Today, Pat Toomey voted for Ted Cruz in the Pennsylvania primary. Cruz may be more polished than Donald Trump, but he’s no less extreme.

Ted ‘Government Shutdown’ Cruz is the perfect fit for Senator Pat Toomey. Not only did Sen. Toomey help Sen. Cruz  do $16 million of damage to Pennsylvania’s economy by voting to close government doors in 2013, he also helped cause one of the longest confirmation delays in history for his own judicial nominee. And they’re at it again: by refusing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Senators Toomey and Cruz are putting partisanship ahead of their constitutional duties.

“On issues from foreign policy to women’s health care access, Ted Cruz has proven he is every bit as extreme and unfit for the presidency as Donald Trump. Sen. Toomey’s support for these same dangerous policies shows his true #EventuallyTrump colors — too extreme and partisan for the Keystone State,” said American Bridge President Jessica Mackler.

Background:

Cruz-Toomey Extremism

Toomey Voted With Cruz 85 Percent Of The Time

Since Sen. Cruz Joined The Senate, Sen. Toomey Voted With Him 85 Percent Of The Time.​ According to Congressional Quarterly, since the first vote of the 113th Congress through April 20, 2016, when Sen. Cruz and Sen. Toomey have both voted, they have voted in the same manner 85 percent of the time. [Congressional Quarterly Vote Comparison Report, Accessed 4/21/16]

Bad For Women

Planned Parenthood

“Criminal Enterprise”

Cruz Called Planned Parenthood A “Criminal Enterprise.” According to Politico.com, “‘We should use any and every procedural means we have available to end funding for Planned Parenthood,’ Cruz said. ‘It should be a very easy decision that taxpayer funds will not go to fund an ongoing criminal enterprise.’” [Politico.com, 8/3/15]

July 2015: Toomey Said The Planned Parenthood Violated Federal Law And Had An “Appalling Disregard For Human Life”

Toomey Said That It Appeared Planned Parenthood Violated Federal Law. According to the Morning Call, “On Thursday’s Bobby Gunther Walsh radio show, U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said it appeared federal law was violated, and believed it ‘entirely appropriate’ to defund Planned Parenthood.” [Morning Call, 7/29/15]

Toomey Said The Planned Parenthood Video Further Demonstrated Its “Appalling Disregard For Human Life.” According to the Morning Call, “In a statement, Toomey described the clips, which sparked protests in Allentown and elsewhere across the country, as ‘horrific videos further demonstrating that Planned Parenthood has an appalling disregard for human life.’” [Morning Call, 7/29/15]

Paycheck Fairness Act

Cruz Opposed Paycheck Fairness Act

[Video] Cruz Called The Paycheck Fairness Act “A Political Show Vote.” “I think women face a very difficult circumstance in the workplace. I have certainly seen that. I have been blessed to work with a lot of strong women, but the answer is not to pass a trial lawyer bonanza. This has nothing to do with actually improving the situation of women in the workplace. This has everything to do with a political show vote for the Democrats and paying off the trial lawyers, who are among the biggest funders of the Democratic Party. And — and they are using women to hide what they are really trying to do.”  [“Your World With Neil Cavuto,” Fox News, 4/8/14; 140418_MM_74779_A]

Toomey Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act Three Times

Toomey Opposed The Paycheck Fairness Act But Said He Opposed Unequal Pay And Gender Discrimination. According to The Tribune-Democrat, “Toomey believes men and women should get paid the same for the same work, according to his campaign. But he opposed the Paycheck Fairness Act – supported by McGinty and other Democratic candidates for Senate – as flawed. […] Steve Kelly, spokesman for Toomey’s campaign, noted the senator is the father of a daughter and also ‘opposes unequal pay and gender discrimination.’ ‘But, as experts and editorial boards have pointed out, this bill would only cause more problems,’ he said.” [Tribune-Democrat, 4/4/16]

• Toomey’s Campaign Spokesman Steve Kelly Said Toomey Opposed The Bill Because It “Would Only Cause More Problems.” According to The Tribune-Democrat, “Steve Kelly, spokesman for Toomey’s campaign, noted the senator is the father of a daughter and also ‘opposes unequal pay and gender discrimination.’ ‘But, as experts and editorial boards have pointed out, this bill would only cause more problems,’ he said.” [Tribune-Democrat,4/4/16]
• Toomey Received A 17 Percent Score From The American Association Of University Women In Part For His Opposition To The Bill. According to The Tribune-Democrat, “While that statistic more generally compares male and female workers, AAUW Vice President Government Relations Lisa Maatz said it reflects how women may be encouraged to enter fields that pay less well, or make personal decisions that result in lower pay. […] Though nonpartisan, the association makes clear its displeasure with Toomey. Its political action committee issues a scorecard for Congress based on voting records, and Toomey has earned a 17 of 100, partly due to his vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act.” [Tribune-Democrat, 4/4/16]

