Thursday, September 07, 2006

Stabenow Lying Her Ass Off.....

Debbie Stabenow released her third television advertisement in the race for U.S. Senate today, claiming Senator Stabenow is fighting for Michigan's manufacturers. Unfortunately, the statistics don't support the rhetoric.

Stabenow Ad

The Truth

Stabenow Ad: When a Chinese company stole our patent, they had the whole Chinese government on their side. The Bush administration did nothing to help, but Senator Debbie Stabenow took up our fight.

If Debbie Stabenow has been fighting for Michigan, it sure isn’t showing. Our economy has gotten continually worse since Stabenow took office in 2001. After six years, it has become clear -- Stabenow is not working for Michigan’s citizens. It is time to elect someone who will.

  • Michigan’s unemployment rate is 7.0%. That is over 45% higher than the national average. (bls.gov)
  • In the last month alone, Michigan lost 29,000 jobs. Our state has lost 257,400 jobs since Stabenow took office. (bls.gov)
  • Just last week, the Census Bureau released a report showing Michigan’s median income is less than the U.S. average. This is the first time this has happened. (“Income Slides”, Detroit News, 8-30-2006)
  • 13.2% of Michigan’s population lives under the poverty line, a 7% jump from just a year ago. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf)
  • 31% is Detroit’s residents live under the poverty line, statistically tied for the most impoverished city in the country.
  • Over the same period of time, the national poverty rate didn’t change at all. This is a Michigan problem, and we need Michigan leadership to solve it. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf)
  • What has Stabenow done? In over five years as a US Senator, Stabenow has only passed one bill, to rename a federal building in Detroit (www.loc.gov).

Stabenow Ad:Debbie fought for a trade prosecutor to stop cheaters.

Stabenow claims to be fighting for a trade prosecutor, but what exactly has she done? She introduced a bill, talked about it for a day, and has allowed it to languish in the finance committee ever since. Michigan deserves a senator who will do more than introduce bills, we need a senator who will pass them.

  • Even though Stabenow likes to complain that free trade laws are hurting Michigan’s economy, she herself has voted for trade agreements with countries like Morocco, Australia, Chile, Singapore, and Vietnam (S 2677, CQ Vote #159, 7-21-04; HR 4759, CQ Vote #156, 7-15-04; HR 2738, CQ Vote #319, 7-31-03; HR 2739, CQ Vote #318, 7-31-03; HJ Res 51, CQ Vote #291, 10-3-01).
  • She also voted against denying President Clinton’s request for “normal trade relations” with China (HJ Res 121, CQ Vote #317, 7-22-98). Additionally she voted THREE times in agreement with President Clinton that communist China should be given “most-favored-nation” status (HJ Res 79, CQ Vote #231, 6-24-97; HJ Res 57, CQ Vote #338, 7-27-99; HJ Res 103, CQ Vote #405, 7-18-00).

Stabenow Ad: And Debbie passed a bill to give tax cuts to companies that create jobs in Michigan.

The very notion of Debbie Stabenow trumpeting tax cuts is too hysterical for words. Stabenow raises taxes as if her life depended on it. The National Taxpayers Union has given Stabenow a lifetime rating of an F (NTU.org). This is not hard to believe, since her record is very clear.

  • Stabenow opposed both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170, 5-26-01; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196, 5-23-03). She also voted twice against marriage penalty relief (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #79, 4-5-2001; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165, 5-23-2001).
  • Not only did Stabenow vote against final passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but she also voted 55 times to delay or reduce them:

