Close

NEW DSCC AD: Congressman Joe Heck Puts Wall Street Ahead of Nevada

Congressman Heck Represents What’s Wrong With Washington

 

The DSCC released a new ad today in Nevada highlighting Congressman Joe Heck’s record of putting Wall Street ahead of hard-working Nevadans. Congressman Heck went to Washington and has only been part of the problem there – collecting over half a million dollars from Wall Street and supporting their reckless agenda to private Social Security in return. Privatizing Social Security would risk Nevadans’ hard-earned retirement funds while letting Wall Street collect billions in fees.

 

The ad, “Fix It” can be viewed HERE.

 

“Congressman Joe Heck went to Washington claiming to fix it, but in reality he’s just become a part of the problem,” said Sadie Weiner, DSCC Communications Director. “He’s taken more than half a million dollars in campaign contributions from Wall Street and then supported their agenda of privatizing Social Security, which would directly harm Nevadans but leave Wall Street with billions. Instead of representing Nevada, Congressman Heck represents exactly what’s wrong with Washington, and the DSCC will continue to highlight his record of putting Wall Street first.”

 

 

BACKUP:

 

AD CONTENT DOCUMENTATION
 

V/O: We sent him here to fix it.

 

GFX: We Sent Him

To Fix It

 

V/O: But Congressman Joe Heck became part of the problem.

 

GFX: Congressman

Joe Heck

Part of the

Problem

 

V/O: Wall Street invested over a half million dollars in Congressman Heck’s campaigns.

 

GFX: Joe Heck

$500,000

from Wall Street

Source: Center For Responsive Politics, Accessed 8/22/16

 

 

SECURITIES & INVESTMENT INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTED OVER $500,000 TO HECK

 

The Securities And Investment Industry Contributed Over $500,000 To Heck Over His Career. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the “Securities & Investment” industry was the fifth highest contributing industry to Heck over his career as a Federal candidate. The industry contributed $525,569 to his campaigns. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 8/22/16]

 

V/O: And Heck supports their agenda. Privatizing Social Security.

 

GFX: Congressman

Joe Heck

Supports

Privatizing

Social Security

Source: Las Vegas Review Journal, 10/20/14

 

V/O: Handing Wall Street billions in fees.

 

GFX: Joe Heck

Billions

for Wall Street

Source: Los Angeles Times, 1/18/05

 

HECK SUPPORTS PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY

 

Heck Said He Supported Private Social Security Accounts. HECK: “No, I’m not as evil- and I’ve never talked about privatizing Social Security. What I have said is that…” AUDIENCE: “You’re gonna invest in the stock market?” HECK: “Yeah- no, no. So what I’ve said is that I believe that younger individuals should have the opportunity to take a portion of their Social Security withholding, and put it into an account that they might want to manage!.” [Joe Heck Speech, Washoe Republican Women’s Luncheon, 8/17/16]

 

Heck Proposed Allowing Younger Workers To Invest Retirement Funds In Private Accounts. “The two candidates also got into an angry back-and-forth in discussing veterans benefits, Medicare and Social Security. Bilbray said Heck wants to privatize Social Security, and she said he’s done nothing to raise Medicare reimbursement rates so doctors won’t drop patients. Congress had boosted reimbursement rates, but on a year-to-year basis instead of a permanent fix. Heck, sounding exasperated, said he introduced the first bill to ‘repair Medicare’ and reintroduced it this year. He said it passed the House. As for Social Security, Heck said he has proposed allowing younger workers to invest retirement funds as they like, instead of with the government.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/20/14]

 

Associated Press: Heck Said All Options “Including Some Form Of Privatization And Increasing” The Retirement Age Should Be On The Table When It Came To Social Security. “Heck said he doesn’t know how to improve Social Security, but all options, including some form of privatization and increasing the eligibility age for future recipients currently entering the job market, should be evaluated. ’Everything needs to be on the table to talk about how to save it,’ he said.” [Associated Press, 6/10/11]

