As he comes under fire for a new report showing how he benefitted from $100,000 worth of special-interest funded trips, the DSCC released a new ad highlighting how Senator Richard Burr has made his twenty years in Washington work for him at the expense of hardworking North Carolinians. As Burr’s personal net worth skyrocketed, he was one of just three Senators to vote against the bipartisan STOCK Act that works to prevent insider trading from members of Congress. Burr also accepted more than $1 million from the insurance industry, and then in return wrote his own plan to privatize Medicare that would raise costs for North Carolina seniors.
The ad, “Twenty Years” can be viewed HERE.
“Senator Richard Burr’s spent his 20 years in Washington getting richer and making his own life better, even as hard-working North Carolina families and seniors suffer the consequences,” said Sadie Weiner, DSCC Communications Director. “Whether it’s writing a Medicare plan that pads the pockets of insurance companies while raising costs for seniors, or voting against a ban on insider trading for Congress while his net worth increases, it’s clear that Burr is only interested in serving himself, not North Carolina. After two decades in Congress, Richard Burr sure has figured out how to make Washington work for him, but that just doesn’t work for North Carolina.”
BACK UP:
| AD CONTENT | DOCUMENTATION |
|
V/O: After twenty years in Washington, Richard Burr has made millions
GFX: Richard Burr 20 Years In Washington |
BURR HAS SERVED IN CONGRESS FOR 21 YEARS
Burr Has Served In Congress Since 1995, 21 Years Total. “Burr said that after serving in Congress since 1995 – he spent 10 years in the U.S. House before running for Senate – it will be time for a new generation of leaders to take over. Asked why he’s announcing his plans in the midst of a heated re-election campaign, Burr cited his wife, Brooke.” [Charlotte Observer, 7/20/16]
WHILE SERVING IN CONGRESS, BURR MADE $3.6 MILLION FROM PERSONAL INVESTMENTS & HIS CONGRESSIONAL SALARY
Politifact: Burr Has Made “About $3.6 Million” From Personal Investments And Salary While Serving In Congress. “Burr’s successful campaigning gives him a congressional salary of $174,000. That salary – plus investments in real estate and the stock market – helped Burr become a millionaire during his two decades in the House and Senate. He served in the House from 1995 to 2005, and in the Senate since 2005. In that time he has made about $3.6 million in pre-tax salary.” [Politifact, 8/25/16]
|
|
V/O: …increasing his wealth over five hundred percent.
GFX: Increased His Wealth Over 500% Richard Burr Financial Disclosures; Filed 5/16/95, 5/15/15
|
BURR’S NET WORTH HAS INCREASED BY OVER 500 PERCENT
From 1994 To 2014, Burr’s Average Net Worth Increased By Over 500%. According to Burr’s 1994 and 2014 personal financial disclosures, Burr’s net worth increased by over 500%. Burr had an average net worth of $189,507 in 1994 and an average net worth of $2,636,270 in 2014.” [Richard Burr Personal Financial Disclosure Reports – 1994 & 2014; Filed 5/16/95, 5/15/15]
|
|
V/O: No wonder Richard Burr was one of just three Senators who voted against banning insider trading by Congress.
