OF $635 A YEAR ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

    In 2012, Under the Affordable Care Act, Over 16,000 Virginians On Medicare Saved Over $600 On Prescription Drugs On Average. According to Healthcare.gov: “Thanks to the new health care law, 84,977 people with Medicare in Virginia received a $250 rebate to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit the donut hole in 2010. Since the law was enacted, Virginia residents with Medicare have saved a total of $83,949,689 on their prescription drugs. In the first five months of 2012, 16,509 people with Medicare received a 50 percent discount on their covered brand-name prescription drugs when they hit the donut hole. This discount has resulted in an average savings of $635 per person, and a total savings of $10,489,831 in Virginia. By 2020, the law will close the donut hole.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 7/16/12]

    AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAS EXPANDED ACCESS TO PREVENTIVE SERVICES TO APPROXIMATELY 47 MILLION WOMEN NATIONWIDE, OVER 1 MILLION WOMEN IN VIRGINIA

    Under The Affordable Care Act, 47 Million Women Nationwide And Over 1 Million In Virginia Gained Access To Preventive Services. According to Healthcare.gov, “But for women especially, it’s a new day.  Beginning August 1, women in Virginia can now get coverage- without cost-sharing-of even more preventive services they need.  Approximately 47 million women will now have guaranteed access to additional preventive services without cost-sharing for policies renewing on or after August 1, 2012, including 1,376,205 in Virginia.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 9/19/12]

    Many Health Plans Now Cover Contraceptive Services And Additional Preventive Services With No Cost-Sharing. According to Healthcare.gov: “Beginning in August, many health plans will cover additional preventive services with no cost-sharing, including well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, domestic violence screening, breastfeeding supplies and contraceptive services.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 7/18/12]

    AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAS EXPANDED ACCESS TO PREVENTIVE SERVICES TO 54 MILLION AMERICANS ON PRIVATE INSURANCE, INCLUDING 1.5 MILLION VIRGINIANS

    Under The Affordable Care Act, 54 Million Americans With Private Insurance, Including 1.5 Million Virginians, Gained Access To Preventive Service Coverage With No Cost-Sharing. According to Healthcare.gov, “Because of the law, 54 million Americans with private health insurance gained preventive service coverage with no cost-sharing, including 1,519,000 in Virginia.”  [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 9/19/12]

    INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO DENY COVERAGE TO CHILDREN WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

    Under The Affordable Care Act, “Job-Based Health Plans And New Individual Plans Are No Longer Allowed To Deny Or Exclude Coverage For Your Children (Under Age 19) Based On A Pre-Existing Condition, Including A Disability.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 7/18/12]

    MILLIONS OF SMALL BUSINESSES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A TAX CREDIT UNDER ACA

    “Up To 4 Million Small Businesses Are Eligible For Tax Credits To Help Them Provide Insurance Benefits To Their Workers.” According to Healthcare.gov, “Up to 4 million small businesses are eligible for tax credits to help them provide insurance benefits to their workers. The first phase of this provision provides a credit worth up to 35% of the employer’s contribution to the employees’ health insurance. Small non-profit organizations may receive up to a 25% credit.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 9/17/12]

  • FACT CHECK: ALLEN’S CUT, CAP, BALANCE PLAN WILL COST 700K JOBS

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Tim Kaine continued his support for a balanced approach to the budget challenges created in part by the disastrous policies of George Allen’s last term in the Senate, while Allen advocates a radical cut, cap, and balance plan that, if implemented will cost the U.S. 700,000 jobs and gut essential services.

    The Cut, Cap, And Balance Act Would Have Cost Americans 700,000 More Jobs.  The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act would cut spending in FY 2012 by $111 billion.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “these cuts would equal 0.7 percent of the projected Gross Domestic Product in fiscal year 2012 and would thus cause the loss of roughly 700,000 jobs in the current weak economy, relative to what the number of jobs otherwise would be.”  Similarly, Scripps Howard News Service described the proposal as “both simplistic and economically destructive.”  [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11; Scripps Howard News Service Editorial, 7/5/11]

    Allen Signed the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge. A June press release from the Allen campaign stated, “Today, George Allen signed the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge.” The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 (HR 2560) calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment that would cap spending at 18% of GDP, which is even more severe than the Ryan Budget Plan. According to the Washington Post, “The 18 percent cap on spending is so severe that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s economic plan would violate its strictures.  So would any budget passed under President Ronald Reagan.” [Allen Campaign Press Release, 6/20/11; HR 2560; Editorial, Washington Post, 7/14/11]

