Club For Growth Action: “Jobs”

Club for Growth Action accuses Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) of supporting “higher taxes, government health care, and trillions in new debt,” but the conservative group provides no evidence for its allegations. That may be because the charges against Donnelly don’t match his record. Donnelly recently voted to extend tax cuts for all Americans, while the Affordable Care Act expands private-sector health coverage and reduces deficits. Furthermore, Donnelly has supported conservative proposals for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Donnelly Has Voted To Extend Tax Cuts For All Americans

Donnelly Voted With Republicans To Extend Bush Tax Cuts For All. According to the New York Times, “The House on Wednesday easily approved a one-year extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire in January, but in the Senate, presidential politics are complicating efforts to extend a tax credit for wind power. The House votes pitted a straight extension of all the expiring Bush tax cuts against a Democratic plan, passed by the Senate, that would allow taxes on income, capital gains and dividends to rise on earnings over $250,000, increasing revenues by around $100 billion. It was not close. The Democratic plan failed 170-257, with 19 Democrats voting no. The Republican plan passed 256-171, again with 19 Democrats throwing in their support.” Donnelly voted against the Democratic plan and for the Republican one. [New York Times, 8/2/12; H.R. 8, Vote #543, 8/1/12; H.R. 8, Vote #545, 8/1/12]

Donnelly Supported Tax Cuts For Up To “95 Percent Of Working Families” In Recovery Act. According to “Obama has lowered taxes for all workers through a 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax that started in 2011 and is scheduled to continue through the end of 2012. The cut is equal to $1,000 this year for a worker making $50,000 a year — or as much as $2,202 to any worker earning at least the maximum taxable level of wages or salary ($110,100 for 2012). Obama had previously signed a tax cut that benefited nearly all working families and was in effect from 2009 through 2010. The ‘Making Work Pay’ tax credit was part of the stimulus bill he signed shortly after taking office. That credit was worth a maximum of $400 per person, or $800 for couples during those years. It phased out at higher income levels, and so its benefit went entirely to individuals making less than $95,000 a year, or couples making less than $190,000. The White House figures it went to ‘95 percent of working families.’ And even allowing for those who are retired or unemployed, it benefited more than 75 percent of all individuals and families, working or not, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.” Donnelly voted for the Recovery Act. [, 5/17/12; H.R. 1, Vote #70, 2/13/09]

Affordable Care Act Relies On Private Sector And Reduces Deficits

PolitiFact: Affordable Care Act “Greatly Relies On The Private Sector To Provide Health Care” According to PolitiFact: “[T]he law increases regulation. But it greatly relies on the private sector to provide health care. Hospitals will not be taken over by the government, doctors will not become federal employees. The act relies on private insurers to compete and provide health care coverage to an expanded customer base. Employer-based coverage through private companies continues. The ‘government takeover of health care’ is a potent political charge that does not hold up under examination.” [, 6/16/12]

  • Washington Post: “There Is No Government Alternative To The Private System” In The ACA. According to the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler: “Under the new law, there is no government alternative to the private system–this was a potential provision that was dropped during the congressional tussle–but the number of people who qualify for the existing federal-state Medicaid program for the poor will be expanded. States (or the federal government) will run ‘exchanges’ — essentially marketplaces — in which private insurers will sell insurance to individuals and small businesses, but this should mean more people will get private insurance, not fewer. Tax credits will also be offered to people who have trouble buying private insurance. Certainly, the law bolsters government regulation of the health care system, such as forcing insurance companies to no longer deny coverage to people who have existing medical conditions. People who currently do not have health insurance will be required to buy it. But the core of the health system in the United States will remain the existing private insurance market. So it in no way resembles the government-run health systems used in most industralized countries in the world.” [, 1/18/11]

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,”,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.” [, July 2012]

Despite Conservative Rhetoric, Claim That Affordable Care Act Will “Kill Jobs” Has Been Debunked “Job-Killing” Claim Is “Health-Care Hooey.” From “The exaggerated Republican claim that the new health care law ‘kills jobs’ was high on our list of the ‘Whoppers of 2011.’ But the facts haven’t stopped Republicans and their allies from making the ‘job-killing’ claim a major theme of their campaign 2012 TV ads. […]All of this is health-care hooey, aimed at exploiting public concern over continuing high unemployment, with little basis in fact. As we’ve said before (a few times), experts project that the law will cause a small loss of low-wage jobs — and also some gains in better-paid jobs in the health care and insurance industries. It’s also expected that more workers will decide to retire earlier, or work fewer hours, when they no longer need employer-sponsored insurance and can obtain it on their own with help from federal subsidies. But that just means fewer people willing to work — and it will free up jobs for those who want them. If anything, that could reduce the jobless rate.” [, 2/21/12]

  • AP: Republicans Misuse CBO Statistics To Support “Job-Killing” Claim About Health Care Overhaul. From the Associated Press:  “A recent report by House GOP leaders says ‘independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy.’ It cites 650,000 lost jobs as Exhibit A, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as the source of the analysis behind that estimate. But the budget office, which referees the costs and consequences of legislation, never produced that number. What CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of the lost jobs would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job. ‘The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount — roughly half a percent— primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,’ budget office number crunchers said in a report last year.” [Associated Press via USA Today, 1/24/10]

Donnelly Supported A Balanced Budget Amendment

Donnelly Voted In Favor Of A Balanced Budget Amendment. Rep. Donnelly voted “yea” on H.J. Res. 2, “Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” [H.J. Res. 2, Vote #858, 11/18/11]

  • Donnelly: “I Have Always Supported A Balanced Budget Amendment.” From a speech Rep. Joe Donnelly prepared for the House floor: “I have always supported a balanced budget amendment because it is another important tool that can be used to help get our fiscal house in order.  Having a balanced budget amendment in place is crucial to this country going beyond speaking about tough decisions and actually making them.  I’m aware that this will not be convenient and tough decisions that affect many people will have to be made to match revenues with our spending priorities–to live within our means.  But, we are facing significant fiscal challenges and the American people are desperate for us to come together on a bipartisan basis and do something that will more effectively deal with them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.J.Res.2, and take one more step to achieve fiscal responsibility and a stronger, more secure future.” [Rep. Donnelly Remarks, 11/17/11]

[NARRATOR:] The issue: jobs. The candidates: Richard Mourdock and Joe Donnelly. Mourdock opposes job-killing tax hikes, regulations, and debts. Donnelly has voted for higher taxes, government health care, and trillions in new debt. But what would a vote for Joe Donnelly really mean? It would mean a U.S. Senate controlled by liberals, with more taxes and debt from Washington, and less jobs for Indiana. [Club For Growth Action via, 10/2/12]