Ok so I was at the debate, I’d love to share my insights, but frankly I don’t have the energy. Instead I’ll provide you what the Buck Campaign just produced, then I will attempt to sleep while I watch something on HBO at the Holiday Inn Express (shout out to Kelly Maher, who got to stay in the Ramada…)

Press Release from Ken Buck:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Buck Clear Winner in First Debate

Grand Junction, CO—Tonight, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck and appointed Senator Michael Bennet squared off at the Club 20 debate, the first of the general election.  The debate highlighted the stark contrast between Buck and the appointed senator.

During the debate, Buck laid out his plan to get Coloradans back to work and to bring Washington’s spending under control.

Buck was pleased with the outcome of the debate–

“It was good to get the record straight,” said Buck.  ”Folks are tired of Washington politicians distorting facts and not owning up to their record.  Sen. Bennet has proven time and again that he is a rubberstamp for the Washington establishment.  Colorado deserves a senator who will work for them.”

“Michael Bennet’s strategy is to lie about Ken Buck’s record, and runaway from his own,” said Buck campaign manager John Swartout. “Tonight, Bennet said that the three fact checks and Denver Post editorial on his misleading spot were wrong.  The people of Colorado cannot believe Michael Bennet.”

“Ken put forward a clear plan to get Coloradans back to work and to get Washington’s spending under control, problems that Sen. Bennet has neglected to solve,” added Swartout.

NOTE: Please see attachment for Fact Check.

###

–
Owen Loftus | Press Secretary
Buck for Colorado
Email   |       oloftus@buckforcolorado.com
Office   |      (303) 756-BUCK (2825)

http://buckforcolorado.com

The Buck Campaign also provided a 6 page document in response to the dabate:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Saturday, September 11, 2010

Contact: Owen Loftus 303-756-BUCK (2825) 719-406-6564  (cell) www.buckforcolorado.com

REALITY CHECK

CLUB 20 DEBATE

BUCK WINS DEBATE.

BENNET ON FUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE

Bennet Says Infrastructure Needs To Be Maintained, But He Voted Against Using Unspent Stimulus Money To Fund Infrastructure

Bennet Says He Won’t Support Another Stimulus, But Bennet Said He Would Support Additional Stimulus Funding For “Infrastructure”:

The Denver Post: “Well, let’s talk about that $13 trillion deficit and lack of investment in infrastructure. Can we, as a country, given that deficit and debt, afford to push forward with more stimulus spending?” (“A Conversation With Michael Bennet,” www.denverpost.com, The Denver Post, 7/25/10)

Bennet: “I don’t think we can.” (“A Conversation With Michael Bennet,” www.denverpost.com, The Denver Post, 7/25/10)

The Denver Post: “What if it’s for infrastructure?” (“A Conversation With Michael Bennet,” www.denverpost.com, The Denver Post, 7/25/10)

Bennet: “Well, that’s a different question. I think if [it’s] an investment in our infrastructure, that’s something I’m happy to talk about.” (“A Conversation With Michael Bennet,” www.denverpost.com, The Denver Post, 7/25/10)

• Bennet: “I think we are going to need to think differently about just the infrastructure question — for example, how we approach it — because we are in such a deep hole as it is that it’s hard to imagine how we’re going to catch up. And there’s been some discussions over the last month about things like creating an infrastructure bank that could be capitalized by public money but also allow private money to participate and invest … to figure out how to deal with our capital needs.” (“A Conversation With Michael Bennet,” www.denverpost.com, The Denver Post, 7/25/10)

And In 2009, Bennet Voted Against Using Unspent Stimulus Funds To Pay For Infrastructure:

Bennet voted six times against rescinding some of the unspent stimulus funding to pay for other vital spending priorities: unemployment benefits, see 2009 vote 250 and 2010 votes 106 and 210; highways, see 2009 vote 249; and tax cuts, see 2010 votes 33 and 37.

• Senate Vote 249 – “To temporarily protect the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund” Amendment Rejected, Bennet Voted Nay, 7/30/09.

BENNET ON SPENDING

Bennet: “I Voted To Cap Discretionary Spending”

The Reality: In 2009, Michael Bennet repeatedly voted against caps on federal spending and against spending freezes.  Note that these are not cuts—they just cap the increase in federal spending or freeze the government’s spending to its current level.