    Every Single Budget Allen Voted For In Senate Would Be Unconstitutional Under His Proposal. The balanced budget amendment supported by Allen would cap federal spending at 18% of Gross Domestic Product. Data from the Office of Management and Budget show that every budget Allen supported in the Senate spent more than 18% of GDP. [Office of Management and Budget Data; S.J.Res 10; H.J.Res 1]

    Cut, Cap, And Balance Bill’s Constitutional Amendment Would Force “Deep Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare.  The Cut, Cap and Balance bill contains a constitutional amendment which would set a spending cap of 18% of GDP and would make it virtually impossible for Congress to raise revenues.  As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded, “reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.”  [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]

    Wall Street Journal Editorial: Inevitable Consequence Of Republicans’ Balanced Budget Amendment Would Likely Be Defense Cuts. In an editorial criticizing the Republicans’ balanced budget amendment proposal, the Wall Street Journal wrote that it was not “clear that the amendment could avoid unintended consequences. In the current fight over spending and the debt, the GOP Congressional leadership has worked well to protect the defense budget from a President who constantly cites the need to cut it. But under a mandated need to balance spending, the inevitable horse-trading would likely default to cutting defense while ducking fights on domestic programs.” [Editorial, Wall Street Journal, 7/19/11]

  • ALLEN OPPOSED BIPARTISAN IMMIGRATION REFORM, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Republican candidate George Allen claimed he supported the legalization of skilled immigrants to help our economy when at every turn he has opposed comprehensive, bipartisan immigration proposals.

    As a member of the House of Delegates, Allen sponsored a resolution opposing the immigration bill President Reagan had signed, saying it would “cause a mass invasion by persons unable to speak or read English.” As a member of the House of Representatives, Allen proposed an amendment to revoke birthright citizenship. Then when he was in the Senate, Allen was one of only 23 senators to vote against  bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, which had the support of Senators John Warner and John McCain, as well as President Bush.

    As A Virginia Delegate, Allen Sponsored A Resolution Opposing The Immigration Bill Signed By President Reagan

    Allen Bragged About His Long Record Opposing Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants, Which Started When He Was A State Legislator And Continued Into The U.S. Senate. During an interview on Laura Ingraham, Allen said, “…while in Mr. Jefferson’s seat in the House of Delegates, I got a resolution passed in the legislature against the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill…when I was in the Senate, I was against President Bush’s Amnesty Bill that he was pushing. I think if you reward illegal behavior, you’ll get more illegal behavior and so, I have a record against amnesty” [Laura Ingraham Radio, 6/12/12]

    1984: Allen Sponsored Resolution Opposing Amnesty To Immigrants, Saying It Would Make It Impossible To Stop “Mass Invasion” By Those Unable to Speak English. The Washington Post reported, “What about all these illegal aliens who will stream into the country if the dreaded Congress passes the Simpson-Mazzoli bill granting amnesty to many already here?  ‘…The granting of such amnesty would make it virtually impossible for United States immigration authorities to stop a mass invasion by persons unable to speak or read English,’ warns House Joint Resolution No. 109, sponsored by Republican Del. George Allen Jr. of Charlottesville. It passed the House.” [Washington Post, 2/16/84]

    Reagan Signed Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Bill In November 1986. The Washington Post reported, “the Immigration Reform and Control Act, signed by President Reagan in November 1986 after Simpson and various Capitol Hill colleagues toiled for years to enact it. ‘We wanted to get rid of the hypocrisy,’ Simpson recalled during a weekend phone interview, referring to a provision in the act — nicknamed ‘Simpson-Mazzoli’ for its principal authors, the senator and Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli (D-Ky.) — that makes it a crime to hire someone living in this country without benefit of papers.” [Washington Post, 2/8/93]

    As A Representative, Allen Proposed A Constitutional Amendment To Revoke Birthright Citizenship

    1991: Allen Co-Sponsored Bill That Would Limit Citizenship To Persons Who Were Born In The U.S. To A Mother Who Is A Legal U.S. Resident. In 1991, Allen co-sponsored a bill which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit citizenship at birth to persons born in the United States to a mother who is legal U.S resident. [ H.R.3605:, introduced 10/22/91]

    1994: Allen Said Children Born In the US To Illegal Immigrants Should Not Be Given Citizenship.One major ingredient in the problem, Allen suggests, is that “if someone comes in illegally and gives birth to a child in this country, that child is [automatically] an American citizen, and therefore entitled to all the educational, welfare, medical, and all those benefits. I think the Congress needs to [change] that because that’s a federal requirement.” [Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), 2/3/94]