(H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #114: Rejected 43-55: R 1-48; D 42-7, May 17, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #118: Motion rejected 49-50: R 5-44; D 44-6, May 21, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #119: Rejected 35-64: R 0-49; D 35-15, May 21, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #120: Rejected 39-60: R 1-48; D 38-12, May 21, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #124: Rejected 43-56: R 2-47; D 41-9, May 21, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #126: Rejected 49-49: R 5-44; D 44-5, May 21, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #130: Motion rejected 48-51: R 2-47; D 46-4, May 21, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #132: Motion rejected 41-58: R 1-48; D 40-10, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #133: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 48-51: R 6-43; D 42-8, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #138: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #139: Rejected 43-56: R 0-49; D 43-7, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #140: Motion rejected 43-56: R 0-49; D 43-7, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #141: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #142: Rejected 47-52: R 2-47; D 45-5, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #149: Rejected 50-50: R 4-46; D 46-4, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #152: Rejected 44-55: R 0-50; D 44-5, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #153: Motion rejected 45-54: R 0-50; D 45-4, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #154: Motion rejected 45-54: R 0-50; D 45-4, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #156: Rejected 39-60: R 0-50; D 39-10, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #157: Motion rejected 43-56: R 0-50; D 43-6, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #158: Rejected 42-57: R 2-48; D 40-9, May 22, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #161: Motion rejected 49-51: R 49-1; D 0-50, May 23, 2001, Stabenow voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #162: Motion rejected 47-53: R 1-49; D 46-4, May 23, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #163: Motion rejected 46-54: R 0-50; D 46-4, May 23, 2001, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #58: Motion agreed to 57-42: R 51-0; D 6-41; I 0-1, March 18, 2003, Stabenow voted Nay; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #60: Motion agreed to 50-48: R 49-2; D 1-45; I 0-1, March 19, 2003, Stabenow voted Nay; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #63: Motion agreed to 55-44: R 51-0; D 3-44; I 1-0, March 20, 2003, Stabenow voted Nay; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #67: Adopted 52-47: R 4-47; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 21, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res 23, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 46-53: R 1-50; D 44-3; I 1-0, March 21, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #70: Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0, March 21, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #72: Rejected 45-54: R 0-51; D 44-3; I 1-0, March 21, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #73: Rejected 48-52: R 0-51; D 47-1; I 1-0, March 21, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #74: Rejected 49-51: R 1-50; D 47-1; I 1-0, March 21, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #75: Motion agreed to 58-42: R 51-0; D 7-41; I 0-1, March 21, 2003, Stabenow voted Nay; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #78: Rejected 48-52: R 0-51; D 47-1; I 1-0, March 21, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #81: Rejected 46-51: R 0-51; D 45-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 43-56: R 0-51; D 42-5; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #85: Rejected 48-51: R 0-51; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #86: Rejected 48-51: R 0-51; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #87: Rejected 48-51: R 0-51; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #88: Rejected 47-51: R 0-50; D 46-1; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #89: Rejected 49-49: R 1-49; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #90: Rejected 49-50: R 1-50; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #91: Rejected 48-50: R 0-50; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #92: Rejected 49-50: R 1-50; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #93: Adopted 51-48: R 3-48; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #95: Rejected 42-57: R 1-50; D 40-7; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #96: Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #98: Rejected 49-50: R 1-50; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #99: Rejected 46-53: R 0-51; D 45-2; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #100: Rejected 37-62: R 1-50; D 35-12; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #102: Adopted 51-48: R 3-48; D 47-0; I 1-0, March 25, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 28-70: R 0-51; D 27-19; I 1-0, March 26, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea; S.Con.Res. 23, CQ Vote #104: Rejected 47-51: R 0-51; D 46-0; I 1-0, March 26, 2003, Stabenow voted Yea.)

Stabenow Ad: I’m not a Republican; I’m not a Democrat. I’m a manufacturer. And I support Debbie Stabenow because she supports manufacturing in the state of Michigan.

In this race, the economy is certainly more important than partisanship. To ensure this, it is important to focus on the facts. Here are some to consider:

  • The National Association of Manufacturers has given her a pathetically low 18% rating for her career in the Senate (NAM.org). Stabenow may say she supports manufacturers, but the manufacturers disagree.
  • Stabenow voted at least SIX times against passing a class action reform bill. This bill was designed to save jobs and make health care affordable. She has consistently favored a harsh business climate. (S.5, CQ Vote #9, 2-10-05; S.2062, CQ Vote #154, 7-8-04; S.1751, CQ Vote #403, 10-22-03; H.R. 1875, CQ vote #443, 9-23-99; S.22, CQ Vote #115, 5-8-2006; S. 23, CQ Vote # 116, 5-8-2006)
  • She voted against legislation aimed at saving small businesses from greedy trail lawyers. All too often, small businesses are bankrupted by the court costs needed to defend themselves against baseless claims. To Debbie Stabenow, ensuring that this continues in all in a day’s work. (H.R. 2366, CQ Vote #25, 2-16-00)
  • According to the center for responsive politics, Debbie Stabenow has received $1,300,938 from lawyers and law firms since being elected to the U.S. Senate. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed August 8, 2006) This is more than Stabenow have been given by any other group.
Black people in Detroit need to get on the winning team and support your conservative teammates. DeVos, Bouchard, Land and Cox will sweep in November.

No comments: