A Voter's Guide to Dick Lugar

A Voter’s Guide to

Dick Lugar36 Years in the U.S. Senate

1976-2012

Earmarks SpendingHealth Care Big Government

Deficits Bailouts TARP

3It’s time for Lugar to retire

1. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/third-presidential-debate.html

After 36 years, who is Dick Lugar

really standing with?

“

”

Dick Lugar is among a handful of people who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in

the White House.

— Barack Obama, speaking at the last debate prior to the 2008 Presidential Election1

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Indiana Senator Richard Lugar has, for over 30 years, held himself out as a conservative.

Lugar’s record, however, belies any assertion that he is a true conservative. Dick Lugar is the man who famously praised Barack Obama’s foreign policy while deriding John McCain as an isolationist.2 His record and public statements on matters ranging from earmarks and government spending to TARP and the automotive and housing bailouts reveal his belief that big problems require an even Bigger Government. The following report highlights deficiencies in Senator Lugar’s record on seven primary economic issues of concern:

Earmarks: Lugar is one of the Senate’s leading defenders and abusers of earmarks. From his support of abominable projects such as Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” to his vote against a moratorium on earmarking, Lugar has proved his commitment to irresponsible pork-barrel spending.

Spending and Deficits: Lugar shows a penchant for massive government spending, including TARP, government health care, bailouts, and the notorious 2008 stimulus bill. Lugar has voted 15 times to increase the debt ceiling by a staggering $7 trillion. Lugar’s reluctance to reform the Medicare Part D entitlement could increase the debt by some $21 trillion alone.

Health Care: Lugar partnered with Ted Kennedy in 1997 to pass the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance since Medicaid, and the precursor to ObamaCare. Lugar also voted for Medicare Part D, adding as much as $21.9 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for taxpayers.

TARP (Wall Street Bailout): Lugar not only supported the unconstitutional $700 billion Wall Street Bailout, but also refused to vote against additional TARP funds.

Corporate Welfare: In addition to his staunch support of TARP, Lugar supported the infamous government takeover of General Motors and bailout of Chrysler, and the unconscionable bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Energy: Lugar voted in 1977 to establish the Dept. of Energy which has impeded U.S. business interests, cost taxpayers billions, hampered production, stalled innovation, and increased dependence on foreign oil for 35 years. Lugar and then-Senator Barack Obama co-sponsored the American Fuels Act of 2006, which handed out hundreds of millions of tax dollars to green energy companies.

Appointments: Lugar voted to confirm both of President Obama’s extreme left-wing liberal Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Lugar marched in lockstep with President Obama to confirm Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve Chairman), scandal-ridden Kathleen Sebelius (Health and Human Services/ObamaCare Czar), Cass Sunstein (Regulatory Czar) and Eric Holder (Attorney General), best known for the Fast and Furious scandal.

Richard Lugar’s record is that of a man who has been in power too long; a man who went to Washington proclaiming himself a conservative, yet, over time, repeatedly voted to massively expand the scope and power of government. Lugar won his Senate seat in 1976, and has now occupied it far too long, having long ago transformed himself from an Indiana conservative into a liberal Washington DC friend of Big Government.

2. Graham-Silverman, Adam (October 15, 2008). “Obama’s ‘Diplomacy’ Wins a Republican Endorsement”


1. The Richard (Dick) Lugar Record .........................................................................................................6 Why Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar should be retired.

2. Why Dick Lugar Is Not a Conservative ................................................................................................7 Lugar’s record demonstrates his commitment to Big Government and aversion to free market solutions.

3. Lugar on Earmarks ...............................................................................................................................10 Earmarks defined; Lugar’s voting record on massive earmark spending and his commitment to preserve earmarks.

4. Lugar on Spending and the Deficit ....................................................................................................12 Lugar claims to support a balanced budget amendment, yet voted 15 times to raise the debt ceiling and to spend trillions on government interference in the free market.

5. Lugar on Health Care ..........................................................................................................................14 Partnership with Ted Kennedy to sponsor SCHIP, the precursor to ObamaCare; votes to incur trillions of dollars of unfunded taxpayer liability for Medicare Part D.

6. Lugar on TARP .......................................................................................................................................16 TARP defined; Lugar voted for TARP, refused to block second round of TARP funding.

7. Lugar on Corporate Bailouts and Cronyism ......................................................................................18 Lugar voted to bail out Wall Street (TARP); voted to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; voted to siphon funds from TARP for auto industry bailout.

8. Lugar on Energy ...................................................................................................................................21 Voted to create and has long since supported the U.S. Dept. of Energy, which spends billions of dollars to interfere with U.S. business and increase U.S. reliance on foreign oil. Circumvents the marketplace to champion government mandates for production of green energy bio-fuels.

9. Lugar on Appointments ......................................................................................................................24 Joined Senate liberals to support President Obama in the nominations of both of Obama’s extreme left-wing Supreme Court Justice appointments; confirmed Eric Holder (Fast and Furious), Ben Bernanke (Bailout Czar), pro-abortion extremist Kathleen Sebelius (Health and Human Services), and radical animal rights activist Cass Sunstein (federal regulatory czar).

10. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................26

Appendices

from 1977 to 2010 ..............................................................................................................................28

.............................................................................35

....................................................................................................................37

....................................................................................................................................43

After nearly 36 years in Washington, U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar is asking Indiana voters

for a 7th term in the United States Senate. Considering solid conservative Richard

Mourdock as an alternative to Sen. Lugar, we’ve decided it’s time to retire Dick Lugar.

This document provides a detailed account of Lugar’s Big Government record,

listing where he has strayed from conservative principles. After reading it, I hope you

are as convinced as I am that we must retire Sen. Lugar on Tuesday, May 8th.

FreedomWorks for America is the political arm of FreedomWorks, a national

conservative grassroots group with 1.5 million members committed to the principles of

lower taxes, less government, and more freedom. As president I’ve had the privilege of

working with thousands of conservatives Hoosiers.

Our reasons for wanting to replace Lugar are the same reasons voters replaced

other long-term Senators, like Bob Bennett (R-Utah, defeated by Mike Lee in 2010).

Lugar, despite holding himself out as a conservative, has consistently voted for more

government, more taxes, and more spending. While he preaches about balanced

budgets and limited government in Indiana, Lugar abandons those convictions when

he returns to the Beltway. The irony of Lugar’s “returning to the Beltway” is that Lugar

has really never left the Beltway in decades. Upon being elected 36 years ago, Lugar sold

his Indiana home, moved to Washington DC, and has lived there ever since.

Recently Lugar has gone to great lengths to rebrand himself as a conservative

Hoosier by showing up at gatherings of conservative activists. But Lugar’s record

tells the real story — Lugar is not an Indiana man; he’s a DC insider. Lugar voted for

the Wall Street bailout (TARP) and the auto bailout while supporting health care

mandates and pork-barrel earmarks. Dick Lugar’s blatant disregard for the Constitution

is part of the problem in Washington — not the solution.

Thirty six years in the U.S. Senate is enough. Let’s replace Dick Lugar with a

Senator committed to a smaller government and free market principles.

Let’s retire Dick Lugar on May 8th and elect Richard Mourdock.

In Liberty,

Matt Kibbe

President and CEO, FreedomWorks

6


Why is Dick Lugar so often deemed Barack Obama’s “Favorite Republican?” Is it

merely due to their close friendship? Not likely. Lugar has earned the moniker not only for that friendship — which appears genuine — but more importantly for having become one of the few Republicans that President Obama can count on to support his Big Government spending projects and extreme liberal court and agency appointments.

Lugar is well known — and oft-criticized — for his cozy relationship with Obama, dating back to the days when Obama was a little known Senator from Illinois. “Lugar praises Obama’s ‘strong voice and creativity’ and calls him ‘my good friend.’ In short, the two agree on much.”3 However, faced with his first serious primary challenge in decades, Lugar has suddenly taken pains to distance himself from Obama. Lugar has recently reversed course to criticize the President on foreign policy and spending issues. Politico recently remarked, “Lugar’s overt criticism points to a divorce of sorts between the elder statesman from Indiana and the young president, who regularly touted his relationship with Lugar during Obama’s 3 1/2 years as a senator and throughout his presidential campaign. The breakup comes as Lugar faces a tough primary from the right in his home state — his first such challenge since 1976.”4

This statement captures in one sentence the whole case for why FreedomWorks has decided to get behind the local Indiana effort to retire Sen. Lugar and replace him with Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, a true friend

of individual liberty and the United States Constitution. FreedomWorks for America endorses Mr. Mourdock in part because Mourdock wants what Indiana conservatives want and demand: a smaller, more efficient government, and a growing economy guided by free market principles. Dick Lugar once stood for these principles, but 36 years of living in Washington, DC has simply put him on the wrong side of too many issues for far too long — hence, the oft-repeated moniker, “Obama’s Favorite Republican.”