    As A Senator, Allen Said All Undocumented Immigrants Would Have To Be Deported

    Asked By Bill Press “So You Are Going To Throw [Undocumented Immigrants] All Out?” Allen Answered “Well You Will Have To-Yes You Will.” Allen, on CNN’s Crossfire, with host Bill Press, discussed the Bush plan for immigration reform. [PRESS] “So you are going to throw [undocumented immigrants] all out?”[ALLEN] “Well, you will have to-yes you will. Whether you throw them out or grant them guest worker status or a visa, obviously is a practical matter. It will be hard to actually throw everyone out who has come in illegally. But the solution should not be to grant people who have come in illegally, and the politics of it mean nothing. I don’t care if these were people who were coming in from Quebec, and they were all somehow going to be Republicans. The point is, there should be an orderly process.” [CNN, Crossfire, 9/5/01]

    ALLEN BROKE WITH SENATOR JOHN WARNER AND 23 OTHER REPUBLICANS TO OPPOSE BIPARTISAN COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

    2006: Allen Broke With John Warner In Voting Against The Bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act Of 2006. On May 25, 2006 Allen broke with Virginia’s senior Senator, John Warner, and voted against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The bill passed the Senate 62-36, with 23 Republicans voting yes. It was co-sponsored by Republican senators Brownback, Hagel, McCain, Mel Martinez and Lindsey Graham. Allen voted no. The day before, Allen was one of only 25 Senators to vote to filibuster the bill on a vote of 73-25. The bill “would overhaul U.S. immigration policies and offer a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country. . . . It also would authorize increased border security and enforcement provisions, including a requirement for businesses to verify documents of all prospective employees through an electronic system managed by the Department of Homeland Security.”  [Vote 157, 5/25/06; Vote 144, 5/24/06; CQ Floor Votes]

    John Warner Said Allen’s Approach To Immigration Would Be Bad For Business. The Richmond Times Dispatch reported, “Congress has so far failed to vote on a compromise bill that would create a temporary-workers program and offer a path to citizenship. . . . U.S. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., a potential presidential candidate in 2008, is against legalizing unauthorized immigrants. ‘Ultimately, I think they’re going to have to go back to their country and reapply,’ he said last month. U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., has said Allen’s approach would harm businesses.” [Richmond Times Dispatch, 4/10/06]

    Asked If He Supported Bush’s Immigration Reform Plan, Allen Said “Look At…The Simpson-Mazzolli Bill… Even More Have Come In. And To Me, It Is Not Just Mexicans.” Allen, on CNN’s Crossfire with host Bill Press, discussed President Bush’s plan for immigration reform. [PRESS] “My question is, [if] the President does reach that deal with [Mexican President Vicente] Fox, would he have your support in United States Senate for general amnesty for the 3 1/2 million who are here now?” [ALLEN] “Now for those who want to contribute to our society, and be a guest worker, or have a visa for being a temporary worker, that is fine. But to grant amnesty to those who have come in here illegally, I think sends a wrong message. Look at the results of the last time, the Simpson-Mazzolli bill. They said that was going to be first and last time, and what’s happened? Even more have come in. And to me and it is not just Mexicans, it is from everywhere else. And so I think what they will have to do, and I think President Bush, I would hope, will understand and respect the rule of law, and whatever agreement they come up with is going to need to be ratified by the House and Senate and I think that it is important to have people in here as guest workers but don’t grant amnesty-blanket amnesty-to those who have come in illegally.” [CNN, Crossfire, 9/5/01]

    ALLEN OPPOSES THE DREAM ACT

    Allen On Dream Act: “Washington Liberals Push For Amnesty.” In a press release headlined, “Washington Liberals Push For Amnesty,” George Allen said: “If the government rewards illegal behavior, we will encourage more illegal behavior. The so-called ‘Dream Act’ being pushed by Washington liberals like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Durbin and Kerry is a flawed piece of legislation that rewards illegal behavior with benefits paid for by taxpayers. As the son of a legal immigrant, I believe in the American dream where immigrants legally come to these shores to seek religious, economic and political freedom. I strongly oppose rewarding illegal behavior through amnesty and believe our first priority needs to be securing our borders. As Senator, I supported numerous measures to enhance border security, to ensure that felons and criminals are not given citizenship, to protect the integrity of Social Security, to establish English as the official language of the United States, while also working to encourage legal immigration to attract the best and brightest to the United States. We need to be serious in addressing illegal immigration, and once again, Congress is choosing politics over sound policy.”  [Allen release, 12/18/10]

    ALLEN OPPOSED OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT FOR YOUNG ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

