Richmond, VA - In an ongoing effort to distract from his failed U.S. Senate record, George Allen launched a pair of testimonials today that do nothing to explain why he championed policies that nearly crippled the economy and offer no new ideas for how to rebuild. Kaine for Virginia Communications Director Brandi Hoffine released the following statement comparing George Allen's failed economic record and career-long reputation for partisanship with Tim Kaine's results-oriented approach that seeks to find common ground on today's challenges:
"Virginians don't need TV ads to tell them what kind of senator George Allen would be – they already know. During his last term in the Senate, George Allen advocated policies that took us from record surpluses to massive deficits, tax breaks for wealthy oil companies over investments in education, and voted four times to raise his own pay while helping to create our economic mess. As he runs for reelection, George Allen has put pledges to Washington lobbyists and divisive legislation, like a federal personhood law, at the forefront of his agenda. He has a record of pitting Virginians against each other: threatening Democrats when he was governor, voting in lockstep with his party as a senator, and deriding hard-working Virginians as 'sanctimonious' in his campaign for reelection. Virginians couldn't afford the first six years of George Allen's failed economic agenda and hyper-partisanship. They certainly can't afford six more.
"Tim Kaine inherited an economic mess that George Allen helped create, and, under his leadership, Virginia weathered the storm better than nearly every other state. Kaine brought Virginians together to balance the budget with $5 billion in spending cuts, including his own pay, while still making investments in education and infrastructure that created jobs. As Governor, Kaine recruited new companies to relocate to the Commonwealth, helping Virginia earn Forbes' 'Best State for Business' rating all four years. Thanks to his work with Republicans and Democrats in the General Assembly, Virginia ranked in the top ten states for median income and had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. That's the kind of leadership in tough circumstances Virginia needs in its next U.S. Senator."
For more on George Allen's failed senate record, see below:
GEORGE ALLEN'S FAILED SENATE RECORD
Allen: “One Can Always Tell What Somebody Might Do In The Future By Their Past Record.”
[Washington Post, 12/06/98]
THE ECONOMY
GEORGE ALLEN INHERITED A RECORD SURPLUS AND TURNED IT INTO A MASSIVE DEFICIT
Allen in 2001: “By Using That Fiscal Discipline Over 10 Years, We'll Completely Eliminate The National Debt.” Allen was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN 2/18/01. 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]
Allen Took America's Largest 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]
ALLEN VOTED AGAINST PAYGO AT LEAST 6 TIMES
Allen Voted Against Restoring PAYGO Rules At Least Six Times. Allen voted against restoring pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules at least six times, which would have required tax cuts and new entitlement spending to be offset with revenue increases or spending cuts. [Vote 38, 3/14/06; Vote 340, 11/17/05; Vote 283, 11/3/05; Vote 53, 3/16/05; Vote 38, 3/10/04; Vote 200, 5/23/03]
AND VOTED 4 TIMES TO RAISE HIS OWN PAY
Four Times, Allen Voted To Give Himself A Pay Raise. Since 2001, Allen has voted to give himself a pay raise at least four times. [Vote 406, 10/23/03; Vote 410, 10/23/03; AP, 10/23/03; Vote 242, 11/13/02; AP, 11/13/02; Vote 360, 12/7/01]
ALLEN INCREASED SPENDING BY 45.6% AS GOVERNOR
PolitiFact: As Governor, Allen Increased Spending 45.6%; His Claim That He Reined In Spending Rated “False.” In September 2011, PolitiFact Virginia wrote, “Republican George Allen is promising his unrelenting effort to curb federal spending if he’s elected to the U.S. Senate next year. He says he’ll bring to Washington the same kind of ‘sweeping reform’ he brought to Virginia as governor from 1994 to 1998. 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]
HIGHER EDUCATION
ALLEN VOTED FOR THE LARGEST CUT TO STUDENT LOANS IN HISTORY
2005: Allen Was Critical Vote for Largest Student Loan Cuts in History. Allen voted for the final version of the 2005 budget reconciliation bill, which cut $12.7 billion from college loans, the largest cuts to the student loan program in its history. The measure was approved 50-50, with the Vice President voting to break the tie. [Vote 363, 12/21/05, CQ Floor Votes; AP, 12/19/05; Washington Post, 12/19/05]