While most Senators maintain residences in both DC and their home state, Lugar decided long ago to leave Indiana and not come back. He defends his actions, claiming that his status is “just like the United States military.”5 Lugar recently admitted he doesn’t even know what address would be on his Indiana driver’s license, presuming it would be the home he sold 35 years ago.6 Indiana University Professor of Constitutional Law John Hill has weighed in, suggesting claims that Lugar is no Hoosier are more than just political bombshells.7

3. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.larson.html4. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55715.html5. http://blogs.wishtv.com/2012/02/09/where-does-sen-lugar-live/6. http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/30500228/detail.html

7. http://www.hoosieraccess.com/2012/02/17/dick-lugar-a-so-called-statesman-without-a-state/

8. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27241356/ns/politics-decision_08/t/barack-obamas-favorite-republican/#.TyxJ4ciDmSo

By Russ Walker

“

”

Dick Lugar is among a handful of people who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House.8

— Barack Obama

8

Power corrupts. Clearly, Mr. Lugar is determined to avoid the fate of other Senators who, after being elected as conservatives, simply allowed decades in Washington to make them progressively believe that no amount of government is too big, and no amount of spending is too much. Hoosiers now have the choice — and the very real opportunity — to send a message to Mr. Lugar that, after 36 years in the Senate, he simply cannot run from his record. Only “Obama’s Favorite Republican” would have voted to:

Save earmarks.

Create a federal Department of Energy.

Co-sponsor—with Obama—multiple green energy mandates and subsidies.

Bail out New York City.

Bail out Wall Street (via TARP).

Bail out GM.

Bail out Chrysler (twice).

Bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Would one of the longest-sitting “conservatives” in our history support requiring Americans to buy government-controlled health insurance coverage? Sen. Lugar did. Today Lugar has reversed position, loudly decrying President Obama’s unpopular health care mandate as unconstitutional, but back in 1993 he cosponsored a bill that included that very mandate.9

Was it not an infringement of our liberty in 1993? Was it constitutional then?

Why then did Sen. Lugar support SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program?

In 1997, he shepherded this obscure program into law with liberal Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. This story bears recounting in detail because of this program’s impact on our freedom.

What is SCHIP? It’s a subsidy for health coverage for children whose parents make too much money to be on Medicaid. It’s an inferior, government-run health plan that, studies show, displaces 25 to 50 children from good private coverage for every 100 who go on the public rolls.12 But that’s not even the biggest problem. It’s no exaggeration to say that, with SCHIP, Sen. Lugar pulled HillaryCare out of the dustbin of history — and paved the way for ObamaCare.

Recall that before President Obama tried to take over health care, President Bill Clinton tried to do so in 1993. He failed, and one result was the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress.

Documents from Hillary Clinton’s infamous secret health care task force, released in late ‘94, reveal that SCHIP was in fact the fallback plan for the Clinton administration, should HillaryCare fail in Congress.

A Clinton memorandum dated April 9, 1993, reveals their intention to concoct a plan similar to Lugar’s SCHIP, dubbed “Kids First,” as their backup: “Kids First is really a precursor to the new

“”

Dick Lugar Once Again Obama’s Favorite Republican.10

“

”

The most dynamic duo in Washington today crosses party lines. Old-school realist Richard Lugar, the five-term Republican senator from Indiana, has embraced new-school realist and rising star Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois.11

9. 1993 S.177010. http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/05/12/dick-lugar-once-again-obamas-

favorite-republican/11. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.larson.html

12. “[F]or every 100 children who enroll as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.” Congressional Budget Office, The State Children’s Health Insurance Program, May 2007, p. ix. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8092/05-10-SCHIP.pdf


[universal] system … … Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children.”13

After two years of licking their political wounds, the Democrats were ready to put their plan into operation. In October 1996, Sen. Ted Kennedy unveiled his “Kids First” bill. President Clinton endorsed it. Then, in 1997, so did Sen. Dick Lugar, and he has supported it proudly ever since.14 The 2009 reauthorization of SCHIP even includes the “Lugar Provision,” aimed at making it faster and easier to enroll more individuals in the government-run health care program.15

Lugar’s crossover helped split the GOP, enabling the Kennedy bill to become law in August ’97 as part of the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act.

The program, which was supposed to cost about $5 billion a year, has instead gone up to $8 billion a year — a 60% increase.16 The senator has continually defended his handiwork as a “success,” but after the Democrats’ 2006 takeover of Congress, SCHIP lost the word “State” from its title, became more top-down, and grew enormously more costly.

Is that how the Senator defines “success?”

In 2010, when President Obama signed the controversial health care bill into law, he was simply completing the Left’s century-long effort to put Washington in charge of our health care. That project, decisively stopped in ‘94, had been resurrected — and become law — thanks in large part to the 1997 SCHIP “Kids First” bill.

Thus did one of the longest serving senators in the history of our country, “Obama’s Favorite Republican,” facilitate one of our country’s greatest losses of freedom.

Now that he faces the first real challenge to his power in decades, Lugar has recently attempted to distance himself from President Obama. After 36 years of profligate spending and working to increase the power of the federal government, he now talks about reducing the deficit. He defends his not having lived in Indiana in over 35 years. Lugar’s sudden reversals and attempts to distance himself from these issues suggests a desperation and terrible loss of touch with reality. Dick Lugar has simply been in DC for far too long.

Many doubt whether Sen. Lugar satisfies the legal criteria for Indiana residency. The issue, however, should not be whether a technical definition has been met. There should be little doubt that Dick Lugar quit being a Hoosier long ago, manifested not only in where he lives, but also in his attitude, and, most significantly, in how he votes on the floor of the United States Senate. Help us replace Dick Lugar with Richard Mourdock, a true Hoosier who won’t cast aside Indiana as soon as he gets a better deal in Washington DC.

Russ Walker is the National Political Director of FreedomWorks For America, a nationwide grassroots political organization fighting for lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.

“

”

According to The Chicago Tribune...someone [asked] Lugar if he would consider running for president again. [Lugar made a short-lived bid in 1996.] The old lion shook his head and passed the torch. ‘That’s for Barack,’ he said.17

13. “SCHIP/Kids First memo shows, again, that transparency is Big Government’s worst enemy,” Washington Examiner, 10/02/07: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/schipkids-first-memo-shows-again-transparency-big-government039s-worst-enemy

14. http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=307664&&

15. http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=307664&&16. Kaiser Family Foundation fact sheet, “SCHIP at a glance,” January

2007. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kff.org%2Fmedicaid%2Fupload%2F7610.pdf

17. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.larson.html

10

18. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253722/bad-arguments-earmarks-good-arguments-against-them-veronique-de-rugy

19. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/18/richard-lugar/richard-lugar-says-ending-earmarks-wont-save-money/

What Are Earmarks? An earmark is a special funding request made by a lawmaker to circumvent the usual budget process. An earmark is usually tucked away — hidden — in some large spending bill considered to be “must pass” legislation, and is commonly referred to as “pork-barrel spending.” The Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell points out: “Earmarks are utterly corrupt. The fact that they are legal does not change the fact that they finance a racket featuring big payoffs to special interests, who give big fees to lobbyists (often former staffers and Members), who give big contributions to politicians. Everyone wins … except taxpayers.”18 For more on earmarks, see Appendix II.

Why Earmarks Are Dangerous. An earmark is not subject to competitive bidding, congressional hearings, or oversight of any kind. Earmarks are often a result of intense lobbying, not bargained for in the free market. As we saw with Medicare Part D in 2003 and ObamaCare in 2010, earmarks are tools that politicians use to buy the votes they need to secure passage of huge expansions of the welfare state. Earmarks grease the skids of Big Government.

In 2010, Lugar opposed the effort led by Republican lawmakers to place a moratorium on earmarks, famously — or notoriously — proclaiming, “eliminating earmarks does not save money.”19 Earmarking is a hallmark method for lawmakers to satisfy special interests, and has long been accepted in large part — by both major parties — as the “way to get things done in Washington.”


In recent years, scrutiny brought about by groups such as FreedomWorks for America and the Tea Party movement has influenced many lawmakers to eschew earmarking. Lugar, however, has resisted, staunchly standing by his belief that pork barrel spending is the most efficient way to spend the taxpayers’ money. A few examples:

2005: Roll Call 220: Lugar voted for this notorious $300 billion highway spending bill stuffed with nearly 6,500 earmarks, exemplifying the worst of Republican excesses just before they lost control of Congress.20

2006: Roll Call 81: Lugar voted against including federal entities in the definition of earmarks.21

2006: Roll Call 52: Lugar voted for an additional $500 million for Amtrak, a long-time money pit for taxpayers.22

2007: Roll Call 347: Lugar voted for this pork-laden bill, which contained over nine hundred special interest earmarks.23

2008: Roll Call 75: Lugar voted against establishing an earmark moratorium to end the abusive process of pork-barrel spending.24

2008: Roll Call 153: Lugar voted against removing a $300 billion earmark for FHA Insurance.25

2010: Roll Call 8: Lugar joined with Senate Democrats to vote against an effort to “rescind $120 billion in Federal spending by consolidating duplicative government programs, cutting wasteful Washington spending, and returning billions of dollars of unspent money.”26

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a major opponent of earmarks, once called earmarks the “gateway drug” on the road to spending addiction. Senator Lugar’s record suggests he has traveled far enough down the road to spending addiction so as to have completely lost contact with Indiana’s true fiscal conservatives.

20. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00220







“

”

Lugar supports wasteful earmarks, he even voted for the “Bridge to Nowhere”. When I see how wasteful these projects are I’m even more certain that Indiana can find someone better, someone who is a real fiscal conservative.