    Allen Offered “Scathing Critique” Of Obama’s Immigration Executive Order, Said Obama Was Ignoring His Proper Constitutional Responsibilities. ABC News’ The Note wrote, “Some Senate candidates are walking fine lines on immigration policy after Friday’s announcement by the Department of Homeland Security. . . . Immigration’s political ambiguities did not extend to Virginia’s Senate race, where differences were refreshingly partisan. Democrat Tim Kaine, the former governor and Democratic National Committee chairman, offered a full-throated backing of the DHS announcement, while former GOP senator George Allen offered up a scathing critique: ‘For blatant political purposes President Obama is ignoring the proper Constitutional responsibilities of elected representatives and making it more difficult to enact reasonable long-term immigration reforms. This short-term ploy is disappointing in that it disregards the proper role of case-by-case judgment in these individual matters,’ Allen said.” [ABC News, The Note, 6/15/12]

  • ALLEN PLAN WOULD SLASH HEALTH CARE BENEFITS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE SENIORS

    Richmond, VA – While George Allen has long delivered the line that his plans for health care would not reduce benefits for current seniors, the facts don’t add up. The truth is, George Allen’s embrace of the Ryan plan to make dramatic cuts to Medicaid and convert it to a state voucher program, would cut benefits for thousands of current Virginia seniors.

    In addition, Allen’s commitment to repeal the Affordable Care Act would eliminate the prescription drug benefit reforms that have saved current seniors as much as $643 each year.  As the Washington Post reported, “Repealing the health law would mean higher Medicare premiums, the Kaiser Family Foundation found in a recent analysis. Wellness visits and prescription drugs also would cost more.”

    ALLEN FULLY SUPPORTS PAUL RYAN’S DRAMATIC CUTS TO MEDICAID

    Allen Has Fully Embraced Paul Ryan’s Proposal To Convert Medicaid Into A Voucher Program Run By The States. In May 2011, the Washington Examiner reported that “Virginia Democrats have been pressuring Allen to take a firm stand on the budget proposal created by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. . . . He’s embracing only select parts of the Ryan plan, including tax cuts, dramatic reductions in federal spending and Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income residents, to a voucher program run by the states.” [Washington Examiner, 5/25/11]

    RYAN’S BUDGET WOULD END MEDICAID AS AN ENTITLEMENT FOR ELDERLY AMERICANS IN NURSING HOMES

    Under The Ryan And Allen Approach, Medicaid Would No Longer Be An Entitlement For Elderly Americans In Nursing Homes.  Politico reported, “Block grants would give states vast freedom on how to spend the Medicaid money, without the current federal rules about who gets covered and what coverage they get. Medicaid would no longer be an entitlement for poor children, pregnant women, low-income disabled and elderly Americans in nursing homes.” [Politico, 8/16/12]

    Bloomberg News: “Medicaid Cuts Ryan Doesn’t Tout Would Cut Aid to Seniors.” [Bloomberg, 8/15/12]

    Ryan Plan Cuts Medicaid – Which Covers Long-Term Care For Seniors – By A Third. The Seattle Times reported, “The biggest single source of savings in Ryan’s budget would come from cutting Medicaid. . . . Much of the spending on the program goes to long-term care for seniors, largely in nursing homes, which Medicare does not cover. Under the Ryan plan, funding would be cut by one-third, according to the CBO.” [Seattle Times, 8/15/12]

    The Ryan Allen Approach Would “Bulldoze” Medicaid; Most Medicaid “Funding Goes To The Old And Disabled” And “A Large Chunk Is Devoted To Long-Term Care, Such As Nursing Homes.”   The Atlantic reported, “In the most recent budget proposal, Ryan pledged to cut Medicaid spending by $810 billion dollars over ten years. But forget the precise dollar figures for a moment. Romney’s new running-mate doesn’t just want to trim the program. He wants to bulldoze the whole thing, then build a more modest replacement in its place. . . . Currently, it covers more than 62 million people, the majority of whom are either children or parents, although most of its funding goes to the old and disabled. In 2010, the price tag was roughly $263 billion for the feds and $125 billion for the states. Much of that spending pays for basic services such as drugs and doctor’s visits, but a large chunk is devoted to long-term care, such as nursing homes for the elderly poor.” [The Atlantic, 8/14/12]

    ALLEN SUPPORTS REPEALING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, WHICH WOULD BRING BACK THE “DONUT HOLE”

    By Closing The “Donut Hole,” The Affordable Care Act “Will Lower Costs For Beneficiaries Who Otherwise Would Have Been Required To Spend Thousands Of Dollars” On Prescription Drugs.  According to Healthcare.gov, “The Affordable Care Act makes many changes to strengthen Medicare and provide stronger benefits to seniors, while slowing cost growth. . . . [C]losing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, often called the ‘donut hole,’ will lower costs for beneficiaries who otherwise would have been required to spend thousands of dollars out of their own pocket for their prescription drugs.” [Healthcare.gov, Accessed 9/26/12]

  • ALLEN PRAISES HOUSE BILL THAT WOULD HARM ECONOMY, INCREASE CHANCE OF SEQUESTRATION

    Richmond, VA – Ignoring the advice of Secretary of Defense Panetta and others who have said the House bill passed in May would make sequestration cuts more likely, George Allen continued his praise of the measures that would make devastating cuts and hurt the economy. Allen’s praise of the plan that would end Meals on Wheels for more than 56,000 Virginia seniors, force 300,000 federal employees to pay more for their retirement, cut the Medicaid program that serves 600,000 children and gut resources for food stamps that assist more than 900,000 Virginians, is telling.