- The Washington Post: “And In One Of The Most Controversial Provisions, The Agreement Would Shave $12.7 Billion Out Of The Federal Student Loan Program.” The Washington Post reported, “And in one of the most controversial provisions, the agreement would shave $12.7 billion out of the federal student loan program, in large part by locking in interest rates often at a higher level than the current variable rates. ‘This bill is the largest raid on student aid in history. At a time when millions of American families are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing tuition costs, it is shameful for Congress to raid student aid in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans,’ said Rep. George Miller (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House education committee.” [Washington Post, 12/19/05]
- AP: “The Student Loan Program Would Endure The Largest Cut In Its History.” The AP reported, “As Congress moves to slash $40 billion in spending, no program will take a bigger hit than college loans, where almost $13 billion would be cut over five years. . . . [O]verall, the student loan program would endure the largest cut in its history, and most of the money would not be pumped back into education.” [AP, 12/19/05]
ALLEN VOTED FOR OIL COMPANIES OVER TUITION TAX DEDUCTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
2006: Allen Voted For Tax Bill That Benefited The Wealthy And Oil Companies, While Raising Taxes For Students. In May 2006, Allen voted for the final version of the $70 billion tax reconciliation bill, which removed a provision that had allowed taxpayers to deduct up to $4000 of college tuition. The tuition deduction was included in earlier versions of the bill but was stripped in the final version. The tuition deduction could have been paid for by reducing a tax break for oil companies. Meanwhile, the tax bill Allen supported would only save middle income Americans $20 each while the top tenth of 1 percent (whose average income is $5.3 million) would save $82,415. The bill was adopted (thus cleared for the president) by a vote of 54-44. Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich voted against the bill. [Vote 118, 5/11/06, CQ Floor Votes; CNNMoney.com, 5/11/06]
- GOP Tax Reconciliation Bill “Does Not Contain A Provision Allowing Taxpayers To Deduct Up To $4,000 Of College Tuition.” The Hill reported on “the GOP-sponsored tax reconciliation bill that does not contain a provision allowing taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of college tuition.” [The Hill, 5/11/06]
- GOP Tax Reconciliation Bill Removed The Extension Of Tuition Deduction, Which Would Have Been Paid For By Reducing A Tax Break For Oil Companies. CNNMoney.com reported, “The Senate on Thursday passed a GOP-supported final tax reconciliation bill . . . With the exception of some popular provisions like AMT relief, many elements in the reconciliation bill have been sharply criticized by Democrats and some moderate Republicans. They contend some of the tax breaks, especially the extension of the investment tax rates, are too costly and benefit too few taxpayers - namely, upper-income ones. Democrats also have objected to the removal of an extension for tuition deduction, which they say could have been paid for if tax writers had left in a provision that would have reduced a key tax break for oil companies, which would have raised $4.3 billion in revenue.” [CNNMoney.com, 5/11/06]
- Lieberman Blasted Bill For Putting Tax Cuts For Big Oil Ahead Of Tax Breaks For College Tuition. A press release from the office of Senator Lieberman stated, “Today, May 11, 2006, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) said he will vote against the Tax Reconciliation Conference Report because of the bill's failure to relieve the financial burden of the middle class while giving unnecessary taxes breaks to big corporations and the rich. Lieberman blasted Republican tax conferees for restoring more than $5 billion in tax breaks which favor big oil during a period of record gas prices for the Connecticut consumer. He protested the exclusion of a college tuition deduction and extension of the research and development tax credit.” The press release quoted Lieberman as saying, “[T]his Republican bill showers tax breaks on the nation's wealthiest, who don't need the help, the oil industry, which is enjoying record profits, and explodes the debt, placing a hidden tax on our children and grandchildren. . . . The final conference report, also protects the ‘last in first out’ (LIFO) accounting loophole and foreign tax credits Big Oil companies get for overseas operations. . . . Look at what's missing from this bill: The state and local sales tax deduction, the college tuition deduction, the welfare to work tax credit that encouraged employers to lower welfare roles by creating jobs; and the research and development tax credit that helped spur the innovation we need to compete in the global economy." [Press Release, Office of Senator Lieberman, 5/11/06]