— Monica Boyer, Kosciusko Silent No More

12




30. http://www.ontheissues.org/SenateVote/Party_2006-052.htm31. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S5217132. http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=334663&

Deficit Spending. Dick Lugar claims we must balance the federal budget, yet he has spent the past 36 years in the Senate voting for trillions in wasteful spending and creating new entitlements. Any claim of fiscal conservatism rings hollow after two financially catastrophic votes from which Lugar should not be allowed to hide: He voted for Alaska’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” as well as for the 2005 bill with nearly 6,500 earmarks, exemplifying the worst of Republican excesses just before they lost control of Congress.27 The defense “everyone was doing it” is just unacceptable.

The list of Lugar’s votes in favor of wasteful and economically pernicious programs is too extensive to list. However, the common theme is that Lugar has demonstrated a pattern of voting to fund programs that would not — and could not — survive if left to market forces alone. Some of these votes are:

2005: Roll Call 262: Lugar voted against cutting the “Bridge to Nowhere,” one of the biggest financial boondoggles in the history of the United States government.28

2008: Roll Call 153: Lugar voted against removing a $300 billion earmark for FHA Insurance.29

Lugar voted to restore $550 million in funding for Amtrak for 2007.30 The result was to increase funding to $1.45 billion for a business that had proved over and over again that it could not compete in a free market.31

Balanced Budget Amendments. Lugar, facing his first serious primary challenge in decades, has recently called for a balanced federal budget.32 How does this square with a voting record that supports government bailouts of private industry, rampant proliferation of earmarks, and support for financial boondoggles such as Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere?”

“

”

Senator Lugar’s irresponsible actions put the financial future of this nation and my children and grandchildren at risk. We deserve better, our children and grandchildren deserve better than Lugar.

— Sue Lile, The Constitutional Patriots


33. https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2004.pdf34. See Appendix I35. http://www.freedomworksforamerica.org/candidate/dick-lugar36. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=1

11&session=1&vote=00148



39. http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/12/29/hatch-deficit-spending-was-standard-practice-not-to-pay-for-things-under-bush-gop-congress/

Does Lugar Really Want to Balance the Budget? Lugar was a vocal supporter, and cast his vote in favor, of Medicare Part D, which alone would increase the long-term deficit by as much as some $21 trillion.33 Notwithstanding his sponsorship of Balanced Budget Amendments, over the past 30 years Dick Lugar has voted to increase the debt ceiling at least 15 times, by a total of over $7 trillion.34 That’s over half of our national debt! Dick Lugar has a proven record of increasing government spending that is burying our children and grandchildren under a mountain of debt.

To review more of Lugar’s votes on the National Debt, see Appendix I.

Political Hypocrisy. Dick Lugar may honestly believe we should have a balanced budget. He may honestly believe we need to dramatically reduce the deficit. The problem is that he has become so entrenched as a tool of the Big Government federal bureaucracy that he cannot stop himself from continually voting to fund wasteful or unsustainable projects. He voted for the “Bridge to Nowhere.” He voted for the “largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society… until ObamaCare,” the massive, multi-trillion dollar unfunded Medicare Part D.35 He voted for the Auto Bailout.36 He voted for

TARP, the massive government bailout of private businesses.37 He voted for the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.38 Referring to his support for the multi-trillion dollar unfunded Medicare part D, Lugar’s fellow big spender Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)explained, “It was standard practice not to pay for things.”39 This type of “standard practice” represents nothing short of the worst form of political hypocrisy: say one thing and do another. Dick Lugar says he wants to limit spending, yet his record betrays his words.

14

Mandates Defined. The “health care mandate” is the legal requirement that, as a condition of living in the United States, one must purchase health insurance. The health care mandate is the foundation of ObamaCare. Never in the history of the United States has the federal government required citizens to purchase specific goods or services as a condition of residency.

The Health Care Mandate Is Unconstitutional. The mandate that private citizens purchase health insurance has been denounced as unconstitutional by most if not all conservative organizations and is the basis of the multi-state challenge to the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The Attorneys General of 26 states have challenged the constitutionality of ObamaCare on this basis:

“ The Constitution limits federal power by granting Congress authority in certain defined

areas, such as the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce. Those powers

not specifically vested in the federal government

by the Constitution or, as stated in the 10th Amendment, “prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The [United States Supreme Court will now determine whether those words still have meaning.”40

Lugar on Mandates. In S.1770, Lugar supported a government takeover of health care when he cosponsored legislation that contained an individual mandate.41

SCHIP. In 1997, Dick Lugar and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) — one of the most left-wing senators in United States history — worked together to pass the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). SCHIP provides government sponsored health insurance to uninsured, low-income children 18 years of age or younger.42

A mandate for anyone is a slippery slope, proven by how Lugar’s SCHIP or “Kids First” led to ObamaCare. Don’t forget the infamous Clinton memorandum dated April 9, 1993, that revealed this strategy: “Kids First is really a precursor to the new [universal] system … Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children.”43

SCHIP Over Budget. Studies show SCHIP displaces 25 to 50 children from good private coverage for every 100 who go on the public rolls.44 Thus, for each 100 children subject to the mandate, taxpayers wind up paying for insurance for up to 50 children who previously were not on the government dole. SCHIP, which was supposed to cost about $5 billion a year, has instead gone up to $8 billion a year — a 60% increase.45

40. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html

41. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:S1770:, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:SN01770:@@@P

42. http://www.cms.gov/apps/firststep/content/schip-qas.html43. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/schipkids-first-memo-shows-again-

transparency-big-government039s-worst-enemy

44. Kaiser Family Foundation fact sheet, “SCHIP at a glance,” January 2007. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kff.org%2Fmedicaid%2Fupload%2F7610.pdf

45. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kff.org%2Fmedicaid%2Fupload%2F7610.pdf


SCHIP Mandate Works. Notwithstanding the barrage of criticism from conservatives regarding health care mandates, Senator Lugar not only defends his support of the SCHIP mandate, but has worked to expand its reach; stunningly, Lugar cosponsored with liberal Democrats John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Maria Cantwell and Sherrod Brown an effort to expand SCHIP even further, a bill called the Children’s Health Care Quality Act.46 When SCHIP was reauthorized in 2009, it included language drafted by Lugar intended to “increase health coverage for uninsured, low-income children.”47

Medicare Part D. Lugar voted YES for the “Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003.”48 This is a huge entitlement program that added trillions in unfunded liabilities to Medicare, and is more commonly known as “Medicare Part D.”

Medicare Part D Is a Fiscal Disaster. Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called Medicare Part D “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”49 In November 2003, the CBO estimated that the Medicare Part D law (Public Law 108-173) would result in additional direct spending totaling about $395 billion over the 2004-2013 period.”50

Medicare Part D = Trillions in Unfunded Liabilities. Over time, if fully implemented under the Lugar plan, Medicare Part D would nearly swallow taxpayers whole! In the 2004 Medicare trustees report (p. 108), the trustees estimated the total 75-year unfunded liability of Part D at $10.8 trillion.51 In 2011, the Medicare trustees modified this figure slightly downward, but still estimated a staggering unfunded liability of $9.9 trillion.52 The “infinite horizon” liability estimated by the same report estimates unfunded liability at $21.5 trillion!53

46. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-122647. http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=30755448. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=1

08&session=1&vote=0045949. http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-

columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

50. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6113&type=051. https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2004.pdf52. https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf53. https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf

“”

We need a senator who understands that competition and innovation is key to providing better health care for everyone, not more government control.

— Kristin Minor, Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate

16

What Is TARP? TARP, commonly known as the “Wall Street Bailout,” is the Troubled Asset Relief Program, enacted in 2008 to provide a “legal” means for the federal government to use taxpayer funds to bail out troubled banks and lenders to prevent their “failing.”

How Expensive Was TARP? On October 3, 2008, Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check — for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. Awash with fear of an impending financial crisis, Congress enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), giving the Secretary staggering and unprecedented power to create the TARP program and intervene directly in our nation’s economy.

A fundamental principle of the free market economy is that the market itself determines winners and losers; TARP contravenes that principle in that it allowed for government bureaucrats to directly and definitively determine who would win and who would lose. TARP distorts the free market because TARP:

Empowered politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists to choose winners and losers in the marketplace.

Rewarded bad behavior, in effect punishing those who behaved well.

Did not lead to an economic recovery as promised.

Created a false perception that some businesses are too big to fail.

Why Is TARP Dangerous? Our government enshrines the principle of the separation of powers. This means, as the Constitution states, that “All legislative Powers” are “vested in a Congress of the United States” and cannot be delegated to the executive branch. A FreedomWorks Foundation legal brief found that the broad authority of the TARP “Wall Street bailout” legislation violates this legal doctrine and is unconstitutional.54

When Congress debated this Wall Street bailout bill and explained it to the American people, most expected the Treasury Secretary would use his newly-acquired authority to purchase “troubled” mortgage-related assets from major banks who were, in the catchword of the moment, “too big to fail.” But with blank check in hand, Treasury Secretary Paulson almost immediately began to spend it differently. Paulson funneled tax dollars to banks both large and small, both troubled and healthy, and to non-bank institutions such as auto lenders and insurers. Further, instead of purchasing troubled assets, he purchased direct equity stakes in these various institutions.

54. http://www.freedomworks.org/files/policyanalysis.pdf


Putting aside any merits of these various actions, the process should raise alarm. The Secretary was enabled to stray from the originally envisioned approach because EESA granted him enormous power with very few limits on his discretion. In our view, EESA violates the core principle, rooted in the Constitution’s separation of powers, that Congress may not delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch.