    Instead of asking for any additional revenue – even one dollar of revenue for every $10 of cuts – he would green light this bill that would hit the most vulnerable Virginians while companies like Exxon Mobil got to keep their billions in taxpayer subsidies.

    ALLEN PRAISED THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE BILL, WHICH SOUGHT TO AVOID SEQUESTRATION BY MAKING ALL THE CUTS ON THE DOMESTIC SIDE

    Allen Expressed Support For The House Plan To Avoid Sequester Cuts. In an interview on WLNI, Allen said, “It seems to me that what we ought to be doing is-and the House passed this by the way-the House passed a measure in May to avert these devastating cuts to the military, and make cuts elsewhere.” [WLNI Morning Line, 9/25/12]

    SECRETARY PANETTA SAID THE MEASURE MADE SEQUESTRATION MORE LIKELY

    “Panetta Said The Measure Has Actually Made It More — Yes, More — Likely That Sequestration Will Take Effect.” Politico’s Morning Defense reported, “The most devastating comments from Panetta’s press conference yesterday came when he discussed a bill approved by the House GOP that would avert sequestration. Panetta said the measure has actually made it more — yes, more — likely that sequestration will take effect. He blasted the plan, which shields the Pentagon from the automatic cuts by slashing funds for poverty programs, such as food stamps. ‘By taking these funds from the poor, middle-class Americans, homeowners and other vulnerable parts of our American constituencies,’ Panetta said, ‘the guaranteed results will be confrontation, gridlock and a greater likelihood of sequester.'” [Politico Morning Defense, 5/11/12]

    THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE’S SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT PLAN WOULD MAKE HARMFUL CUTS TO SENIORS, WOMEN AND CHILDREN  

    House Republican Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Package Recommends Completely Eliminating The Social Services Block Grant, Which Provides Meals On Wheels For 1.7 Million Seniors. The following was written by the Democratic Minority staff of the House Budget Committee: “The Republican proposal makes the following changes: Eliminates the Social Services Block Grant, which gives states and localities the flexibility to target funding for essential services.  Overall, the Block Grant helps 23 million children, seniors, and disabled Americans become self-sufficient and economically independent through services funded in whole, or in part, by the program.  It provides home-based services, such as Meals on Wheels, for 1.7 million seniors.  It helps prevent child abuse and neglect, providing child protective services for 1.8 million at-risk children.  It supports low-income parents returning to work by providing child care and related assistance for 4.4 million children.  It also provides services for nearly 1 million disabled individuals, including respite care and transportation.  Ending the program saves $16.7 billion.” [Minority Views on the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012, 5/9/12]

    In Fiscal Year 2009, Virginia’s Meals On Wheels Program Had 56,730 Registered Clients; 37% Of The Program’s Clients Lived Below The Poverty Level And 31% Lived In Rural Areas. [Meals on Wheels Association of America, 2009]

    The House Republican Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Bill Would Require Federal Employees To Pay More For Their Retirement Benefits; Each Employee Would Be Forced To Pay $30,000 More On Average Over Ten Years. The following was written by the Democratic Minority staff of the House Budget Committee: “The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform passed on a party-line vote reconciliation recommendations that generate $83 billion by requiring all federal employees, including postal workers, to pay more for their retirement benefits. Consequently, each federal employee will, in effect, have their pay cut an average of more than $30,000 over the next ten years. These new cuts to federal employee pay come on top of $60 billion in cuts resulting from the two-year pay freeze and $15 billion in cuts resulting from increasing retirement contributions on new federal employee enacted in H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012. Under the bill, most existing employees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS)and the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) will face a 5 percentage point increase in their retirement contributions, which will be phased in over five years.  The increase for new FERS employees is smaller – 2.7 percentage points – because their contributions were already increased by 2.3 percentage points as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012, which will go into full effect starting 2013.” [Minority Views on the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012, 5/9/12]

    There Were 307,719 Active Federal Employees And Retirees Located In Virginia As Of November 2010. [Office of Personnel Management, Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2010]