GFX: Richard Burr Voted Against Banning Insider Trading By Congress -Vote 14, 2/2/12
|
BURR WAS ONE OF ONLY THREE SENATORS TO VOTE AGAINST THE STOCK ACT, WHICH BANNED INSIDER TRADING FOR LAWMAKERS
Burr Voted Against The STOCK Act, Which Prohibited Insider Trading By Members Of Congress And Required Disclosure Of Stock Trades Within 30 Days Of Transaction. In 2012, Burr voted against: “Passage of the bill that would clarify that members of Congress and their aides are covered by current Securities and Exchange Commission regulations that bar the use of non-public information for trading stocks and bonds. The bill would state that existing House and Senate ethics rules bar lawmakers from voting on legislation on which they have a conflict of interest. It would require lawmakers and congressional aides who already file annual financial disclosure statements to report stock and bond transactions within 30 days of the transaction. The information would be posted on a publicly-available website. The bill would require lawmakers to disclose more financial data on their home mortgages and would prohibit the payment of bonuses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives while the two mortgage giants are under government conservatorship.” The bill passed by a vote of 96-3. [CQ, 2/2/12; S.2038, Vote 14, 2/2/12]
? Politico: Senate “Easily Passed” The STOCK Act That “Would Ban Insider Trading For Lawmakers,” Bill “Sail[ed] Through The Senate On A 96-3 Vote.” “The Senate broke through its usual gridlock on Thursday and easily passed a politically popular bill that would ban insider trading for lawmakers and their staffs. After days of bickering over amendments, the STOCK Act sailed through the Senate on a 96-3 vote and now heads to the House, where Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has pledged to bring the bill to the floor next week. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) were the only no votes.” [Politico, 2/2/12]
o Headline: “Insider Trading Bill Heads To House” [Politico, 2/2/12]
? 60 Minutes: “It Was Legal For Members Of Congress To Trade Stock Based On Non-Public Information Gathered During The Course Of Their Duties.” “Congressmen and senators are expending much of their time and energy right now raising the millions of dollars in campaign funds they’ll need just to hold onto a job that pays $174,000 a year. Few of them are doing it for the salary, and all of them will say they’re doing it to serve the public. But there are other benefits – power, prestige, and the opportunity to become a Washington insider with access to information and connections that no one else has, in an environment of privilege where rules that govern the rest of the country don’t always apply to them. When we first broadcast this story in November it was legal for members of Congress to trade stock based on non-public information gathered during the course of their duties – this story would change that.” [CBS News, 6/17/12]
? The STOCK Act Prohibited The Use Of Nonpublic Information Accessed In Congress For Personal Profit. “The legislation was a direct result of a CBS News 60 minutes investigation in November of 2011 that exposed how members of Congress and staff legally traded stocks based on nonpublic information that they had exclusive access to. The STOCK Act prohibits the use of that information for private profit. It also amended the Commodity Exchange Act, which dictates reporting of financial transactions on a more frequent and immediate basis – now within forty-five days of a trade.” [CBS News, 9/2/16]
Burr Was One Of Only Three Senators To Oppose The STOCK Act. “U.S. Sen. Richard Burr was one of only three senators who opposed a new bill that explicitly prevents members of Congress and their staffs from using nonpublic information for insider trading. The Winston-Salem Republican characterized the time spent debating the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act as ‘ludicrous’ when existing laws address insider trading. The laws apply to all Americans, including members of Congress, he said.” [McClatchy, 2/7/12]
|
|
V/O: Then there’s Medicare. Richard Burr wrote a plan to privatize Medicare…
GFX: Richard Burr Wrote Plan To Privatize Medicare -AP, 2/16/12
|
BURR INTRODUCED A PLAN TO PRIVATIZE MEDICARE, WHICH WAS DERIDED AS THE RYAN PLAN “ON STEROIDS”
2012: Associated Press: Burr Unveiled His Own Medicare Privatization Plan, Which Would “Start The Transition To A System Dominated By Private Insurance Plans” Faster Than The Ryan Plan. “Two Republican senators unveiled a Medicare overhaul Thursday that features an accelerated transition to private health insurance for many seniors, a gradual increase in the eligibility age, and higher premiums for middle-class and upper-income retirees. […] Like Ryan, Coburn and Burr would gradually raise the eligibility age to 67. But their plan also differs in several important ways. It would start the transition to a system dominated by private insurance plans in 2016 instead of waiting a decade, as Ryan has proposed. Private plans would compete with a government-sponsored program, a retooled version of today’s Medicare. Seniors would get a fixed amount from the government which they could apply toward a private plan or the government plan modeled on Medicare. Benefits would not be spelled out, but all plans would have to meet a test of basic insurance value.” [Associated Press, 2/16/12]