The full FreedomWorks Foundation legal brief explains the importance of the “nondelegation” principle to our constitutional system and concludes that EESA unconstitutionally violates that principle by delegating such a broad lawmaking power to the Treasury Secretary.55

Neil M. Barofsky, the congressionally-appointed special inspector general for TARP, wrote: “Treasury’s mismanagement of TARP and its disregard for TARP’s Main Street goals — whether born of incompetence, timidity in the face of a crisis or a mindset too closely aligned with the banks it was supposed to rein in — may have so damaged the credibility of the government as a whole that future policymakers may be politically unable to take the necessary steps to save the system the next time a crisis arises.”56

Lugar voted for TARP, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer funds to buy “toxic assets.”57 Lugar refused to vote against eliminating the second round of TARP bailout funds.58 Even more egregiously, Lugar voted to allow taxpayer dollars to be taken to bail out auto manufacturers.59 Lugar’s support of TARP, which reveals a shocking disregard for the Constitution and a dogged determination to use Big Government to circumvent the free market, is a perfect example of why Sen. Lugar must be replaced by Richard Mourdock on May 8th.

55. http://www.freedomworks.org/files/policyanalysis.pdf56. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30barofsky.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper57. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=1




18

BAILOUTS AND CRONYISMAs previously stated, the bedrock belief of true fiscal conservatives is that the free market must be allowed to determine winners and losers in the marketplace. True fiscal conservatives oppose government subsidies to private business. Government investment in private businesses and intervention in their affairs flies in the face of the free market economy that has made America great for over 200 years. Some interaction is unavoidable, but our current government’s hostile takeover of private business has gone too far, and those responsible must be held accountable.

Well-known conservative columnist George Will says,

“ It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.

By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said to the executive branch, in effect: “Here is $700 billion. You say you will use some of it to buy up banks’ ‘troubled assets.’ But if you prefer to do anything else with the money — even, say, subsidize automobile companies — well, whatever.”60

Dick Lugar must be held accountable by Indiana voters for his role in Washington DC’s new and unprecedented role as self-appointed dictator of winners and losers in the U.S. economy. Businesses must compete in the marketplace

rather than the halls of Congress. Government bailouts directly contravene the free-market economic principles that have guided our economy for over 200 years, and chip away at the same Constitution every United States Senator is sworn to uphold.61 Dick Lugar has proven himself to be a big-government Republican over his 36-year tenure in the Senate.62 His votes for Big Government are dangerous, and his voting record is the opposite of what limited government conservatives stand for.

Amongst other wrong votes, Lugar:

Voted to establish the Department of Energy.

Voted for the TARP Wall Street bailout.

Voted for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout.

Voted for the auto bailout, giving GM and Chrysler an unfair market advantage.

Voted for Medicare Part D.

Cosponsored an individual health care mandate.

Voted for SCHIP, a massive expansion of government health insurance.

Voted to mandate greenhouse gas emissions.

Voted against eliminating the second round of TARP bailout funds.

Voted against cutting the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.63

60. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702504.html

61. See Will article in Appendix IV; see also John Schwartz, “Some Ask if Bailout Is Unconstitutional”, New York Times, January 15, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16challenge.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

62. See Appendix I63. See Appendix I


Lugar and the Auto Bailout. After voting for TARP, Lugar voted to allow taxpayer dollars to be taken to bail out auto manufacturers.64 The Treasury Department spent $49.9 billion in TARP funds for General Motors and $14.3 billion for privately-held Chrysler.65

Why the Auto Bailout Was (and Is) Dangerous. CATO Institute analyst Dan Ikenson has said: “They didn’t bail out the auto industry, they bailed out two companies. They denied Ford the spoils of competition, and I think they injected a sense of entitlement: If things go bad at Ford, they sort of ‘banked’ their bailout. They didn’t get a bailout this time, but they’ve got a pretty strong argument if they run into financial trouble in the future. So there could be lingering costs out there.”66

FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe commented: “GM and the Big Three are looking for a bailout from reality. In a debate driven by romance and not fact, GM [is threatening] the American public to bail it out or else risk economic Armageddon. A healthy manufacturing sector is based on quality products, innovative manufacturing processes, and flexible workplaces, not on lifelines from the government. Without catastrophic change, the Big Three will continue to burn through cash and look to Washington for more taxpayer dollars to just postpone the inevitable.”67

For more on the Auto Bailout, see Appendix IV.68


65. http://www.cnbc.com/id/32756258/Taxpayers_May_Face_Losses_from_Auto_Bailout_Warren

66. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/06/how-much-did-the-auto-bailout-cost-taxpayers/

67. http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-opposes-75-billion-auto-industry-bail

68. Dan Weil, “Ten Reasons Why the Auto Bailout Is a Bad Idea”, Newsmax.com, November 20, 2008, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/auto-bailout/2008/11/20/id/326730

“

”

Dick Lugar’s support of the housing bailouts demonstrated his belief that government bureaucrats like Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke do a better job at determining winners and losers that do consumers in the marketplace.”

— Bonnie K. Corn, Indiana Defenders of Liberty

20

Lugar Supported the Housing Bailout. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are corrupt, bloated government bureaucracies masquerading as private companies. They control much of the massive mortgage lending industry. These companies have proved their inability to operate without huge government subsidies. In 2008, Lugar voted for the massive housing bailout bill that would nationalize much of the mortgage industry, raise the ceiling on risky loans, institute another $4 billion housing subsidy program, expand the welfare state, increase FHA loan limits, and encourage more risky loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.69

Lugar fancies himself a conservative, yet his voting record exposes a man committed to allowing the government—not the free market — to choose winners and losers. When Big Government is wrong — which is often — losses are massive, and are paid for not by Lugar and his fellow lawmakers, but by the rank and file taxpayers. In addition to Lugar’s infamous votes in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere, TARP, SCHIP, and others:

In 2005, Dick Lugar voted for an arbitrarily-mandated ethanol subsidy, which even Al Gore has recently declared a failure, and a politically-motivated handout to the first presidential primary state, Iowa.70

Roll Call 408: Lugar joined every senate Democrat to vote against requiring the most able-bodied, non-elderly food stamp recipients to work for 40 hours during every 4-week period.71

Roll Call 77: In 2004, Lugar voted against permanently halting taxes on electric commerce imposed by the Internet Tax Freedom Act.72

In 1998, Lugar voted to continue taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).73 In 1993, he voted against prohibiting the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) from using taxpayer money for morally offensive purposes.74



71. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Votes/senate/1995/408/





Arguably one of the most important — and infamous — moments contributing to our dependence on foreign energy was the creation of the United Stated Department of Energy. This agency has cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, impeded U.S. production of new energy sources, stalled energy innovation, and has led to increased dependence on foreign oil. Federal “super-agencies” shift an incalculable amount of decision-making authority from the states and from individual entrepreneurs to federal employees in Washington, DC. No longer could businessmen and women craft and execute business plans without interference from a massive and slow-to-react bureaucracy. The result is an economy dependent on foreign oil and a bureaucracy motivated more by self-preservation than by the desire to empower and equip those businesses that otherwise would be

willing and able to produce domestic energy. Lugar has continually sponsored legislation to use energy policy as a tool to shift our economy from private business to the inefficient hands of Big Government.

the Solution? Lugar voted YES for the establishment of the Department of Energy (1977, Roll Call 148). The Department of Energy is the massive federal bureaucracy created to prohibit producers from acting without government approval, and subjecting them to endless red tape and regulation.

Lugar voted to mandate to businesses a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.75 Here Lugar demonstrates his misguided belief in Big Government solutions to problems faced by real Americans. A true conservative would have known that a massive redistribution of power to a bloated federal bureaucracy would likely produce flawed results and a huge price tag for taxpayers.

2006. Lugar and then Senator Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill to subvert the free market and mandate the production of ridiculously large quantities of “cellulosic ethanol,” a speculative green energy source that can only be mass-produced with a technology that doesn’t exist.76 No one has figured out how to produce cellulosic ethanol in large quantities, yet the legislation mandated the production of 250 million gallons by 2011 and 500 million gallons by 2012.77 Six years and well over a billion dollars later, the EPA revised the

75. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Votes/senate/2005/148/76. http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/legislation/109.cfm#2446

77. New York Times, “A fine for not using a bio-fuel that doesn’t exist,” January 9, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

22

78. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25.