    The House Republican Sequester Bill Recommends Making Significant Cuts To Health Care, Including Funds Dedicated To Women’s Health, Cancer Screenings, Immunizations, Research And Prevention. The following was written by the Democratic Minority staff of the House Budget Committee: “The Energy and Commerce Committee reported reconciliation legislation that cuts $115 billion from health expenditures.  All of the cuts come from repeal of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), cuts to Medicaid, and medical malpractice reform, over which it shares jurisdiction with the Judiciary Committee…Repeals the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Repealing this fund and rescinding unobligated funding reduces spending on prevention and public health by $11.9 billion. The ACA appropriated a total of $5 billion for 2010 through 2014 and $2 billion for each subsequent year to support such programs as cancer screenings, immunizations, research on prevention, and education and outreach.  The goal of the fund is to provide an expanded and sustained investment in these programs to improve overall health and help restrain the rate of growth in private- and public-sector health care costs.  Some of the funding to be cut is allocated for women’s health, including breast cancer and cervical cancer screening.  The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the first payroll tax cut extension bill) already reduced funding for this fund by $5.0 billion.” [Minority Views on the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012, 5/9/12]

    Since 2010, Virginia Has Received $20 Million In Grants From The Prevention And Public Health Fund Established By The ACA. [Healthcare.gov, 7/31/12]

    The House Republican Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Bill Recommends $22.7 Billion In Cuts To Medicaid Spending. The following was written by the Democratic Minority staff of the House Budget Committee: “The Energy and Commerce Committee reported reconciliation legislation that cuts $115 billion from health expenditures. All of the cuts come from repeal of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), cuts to Medicaid, and medical malpractice reform, over which it shares jurisdiction with the Judiciary Committee…The recommendation cuts Medicaid spending and reduces the deficit by $22.7 billion over the next decade, harming hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans, including at least 300,000 children.” [Minority Views on the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012, 5/9/12]

    In FY 2011, The Virginia Medicaid Program Served Over 800,000 Individuals, Including: – 591,360 Children – 178,909 Parents Or Caregivers Of Children And Pregnant Women – 82,885 Elderly Persons – 207,686 Persons With A Disability [Department of Medical Assistance Services, “The Virginia Medicaid Program At A Glance,” February 2012]

    Under The House Republican Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Package, Nearly 300,000 Children Will Lose Free School Meals. The following was written by the Democratic Minority staff of the House Budget Committee: “The Republican proposal cuts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps struggling households purchase adequate food and nutrition. The legislation reduces assistance to every single household receiving SNAP benefits almost immediately and cuts 1.8 million people off of food assistance entirely. In addition, nearly 300,000 children will lose free school meals, on top of losing the benefits that provide food at home.” [Minority Views on the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012, 5/9/12]

    House Republican Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Package Recommends Cutting $36 Billion From Food Stamps, Reducing Benefits For 47 Million People Currently Receiving Food Stamps, And Eliminating Food Stamps Entirely For 2 Million People. The following was written by the Democratic Minority staff of the House Budget Committee: “The Agriculture Committee recommended reconciliation legislation cutting $36 billion from SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps).  The Committee chose to target all its cuts to food and nutrition assistance to low-income Americans, largely families with children, the disabled, and 5 elderly, rather than look for savings from any other programs supporting the agriculture sector. All together, the recommendations make changes to the SNAP program that will reduce benefits to all 47 million people currently receiving SNAP and entirely eliminate benefits to almost 2 million people.” [Minority Views on the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012, 5/9/12]

    The House Republican Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Package Would Reduce Or Eliminate Food Stamps For Nearly 915,000 Virginians. The Food Research and Action Center presented the following data: “In February 2012, VA had 914,445 citizens participating in its nutrition assistance program.” [Food Research and Action Center, 4/30/12]

    House Republican Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Package Would Stop Direct Funding Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Make It Subject To The Politics Of The Appropriations Process. The following was written by the Democratic Minority staff of the House Budget Committee: “The Financial Services Committee recommended cuts that save $31.1 billion, assuming a July 1 enactment date, as the Republicans requested (in its score, CBO noted that the proposal would also increase the net income to the National Flood Insurance Program by $4.9 billion).  The reconciliation instruction called for a total of $29.8 billion in net savings. Each of the five components to the Committee’s proposal is controversial or raises scoring issues…Jeopardizes consumers’ rights and protections by eliminating direct spending for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and making it subject to appropriations, thereby further violating the discretionary spending caps in the BCA. This latest attack on the CFPB will likely lessen consumer protection while adding to the pressure of keeping to a low discretionary spending cap.  The proposal scores $5.4 billion in savings from eliminating direct spending for the CFPB, and makes the CFPB the only banking regulator to be subject to appropriations.  If the Budget Committee Chairman exercises his authority to modify the discretionary caps to reflect the shift of the CFPB spending from the mandatory to the discretionary category, then there are no savings.  If he does not adjust the discretionary cap, then he is effectively further lowering the discretionary cap by requiring more items to be funded under the same limit. Republicans may use that argument to further their efforts to slash spending for the CFPB.” [Minority Views on the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012, 5/9/12]

  • CAN ALLEN NAME ONE EQUAL PAY BILL HE SUPPORTS?