Glamour: Toomey Was “Not Just Anti-Choice,” He Also Voted Twice Each Against The Paycheck Fairness Act And Reauthorization Of The Violence Against Women Act. According to Glamour, “Running for the Senate is Katie McGinty, a pro-choice Democrat running against Republican incumbent Senator Pat Toomey. Toomey voted in favor of the federal 20-week abortion ban this past year and, while a member of the House, voted against eliminating a ban on funds used for abortions or the administrative expenses connected to any federal health plan that provides benefits or coverage for abortions; voted against eliminating a ban on the U.S. giving funds to an organization overseas that uses its own funds to provide abortion services or engage in advocacy related to abortion services; voted against eliminating the prohibition of federal funds to offer abortion care to women in prison except in cases or rape or incest or if the woman’s life is in danger; and voted against ending the ban on service women and dependents from getting an abortion in an oversea military hospital. And Toomey’s not just anti-choice; while in the Senate he also twice voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act and twice voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).” [Glamour, 1/16/16]

2015: Toomey Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In March 2015, Toomey voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to equal pay policies.” Specifically, according to a press release from Senator Barbara Mikulski, “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women and a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today was joined by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in speaking out on the Senate floor calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. Senator Mikulski introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget bill currently being debated.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 82, 3/24/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Barbara Mikulski, 3/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

2014: Toomey Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In September 2014, Toomey effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the legislation, which required 60 votes to pass. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 40. [Senate Vote 262, 9/15/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2012: Toomey Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In June 2012, Toomey voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “would authorize [Equal Pay Act] class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” The vote was on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill; it failed, 52-47. [Senate Vote 115, 6/5/12; Congressional Research Service, 6/1/12]

Violence Against Women Act

Cruz Voted Against Violence Against Women Act

2013: Cruz Voted Against A Reauthorization Of The Violence Against Women Act That Included Protections For Immigrants, LGBT Populations And Native Americans. In February 2013, Cruz voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which, according to Politico, “include[d] protections for illegal immigrants, Native Americans and people in same-sex relationships.” According to The Washington Post, “First authorized in 1994, the bill provides $660 million over the next five years for programs that provide legal assistance, transitional housing, counseling and support hotlines to victims of rape and domestic abuse.” The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 78 to 22. The House passed the Senate’s version of the bill February 28, 2013. The president signed the bill on March 7, 2013 and it became Public Law 113-004. [Senate Vote 19, 2/12/13; Politico, 3/7/13; The Washington Post, 3/7/13; Public Law 113-004, 3/7/13]

Toomey Voted Against Reauthorizing VAWA

2012: Toomey Voted Against Reauthorizing The Violence Against Women Act, Which Authorized Over $400 Million Per Year In Funding. In April 2012, Toomey voted against the proposed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 (VAWA) that authorized over $400 million in yearly funding for combating domestic violence. According to a statement of Sen. Leahy via Congressional Documents And Publications, “We will still provide sufficient authority to fund VAWA programs at over $400 million a year, which is consistent with the funding level provided in the appropriations bill for the coming year. Our legislation also includes significant accountability provisions, including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs. The measure passed the Senate 68-31. A version of VAWA passed the House in May 2012, but the chambers were unable to reconcile the bills. [Senate Vote 87, 4/26/12; Congressional Record, 4/26/12; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4970; Congressional Documents And Publications, 4/23/12]

Bad For Seniors

Social Security

Cruz Called Social Security A “Ponzi Scheme.”

[Video]Ted Cruz:  “There’s No Doubt” That Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme.  “Ted Cruz: There is a level at which words have meaning.  What does the word ‘Ponzi Scheme’ mean? A Ponzi Scheme is a system…  If you and I cooked up a Ponzi Scheme, we would have current people pay into it, we would take the money and we would pay it out to other recipients.  That’s the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.  In the English language, that is exactly how Social Security operates.  Evan Smith:  So I’m going to take that as a yes, that you believe that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.  Cruz:  I think that there is an effort to treat that as rhetoric, but there’s no doubt that’s what it is.”  [Ted Cruz, Texas Tribune TribLive, Austin, TX, 9/11/11; 110911_WU_550_A]

Toomey Supported Personal Accounts For Social Security

Toomey’s Book, “The Road To Prosperity,” Endorsed Private Accounts For Social Security. According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, “You might also imagine, from all the times he cites it, that Sestak’s favorite book is Toomey’s 2009 supply-side manifesto, ‘The Road to Prosperity,’ which endorses private accounts for Social Security and a moratorium on all corporate taxes.” [Chattanooga Times Free Press, 10/28/10]