79. http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/legislation/110.cfm#59080. http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/lugar-welcomes-energy-diplomacy-

focus

81. http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-12-08/cellulosic-ethanol-reality-begins-set82. http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-12-08/cellulosic-ethanol-reality-begins-set87. http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=331620&

mandate massively downward to just 6.6 million gallons for 2011 and 8.65 million gallons for 2012.78

This is a particularly troubling mark on Lugar’s record. You may not even be aware of the American Fuels Act and what it means about Dick Lugar. History has shown the Act to be a huge waste of taxpayer money. Lugar and Obama truly believed they had the moral authority to legislate the actions of American businesses and consumers to further their green agenda. The law was one of a host of green energy bills that Lugar has promoted in recent years, including several that he co-sponsored with then Senator Barack Obama — widely regarded as one of the most committed liberal ideologues ever to serve as

president, and a committed enemy of free market economics.79

Cellulosic Ethanol is a bio-fuel made from grass, wood chips, and other plants. In 2006, it was not produced commercially at any significant level. Ignoring the reality that no one could produce it in quantity, Lugar’s bill (in concert with the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which was also authored in part by Lugar80), mandated that 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol be produced in 2011, and 500 million gallons in 2012.81 One author described it this way: “It’s like trying to solve a traffic problem by mandating hovercraft. Except we don’t have hovercraft.”82

Because the free market could not produce the fuel, Lugar pushed for the government to pay for it with hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidies and government guaranteed loans. In defense of


83. http://www.industryintel.com/news/read/1390170720/US-Sen-Richard-Lugar-applauds-USDA-first-loan-guarantee/uR/0

84. Wall Street Journal, The Cellulosic Ethanol Debacle, December 14, 2011,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577072470158115782.html

85. National Academy of Sciences, Renewable Fuel Standard Potential Economic and

Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy, October 2011, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13105&page=R1

86. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

co-opting the free market in this manner, Lugar responded, “these new technologies need a helping hand to demonstrate they are viable and to bring down their costs. Federal loan guarantees can be an effective and fiscally responsible way for the government to help.”83

Since the passage of Lugar’s American Fuels Act, the federal government has poured over $1.5 billion into potential cellulosic ethanol producers.84 However, the “fuel” still is not economically or scientifically viable. Notwithstanding massive funding for bio-fuels, and protection of that funding by powerful politicians like Dick Lugar and Barack Obama, a 2011 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded the following: “currently, no commercially viable bio-refineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel.”85 In a cruel irony, the EPA fines oil companies millions of dollars annually for failing to produce the mandated levels of cellulosic ethanol — and the cost of those fines is passed on to us in the form of higher gas prices at the pump.86

The issue is not whether cellulosic ethanol might one day be a viable domestic fuel source. The issue is that Dick Lugar believes, along with Barack Obama, that our energy problems will be solved by government spending and mandates, and not by market driven entrepreneurs.

Here’s Lugar in March, 2011: “The last thing we need at this critical stage of economic recovery is to have a bunch of big government federal regulators coming with rules that cost even more jobs.”87 Lugar said this upon cosponsoring legislation to reduce EPA restrictions on businesses.

Notwithstanding his recent statements supporting fewer restrictions, Lugar has been on the wrong side of this issue for far too long. Indiana voters cannot give Senator Lugar a free pass on energy and allow a few good words to save him from sharing in the responsibility for decades of bad policy and bad votes.

“

”

Senator Lugar severed his ties with the people of Indiana long ago. God bless him, he fell victim to the swamp.

— Douglas Shelton, Southern Marion County

9-12 Indiana

24

Since taking office, Barack Obama has successfully nominated two Supreme Court Justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Both are extreme in their liberal views. Dick Lugar voted to confirm both. Lugar also voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg, arguably one of the most extreme liberal Justices of all time. All three Justices have been consistent supporters of left-wing positions on nearly all key votes, and Lugar voted to confirm all three.88 Lugar also voted to confirm Cass Sunstein as Obama’s “Regulatory Czar,” Ben Bernanke (TARP) to the Federal Reserve, Eric Holder (Fast and Furious) as the U.S. Attorney General, and the extreme left-wing Kathleen Sebelius (Health and Human Services), who should be known as the “ObamaCare Czar.” All of these confirmations by Sen. Lugar have one thing in common: each has served to massively expand the scope and power of the Federal Government.

three of the most liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court.89 These are hardly the actions of a constitutional conservative.

U.S. News and World Report describes Ginsburg as one of the most liberal Justices of the past 70 years.90

“‘Ginsburg wasn’t anywhere near the mainstream,” said Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. She ‘had a record of extremist constitutional and policy views that placed her on the far left fringe of American society,’ Whelan said, “Republicans voted to confirm her because they believed the president was entitled to considerable deference in selecting a Supreme Court justice.” (emphasis added)91

Dick Lugar has thus demonstrated a severe lack of judgment when making decisions about judicial confirmations. A real constitutional conservative would have fought to protect the Constitution from the judicial activism of radicals like Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg. Yet Dick Lugar saw it as his job to collude with Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to nominate three of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court. Dick Lugar believes the Supreme Court should be a home for extreme liberal activist judges.

Dick Lugar voted to confirm Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Managtement and Budget.92

Glenn Beck refers to Sunstein as the “regulatory czar” and the “[m]ost evil man, the most dangerous man in America.”93

Cass Sunstein spent a year and plenty of taxpayer money to target Amish Milk for regulation. Conservative Glenn Beck reported, “Amish farmers made the horrible mistake of trying to sell unpasteurized milk across state lines, which prompted the FDA to launch a year long sting operation

88. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm89. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm90. http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/12/ranking-the-politics-of-

supreme-court-justices

91. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/18/nation/na-ginsburg1892. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=1

11&session=1&vote=0027493. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003180062

Senator Lugar voted to

confirm Eric Holder as

Attorney General.


to stop farms from selling ‘contraband’ to customers. Why in the world is the federal government wasting time going after the Amish?”94

Cass Sunstein wants to ban hunting.95

Cass Sunstein believes the Constitution does not protect the right to bear arms.96

Cass Sunstein believes animals should be permitted to bring suit against humans.97

Cass Sunstein has an extreme view of the Constitution far outside the mainstream. He describes his extreme views in his book Radicals in Robes.98

Lugar, as a U.S. Senator, has an obligation to protect the citizens of Indiana and the United States from people like Cass Sunstein and their radical leftist views. Instead, Dick Lugar voted to confirm Cass Sunstein.

Dick Lugar voted to confirm Ben Bernanke as 99 Ben Bernanke oversaw

TARP and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Dick Lugar voted to confirm Eric Holder, infamous Obama Attorney General.100 Eric Holder is currently under Congressional investigation for the ATF’s operation “Fast and Furious,” the controversial program of selling

weapons to Mexican drug lords, which resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.101

Dick Lugar was the only Republican to join

.102 Cole, an extreme liberal who believes our tax dollars should be used to defend terrorists, had seen his nomination blocked by conservative Senate Republicans. However, Cole was granted a “back-door appointment” by President Obama during the most recent Senate recess. Cole elaborates his belief that terrorism should be treated like any other criminal offense: “(we have) many forms of devastating crime, from the drug trade to organized crime to rape and child abuse. The acts of September 11 were horrible, but so are these other things.”103

Over the years, Lugar has supported the appointments of many good judges and administrative officials; however, when he gets it wrong, he really gets it wrong. Ben Bernanke, Kathleen Sebelius, Cass Sunstein, Eric Holder, James Cole, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are not just liberals; they are enemies of liberty and freedom. They represent a clear and present danger to the economic and personal freedom of Americans.

94. http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/05/17/latest-target-of-cass-sunstein-amish-milk/95. http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/20110525001296. http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/20110525001297. http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/20110525001298. http://books.google.com/books?id=aL2dbK5WOsQC&dq=radicals+in+robes&printse

c=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=v26qSqqUFZLuswOR9oGHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

99. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00510:@@@P100. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00510:@@@P101. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html102. http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/05/12/dick-lugar-once-again-obamas-

favorite-republican/103. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/30/gop-fuming-recess-appointment-lawyer-

compared-drug-trade/

Senator Lugar

voted to confirm

ultra-liberal

Supreme Court

Justices Ruth

Bader Ginsberg,

Sonja Sotomayor

and Elena Kagan.

26

CONCLUSIONAfter nearly 36 years in the United States Senate, Dick Lugar is once again asking Indiana’s Republican voters to send him back to Washington. FreedomWorks For America strongly opposes the re-election of U.S. Senator Richard Lugar. We did not come to this position without serious consideration. We examined his vast record carefully and came to the conclusion that it is time for Dick Lugar to retire.

Dick Lugar calls himself a conservative. However, for years he has been known and commonly referred to as “Barack Obama’s favorite Republican.” We all know that Barack Obama’s favorite Republicans are those who share his vision of a massive, centralized federal government, whose scope reaches ever facet of the economy. The truth is Lugar’s record is clear — he’s been on the wrong side of way too many issues, and has been there for far too long. If he is not Barack Obama’s favorite Republican, he has at the very least been — far too many times — a solid vote that President Obama could count on to help further his systematic government takeover of the United States’ economy.

Dick Lugar has spent 36 years expanding the size and scope of the federal government. He voted for the creation of the Department of Energy, voted to fund the Bridge to Nowhere, voted to bail out Wall Street (TARP) and voted to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and GM and Chrysler. He personally voted 15 times to increase the debt ceiling amounting to more than 7 trillion dollars in additional debt. That’s half our current national debt!

Lugar supported the creation of new entitlements including ObamaCare-like health care mandates. He partnered with Massachusetts über-liberal Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to create SCHIP, a massive new health care entitlement. He voted for Medicare Part D which has an estimated 21.6 trillion dollar unfunded liability.

These are not the votes of a fiscal conservative. Rather they are representative of the misguided policy decisions and reckless spending that have led our nation to unprecedented debt. Dick Lugar is not the solution; in fact, he has become the problem in Washington DC. Please join Freedom Works For America and our 20,000 grassroots members in Indiana by telling Dick Lugar that it’s time to retire. Now is the time to replace a massive cog in the massive Big Government machine with a true fiscal conservative — Richard Mourdock — to represent Indiana in helping restore fiscal sanity in Washington DC.