ALLEN VOTED TO CUT OFF PELL GRANT ELIGIBILITY FOR 84,000 LOWER-INCOME STUDENTS
2003: Allen Favored Cutting Off Pell Grant Eligibility For 84,000 Lower-Income Students. Allen, on September 10, 2003, voted against an amendment to prohibit the Education Department from changing the way it determines student aid eligibility for Pell Grants. The change that the department intended to implement would have caused 84,000 college students to lose their eligibility for Pell Grants for the 2004-05 school year. The amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement recent Department of Education changes to financial aid eligibility formulas. According to CQ.com, the amendment would also “provide $137.6 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2004 for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments and related agencies.”The amendment was adopted by a vote of 51-44, with 6 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 1 Independent voting in favor. [Vote 339, 9/10/03; CQ Floor Votes,Congressional Quarterly Today, 9/10/03]
- Budget Officials At Education Department Estimated 84,000 Students Would Have Lost Their Pell Grant Eligibility If Senate Amendment Had Not Passed. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported, “[L]awmakers also approved an amendment that prohibits the Bush administration from changing the formula the federal government uses to calculate a student's need for financial aid. Budget officials at the Education Department have estimated that 84,000 students would lose their eligibility for Pell Grants in the 2004-5 academic year if the change, announced in May, went into effect.” [The Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/19/03]
WOMEN AND FAMILIES
ALLEN VOTED AGAINST THE FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT THREE TIMES
Three Times, Allen Voted Against The Family And Medical Leave Act. As a Congressman, Allen voted three times against the Family and Medical Leave Act, which gives workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family emergencies, including to care for a newborn or sick relative. [HR 2, Vote 393, 11/13/1991; S5, Vote 390, 9/10/1992; S5, Vote 443, 9/30/1992; CQ Floor Votes]
- November 13, 1991: Allen Voted Against Family Medical Leave. Allen voted against requiring “employers with 50 or more employees to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year for a serious illness, the birth or adoption of a child, or to care for a seriously ill child, spouse or parent.” It passed by a vote of 253-177, with 217 Democrats, 35 Republicans, and 1 Independent voting in favor. [Vote 393, 11/13/91; CQ Floor Votes]
- September 10, 1992: Allen Voted Against Family Medical Leave. Allen voted “Nay” on House Roll Call Vote 390: “Adoption of the conference report to require companies with more than 50 employees to provide workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family emergencies. Employers would have to continue health care coverage and could not hire a permanent replacement.” It was adopted by a vote of 241-161, with 203 Democrats, 37 Republicans and 1 Independent voting in favor. [Vote 390, 9/10/92, CQ Floor Votes]
- September 30, 1992: Allen Voted Against Family Medical Leave. Allen voted against “passage, over President Bush's Sept. 22 veto, of the bill to require companies with more than 50 employees to provide workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family emergencies.” It was rejected by a vote of 258-169, with 219 Democrats, 38 Republicans and 1 Independent voting in favor. [Vote 443, 9/30/92; Congressional Record]
Allen Voted Against The Family And Medical Leave Act Because He Said It “Was A Burden On Businesses.” In October 2006, the Washington Post reported, “As a congressman, Allen voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act, which gives workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth of a child or to care for a sick family member. He said the bill, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, was a burden on businesses.” [Washington Post, 10/23/06]