• Toomey Called Privatizing Social Security Accounts, “Personalization.” According to the Sunday News, “Which is where Toomey’s plan to ‘preserve’ Social Security comes in. We’re not to call it privatization – he objects to that. Instead, he uses the term ‘personalization.’ Older workers already vested in the system would get what’s coming to them. But younger workers would have the opportunity to opt out, to invest their retirement money privately.” [Sunday News, 10/3/10]

Medicare

Cruz Voted To Increase Medicare Premiums For Some Seniors

2015: Cruz Said He Supported Means Testing For Entitlement Programs. In an interview with Sean Hannity, Ted Cruz said, “HANNITY: Every year, it must be in balance. With the penny plan, it would cut one penny out of every dollar every year for six years, and you would get without growth a balanced budget in six years. Would you support cutting a penny out of every dollar, defense, Social Security, Medicare? CRUZ: You’re going to be hard pressed to come up with a cost-cutting program that I’m not going to support. I do think the military — we need to look at the growing national security threats and we need to make sure we take care of the men and women in the military and we provide what we need to protect this nation. And also, if you look at the budget, you cannot bring the budget into control without taking on entitlement reform. Two thirds of the federal budget is entitlements. So if you don’t talk about entitlements, you can’t do it. HANNITY: Entitlements. Means testing? CRUZ: Absolutely. HANNITY: Raise the age of eligibility? CRUZ: Sure. Yes.” [Ted Cruz, Sean Hannity interview, 3/23/15]

Toomey Voted In Support Of Means Testing Three Times

2015: Toomey Voted To Increase The Share Of Medicare Premiums Paid By Wealthy Individuals, As Part Of Permanent “Doc Fix” Legislation. In April 2015, Toomey voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “Starting in 2018, the bill increases the percentage of premiums that beneficiaries in two upper income brackets must pay — which bill sponsors estimate will effect roughly 2% of Medicare beneficiaries. Specifically, it increases from 50% to 65% the percentage of premiums that must be paid by individuals with modified adjusted gross income between $133,500 and 160,000 (between $267,000 and $320,000 for a couple), and increases from 65% to 80% the percentage of premiums to be paid for those with modified adjusted gross income above $160,000 ($320,000 for a couple). It also formally adjusts the minimum income threshold at which beneficiaries would begin to pay a percentage (35%) of premiums, increasing it from $80,000 to $85,000. Under the measure, all income-related thresholds for Medicare premiums would be indexed for inflation beginning in 2020.” The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 92 to 8; and the president signed the bill into law. [Senate Vote 144, 4/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]

2013: Toomey Voted For Means Testing Medicare As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Toomey voted for means testing Medicare, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the House Budget Committee, “his budget also advances a bipartisan proposal to further means-test premiums in Medicare Parts B and D for high-income seniors, similar to the President’s proposal in his fiscal year 2013 budget.” The vote was on the House Republicans’ fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, which Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Patty Murray offered as a substitute amendment to the Senate’s fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 40 to 59. [Senate Vote 46, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/13]

2012: Toomey Voted For His Proposed Budget That Means Tested Medicare For Individual Seniors With An Income Over $85,000 Or Couples Over $150,000. In May 2012, Toomey voted to consider means testing Medicare for senior with an income over $85,000 and couples over $150,000, as part of Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022. According to a press release from Sen. Toomey, his budget contained a provision that “Expands means testing for Medicare Parts B and D. Identical to President Obama’s proposal for income under $150,000 (single) and $300,000 (married) No change to seniors with income under $85,000 (single) and $150,000 (married)” The vote was on a motion to proceed to consider the resolution; the motion failed by a vote of 42 to 57. [Senate Vote 99, 5/16/12; Senator Pat Toomey press release, 4/18/12]

Toomey Voted To Increase The Eligibility Age

2012: Toomey Voted For His Proposed Budget That Increased The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 By 2034. In May 2012, Toomey voted to consider the Ryan budget Medicare plan, as part of Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022. According to a press release from Sen. Toomey, his budget contained a provision that “Adopts the long term Medicare reform plan included in the House FY 2013 budget (effective 2023).” According to the Congressional Research Service, “The (Ryan) budget proposal would gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67. Beginning in 2023, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months each year until it reached 67 in 2034.” The vote was on a motion to proceed to consider the resolution; the motion failed by a vote of 42 to 57. [Senate Vote 99, 5/16/12; Senator Pat Toomey press release, 4/18/12; CRS, 3/29/12]