 

Heck Proposed Allowing For Private Social Security Accounts. MODERATOR: “As a solution, do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their social security payroll taxes into a personal retirement account?” […] HECK: “After that we need to look at other ways to increase the solvency of [Social Security] for the out years, and that could include allowing people to pay into a private account; it could include changing the retirement age; it could include raising the cap on the amount of earning to which Social Security is taxed.” [YouTube, Heck at PBS Debate, 10/11/12]

 

Heck Voted To Allow Funds To Develop Or Implement A System That Would Cut Social Security Benefits Or, Privatize It. In March 2011, Heck voted against a: “Critz, D-Pa., motion to recommit the joint resolution to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be reported back immediately with an amendment that would bar the use of funds made available in the measure to develop or implement a system that would cut Social Security or Medicare benefits, privatize Social Security, eliminate guaranteed health coverage for seniors or establish a Medicare voucher plan that limits payments to beneficiaries.” The motion was rejected by a 190-239 vote. [CQ, 3/15/11; H.J. Res. 48, Vote 178, 3/15/11]

 

·        Republican Cloakroom: Legislation Would “Prohibit The Use Of Funds To “Cut Benefits Or Privatize Social Security.” The Republican Cloakroom website states that H.J. Res. 48 was a motion to recommit the bill “with instructions to prohibit the use of funds to: Cut benefits or privatize social security” [Republican Cloakroom, 3/15/11]

 

Heck Voted Against Barring The Use Of Funds To Privatize Social Security. In September 2013, Heck voted against “Enyart, D-Ill., motion to recommit the joint resolution to the House Appropriations Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would fund military personnel accounts, the Social Security Administration’s administrative expenses, the Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program management account and the Veterans Benefit Administration’s operating expenses through Sept. 30, 2014. It also would bar the use of funds provided by the bill to implement a system that would privatize the Social Security program, reduce the insurance benefits it provides or to establish a Medicare voucher plan that provides limited payments to purchase health care in the private sector. It also would increase funding for the Essential Air Service by $2.7 million and decrease the Transportation Department Planning, Research and Development account by the same amount.” The motion failed 190-228. [CQ, 9/20/13, H.J.Res.59, Vote 477, 9/20/13]

 

  • Rep. Enyart: “This Amendment Prohibits Social Security From Being Privatized And Medicare From Being Turned Into A Voucher Program.” Mr. ENYART: “As we stand here today, we’re hurdling toward a government shutdown and once again facing default. I’m offering this amendment because the last thing we should be doing is threatening seniors with losing their Social Security and Medicare. Our troops, protecting us both domestically and overseas, shouldn’t have to worry about whether they’ll be paid. With this amendment, Social Security checks will be processed and mailed on time; Medicare and veterans benefits will not be cut nor delayed; our service men and women, serving around the world, will receive the pay they have earned. This amendment prohibits Social Security from being privatized and Medicare from being turned into a voucher program.” [Congressional Record, 9/20/13]

 

PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY WOULD PUT HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE POCKETS OF WALL STREET

 

Los Angeles Times: University Of Chicago Study Said Social Security Privatization “Could Generate Fees For The Financial Industry Worth $940 Billion.” “The issue of Wall Street fees has become a hot button for groups on both sides of the debate. Financial companies betray ‘an enormous conflict of interest’ if they support private accounts, said Bill Patterson, director of investments at the AFL-CIO. ‘This is driven by fees.’ Financial companies betray ‘an enormous conflict of interest’ if they support private accounts, said Bill Patterson, director of investments at the AFL-CIO. ‘This is driven by fees. ‘A study last year by University of Chicago economics professor Austan Goolsbee asserted that the accounts could generate fees for the financial industry worth $940 billion, in current dollars, over 75 years.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/18/05]

 