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, George Allen claimed to support equal pay despite his abysmal record of refusing to support two recent benchmark pieces of equal pay legislation that have been offered in the Senate.

    While more than 620,000 Virginia families rely on a woman’s income, Allen has refused to support both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. Both pieces of legislation would help close the 21 cent pay gap Virginia women still experience that costs families thousands in lost income.

    Can Allen name one piece of equal pay legislation he does support?

    Allen Refused To Support Paycheck Fairness Act. The Washington Post wrote, “Allen did not take a position on the controversial bill in the General Assembly to require women to undergo a vaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion, nor did he say how he would vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act considered by the Senate last month.” [Washington Post, 6/24/12]

    The Washington Times: George Allen “Has Not Taken A Stand On The [Lilly Ledbetter] Legislation.” The Washington Times reported, ” Mr. Romney stumbled last month when his campaign staffers were unable initially to say whether he supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act. . . . The issue already is popping up in multiple Senate races, including in Ohio, Nevada and Michigan, as Democratic candidates seek to push the issue. In Virginia, former Gov. Tim Kaine, the Democrats’ likely Senate nominee this year, has sent several emails urging supporters to sign a petition pushing the legislation. ‘This one is a no-brainer, and I’m stunned that it’s even the least bit controversial,’ Mr. Kaine said. ‘Of course women deserve equal pay for equal work. It’s time that we moved beyond these tired social divisions, and I’m asking for your help to make a difference.’ Former Sen. George Allen, the front-runner for the Republican nod in the race, has not taken a stand on the legislation.” [The Washington Times, 5/30/12]

    623,055 Virginia Families Rely On A Woman’s Income.[U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.]

    PolitiFact Virginia: Virginia Women Earn 21 Cents Less On Every Dollar, As Compared To Men.According to PolitiFact Virginia, “Both the National Women’s Law Center and the National Partnership for Women and Families, supporters of the Fairness Act, created fact sheets on wage disparity in each state. The organizations relied on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which tracks annual wages in its Current Population Survey.  In 2010, the statistics and showed women made 77 cents for every dollar men earned across the country. The Census Bureau also reports state figures in its American Community Survey. They show in Virginia, women earned 79 cents for every dollar men made in 2010… The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics looks at weekly wages instead of annual pay… In Virginia, BLS figures show women in 2010 earned a median $719 a week, or 75.2 percent of men’s median weekly pay of $956… Tim Kaine said women earn 79 cents to each dollar that men earn in Virginia […] we rate his statement Mostly True.” [PolitiFact Virginia, 6/15/12]

  • ALLEN CAN’T HIDE FROM FISCALLY RECKLESS SENATE RECORD

    Richmond, VA – In tonight’s debate, Tim Kaine reminded George Allen of his record in the U.S. Senate. When Allen entered the Senate, the country had a balanced budget and a record surplus. Six years later, Allen departed the Senate having added trillions in new spending to the national debt and leaving massive deficits. And how did he contribute to these results? Allen voted with his party 95 percent of the time, rubberstamping every budget busting proposal and more than 52,000 earmarks that turned the country’s finances upside down and drove our economy to the brink.

    Allen’s big spending ways weren’t unique to his term in the Senate. As governor, George Allen increased spending by over 45 percent.

    In contrast, Tim Kaine became the first governor in modern times to reduce the size of the general fund he inherited four years prior by cutting $5 billion in spending.

    When Allen Entered The Senate, The Country Had A Balanced Budget And Record Surplus-Six Years Later, Allen Departed Having Added Trillions In New Spending And Leaving Massive Deficits

    Allen Took A Huge Budget Surplus And Turned It Into A Massive Federal Deficit. The Washington Post reported, “When Bush took office in January 2001, the government was forecasting a $5.6 trillion budget surplus between then and 2011.” As CNN put it: “[T]he federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history.” The Washington Post continued, “Instead, it is now expecting to accumulate an extra $3 trillion in debt — including a record $415 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.” [CNN, 9/27/2000; Washington Post, 10/8/04]