Bad For LGBTQ Community

Both Opposed Marriage Equality

Cruz Opposed Marriage Equality

Cruz Called Marriage Equality An ‘Extreme Policy View’ Being Imposed By ‘Unelected Federal Judges.’ ‘We are called to have the spirit of love and not to stand in the spirit of judgment.  I think part of how we defend this – tone matters a lot.  Listen, no one wants – in an electoral context – to vote for a judgmental scold.  If you look at the leaders who have brought us together, if you look at Ronald Reagan — President Reagan over and over again would appeal to our best angels, would unify us and bring us together on shared values.  I’ll give an example of this issue, which is one of the ways to bring people together is to appeal to the Constitution.  I’m a Constitutionalist.  Marriage, for over two centuries, has been a question for the states and for any judge to say that the Constitution prohibits traditional marriage between one man and one woman is complete nonsense.  It would suggest that the American people, in the late 1800s, when they adopted the 14^th Amendment, were somehow silently and secretly striking down the marriage laws of every state in the union.  That makes no sense.  That’s not who we are.  The Constitution is a value that can bring an awful lot of us together, that can recognize – listen, if you want to change the laws in your given state on whatever it is, there is an avenue to do so, which is to go to your state legislature and try to convince your elected representatives and try to convince your fellow citizens to change the laws.  And if you can convince them to do that, there’s a Constitutional mechanism for changing the laws.  But I think it is all together inappropriate for the federal government, or for unelected federal judges, to be imposing their own extreme policy views and striking down laws enacted by democratically elected legislators.’  [Ted Cruz, Morningside College Town Hall Meeting, Sioux City, IA, 4/1/15;American Bridge Tracking Footage 150402_CT_329]

Toomey Opposed Marriage Equality

April 27, 2015: Toomey Spokesperson Confirmed His Opposition To Same Sex Marriage. According to Morning Call, “Not all of the local legislators who had opposed same sex marriage have changed their views, though some have voted in support of other gay and lesbian issues. Republican Sen. Pat Toomey has said he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, a position his spokeswoman, E.R. Anderson, confirmed Monday. He also voted against a recent amendment that sought to ensure that married gay couples have access to Social Security and veterans benefits. But Toomey has supported repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ military policy and to extend domestic violence protections to gay, lesbian and transgender victims. He also voted to advance legislation that would ban workplace discrimination against gay employees, and to ensure that groups receiving federal money to aid homeless youth aren’t discriminating based on sexual orientation. ‘Sen. Toomey believes all persons should be treated as individuals, and consistently votes to protect persons from discrimination based on their sexual orientation,’ Anderson said in an email Monday.” [Morning Call, 4/28/15]

2010: Toomey Said “Marriage Is Sacred And Is Best Defined As Between A Man And A Woman.” According to the Scranton Times-Tribune, “As a House member in 2004, Mr. Toomey voted in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being strictly between a man and a woman. During his 2010 election campaign, Mr. Toomey restated that position on his website, saying that ‘marriage is sacred and is best defined as between a man and a woman.’” [Scranton Times-Tribune, 3/30/13]

Both Opposed The Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Ted Cruz

2013: Cruz Called Employment Non-Discrimination Act ‘The Wrong Approach,’ Backed State-By-State Approach. According to Ted Cruz press release, ‘U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released the following statement today concerning the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): ‘The decision whether or not to make sexual orientation a protected legal class is a choice best left to the states, and elected legislatures in all 50 states have reached different conclusions on that question. A one-size-fits-all federal statutory right, which would invite abusive lawsuits and which contains insufficient protections for religious liberties, is the wrong approach.’’ [Ted Cruz Official Press Release, 11/7/13]

Pat Toomey

Toomey Sponsored Legislation That Exempted Any Employer That Is Partially Owned By A Religion Or Has Religious Affiliations From The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). On November 6, 2013, Toomey introduced S.Amdt.2013 to S.815, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. According to the Hill, “Currently the bill exempts churches, but Toomey’s amendment would extend that exemption to any employer that is partially owned by a religion or has religious affiliations – including religious universities.” The legislation failed in the Senate by a 43-50 vote on November 7, 2013, and no further action was taken. [S.Amdt.2013 to S.1815, Viewed 9/11/15; Hill, 11/6/13]

After Voting In Favor Of Advancing ENDA, Toomey Immediately Began To Try To Weaken The Bill By Advocating A Broad Religions Exemption Amendment. According to Morning Call, “The current draft of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act includes a provision exempting religiously-affiliated institutions from adhering to the ban on workplace discrimination on sexual orientation or gender identity, but Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey wants to do the equivalent of double underlining it. Under pressure from gay-rights activists nationally and in Pennsylvania, Toomey broke with his party and voted Monday night with Democrats and six other Republicans to advance debate on the legislation. But he was quick to say in a statement after his vote that he believes the bill needs tweaking to strengthen religious protections before final passage later this week. […] Toomey wants the language to state it more clearly and affirm that the exemption would apply to all employees and not just those with explicit religious duties. ” [Morning Call, 11/6/13]