APPENDICES

28

Roll Call 8: Lugar voted against cutting federal spending by a total of $20 billion by eliminating duplicative and wasteful federal programs.

Roll Call 138: Lugar voted against auditing the Federal Reserve.

Roll Call 149: Lugar voted to institute price controls on debt cards.

Roll Call 257: Lugar voted to vastly expand the power of the Food and Drug Administration.

Roll Call 5: Lugar voted against eliminating the second round of TARP bailout funds.

Roll Call 31: Lugar voted for the expansion of the government health care through SCHIP.

Roll Call 272: Lugar voted to use taxpayer money to promote travel.

Will the REAL Dick Lugar please stand up?A look at key votes Senator Lugar (R-IN) has cast from 1977 to 2010…

Lugar voted to create the Department of Energy

Lugar voted for Medicare Part D, the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society… until ObamaCare

Lugar voted against banning earmarks

Lugar voted for SCHIP, a massive expansion of government health insurance

Lugar voted for the Wall Street Bailout (TARP)

Lugar voted to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Lugar voted for the notorious 2008 stimulus bill

Lugar voted to bailout and nationalize auto manufacturers

Lugar voted to impose price controls on debt cards

Lugar voted to mandate greenhouse gas emissions

Lugar repeatedly voted against cutting wasteful government spending

Lugar repeatedly voted for the expansion of government health care programs

APPENDIX I


Roll Call 10: Lugar voted for this stimulus bill, which expanded the welfare state, increased FHA loan limits, and encouraged more risky loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Roll Call 66: Lugar voted against cutting $750 million in wasteful government spending.

Roll Call 75: Lugar voted against establishing an earmark moratorium to end the gratuitous and corrosive process of pork-barrel spending.

Roll Call 153: Lugar voted against removing a $300 billion earmark for FHA Insurance.

Roll Call 96: Lugar voted to bailout the mortgage industry, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nationalizing much of the mortgage industry, raising the ceiling on risky loans, and instituting another $4 billion housing subsidy program.

Roll Call 213: Lugar voted for the infamous Wall Street Bailout (TARP), which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer funds to buy “toxic assets.”

Roll Call 6: Lugar voted against freezing spending at the previous year’s level if Congress has not completed its responsibility of appropriating funds.

Roll Call 42: Lugar voted for Big Labor’s job-killing minimum wage hike.

Roll Call 90: Lugar voted against paying down the debt by cutting spending on programs deemed ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool.

Roll Call 104: Lugar voted against saving taxpayers $71 billion by cutting waste, fraud and abuse.

Roll Call 105: Lugar voted to increase taxes in order to reauthorize and expand SCHIP.

Roll Call 140: Lugar voted to kill an amendment which urged the Senate to offset the cost of new government programs.

Roll Call 144: Lugar voted against eliminate the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Roll Call 226: Lugar voted to ban the incandescent light bulb, impose massive new regulations on the energy sector, expand mandates on cars, and increase taxpayer subsidies on inefficient technologies.

Roll Call 307: Lugar voted to expand the federal government’s role in health care through reauthorizing SCHIP.

Roll Call 347: Lugar voted for this pork-laden bill which contained over 900 special interest earmarks and contained excessive spending.

Roll Call 354: Lugar voted to increase the debt limit by $850 billion.

Roll Call 400: Lugar voted to spend more taxpayer money on the failed passenger rail monopoly.

Roll Call 403: Lugar voted to increase funding for SCHIP by $50 billion.

Roll Call 425: Lugar voted for this flawed energy bill which contained ethanol subsidies, and marked another victory for special interests and proponents of higher taxes and mandates in our energy policy.

Roll Call 13: Lugar voted to table S.Amdt. 2748 to S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005.

Roll Call 52: Lugar voted for a gigantic $500 million earmark for Amtrak.


30

Roll Call 62: Lugar voted against reducing mandatory spending.

Roll Call 65: Lugar voted against limiting discretionary spending.

Roll Call 68: Lugar voted against guaranteeing Social Security tax dollars are spent on Social Security payments.

Roll Call 81: Lugar voted against including federal entities in the definition of earmarks.

Roll Call 97: Lugar voted to table an amendment to prevent wasteful increases in spending.

Roll Call 179: Lugar voted for Big Labor’s job-killing minimum wage hike.

Roll 118: Lugar voted to increase funds in the highway bill.

Roll Call 138: Lugar voted to table an amendment to strike the reliable fuels subtitle of an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Roll Call 148: Lugar voted to regulate and unilaterally reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions.

Roll Call 157: Lugar voted to mandate increases to fuel efficiency standards.

Roll Call 220: Lugar voted for this notorious $300 billion highway spending bill stuffed with nearly 6,500 earmarks, exemplifying the worst of Republican excesses just before they lost control of Congress.

Roll Call 262: Lugar voted against cutting the infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, which was the leading symbol of government waste and profligate spending in the 109th Congress.



Roll Call 205: Lugar voted to keep unnecessary and expensive military bases open.

Roll Call 409: Lugar voted to increase federal control over state and local elections.

Roll Call 420: Lugar voted to impose tremendous taxes and regulations on carbon emission.

Roll Call 459: Lugar voted for Medicare Part D, a huge entitlement program which added trillions in unfunded liabilities to Medicare.

Roll Call 15: Lugar voted for inserting discriminatory regulations and mandates against certain farms.

Roll Call 54: Lugar voted to limit contributions made by individuals and groups to national political parties.


Roll Call 59: Lugar voted against a soft-money ban.

Roll Call 113: Lugar voted against accelerating the elimination of the marriage penalty tax.


Roll Call 55: Lugar voted no on a motion to waive an amendment to provide middle class tax relief.

Roll Call 143: Lugar voted to table an amendment to the Universal Tobacco Settlement Act that would have struck provisions relating to consumer taxes.

Roll Call 238: Lugar voted to kill an amendment to exempt small banks from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.

Roll Call 256: Lugar voted to table an amendment to the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999. The amendment would provide a substitute with respect to certain conditions for IMF appropriations.

Roll Call 269: Lugar voted to table an amendment to the King Cove Health and Safety Act of 1998. The bill would eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and to transfer funds for the operation of the National Park System.

Roll Call 209: Lugar voted to increase the debt limit by $450 billion and to create the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid.

Roll Call 194: Lugar voted to continue taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns.

Roll Call 408: Lugar voted against requiring the most able-bodied, non-elderly food stamp recipients to work for 40 hours during every 4-week period.

Roll Call 476: Lugar voted to continue using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the Legal Services Corporation.

Roll Call 89: Lugar voted to deem 7.75 million acres of land “wilderness”, instead of allowing individual citizens to maximize potential natural resources.

Roll Call 103: Lugar voted against reducing Congressional salaries by 15 percent.

S.1770: Lugar supported a government take-over of health care when he cosponsored legislation that contained an individual mandate.

Roll Call 211: Lugar voted to table S.Amdt. 629 to H.R. 2348. The amendment would restrict the use of the franking privilege by members and offices of the Senate.

Roll Call 222: Lugar voted against restricting foreign aid and assistance to Nicaragua.

Roll Call 389: Lugar voted to kill this amendment introduced by Senator Stevens that would have reduced the costly environmental and labor regulations imbedded in NAFTA.

Roll Call 122: Lugar voted against freezing tax payer financing of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio (NPR) at current levels.

Roll Call 60: Lugar voted against oversight of taxpayer dollars used to aid Latin American regimes.

Roll Call 163: Lugar voted against limiting funding by $48.41 million for the Legal Services Corporation.

32

Roll Call 269: Lugar voted to excessively appropriate $11.5 billion more than was necessary to fund the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and other related agencies.

Roll Call 292: Lugar voted for this tax and spend laden budget, which at the time amounted to the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

Roll Call 324: Lugar voted to amend the Clean Air Act to vastly expand taxes, mandates, and regulations on carbon emissions.

Roll Call 173: Lugar voted for the expansion of the federal government’s role in regulating and determining workplace discrimination.

Roll Call 306: Lugar voted to table an amendment to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to repeal pay increase provisions.

Roll Call 222: Lugar voted to table an amendment that would have rescind the 1987 pay increase for members of Congress.


Roll Call 404: Lugar voted to table an amendment that would have frozen all budget authority at 1987 levels.

Roll Call 410: Lugar voted to table an amendment that would have required all federal funds allocated to the Legal Services Corporation go directly to their purported goal of rendering legal services to the poor.

H.R.5395: Lugar voted to increase the debt limit by $32.3 billion.

Roll Call 470: Lugar voted a wasteful budget that ran a deficit of $144 billion for fiscal year 1987.

Roll Call 489: Lugar voted to table an amendment that would prohibit federal courts from requiring school busing except in certain cases.

H.R.2005: Lugar voted to authorize $9 billion for waste removal programs. This “superfund” is largely duplicative and wasteful and could be handled more efficiently through the states.

Roll Call 196: Lugar voted to authorize an additional $7.5 billion in superfluous and wasteful bureaucratic hazardous waste cleanup programs.

Roll Call 371: Lugar voted to increase the debt limit by $174.9 billion.

H. J. RES. 654: Lugar voted to increase the debt limit by $250 billion.

Roll Call 432: Lugar voted to delay tax indexing which prevents the overall impact on taxpayers from the erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar.