    As Senator, Allen Voted For Every Appropriations Bill That Came Up, Adding Over $3 Trillion To The National Debt. PolitiFact Virginia wrote, “Under the budgets approved during Allen’s term, debt climbed by $3.202 trillion. Congress sets budgets through a series of appropriations bills, and Allen supported all of the roughly four dozen bills to hit the Senate floor during his term. . . . Radtke said debt increased by $3 trillion during Allen’s Senate term, a figure equal to $16,000 per second. The actual figures were $3.202 trillion, or $16,896.68 per second.”  [Richmond Times-Dispatch, “PolitiFact Virginia,” 4/15/11]

    Allen Voted With His Party 95% Of The Time, Voted For Over 52,000 Earmarks, And Every Budget Busting Proposal

    CQ: George Allen Voted With Republicans 95% During Senate Career.  According to Congressional Quarterly, during his career Senator George Allen had voted with his party 95%. [Congressional Quarterly Annual Almanacs 2001-2006]

    Allen Voted For Budgets That Contained 52,319 Earmarks Worth $121.8 Billion. PolitiFact reported, “Allen, as a senator, voted on the budgets from fiscal years 2002 to 2006. The 2007 budget did not pass until the end late January of that year, a few weeks after Allen left the Senate. He was defeated the previous fall by Democrat Jim Webb. The five budgets Allen voted on included 52,319 earmarks valued at $121.8 billion, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. Hansen said that Radtke’s campaign, seeking to be conservative in its claim, chopped off about 25 percent the Citizens’ numbers and estimated Allen voted for 40,000 earmarks valued at $90 billion.” [Politifact Virginia, 4/18/12]

    Allen Voted for Every Deficit-Growing, Budget-Busting Bush Budget. [Vote 74, 3/16/06; Vote 363, 12/21/05; Vote 114, 4/28/05;  Vote 58, 3/12/04;  Vote 134, 4/11/03; Vote 98,5/10/01; Vote 86, 4/6/01]

    As Governor, Allen Increased Spending By Over 45 Percent

    PolitiFact: As Governor, Allen Increased Spending Over 45 Percent; His Claim That He Reined In Spending Rated “False.”In September 2011, PolitiFact Virginia wrote, “His campaign web site says that when Allen was governor, ‘He challenged critics and sentiment that suggested it couldn’t be done, reining in government spending and substantially reducing the size of the state workforce.’ . . . Allen endorsed $6 billion in additional spending when he was governor — a 40.7 percent increase. But looking at overall spending may be unfair. Slightly more than half of outlays during Allen’s years came from the non-general fund, over which a governor has limited control. The fund consists of earmarked revenues such as college tuition and federal highway grants. A better gauge comes from examining the general fund, which supports public education, health programs and public safety. It’s mostly supported by state income and sales taxes. The general fund was almost $6.8 billion when Allen took office. At the end of his term, he proposed a $9.9 billion general fund budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1998. That means Allen endorsed $3.1 billion in additional general fund spending when he was governor — a 45.6.percent rise. . . . Our ruling: Allen takes credit for ‘reining in state spending’ when he was governor. . . . We rate the statement False.” [PolitiFact Virginia, 9/12/11]

    As Governor, Kaine Became The First Governor In Modern Times To Reduce The Size Of The General Fund

    Kaine’s Outgoing Budget Proposed Two Percent Less General Fund Spending Than The Budget He Inherited. Kaine inherited a General Fund budget of $15,111,251,632 for FY2006. As he left office, Kaine proposed a General Fund budget of $14,806,626,205 for FY2011. [Department Of Planning and Budget, General Fund FY2006; Kaine 2010-2012 Budget Document, 12/19/09]

    1993: Allen Promised To Cut The Budget By Two Percent In Order To Pay For His Campaign Proposals. In October 1993, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that “Republican George F. Allen said yesterday his proposals to end parole, share lottery profits with localities and settle a pension suit with federal and military retirees would cost the state $300 million over the next biennium.  The front-running candidate for governor said he could pay for those new programs by cutting the state’s $30 billion budget by 2 percent — a savings of $600 million… In putting a price tag on his promises, Allen did not address how he would pay off the entire $500 million budget shortfall that Wilder has projected. He has said it could be done by rearranging spending priorities.” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/21/93]

    AP: Kaine Cut Nearly $6 Billion And Balanced The Budget. The Associated Press reported, “While the recession depleted revenues, Kaine and the General Assembly cut nearly $6 billion and never finished a fiscal year with insufficient funds…” [Associated Press, 11/10/11]

  • I mean, the guy READ THE RULES OUT LOUD for god’s sake, then he told the candidates – George Allen and Tim Kaine – they were both wrong when they corrected him! My god, just get a high school debate coach to moderate these things…