• Toomey’s Amendment Exempted Groups That Were Formally Affiliated With A Particular Religion That Did Not Primarily Engage In Religious Work, Like Hospitals Affiliated With Religious Groups, For Example. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Under Toomey’s plan, exemptions from the ban would cover organizations managed by a church or religious group, those formally affiliated with a particular religion, or those that teach a curriculum directed toward propagating a particular religion. His amendment specifies that the exemption includes groups that don’t primarily engage in religious work – for example, a school that teaches religion only a few hours a week, or a hospital affiliated with a religious group.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/6/13]

Bad For College Affordability

Student Loan Interest Rates

Cruz Voted Against Allowing Students To Refinance Loans At 2013-14 Interest Rates

2014: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Allowing Those With Pre-July 2013 Student Loans To Refinance At 2013-2014 Academic Year Interest Rates, Which For Undergraduate Loans Was 3.86 Percent. In June 2014, Cruz effectively voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, ‘would allow eligible borrowers who took out student loans prior to July 1, 2013 to refinance those loans to rates offered to new borrowers. It would be offset by increasing taxes on those who earn more than $1 million a year.’ The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the bill, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 56 to 38. [Senate Vote 185, 6/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/14]

Toomey Voted Against Proposals To Allow Refinancing Of Student Loans

2015: Toomey Effectively Voted Against Allowing Student Loan Borrowers To Refinance At The Equivalent Interest Rate From 2013 – 2014, Offset By The Buffet Rule. In April 2015, Toomey voted against a motion to instruct conferees on, according to Congressional Quarterly, “to insist that the conference report include language that would allow student loan borrowers with outstanding loans to refinance at the equivalent interest rates that were offered to federal student loan borrowers during the 2013-2014 school year and to fully offset the cost of such a program by requiring millionaires to pay at least a 30 percent effective federal tax rate.” The underlying bill was the FY 2016 budget resolution. The vote was on a motion to instruct conferees. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 45 to 52. [Senate Vote 149, 4/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/15/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

2015: Toomey Voted Against Allowing Student Loan Borrowers To Refinance At 2013-2014 Student Loan Rates – 3.9 Percent For Undergraduates – Paid For By Requiring Millionaires To Pay A Tax Rate Of At Least 30 Percent. In March 2015, Toomey effectively voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “increase[d] new budget authority and outlays during that period by $64.4 billion, and reduce[d] deficit figures over those fiscal years by $8 billion. The changes are intended to reflect future legislation that would allow student loan borrowers to refinance outstanding debt at 2013-14 interest rates, which would be offset by requiring millionaires to pay a federal tax rate of at least a 30 percent.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 46 to 53. [Senate Vote 86, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

• Warren’s Plan Would Have Allowed Students To Refinance Loans At 3.9 Percent Interest Rate.According to The Hill, “Warren’s amendment would have allowed people with college loan debt to refinance at interest rates from the 2013 2014 academic year. The Massachusetts Democrat, who is rejecting calls to run for president, said the move would allow undergraduates to refinance their loans to a 3.9 percent interest rate, with a ‘slightly higher’ rate for graduate students.” [The Hill, 3/25/15]

• Warren’s 2014 Bill Offset Costs With “Buffet Tax” That Would Require Those With Incomes Over $1 Million To Pay A Tax Rate Of At Least 30 Percent Of Their Adjusted Gross Income Minus Charitable Contributions.According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill would be paid for by a tax increase on those earning more than $1 million a year — the so-called Buffett Tax, a reference to investor Warren Buffett who has said he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.” According to the Congressional Research Service’s summary of the bill, it would “[a]mend the Internal Revenue Code to require an individual taxpayer whose adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million to pay a minimum tax rate of 30% of the excess of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income over the taxpayer’s modified charitable contribution deduction for the taxable year (tentative fair share tax). [It would] [e]stablish the amount of such tax as the excess (if any) of the tentative fair share tax over the excess of: (1) the sum of the taxpayer’s regular tax liability, the alternative minimum tax (AMT) amount, and the payroll tax for the taxable year; over (2) certain tax credits. [It would] [p]rovide for a phase-in of such tax [and would] [r]equire an inflation adjustment to the $1 million income threshold for taxable years beginning after 2015.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/14; CRS Summary of S. 2432, 6/4/14]

• Opponents Claimed That Budget Was Not Right Place To Discuss Student Loans.According to The Hill, “Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) urged his colleagues to vote against Warren’s amendment. The Budget Committee chairman said something has to be done on student loan debt but said the budget resolution wasn’t the place for it. ‘Addressing college costs and the burden of high student debt loans has to be done, but it can’t be done on a budget bill,’ he said ahead of the vote. ‘You can’t have policy on a budget resolution.’” [The Hill, 3/25/15]

 