Bennet ended 2009 with a Christmas Eve vote to raise the country’s debt limit by $290 billion.  See 2009 vote 397.  But Bennet’s Christmas present to the American taxpayer didn’t last long.  One of the first actions Congress had to take after returning from its Christmas break was to raise the deficit limit again, this time by $1.9 trillion to $14.3 trillion in total.  See 2010 vote 14.

Leading up to the second debt vote, Bennet tried to insulate himself further from voters by flip-flopping on federal spending freezes.  After voting against four separate caps and freezes throughout 2009, Bennet voted for his first discretionary spending freeze literally one hour before he voted in favor of the $1.9 trillion debt ceiling increase.  In 2010, Bennet went on to vote for three more discretionary spending freezes.  Notably, all of the freezes Bennet voted for failed and were thus “safe” votes.  See 2010 votes 11, 42, 57, and 181.

Bennet’s 2009 votes against spending caps and freezes were the following:

n  Bennet twice voted against capping the rise in certain discretionary spending at around inflation.  See 2009 vote 132, limiting non-defense, non-veteran spending increases to inflation; 2009 vote 259, limiting discretionary agriculture spending to a 2% increase.

n  Bennet twice voted against freezing non-defense, discretionary spending for two years, and then letting it grow by 1% for the next three years.  See 2009 votes 120 and 166.

n  Bennet voted against against a five-year discretionary spending freeze after the economy produced two consecutive quarters of 2% GDP growth.  See 2009 vote 40.

n  Bennet voted against a permanent cost of living freeze for members of Congress (i.e., it would have forced Congress to vote for its own pay increases).  See 2009 vote 95.

Bennet voted eight times against limiting various federal spending to the prior year’s appropriations level: across-the-board discretionary spending, see 2009 votes 74, 75, and 76 and 2010 votes 59 and 193 (note: the 2010 vote limited FY 2010 expenditures to FY 2008 levels); Transportation Department and HUD spending, see 2009 vote 282; Interior Department spending, see 2009 vote 296; Commerce, State, and Justice Departments, see 2009 vote 319.

BENNET ON HIS VOTE FOR THE MURTHA AIRPORT

Bennet: “It was certainly not of interest to me.”

Bennet voted for a $1.5 million per year in subsidies for John Murtha Airport—an airport named after an ethically-challenged former Congressman, that sends commercial flights only to Washington, D.C.,

and where the feds subsidize each ticket to the tune of $100?

2009 Senate Vote 284, see ABC’s devastating report on the pork project here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvzNj0Vobss

BENNET HOPES TO ATTRACT INDEPENDENT VOTERS

Bennet Said He Plans On Attracting Independent Voters But Voted With Congressional Democrats Nearly 92% Of The Time

During The Current Congress, Bennet Voted With The Democratic Party 91.7% Of The Time. (The Washington Post’s Votes Database, www.washingtonpost.com, Accessed 9/7/10)

BENNET ON THE ESTATE TAX

Bennet Said He Was In Favor Of Cutting The Estate Tax

But Bennet Voted Against Cutting The Estate Tax Three Times (2009 Vote 146; 2009 Vote 213; 2009 Vote 39)

BENNET ON CAP-AND-TRADE

Bennet: “I didn’t support the cap-and-trade bill that passed in the House.”

But Bennet Supports Cap-And-Trade Proposals:

Bennet: “And I Do Think That A Comprehensive Energy Bill That, Among Many Other Things, Prices Carbon Pollution And Incentivizes Investments In Clean Energy That Will Help Create Jobs And Diminish Our Reliance On Foreign Oil Would Be A Good Step Forward.” (Ed Sealover, “Election 2010: Where Colorado’s Senate candidates Stand On Business Issues,” Denver Business Journal, 9/7/10)

June 2010: “Bennet Said Thursday He Supports The ‘Most Aggressive’ Renewables Bill In The Senate, The 25 Percent-By-2025 Plan.” (Michael Booth, “Colo. Democratic Senate Candidates Vie Over Alternative-Energy Proposals,” The Denver Post, 6/11/10)