Securities Industry Association Said Wall Street Would Make As Much As $279 Billion In Fees From Social Security Privatization. “No one knows whether workers would prosper in private Social Security accounts, but financial firms would likely pull in big bucks… The Securities Industry Association calculated that the plan would generate at most $279 billion in fees, or about 8.6 percent of the $3.3 trillion in the financial sector’s total revenues, over 75 years.” [Newsday, 2/20/05]

 

NCPSSM: Privatization Of Social Security Would Lead To “Wall Street Brokers And Fund Managers […] To Make Billions Of Dollars Of Year.” “Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts. […] Wall Street brokers and fund managers would stand to make billions of dollars a year thanks to privatization, so it’s no surprise that they strongly support the privatization movement!” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Accessed 6/11/16]

 

·        NCPSSM: Under Privatized Social Security, “Commissions And Fees Could Easily Burn Up As Much As 15 Cents Out Of Every Dollar Of A Workers Annual Investment.” “Administrative costs for Social Security are very low – less than 1% of the program’s budget. Diverting money to the stock market would incur the very high costs of brokers’ commissions, mutual fund management fees, and other expenses inherent in buying and selling stocks and bonds. Small investment accounts are very expensive to administer. Commissions and fees could easily burn up as much as 15 cents out of every dollar of a worker’s annual investment as they do in some countries with privatized systems.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Accessed 8/11/16]

 

The Century Foundation: Wall Street Brokers, Banks, And Mutual Funds Would Gain “Enormous Fees” Under Private Social Security Accounts, Which Would Come From “The Balances” Of “The Individual Accounts.” “Brokerage houses, banks, and mutual funds have been very active in the campaign to privatize Social Security. Small wonder, since they stand to gain enormous fees if billions of dollars are shifted each year from Social Security payments into accounts under Wall Street management. Of course, those fees must come from somewhere, namely from the balances in individual accounts.” [The Century Foundation, 12/14/04]

 

Economic Policy Institute: “Administrative Charges On” Private Social Security Accounts Would Be “Another Factor Cutting Into Rates Of Return.” “Another factor cutting into rates of return on private accounts will be the administrative charges on individual accounts and premiums for private insurance to pay for survivorship and disability benefits.” [Economic Policy Institute, 6/1/01]

 

Investment Operating Fees Are Assessed Regardless Of Performance. “Mutual funds provide investors with professional management, but it comes at a cost. Funds will typically have a range of different fees that reduce the overall payout. In mutual funds, the fees are classified into two categories: shareholder fees and annual operating fees. The shareholder fees, in the forms of loads and redemption fees, are paid directly by shareholders purchasing or selling the funds. The annual fund operating fees are charged as an annual percentage – usually ranging from 1-3%. These fees are assessed to mutual fund investors regardless of the performance of the fund. As you can imagine, in years when the fund doesn’t make money, these fees only magnify losses.” [Investopedia, Accessed 8/8/16]

 

 

V/O: But risking our retirement in the stock market – cutting benefits. Putting Wall Street ahead of us.

 

GFX: Joe Heck

Risking

our retirement

Source: Los Angeles Times, 8/24/15

 

V/O: Congressman Heck. What’s wrong with Washington.

 

GFX: Joe Heck

What’s Wrong

with Washington.

 

 

PRIVATE SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNTS WOULD RISK RETIREMENT IN THE STOCK MARKET, CUT BENEFITS

 

Los Angeles Times: “Market Crashes Could Destroy A Nest Egg That Took A Lifetime To Nurture.” “Market crashes could destroy a nest egg that took a lifetime to nurture. A near-retiree with, say, a half-million in stock in 2007 had just over $300,000 a year later, following a 37.22% plunge in 2008. Those who held fast managed to recover their losses, but that took five and a half years–and what about those who didn’t have the luxury of time?” [Los Angeles Times, 8/24/15]

 