Toomey Voted Against Allowing Students To Refinance Loans At 2013-14 Interest Rates

2014: Toomey Effectively Voted Against Allowing Those With Pre-July 2013 Student Loans To Refinance At 2013-2014 Academic Year Interest Rates, Which For Undergraduate Loans Was 3.86 Percent. In June 2014, Toomey effectively voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would allow eligible borrowers who took out student loans prior to July 1, 2013 to refinance those loans to rates offered to new borrowers. It would be offset by increasing taxes on those who earn more than $1 million a year.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the bill, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 56 to 38. [Senate Vote 185, 6/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/14]

• The Interest Rate On Federal Undergraduate Student Loans First Disbursed Between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014 Was 3.86 Percent.According to the Department of Education’s website, the interest rate on direct student loans first disbursed between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014 was 3.86 percent. [Department of Education website, Viewed 8/20/14]

• Since July 1, 2006, Federal Undergraduate Student Loan Interest Rates Have Been As High As 6.8 Percent.According to the Department of Education’s website, the interest rate on undergraduate student loans has been as high as 6.8 percent; both Direct and Stafford undergraduate loans issued between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2008 had that rate. [Department of Education website, Viewed 8/20/14]

• Bill Offset Costs With “Buffet Tax,” Which Would Require Those With Incomes Over $1 Million To Pay A Tax Rate Of At Least 30 Percent Of Their Adjusted Gross Income Minus Charitable Contributions.According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill would be paid for by a tax increase on those earning more than $1 million a year — the so-called Buffett Tax, a reference to investor Warren Buffett who has said he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.” According to the Congressional Research Service’s summary of the bill, it would “[a]mend the Internal Revenue Code to require an individual taxpayer whose adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million to pay a minimum tax rate of 30% of the excess of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income over the taxpayer’s modified charitable contribution deduction for the taxable year (tentative fair share tax). [It would] [e]stablish the amount of such tax as the excess (if any) of the tentative fair share tax over the excess of: (1) the sum of the taxpayer’s regular tax liability, the alternative minimum tax (AMT) amount, and the payroll tax for the taxable year; over (2) certain tax credits. [It would] [p]rovide for a phase-in of such tax [and would] [r]equire an inflation adjustment to the $1 million income threshold for taxable years beginning after 2015.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/14; CRS Summary of S. 2432, 6/4/14]

Bad For American Jobs And Workers

Both Signed No-Tax Pledge That Supported Tax Breaks For Outsourcing

Both Signed The “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” Vowing To Oppose “Any And All Tax Increases” While Protecting Companies That Shipped Job Overseas

With The Taxpayer Protection Pledge, Candidates Bind Themselves To Opposing “Any And All Tax Increases.” According to Americans For Tax Reform, “In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases.” [Americans For Tax Reform, Viewed 8/3/13]

 

The Tax Code Currently Allows Companies To Receive Tax Deductions For Expenses Incurred While Shipping Jobs Overseas. According to a White House fact sheet, “Removing tax deductions for shipping jobs overseas and providing new incentives for bringing them back home (revenue neutral): The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses – and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result.  The President is proposing to change that.  These deductions will be denied, and companies will no longer be provided deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States to help companies bring jobs home. For example: If a company was closing a plant to move that plant overseas and incurred $1 million in expenses – ranging from the cost of scrapping equipment to shipping physical capital to clean up costs – it could right now deduct those expenses, and get a tax reduction of $350,000 (assuming the firm faces the 35 percent statutory tax rate).  The President proposes to eliminate this tax deduction.  And, if a corporation moving jobs to the U.S. incurred similar expenses, the President proposes to provide that company with a tax credit of $200,000 to help offset these costs and encourage investment here at home.” [White House Fact Sheet, 1/25/12]

Ted Cruz

April 2015: Cruz And Rand Paul Were The First Two 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates To Sign Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge To Oppose Or Veto Any Proposal To Raise Taxes If They Win. According to Newsmax, “Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the first two 2016 Republican presidential candidates to sign a pledge promising to oppose or veto any proposal to raise taxes if they win the White House.” [Newsmax, 4/24/15]

December 2011: Cruz Signed The Americans For Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge. According to Americans For Tax Reform, “Ex-State Solicitor General Ted Cruz has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in his race for Texas’s U.S. Senate seat. The Pledge, sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), commits signers to ‘oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses … and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.’” [Americans For Tax Reform, 12/1/11]

Toomey

Toomey Signed Grover Norquist’s No-Tax Pledge. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “All six panel Republicans in the past have signed onto the no-tax pledge championed by the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. That lobbying group’s president, Grover Norquist, said Wednesday: ‘I think having Toomey on the committee is great. He’s both a budget guy and a strong anti-tax leader.’” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 8/11/11]