Roll Call 449: Lugar voted against cutting 10 percent across the board from the federal budget.

Roll Call 551: Lugar voted against stripping funding from the Legal Services Corporation.


Roll Call 38: Lugar voted to table an amendment pertaining to the implementation of the withholding provisions on interest and dividend income.

Roll Call 41: Lugar voted for a payroll tax increase.

Roll Call 44: Lugar voted to provide $15.6 billion more funding for “make work jobs” and unemployment compensation.

Roll Call 53: Lugar voted to bailout Social Security and impose new taxes on American citizens.

Roll Call 115: Lugar voted to increase the debt limit by $98.8 billion.

Roll Call 244: Lugar voted increasing bureaucratic procedures and red ink on the energy sector.

S.AMDT.2633: Lugar voted for a $25 billion bill to bailout the perpetually failing HUD and TIME programs, increasing government intervention in the housing sector.

H.R.4961: Lugar voted for what was the largest tax increase in history at that time.

H. J. RES. 520: Lugar voted to increase the debt limit by $890.2 billion.

Roll Call 740: Lugar voted against indexing capital gains tax rates against inflation.

Roll Call 966: Lugar voted to institute an increase in the federal gas tax.



Roll Call 619: Lugar voted to table an amendment cutting $300 million in budget authority and outlays to the Legal Services Corporation.

Roll Call 225: Lugar voted against providing Congress or the President the discretion to rescind payments for the Panama Canal treaty if it is determined that Panama is engaged in money laundering or interfering in the affairs of another nation.

Roll Call 341: Lugar voted to reduce oversight on American aid.

Roll Call 501: Lugar voted for the government bailout of the auto manufacturer Chrysler.

Roll Call 772: Lugar voted against substantially trimming federal spending.

Roll Call 833: Lugar voted to bail out New York City from its self-induced fiscal profligacy and budgetary mismanagement.

34

www.freedomworks.org

Roll Call 27: Lugar voted to table an amendment disapproving recommendations of the president for pay raises for congress.

Roll Call 148: Lugar voted to establish the Department of Energy, which has cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, impeded U.S. production of new energy sources, stalled energy innovation, and has led to increased dependence on foreign oil.

Roll Call 165: Lugar voted against an amendment required that food stamp recipients to contribute a portion of their pay towards food stamps.

Roll Call 556: Lugar voted against transferring legal aid programs for the poor from the federal government to the separate state governments.

Roll Call 576: Lugar voted to table an amendment that would have increased Congressional oversight over the Panama Canal treaty negotiations.


Of Note: There were numerous bills to raise the debt ceiling, which were passed by voice vote as well during this time period. Those votes are not included.

$50 Billion - Feb., 1981 Aye – 97th – H.R. 1553 – “A bill to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit.”104

$94 Billion – Sept., 1981 Aye – 97th – H.J.RES. 265 – “A joint resolution to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit.”105

$98.8 Billion – May, 1983 Aye – 98th – H.R. 2990 – “An act to increase the permanent public debt limit, and for other purposes.”106

$250 Billion – Oct., 1984 Aye – 98th – H.J.RES. 654 – “A joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.”107

$174.9 Billion – Dec., 1985 Aye – 99th H.J.RES. 372 – “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.”108

$32.3 Billion – Aug., 1986 Aye – 99th H.R. 5395 – “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1986.”109

$448 Billion – Sept., 1987 Aye – 100th H.J.RES. 324 – “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987.” (Senate Roll #224)110

$600 Billion – Mar Aye – 104th H.R. 3136 – “Contract with America Act of 1996.” (Passed by unanimous consent)111

$450 Billion – July, 1997 Aye – 105th H.R. 2015 – “Balanced Budget Act of 1997.”112

$450 Billion – June, 2002 Aye – 107th S. 2578 – “A bill to amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit.”113

$984 Billion – May, 2003 Aye – 108th H.J.RES.51 – “Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.”114

$800 Billion – Nov., 2004 Aye – 108th S. 2986 – “A bill to amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit.”115

$781 Billion – Mar., 2006 Aye – 109th H.J.RES.47 – “Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.”116

Dick Lugar Voted 15 Times For 7 Trillion Dollars of Debt.

104. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1981-23105. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1981-298106. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1983-115107. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1984-663108. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1986-636109. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1986-636110. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1987-262111. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03136:@@@X112. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=






APPENDIX II

36




$850 Billion – Sept., 2007 Aye – 110th H.J.RES.43 – “Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.”117

$800 Billion – July, 2008 Aye – 110th H.R. 1424 – “The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.” (included an increase in the debt ceiling)118

$700 Billion – Oct., 2008 Aye – 110th H.R. 3221 – “The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.”119

This document contains a chart of every vote which raised the debt ceiling from 1978 to the present: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55660572/Votes-on-Measures-to-Adjust-the-Statutory-Debt-Limit-1978-to-Present


1. Sen. Hatch NBC’s “Meet the Press,” April 6,1997. 2. Paul Gigot,“ Republicans to Prodigal Senator: Snap Out of It,” The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 1997.

Michael F. Cannon is a health care policy analyst at Citizens for a Sound Economy.

Number 51 April 24, 1997

Top Twelve False Claims Made About the Hatch-KennedyChildren’s Health Coverage Bill

by Michael F. Cannon

1. “This is not an entitlement.”1

The bill requires participating states to “ensure that qualifying children’s policies areavailable to all eligible children in the State and that each eligible child has the opportunity toenroll for coverage” (p. 4 lines 9-12; emphasis added). The “all eligible children” clause seemsto create a legal cause of action that constitutes an entitlement. Additionally, the bill grants“budget authority in advance of appropriations Acts” in an apparent attempt to circumventmandatory spending rules (p. 19-20, lines 22-2). Utah Governor Michael Leavitt (R) notes, “It contains all of the old entitlement language.”2

Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) have proposed legislation to establish a new federal program to buy health coverage for five million children. Sen. Hatch has characterized their proposal as the “free market approach” to insuring children. Unfortunately, neither the bill (S. 525) nor its funding mechanism (S. 526) have been fairly represented.

ISSUE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX III

38

2. “It’s fully-financed.”3

The bill imposes unfunded financial burdens on the states. Participating states arerequired to finance 50 percent of the program’s administrative expenses (p. 16, lines 15-19) anda “state matching percentage ... equal to 40 percent of the percentage of the amount the State isresponsible for expending” under Medicaid (p. 16, lines 20-25; p. 17, lines l-6). Under nocircumstances are the states to contribute less than 10 percent of the program’s cost (p. l7, lines 7-12). This will require additional taxes at the state level.

3. “The tax is a user fee[.]”4

S. 526, a companion bill to S. 525, provides the funding mechanism for Hatch-Kennedy.It nearly triples the federal tax on cigarettes, hitting the poor 48 times as hard as the wealthiesttaxpayers.5 The tax used is just that a tax in this case a $30 billion tax hike targeted at thepoor. Unlike taxes, user fees are paid in exchange for a service. An excise tax on cigarettes isno more a user fee on tobacco than the income tax is a user fee on income.

Senator Kennedy claims this punitive tax will discourage children from smoking.Whether or not this is true, the bottom line is that the tax will either generate revenue for thefederal government or it will discourage the purchase of tobacco. It cannot do both. As a result,any revenue shortfall will inevitably be made up with still more tax increases.

4. “It will not create massive, new bureaucracies.”6

The bill will create new health care bureaucracies in all fifty states. S. 525 specificallyrequires participating states to “designate an appropriate State agency to administer the Stateprogram” (p. 10 lines 14-16). This will require either the creation of new bureaucracies or theexpansion of existing bureaucracies. The bill will also require new bureaucratic oversight withinthe Department of Health and Human Services.

5. “It relies on the marketplace, with coverage provided through private insurance and the existing network of local community health centers.”7

Rather than rely on the marketplace, this bill empowers government to administer theprovision of health insurance (p. 4 lines 6-7). Moreover, the “direct service benefit option” (p. 6-9) puts government in a position not just to pay for coverage, but to pay directly for health care. At the same time, the bill would provide health insurance companies and managed care plans some $20 billion of taxpayer funds. It will also be a windfall for employers, effectivelysubsidizing employers who drop children’s health coverage from their benefits package.

3. Sen. Hatch, news release, remarks before the Children’s Defense Fund, March 13,1997.4. Sen. Kennedy, press release, April 7,1997.5. Based on tobacco expenditures as a proportion of income, Consume Expenditure Survey,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1995.

6. Sen. Hatch, news release, remarks before the Children’s Defense Fund, March 13,1997.7. Sens. Hatch and Kennedy,” ‘Legislative odd-couple’ proposes CHILD bill,” The Hill,

April 9, 1997.


6. “ This legislation clearly represents a free market approach at solving an important national problem.”8

This legislation does no such thing. In a free market, consumers make their own healthcoverage decisions, and businesses live and die by how well they are able to meet consumers’needs. This bill moves America even farther from a free market for health insurance and closerto a government-run system. It taxes consumers and gives them whatever health coveragegovernment deems appropriate. Instead of answering to consumers, insurance companies andmanaged care plans will simply cater to the needs of politicians.