During An April 2010 Democratic Primary Debate, Bennet Said It Is “Enormously Important That We Tax Carbon And That We Have A Cap . . . That Would Be Accomplished Through A Carbon Tax,” Or “Accomplished Through Cap-And-Trade.” (37:56) Moderator: “What is your stance on carbon tax?” Bennet: “I think it’s enormously important that we price carbon and that we have a cap and that could be accomplished through a carbon tax, it could be accomplished through cap-and-trade, it could be accomplished through something called cap-and-dividend.” (Colorado Democratic Primary Debate, www.youtube.com, Accessed 9/9/10)

Bennet Supported The Boxer-Kerry Climate Control Legislation. “The Boxer-Kerry legislation would hike emission cuts to 20 percent below 2005 levels from the 17 percent target in the House. It aims at reducing smokestack emissions of carbon dioxide 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. . . . U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet did not attend the news conference on Capitol Hill yesterday, but in a statement told the Denver Daily News that he is supporting the bill.” (Peter Marcus, “Colorado Dems Rally Behind Climate Bill,” Denver Daily News, 10/1/09)

• Bennet: “It’s time for a new way forward . . . . It’s time we harness the potential of our entrepreneurial spirit and our abundant clean energy resources to create a more sustainable path for the future. We can and must lead the world to a new energy economy.” (Peter Marcus, “Colorado Dems Rally Behind Climate Bill,” Denver Daily News, 10/1/09)

The Boxer-Kerry Cap-And-Trade Bill Bennet Supports Has Been Roundly Criticized, Including By Farm Groups And Taxpayer Advocacy Groups:

The Boxer-Kerry Climate Control Legislation “Goes Beyond The So-Called Waxman-Markey Bill.” (Peter Marcus, “Colo. Dems Rally Behind Climate Bill,” Denver Daily News, 10/1/09)

The American Farm Bureau Federation Said Farmers “Fare Even Worse In The Senate [Cap-And-Trade] Bill” Than In The House Bill. “The American Farm Bureau Federation, which opposed legislation in the House as well, said the Senate bill is worse. ‘America’s farmers and ranchers did not fare that well in the House-passed climate change bill and they fare even worse in the Senate bill,’ said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. ‘There are few benefits and even greater costs to agriculture and the American public.’” (Marc Heller, “Gillibrand A Key Player In Climate Bill,” Watertown [NY] Daily Times, 10/4/09)

Rick Krause Of The American Farm Bureau: “The ‘Clean Energy Jobs And American Power Act,’ Introduced By Sens. Kerry And Boxer, Will Cost American Farmers And Consumers Without Providing Any Corresponding Benefits.” (Rick Krause, Op-Ed, “Kerry-Boxer Will Cost Farmers, Consumers,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/7/09)

• “Farmers And Ranchers Would Be Particularly Impacted As A Result Of Such Legislation. Agriculture is an energy intensive business that will be particularly hard hit because of farmers’ many costs, which include fueling their tractors, providing their crops with fertilizer and crop protection, irrigating crops and caring for their animals.” (Rick Krause, Op-Ed, “Kerry-Boxer Will Cost Farmers, Consumers,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/7/09)

• “Some Estimates Predict Increased Food Prices Of $33 Billion A Year By 2020 And $51 Billion A Year By 2030. And What Do We Get For These Costs?  Very Little.” (Rick Krause, Op-Ed, “Kerry-Boxer Will Cost Farmers, Consumers,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/7/09)

• “This Is Not A Climate Bill. Scientists Calculate That This Bill Will Have An Impact On Climate Of Less Than 0.2 Degrees By 2100.” (Rick Krause, Op-Ed, “Kerry-Boxer Will Cost Farmers, Consumers,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/7/09)

• “This Is Also Not An Energy Bill. While reducing emissions will reduce the use of coal and oil, it does nothing to ‘plug the hole’ that will be left by reducing those sources.” (Rick Krause, Op-Ed, “Kerry-Boxer Will Cost Farmers, Consumers,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/7/09)

“‘It [Boxer And Kerry’s Legislation] Just Seems Totally Out Of Touch With Reality,’ Said Glenn English, CEO Of The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Which Represents Hundreds Of Coal-Dependent Utilities.” (Christa Marshall and Jessica Leber, “Senate Draft Of Climate Legislation Makes Unofficial Debut,” The New York Times, 9/30/09)

Pete Sepp Of The National Taxpayers Union: “[W]e Would Be Foolish To Forget About The Other Looming Nightmare For Taxpayers Across America: Cap-And-Trade, More Appropriately Termed The National Energy Tax.” (Pete Sepp, Op-Ed, “New Boxer-Kerry Bill Endangers Taxpayers And The Economy,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/8/09)