·        Los Angeles Times: “The Recent Pullback Of 10%” In The Market “Can Have Direct And Serious Consequences” To Retirees And Near-Retirees Who Had Theoretical Privatized Social Security Accounts. “One would think no one needs more evidence to understand why privatizing Social Security is a terrible idea and well-nigh unworkable, but the recent convulsions in the stock market provide the opportunity for a refresher.  We pointed out earlier Monday that one day’s market action–or even a week’s–doesn’t tell us much about the long-term direction of stocks, but that’s true chiefly for investors in it for the long term. Retirees and near-retirees don’t always have the luxury of a distant horizon. For someone planning to retire in the next month or year, the recent pullback of 10% can have direct and serious consequences. The privatization idea was born during the go-go years of the 1980s and ’90s, when everyone seemed to think that the bull market would go on forever.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/24/15]

 

ThinkProgress: Privatizing Social Security Would Increase Risk For Retirement Accounts, And Would Be “Particularly Problematic For Anyone Who Needs To Retire In The Midst Of A Serious Market Downturn.” “On a larger level, putting people’s Social Security contributions into private accounts makes them far more exposed to the irrationality of the market. ‘What’s beautiful about Social Security is that in the long the return workers get on contributions is linked to productivity growth and wage growth,’ said Monique Morrissey, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. […] Americans are already affected by those ups and downs of the stock market through their 401(k) savings, which have skyrocketed in recent decades. Privatizing Social Security would increase the risks they have to take on. ‘We have a system where workers are already far too exposed to the vagaries of the stock market,’ Morrissey said. ‘We don’t need to be expanding that.’ This is particularly problematic for anyone who needs to retire in the midst of a serious market downturn, such as during the recession. ‘We do have periods where the market is down for long periods of time,’ Baker noted. Social Security ‘was supposed to be money you could count on and be sure it’s there.’” [Think Progress, 8/24/15]

 

AARP: Social Security Privatization “Would Eliminate The Guarantee That Social Security Provides And Reduce Benefits.” “AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security: ‘Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations.  […] AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation’s bills.” [AARP, Press Release, 6/17/11]

 

·        AARP: “For Most Older Americans, Social Security Is The Only Retirement Income Source That Is Guaranteed For Life.” “For most older Americans, Social Security is the only retirement income source that is guaranteed for life and adjusted to keep pace with inflation.” [AARP, 3/16]

 

NCPSSM: “Social Security Provides A Guaranteed Income” But Private Social Security Accounts Would Expose Benefits To The Stock Market, Where “Returns Are Never Guaranteed.” “Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts. And risk must be taken into account, because stock market returns are never guaranteed!” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Accessed 8/25/16]

 

·        NCPSSM: “Privatization Means Increased Retirement Risks” And “Severe Cuts In Social Security Benefits.” “Privatization is not a plan to save Social Security; it is a plan to dismantle Social Security. Privatization means increased retirement risks, severe cuts in Social Security benefits, and a multi-trillion dollar increase in the federal debt.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Accessed 8/25/16]

 

Social Security Works: Social Security “Provides A Guaranteed Benefit” But Private Social Security Accounts “Would Remove This Guarantee” And Gamble Social Security Benefits On Wall Street. “Social Security is so valuable because it provides a guaranteed benefit. Privatizing Social Security by allowing people to divert their Social Security contributions into private accounts, would remove this guarantee and let people gamble their retirement savings in the casinos of Wall Street.” [Social Security Works, Accessed 8/25/16]

 

 

V/O: DSCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

 

GFX: PAID FOR BY DSCC WWW.DSCC.ORG AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE. DSCC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF THIS ADVERTISING.

 

Next Post

DSCC Statement on GOP Senators’ Continued Support for Donald Trump’s Hate-Based Campaign

Stay Connected


DSCC and MT Dems Applaud Montana Supreme Court Decision Striking Down Four Voter Suppression Laws

13 hrs Ago

ago on Twitter

Close

Defend Our Democratic
Senate Majority


Sign up to receive text updates. By participating, you consent to receive recurring committee & fundraising messages from the DSCC, including automated text messages. Msg & Data rates may apply. Privacy Policy & ToS.

or