George Allen Had “Strong Opposition” To FMLA, Said “I Implore The House To Stop Meddling In Matters Which Are Not Its Concern.” In September 1992 George Allen said of the Family and Medical Leave Act: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Unpaid leave to give birth or adopt a child or to care for a sick family member is certainly desirable, and I would encourage businesses to offer such a benefit. However, let us examine this congressional edict. First and foremost the Government has no right to dictate employment contract provisions onto the free enterprise system. This legislation places an enormous financial burden on small businesses, and it would lead to the loss of many jobs because employers can't afford this expensive Federal mandate. This intrusive mandate can adversely affect efficiency and productivity in all business, large or small. Aside from costing the American economy thousands of jobs, this misguided bill can discourage employers from hiring people during their child-bearing years or with sick relatives. In addition, the cost of complying with this mandate will prevent employers from providing other more desirable benefits for all employees, such as health care coverage. Many employers already offer some kind of family leave benefit, as well as other important benefits, in order to compete for the best employees. But, this is a matter which should be negotiated between employers and employees. This Congress has already done enough to harm the economy and cost Americans their jobs. I implore the House to stop meddling in matters which are not its concern, and I urge my colleagues to vote down this harmful, interfering, counterproductive legislation.” [Congressional Record, 9/10/92]
ALLEN SUPPORTED OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE
2003: Allen Voted In Support Of Overturning Roe v. Wade. On March 12, 2003, Allen voted against an “amendment that would express the sense of the Senate that the Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade was correct and should not be overturned.” It was adopted by a vote of 52-46, with a vote of 9 Republicans, 42 Democrats and 1 Independent voting in favor. [Vote 48, 3/12/03; CQ Floor Votes]
ALLEN VOTED AGAINST EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE AND CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE
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, 3/15/05]
- Amendment From Senators Clinton And Reid Would Have Put In Place The Equity In Prescription Insurance And Contraception Act (EPICC]. A press release from the office of Senator Reid stated, “Sponsored by Senators Clinton and Reid, the amendment offers a common ground, common sense approach that will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and the resulting abortions, and help women have healthy pregnancies and healthy children. . . . Today, I am joining with Senator Clinton to introduce an amendment that offers not only common ground, but common sense. . . . Specifically, our amendment would allow us to: . . . Pass the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage (EPICC) bill so we may end insurance discrimination against women.” [Press Release, Office of Senator Reid, 3/15/06]
ALLEN REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR HEAD START
Allen Repeatedly Voted Against Funding For Head Start. [Vote 272, 10/26/05; Vote 333, 9/9/03; Vote 86, 3/25/03; HR 1836, Vote 154]
ALLEN VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION
2003: Allen Voted Against $10 Million For Education About Emergency Contraceptives; For Making Emergency Contraceptives Available To Survivors Of Sexual Assault. Allen voted against “Murray, D-Wash., motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Santorum, R-Pa., point of order against the Murray amendment that would allow states to expand the States' Children's Health Insurance Program to include low-income pregnant women. It also would authorize $10 million for a program to educate public health organizations, providers and the public about the availability and effectiveness of emergency contraceptives; allow state public health agencies to apply for grants for further programs; require private health plans to cover prescription contraceptives and related medical services; and require hospitals to make emergency contraceptives and information about them available to rape victims.” The motion was rejected by a vote of 49-47, with 6 Republicans, 42 Democrats and 1 Independent in favor. [Vote 45, 3/11/03; CQ Floor Votes]
ALLEN SUPPORTS 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 Federal And State Levels, But “Has Steadfastly Declined To Take A Position On The Ultrasound Measure.” 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. Virginia Democrats have accused Allen of ducking the issue. The state party issued a release Thursday morning suggesting that the former U.S. senator and governor was ‘scared to talk about women’s health.’ The Allen campaign says Democrats have been using social issues as a way to distract attention from jobs and the economy.” [Washington Post, VA Politics Blog, 3/1/12]
ALLEN AGREED THAT EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DENY INSURANCE COVERAGE, INCLUDING CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE, TO THEIR EMPLOYEES
Allen Supported The Blunt Amendment. The Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog reported, “Allen supports the Blunt amendment, campaign spokeswoman Katie Wright said . . . ‘While George Allen does not support banning contraceptives, Americans in this instance should not be forced to choose between following a government mandate or adhering to their own deeply held religious beliefs,’ Wright said.” ’ [Washington Post, VA Politics Blog, 3/1/12]
- Associated Press: Blunt Amendment Would "Roll Back President Barack Obama's Policy On Contraception Insurance Coverage." [WRIC, ABC, 3/1/12]
- Washington Post Called The Blunt Amendment The "Birth Control Exemption Bill" And Noted That "Virtually Any Employer With Moral Objections" Could Opt Out Of Coverage. [The Washington Post,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]
ALLEN REFUSED TO SUPPORT EQUAL PAY LEGISLATION
Allen Has Avoided Taking A Position On The Paycheck Fairness Act. Politico Huddle wrote, “Allen has also managed to avoid staking out positions on high-profile issues, including the House GOP budget, the Paycheck Fairness Act and a controversial bill in the state legislature requiring an ultrasound before an abortion.” [Politico Huddle, 6/4/12]
Allen Has Been “Sidestepping” A Position On The Paycheck Fairness Act. The Richmond Times-Dispatch wrote, “He's also artfully dodged controversy, sidestepping positions on issues that could be used against him, such as the much-maligned budget plan of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee, the contentious ultrasound bill that the state legislature passed this year, and most recently, The Paycheck Fairness Act before Congress.” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6/3/12]
GEORGE ALLEN'S ENTIRE CAREER IS MARKED WITH EXCESSIVE PARTISANSHIP
While Governor, Allen Started “Confrontations That Forever Changed Virginia Politics From A Genteel Pursuit To A Contact Sport.” The AP reported that Allen’s dealings with the General Assembly involved, “confrontations that forever changed Virginia politics from a genteel pursuit to a contact sport.” [Associated Press, 9/28/00]
Allen Left A “Smash-Mouth Legacy” As Governor. The AP reported, “And his smash-mouth legacy was not lost on partisan politics either. In a 1995 speech urging Republicans to work toward a GOP majority in that year's legislative elections, he exhorted the faithful to ‘enjoy knocking their soft teeth down their whiny throats.’” [Associated Press, 9/28/00]
Virginian-Pilot Editorial: Allen Was "Virginia's Most Openly Partisan Governor In Memory." [Editorial, Virginian-Pilot, 12/31/95]
Roanoke Times Editorial: Virginia Has Suffered "From Allen's Evident Fondness For Politicizing Every Nook And Cranny Of State Government.”[Editorial, Roanoke Times, 12/7/95]
Washington Post Editorial: When Allen Came Into Office "His Style Was, By Virginia Gentleman Standards, Neo-Belligerent." In December 1996, the Washington Post opined on Allen's tone when he came into office: "Allen's disdain for Democrats in general and General Assembly Democrats even more was clear and constant: the 'monarchical elitists' had best get on board or get out of the way because he was on a 'mission for the people.' His agenda wasn't all that off-center. But his style was, by Virginia Gentleman standards, neo-belligerent. At a GOP convention, he sent Oliver North into battle with these words: 'Let's enjoy knocking their soft teeth down their whiny throats.'" [Editorial, Washington Post, 12/29/96]
1997: Allen’s “Unprecedented And Truly Nasty Drive For Republican Control…Poisoned The Traditional Bipartisan Comity In The State Capitol.” Peter Baker of The Washington Post reported, “Two years ago, Allen launched an unprecedented and truly nasty drive for Republican control of the General Assembly. It poisoned the traditional bipartisan comity in the State Capitol, but resulted in a net change of just two seats in the balance of power.” [Peter Baker, Washington Post, 11/2/97]
2011: Allen Described Federal Employees As “Sanctimonious Social Engineers.” Jeff Schapiro wrote in The Richmond Times Dispatch, “As the macaca moment and other episodes demonstrate, Allen is not above name-calling, often to the delight of his immediate audience but occasionally without regard for the larger one. Allen was at it again against Kaine [in the AP Day debate], describing some federal employees as ‘sanctimonious social engineers.’ Such a characterization could prove perilous in a state where a quarter of the economy is attributed to Washington largesse. Federal workers — they're voters, too — may wonder whether Allen can be trusted to protect their jobs, particularly those dependent on the defense budget he claims to hold dear. [Op-Ed, Jeff Schapiro, Richmond Times Dispatch, 12/11/2011]
###