Bipartisan Bank Bailout Helped Avert Possible Depression

Rescue Efforts Helped Avert “Great Depression 2.0.” From Bloomberg: “The U.S. response to the financial crisis probably prevented a depression, slowed a decline in gross domestic product and saved about 8.5 million jobs, economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi said. Policies including the government fiscal stimulus, bailouts of financial companies, bank stress tests and the Federal Reserve’s purchase of mortgage-backed securities to lower interest rates ‘probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0,’ Blinder and Zandi said in a report dated yesterday. Without those measures, the U.S. would have deflation, they said.” [Bloomberg, 7/28/10]

On National Television, “President Bush Strongly Urged Lawmakers To Pass His Administration’s $700 Billion Bailout For The Financial Markets” In 2008. As reported by MarketWatch: “President Bush strongly urged lawmakers to pass his administration’s $700 billion bailout for the financial markets on Wednesday, spelling out dire risks to the U.S. economy if Congress doesn’t act quickly. ‘We’re in the midst of a serious financial crisis,’ Bush said in a nationally televised address. ‘Our entire economy is in danger,’ as a result of the credit crunch, he said, and inaction on the plan could result in a ‘long and painful recession.’” [MarketWatch.com, 9/24/08]

Congress Passed The Bailout With Significant Bipartisan Support. According to the New York Times: “The Senate approved the bailout measure on Oct. 1, 2008, on a bipartisan vote of 74 to 25. The House initially rejected the proposal, but under prodding from the White House and leading members of both parties, House members ultimately voted 263 to 171 for the bill, with 91 Republicans joining 172 Democrats in backing it; 108 Republicans and 63 Democrats voted no.” [New York Times, 7/11/10]

Bailouts Have Not “Added Significantly To The Debt.” An analysis by FactCheck.org concludes “it’s not the case at all” that the bailouts “added significantly to the debt.” According to the Congressional Budget Office: “CBO estimates that the net cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions, including the cost of grants for mortgage programs that have not been made yet, will amount to $32 billion. CBO’s analysis reflects transactions completed, outstanding, and anticipated as of February 22, 2012. That cost stems largely from assistance to American International Group (AIG), aid to the automotive industry, and grant programs aimed at avoiding home foreclosures: CBO estimates a cost of $56 billion for providing those three types of assistance. But not all of the TARP’s transactions will end up costing the government money. The program’s other transactions with financial institutions will, taken together, yield a net gain to the federal government of about $25 billion, in CBO’s estimation.” [FactCheck.org, 6/15/12; Congressional Budget Office, 3/28/12]

Wall Street Is Betting On Rick Berg, Not Heitkamp

Rep. Berg Has Raised 10 Times As Much From The Securities & Investment Industry.A ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, Rep. Rick Berg has raised $270,083 from the Securities & Investment industry, compared to Heitkamp’s $27,713. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed10/16/12]

Rep. Berg Has Raised Over $600,000 From The Finance, Insurance And Real Estate (FIRE) Industries – Compared To Heitkamp’s $85,000. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Rep. Rick Berg has raised $270,083 from the Securities & Investment industry, $61,636 from miscellaneous financial firms, $119,011 from the Insurance industry, and $162,583 from the Real Estate industry. Heidi Heitkamp has raised $27,713 from the Securities & Investment industry, $31,270 from miscellaneous financial firms, $26,494 from the Real Estate industry, and zero dollars from the insurance industry. Altogether the FIRE sector has given $613,313 to Berg’s campaign, and $85,477 to Heitkamp’s. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 10/16/12]

What “Radical Environmental Agenda”? Heitkamp Thinks Obama Is “Wrong On Energy”

Heitkamp: Obama Is “Wrong On Energy.” From NPR: “It’s a safe bet that few other Democrats running for the Senate this year are calling for construction of an oil refinery in their state, or charging that environmentalists are running the nation’s energy policy, or are so openly critical of President Obama, as Heitkamp was at a Bismarck forum last week. ‘I think the first thing that I say to the president is, ‘You’re wrong,’’ she said at the forum. ‘‘You’re wrong on energy. You’re headed in the wrong direction.’” [NPR, 10/15/12]

Heitkamp “Dismissed Environmentalist Concerns About Fracking.” From Politico: “’I think ‘Drill, Baby Drill’ is the way we need to do it,’ Heitkamp said in response to a moderator’s question during a 50-minute North Dakota Broadcasters debate in Bismarck Wednesday morning. ‘This is an area where I have vehemently disagreed with the administration. They’ve walked away from coal. They’re hostile to oil.’ She dismissed environmentalist concerns about fracking — the hydraulic technology used to expand natural gas production — as ‘junk science.’ ‘People who say they’re against fracking don’t even know what it is,’ she said.” [Politico, 9/5/12]

The Hill: Heitkamp “Opposes Cap-And-Trade Legislation” And Criticized Obama Over Keystone Pipeline. From The Hill: “Heitkamp has made her race against Rep. Rick Berg (R-N.D.) a tight one, in large part because she’s put distance between herself and Obama on issues like energy — she opposes cap-and-trade legislation and ripped Obama for his opposition to constructing the Keystone XL oil pipeline.” [The Hill, 10/5/12]

Heitkamp Has Received $22,400 From Lawyers At Firm Whose Clients Include Fracking Opponents. From the Huffington Post: “According to campaign records tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics, Heitkamp’s second-largest group of contributors are employees of Weitz & Luxenberg, a mass tort law firm that has represented those arguing the harms of fracking in the past. The law firm’s employees have given Heitkamp at least $22,400.” [Huffington Post, 9/13/12]

Affordable Care Act Reduces The Deficit

The ad cites Heitkamp’s remarks at a pro-health care reform rally to support its claim that “Obama needs Heidi to rubber stamp trillions in more spending.”

CBO: The Affordable Care Act Will Reduce Deficits By Over $200 Billion From 2012-2021. According to Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf’s testimony before the House on March 30, 2011: “CBO and JCT’s most recent comprehensive estimate of the budgetary impact of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act was in relation to an estimate prepared for H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on January 19, 2011. H.R. 2 would repeal the health care provisions of those laws. CBO and JCT estimated that repealing PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would produce a net increase in federal deficits of $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues. Reversing the sign of the estimate released in February provides an approximate estimate of the impact over that period of enacting those provisions. Therefore, CBO and JCT effectively estimated in February that PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act will produce a net decrease in federal deficits of $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues.” [“CBO’s Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010,” CBO.gov, 3/30/11]

• July 2012 Report Affirmed Projection That ACA Will Reduce Deficits. According to a Congressional Budget Office Report titled “Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision”: “CBO and JCT have not updated their estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA; previously, they estimated that the law would, on net, reduce budget deficits.” [CBO.gov, July 2012]