• Sepp: “Plain And Simple: America Can’t Afford The Boxer-Kerry Bill.” (Pete Sepp, Op-Ed, “New Boxer-Kerry Bill Endangers Taxpayers And The Economy,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/8/09)

• Sepp: “[T]he Boxer-Kerry Bill Entitled The ‘Clean Energy Jobs And American Power Act,’ Which If Passed Would Condemn Taxpayers To Poverty And The American Economy To Oblivion.” (Pete Sepp, Op-Ed, “New Boxer-Kerry Bill Endangers Taxpayers And The Economy,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/8/09)

• “[I]t Is Easy To Make The Argument That Cap-And-Trade Legislation Would Exert More Control Over A Bigger Sector Of Our Economy Than Even The Most Radical Proposals For National Health Care.” (Pete Sepp, Op-Ed, “New Boxer-Kerry Bill Endangers Taxpayers And The Economy,” The Hill’s Congress Blog, www.thehill.com, Posted 10/8/09)

“The Airline Industry Is Pushing Back Against The Senate’s Climate Change Bill, Claiming A Proposed Cap-And-Trade System Could Cost Carriers As Much As $5 Billion.” (Kathryn Wolfe, “Airline Industry Wary Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade System In Climate Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 10/2/09)

Cap-And-Trade Legislation Could Negatively Impact Colorado:

NOTE: Although different from Boxer-Kerry, studies of the house cap-and-trade bill, Waxman-Markey, have shown it could inflict large negative impacts on Colorado’s economy…

Beacon Hill Institute: A Proposal Like Waxman-Markey Would “Inflict Large Negative Impacts On The Economy Of Colorado.” “Cap-and-trade is aimed at reducing the consumption of fossil fuels by increasing their prices and thus, in turn, the prices of energy and of all goods and services. A Cap-and-trade proposal such as Waxman-Markey would therefore inflict large negative impacts on the economy of Colorado. The state would experience significant declines in employment, wages, disposable income and investment upon implementation of the policy.” (The Beacon Hill Institute, “The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Colorado,” www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

• Carbon Taxes Would Cost The Residents Of Colorado $1.959 Billion In 2020. “We find that the cap-and-trade system would impose a tax of $92.66 per metric ton of carbon in 2020 in order to reach the 20% emissions reduction goal. The cost of carbon would rise to $714 in 2050 to reduce emissions by 83% below 2005 levels. These carbon taxes would cost the residents of Colorado $1.959 billion dollars in 2020 and $17.219 billion by 2050 through increased energy prices.” (The Beacon Hill Institute, “The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Colorado,” www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

• “These Increased Energy Prices Would Inflict Significant Harm On The Colorado Economy. The State Economy Would Shed 11,976 Jobs By 2020 And 174,163 By 2050.” (The Beacon Hill Institute, “The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Colorado,” www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

• “The Decrease In Labor Demand, As Seen In The Job Losses Would Cause Gross Wages Per Person To Fall By $165.45 Per Capita Annually By 2020 And $1,453.98 By 2050.” (The Beacon Hill Institute, “The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Colorado,” www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

• Real Disposable Income Would Fall By $1.16 Billion Per Year By 2020. “The job losses and price increases would combine to reduce real incomes as firms, households and governments spend more of their budgets on energy and less on other items, such as home goods, entertainment and clothing. As a result, real disposable income would fall by $1.16 billion per year by 2020 and $10.195 billion by 2050.” (The Beacon Hill Institute, “The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Colorado,” www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

• “[A]nnual Investment In The State Would Fall By $151.08 Million By 2020 And $1.327 Billion By 2050.” (The Beacon Hill Institute, “The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Colorado,” www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

• “By 2020, The State Of Colorado Can Expect Annual Tax Revenues To Fall By $82.97 Million, While Local Governments Would Lose $84.71 Million In Tax Revenue, For A Combined State And Local Revenue Loss Of $167.69 Million. By 2050, the state and local government tax revenue losses would swell to over $1.473 billion, with the state losing $729.15 million and local governments losing $744.46 million.” (The Beacon Hill Institute, “The Economic Effects Of Proposed Cap-And-Trade Legislation On The State Of Colorado,” www.beaconhill.org, 6/09)

###