Both Opposed Extending Unemployment Insurance

Ted Cruz

2014: Cruz Voted Against Extending Federal Unemployment Benefits Through May 2014, Offset By “Pension Smoothing” And Extending Customs Fees. In April 2014, Cruz voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would extend eligibility for expanded unemployment benefits through May 31, 2014. It would pay for the additional benefits by extending provisions allowing employers to use historic interest rate averages to calculate their pension contributions, called pension smoothing, and extending U.S. Customs and Border Protection user fees through 2024. The bill also would prohibit individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more from receiving benefits.” The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 59 to 38; however, as of mid-May, the House had taken no substantive action on the measure. [Senate Vote 101, 4/7/14; Congressional Quarterly, 4/7/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3979]

Pat Toomey

2014: Toomey Voted Against Extending Federal Unemployment Benefits Through May 2014, Offset By “Pension Smoothing” And Extending Customs Fees. In April 2014, Toomey voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would extend eligibility for expanded unemployment benefits through May 31, 2014. It would pay for the additional benefits by extending provisions allowing employers to use historic interest rate averages to calculate their pension contributions, called pension smoothing, and extending U.S. Customs and Border Protection user fees through 2024. The bill also would prohibit individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more from receiving benefits.” The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 59 to 38; however, as of mid-May, the House had taken no substantive action on the measure. [Senate Vote 101, 4/7/14; Congressional Quarterly, 4/7/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3979]

Bad For Taxes And The Economy

Both Supported A Flat Tax

Cruz Wanted To Abolish The IRS And Establish A Simple Flat Tax

CNN Money: Moving To A Flat Tax Rate Could Raise The Income Taxes Of Many Low-Income Americans. According to CNN Money, “Cruz wants a flat tax system where all taxpayers pay the same income tax rate. He also wants to get rid of the IRS. ‘Imagine a simple flat tax. … Imagine abolishing the IRS,’ Cruz said Monday when he announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Many of his Republican predecessors have called for a flat tax system in past elections without any success. His plans aren’t detailed enough yet to really assess what their impact would be on the economy or government revenues. BUT: While Cruz talks about wanting to help America’s most needy, there are concerns that a flat tax could hurt the poor the most. Under the current tax system, many low income Americans don’t pay much, if anything, in federal income taxes. Moving to a flat tax could mean their income taxes would rise.” [CNN Money, 3/23/15]

Toomey Supported A Flat Tax

2008: Toomey Said “I Would Prefer A Flat Tax, Absolutely.” While appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Toomey said, “I would prefer a flat tax, absolutely.” [Hardball, 10/28/08]

1998: Toomey Supported A 17 Percent Flat Tax. While appearing on CNN, “Afflerbach said, ‘My opponent, night club owner Pat Toomey, the same night club owner who incidentally is supporting a risky new tax scheme.’ Jackson said, ‘That tax scheme would be Toomey’s call for a 17 percent flat tax.’ Toomey said, ‘ I support a repeal of this current tax code, because I think it’s terribly unfair, it’s ridiculously complicated, and virtually all economists agree it’s very bad for the economy.’” [CNN, 10/13/98]

Bad For The Deficit

Cruz’s Budget Would Increase The Deficit, While Toomey Helped Block A Plan That Would Cut The Deficit

Washington Post Editorial: Cruz’s Tax Plan Would “Blow Huge Holes In The Federal Budget.” According to an editorial in the Washington Post, “Even if these speculated results panned out, the fiscal implications still would be scary. According to a dynamic analysis from the Tax Foundation, Mr. Cruz’s plan would cost the government $768 billion over 10 years. That’s not quite as expensive as Jeb Bush’s plan, which would cost about $1.6 trillion, according to another dynamic estimate. But both would nevertheless blow huge holes in the federal budget. ” [Editorial- Washington Post, 10/30/15]

The Cruz Plan Would Increase The Federal Deficit By $3.6 Trillion. According to the Tax Foundation, “The plan would also be a large tax cut, which would increase the federal government’s deficit by over $3.6 trillion on a static basis. Accounting for the growth caused by the plan, federal revenues would decline by $768 billion over the next decade.” [Tax Foundation, 10/28/15]

Toomey Helped Block The Bipartisan Gang Of Six Plan, Which Cut The Deficit By $3.7 Trillion. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, “Democrats noted that Toomey joined lawmakers who blocked the bipartisan Gang of Six plan, which three Republicans and three Democrats estimated would cut the deficit by $3.7 trillion. Democrats blame GOP obstruction for Washington’s budget impasses.” [Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 7/20/13]