7. “The fact is that this bill is a far cry from the Kennedy-Kerry bill[.]”9

Hatch-Kennedy is nearly identical to its predecessor, the Kennedy-Kerry bill (S. 2186)introduced in the 104th Congress. Despite minor changes, both bills would create a newentitlement, empower government to buy insurance policies on behalf of children, require new taxes, encourage employers to drop coverage, and impose unfunded financial burdens on the states.

In fact, Hatch-Kennedy imposes greater unfunded financial burdens on states thanKennedy-Kerry. Kennedy-Kerry would have made states responsible for only 25 percent of administrative costs (S. 2186; p.8, lines I-4, and p.22, lines 16-19). Hatch-Kennedy requires states to contribute 50 percent of administrative costs, 40 percent of their Medicaid contribution and at least 10 percent of the total program costs at all times (p. 16, lines 20-25; p. 17, lines I-12).

8. “Children that are not covered should be covered, and that is what the Hatch-Kennedy bill will do.”10

Sens. Hatch and Kennedy claim the bill will cover five million uninsured children. Yetthe Census Bureau reports that of 68 million children in the U.S., only 2.8 million are chronically uninsured. Forty-eight million children (or 70 percent of all children) have constant coverage. The remaining 18 million children have spells of noncoverage that usually last four months or less, but not longer than two years.” 11 Moreover, the General Accounting Office estimates that 2.9 million children who are eligible for Medicaid do not take advantage of the program.12

8. Sen. Hatch, news release, April 8.1997.9. Sen. Hatch, NBC’s “Meet the Press” April 6, 1997.10. Sen. Kennedy, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” April 6, 1999.

11. U.S. Census Bureau, “Health Insurance Coverage Status of Children Over a 28 Month Period During 1992 to 1994,” Survey of Income and Program participation, http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/chldins/chhitab2.html, March 13.1997.

12. U.S. General Accounting Office,“ Health Insurance for Children: Private Insurance Coverage Continues to Deteriorate,” GAO/HEHS-96-129, June 1996, p. 3.

40

The reason coverage levels aren’t even higher is because high taxes have taken awayfamilies’ income while government regulations (such as mandated health benefits) have drivenup the price of insurance.13 Sen. Kennedy knows S. 525 will cause more employers to dropcoverage: “[O]nce you move into this type of approach, you’re going to find some slippage.That’s in the definition. We understand that.”14 Hatch-Kennedy would destroy the healthinsurance system that is already covering over seven out of every ten children.

9. “[T]his is going to be a state program, run through the private sector[.]”15

While states would administer the program, it would effectively be run from the federalgovernment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. For instance, the secretary mustapprove each state’s program (p. 3, lines 13-22). The bill also requires the state to establish“reasonable” eligibility requirements for children, leaving the federal government room to strikedown “unreasonable” requirements (p. 24, lines 5-l 1). If the state determines the funds availablefor the program are “not sufficient to provide premium subsidies…the state may adjust theapplicable eligibility criteria appropriately or adjust the state program in another mannerspecified by the secretary prior to the program year” (p. 13-14, lines 15-2). Further, while thesecretary initially disburses grants to states based on the Medicaid formula, the bill directs thesecretary to create and implement a new formula (without congressional approval) by 1998 (p.15, lines 3-23). For all practical purposes, these and other powers put the federal government incharge of the program.

10. “ It gives the states the flexibility to decide whether to participate and how to target benefits.”16

Utah Governor Michael Leavitt confirms the opposite: “I don’t think Hatch-Kennedygives states the flexibility we need to insure more children.”17

The program is not voluntary. Citizens who do not participate — including those whoare too poor to participate — are still forced to fund the program no matter in which state theyreside. States that do not participate will see their federal tax dollars being distributed to other

13. See U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1996; Michael F. Cannon“ By Mandating Health Benefits, Congress Will Make Even More Americans Lose Their Health Insurance,” Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation Issue Analysis, Number 45, January 29,1997, and “Contrary to Media Reports Total Tax Bill Still Larger Than Food, Clothing and Housing Bill,” Tax Foundation, News Release, October 8 , 1996.

14. News conference on expanding health care coverage for children January 16,1997. Sen. Kennedy discussed the Kennedy-Kerry bill, whose language is identical to Hatch-Kennedy.

15. Sen. Kennedy, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” April 6, 1997.16. Sens. Kennedy and Hatch, “‘Legislative odd-couple’ proposes CHILD bill,” The Hill,

April 9, 1997.17. Paul Gigot, “Republicans to prodigal Senator: Snap Out of It,” The Wall Street

Journal, April 18, 1997.


state governments. State legislators will be hard pressed to defend such an arrangement to their constituents.

As for targeting benefits, the bill requires states to provide the Medicaid benefits package which is more generous and expensive than most private health insurance packages, and which in many states includes coverage for abortions (p. 5, lines 21-25; p. 8, lines 21-24). The bill requires states to contract with health centers in each area of a state served by such a center (p. 7, lines 3). It prohibits states from implementing any form of cost sharing for preventative services (p. 8, lines 4-6). Lastly, the bill locks into place current Medicaid eligibility requirements, forbidding any waivers to reduce children’s eligibility (p. 28, line 23).

11. “The states set their own eligibility.”18

States may set eligibility requirements, but only within the parameters dictated by thefederal government. For instance, the bill writes into federal law that states must pay for at least95 percent of the total premium cost for families with incomes under 185 percent of the federalpoverty level. Again, the bill leaves the federal government authority to strike downunreasonable eligibility requirements (p. 24, lines 5-l 1).

12. “It’s about as moderate to conservative of a bill as you can get.”19

This bill creates a new, multi-billion dollar entitlement program, imposes new unfundedfinancial burdens on the states, erects new state health care bureaucracies, restricts states’flexibility under Medicaid, and funnels $20 billion of taxpayer funds to health insurancecompanies and managed care plans. It encourages employers to drop coverage. Its companion,S. 526, raises taxes on the poorest Americans.

Moreover, the bill is very much in line with the strategy developed by the Clintonadministration to phase in government-run health care. Documents obtained from First LadyHillary Clinton’s Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group reveal that the Clinton

administration considered several options for implementing universal coverage. One of these options was named “Kids First.” “Under this approach,” writes the group, “health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children.” Kids First is designed to

develop “structures for transitioning to the new system and the phasing in of certain population groups.” 20 Today, not three years after the failure of the Clinton health care plan, Sens. Hatch and Kennedy are leading us once again down that road.

“I don’t think Hatch-Kennedy gives states the flexibility we need to insure more children.” — Utah Governor Michael Leavitt

Hatch-Kennedy is very much in line with the strategy developed by the Clinton Administration to phase in government-run health care.

18. Sen. Hatch, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” April 6, 1997.19. Sen. Hatch, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” April 6, 1997.

20. Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group ,April 9,1993.

42

Conclusion

Children do not suffer from too little government. They suffer from too muchgovernment. To make health insurance affordable for more families, Congress should insteadeliminate the governmental barriers to provision of affordable health insurance.

Congress’ first step should be to repeal the provisions in the current medical savingsaccount (MSA) pilot program that cap the number of people who can participate, restrict theprogram to the self-employed and small businesses, sunset the program after five years, and impose tax penalties on participants who withdraw funds from their MSA at the end of the year. S. 572, introduced by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), would make the pilot program a permanent option for all individuals. By making the MSA option more workable, Congress can make it easier for parents to finance their children’s health care.

Ultimately, Congress must also eliminate the unfair tax treatment that allows employersto buy health coverage with pre-tax dollars, but forces consumers to buy coverage with after-taxdollars. This can best be achieved as part of a comprehensive tax reform initiative.

Whatever problems exist in our health care system are the result of government meddling. Further meddling will only make these problems worse, and will bring us closer to asystem of government-run health care. America’s children deserve better.

S. 572, introduced by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) would make the MSA pilot program a permanent option for all individuals.


1. Veronique de Rugy, “Bad Arguments for Earmarks, Earmarks, Good Arguments against Them,” National Review Online, November 22, 2010, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253722/bad-arguments-earmarks-good-arguments-against-them-veronique-de-rugy

2. Dan Weil, “Ten Reasons Why the Auto Bailout Is a Bad Idea,” Newsmax.com, November 20, 2008, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/auto-bailout/2008/11/20/id/326730

3. George F. Will, “Bailing Out of the Constitution,” Washington Post, March 29, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702504.html

4. John Schwartz, “Some Ask if Bailout Is Unconstitutional,” New York Times, January 15, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16challenge.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

5. David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey, “ObamaCare and the Limits of Government: When asked if the health law was constitutional, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi sneered, ‘Are you serious?’ Now the Supreme Court has decided it’s a worthy question,” Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html

APPENDIX IV

400 North Capitol St. NW, Suite 765 Washington, DC 20001

www.freedomworksforamerica.org

Presorted StandardUS Postage

PAIDTargeted Creative

Communications, Inc.

After 36 years, who is Dick Lugar

really standing with?

Paid for by FreedomWorks for America and not authorized by any candidate or candidates’ committee. FreedomWorks for America – 202-783-3870.

“

”

Dick Lugar is among a handful of people who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in

the White House.

— Barack Obama, speaking at the last debate prior to the 2008 Presidential Election1

A Voter's Guide to Dick Lugar

Documents

government health care

massive government spending

senator lugars record

tarp wall street bailout

bigger government

funded health insurance

staunch support of tarp

housing bailouts