Bad For Climate

Both Questioned Whether Humans Caused Climate Change

Cruz Said Climate Change Was Not A Fact

Cruz: “Climate Change Is Not Fact, It’s Religion.” In an interview with Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz said, “CRUZ: Jake Tapper asked a couple of the candidates on there, ‘Are you a climate change skeptic?’ and for whatever reason, they were afraid to answer yes and they sort of bobbed and weaved on that question. I tried to jump in. I said, ‘Jake, you want a skeptic, I’m right here.’ You know, just a couple of weeks ago, in the Senate, I chaired a hearing where the President of the Sierra Club testified and we had an exchange where I simply asked him about the data and he couldn’t answer the most basic question, starting with the fact… BECK: It was startling. CRUZ: He couldn’t answer the most basic fact that for the last eighteen years, the satellite data showed no significant warming whatsoever. He had no idea about that. He turned to his aides every minute or two. And you know part of the reason he didn’t know the facts? Because climate change is not science, it’s religion.” [Ted Cruz, interview with Glenn Beck, 10/29/15]

Toomey Denied Climate Change Was “Significantly” Caused By Humans

January 2015: Toomey Denied That Climate Change Is “Significantly” Caused By Human Activity. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, “The Senate on Jan. 21 failed, 50-49, to reach 60 votes for adopting a Democrat measure stating that climate change is ‘real’ and is ‘significantly’ caused by human activity. A yes vote was to adopt the strongest amendment offered to put the Senate on record on climate change.” Toomey voted no. [Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 1/25/15]

• October 2010: Toomey Said The Extent To Which Global Warming Is Caused By Human Activity Is “Very Much Disputed.” According to Think Progress, “Responding to a caller on WITF radio on Friday, Toomey expanded on his ignoranceof scientific reality: My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.” [Think Progress, 10/12/10]

• 2010: Toomey Said That There Was “Much Debate In The Scientific Community As The Precise Sources Of Global Warming.” According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “The candidates also differ on the core issue of global warming, and whether climate legislation would do anything to alleviate it. Unlike some conservative figures, Mr. Toomey acknowledges that global warming exists but he is an agnostic on the crucial question of whether it is a product of human activity. ‘There’s no question that the Earth’s surface temperature has increased,’ he said in a statement. ‘There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming. There is no doubt that the proposed cap-and-trade ‘solution’ would do nothing to stop global warming but would be devastating to jobs and the economy in Pennsylvania.’” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6/14/10]

Cruz Claimed Carbon Dioxide Was Beneficial To The Earth

Cruz: Carbon Dioxide “Rather Than Being A Pollutant, Is Good For Plant Life.” According to Politico, “‘Global warming alarmists don’t like these data,’ Cruz said during the nearly three-hour hearing, employing a favorite pejorative to describe environmentalists, mainstream climate scientists and Democrats. ‘They are inconvenient to their narrative. But facts and evidence matters.’ Afterward, Cruz lamented the ‘suppression of dissent driven politically by Democrats, by those in control of the funding stream,’ of scientists who question the idea of man-made climate change. He also pointed to testimony that carbon dioxide, ‘rather than being a pollutant, is good for plant life.’” [Politico, 12/8/15]

Toomey Voted To Prohibit The Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases

2013: Toomey Voted To Prohibit The Federal Government From Regulating Greenhouse Gases. In March 2013, Toomey voted for an amendment that, according to The Hill’s E2 Wire, “would have prohibited federal greenhouse gas regulations.” The vote was on the amendment, offered against the Senate’s version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution; the Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 47 to 52. [Senate Vote 76, 3/22/13; The Hill’s E2 Wire,3/23/13]

Wrong Ideas On Foreign Policy, Defense

Cruz Said He Would Carpet Bomb ISIS

Cruz Said He Would “Carpet Bomb” Specific Locations, Not Cities To Fight ISIS. During the fifth Republican debate Ted Cruz said, “BLITZER: Thank you. To be clear, Senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians, yes or no? CRUZ: You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed — and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn’t to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists. To make it — listen, ISIS is gaining strength because the perception is that they’re winning. And President Obama fuels that perception. That will change when militants across the globe see that when you join ISIS that you are giving up your life, you are signing your death warrant, and we need a president who is focused on defeating every single ISIS terrorist and protecting the homeland, which should be the first priority.” [Ted Cruz, CNN Debate, 12/15/15]

Cruz Called For Securing Muslim Neighborhoods

Cruz Called For “Vigorously Guarding Against The Political Correctness That Has Plagued Europe” And Empowering Law Enforcement To “Patrol And Secure” Muslim Neighborhoods.   In a New York Daily News op-ed Ted Cruz wrote, “In the wake of the Brussels attacks, I called for vigorously guarding against the political correctness that has plagued Europe. I also called for empowering law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they follow the path of Molenbeek and become havens for radical Islamic terrorists.” [New York Daily News, 3/28/16]

---

Published: Apr 26, 2016