? Burr Proposed Privatizing Medicare Within 4 Years. “Republican U.S. Sens. Richard Burr of Winston-Salem and Tom Coburn on Thursday unveiled their plan for changing Medicare, the government-run health-care program for seniors. The plan would offer seniors, starting in 2016, the choice to stick with the government-run fee-for-service program, or choose health insurance policies offered by private companies that would bid for the right to participate in the Medicare program. According to Burr, the Seniors’ Choice Act also would: Provide a maximum out-of-pocket protection so that a senior would not have to pay more than $7,500 per year in medical expenses. Gradually raise the age of eligibility for participating in Medicare by two months for each year until age 67, starting with people born in 1949. Gradually increase the premiums on Medicare by an average of 3 percent each year beginning in 2013 so that a 9 percent increase is accomplished by 2016.” [Winston-Salem Journal, 2/18/12]
? Annuity News: Burr’s Proposal For Medicare Included An “Increased Shift Toward More Privatization Of The Medicare Industry.” “Under the legislative proposal put forward by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., seniors would be limited in how they use private supplemental Medicare insurance and maximum out-of-pocket medical expenses under Medicare Parts A and B would also be limited. The proposal would also increase out-of-pocket requirements for wealthy seniors. But perhaps the biggest change is a provision that would give seniors the right to choose the Medicare plan that best meets their needs. That means that in 2016, there would be an increased shift toward more privatization of the Medicare industry. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service plans and private plans would ‘be forced to compete head-to-head,’ Coburn said in a statement.” [Annuity News, 2/21/12]
? NCPSSM: Burr’s Medicare Privatization Plan “Nothing More Than The GOP/Ryan Plan On Steroids.” “The Coburn/Burr legislation proposed today would: provide seniors a voucher for their health care that could shift a growing share of Medicare costs to beneficiaries without reducing overall costs in the program, undermine traditional Medicare, leave millions of seniors without health coverage in retirement, and raise premiums for middle-class retirees. The Coburn/Burr proposal forces these changes even earlier than the Ryan plan. ‘This latest Medicare privatization scheme is nothing more than the GOP/Ryan plan on steroids. Not only does it promise savings that most private insurers have never achieved in providing coverage to seniors, it also delays healthcare coverage to age 67, and raises premiums for millions of American retirees. Budget hawks keep promising that private market competition will drive down costs yet history proves just the opposite. Private insurers offering Medicare Advantage plans have raked in billions of dollars in overpayments in the past decade and seniors, whether they participated in MA or not, paid for those subsidies with higher premiums.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Press Release, 2/16/12]
o NCPSSM: Burr’s Plan “Doubled Down On Congressman Ryan’s Voucher Plan Offering What Appears To Be The Same Failed Privatization Approach To Medicare Reform.” “Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (RNC) have doubled down on Congressman Ryan’s voucher plan offering what appears to be the same failed privatization approach to Medicare reform that has been rejected by the majority of Americans. The Coburn/Burr legislation proposed today would: provide seniors a voucher for their health care that could shift a growing share of Medicare costs to beneficiaries without reducing overall costs in the program, undermine traditional Medicare, leave millions of seniors without health coverage in retirement, and raise premiums for middle-class retirees. The Coburn/Burr proposal forces these changes even earlier than the Ryan plan.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Press Release, 2/16/12]
? PolitiFact: “Mostly True” That Proposal To Voucherize Medicare, By Prompting A Shift Toward The Private Sector – Regardless Of Degree, Would “Privatize Medicare.” “It’s true that under the Ryan proposal, the government will retain important duties in running Medicare. But ‘privatization’ does not have to mean that the government has nothing further to do with the enterprise. Under longstanding definitions, privatization could take place without the government giving up its right to regulate a privately provided service, such as an electric utility. That said, we think it’s fair to note that Medicare already provides some types of coverage through private insurance now, so the shift toward the private sector prompted by the Ryan plan would be more a question of degree than kind. On balance, we conclude that the idea that the Paul Ryan budget proposal would ‘privatize Medicare’ is Mostly True.” [PolitiFact, 5/25/11]
|
|
V/O: …and got one point one million dollars from the insurance industry.
GFX: Campaigns Got $1.1 Million Dollars From The Insurance Industry -Center for Responsive Politics
|
BURR HAS TAKEN OVER $1.1 MILLION FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY DURING HIS CAREER
Burr Has Received $1.1 Million From Insurance Interests. Over the course of his political career Burr has received a total of $1,129,864 from insurance industry interests. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 6/1/16] |
|
V/O: You … would pay more for Medicare.
GFX: You Would Pay More For Medicare -Winston-Salem Journal, 2/18/12
|
BURR MEDICARE PRIVATIZATION PLAN WOULD INCREASE PREMIUMS BY 9 PERCENT
Winston Salem Journal: Burr Medicare Privatization Plan Contained A “9 Percent Increase” In Medicare Premiums. “Republican U.S. Sens. Richard Burr of Winston-Salem and Tom Coburn on Thursday unveiled their plan for changing Medicare, the government-run health-care program for seniors. The plan would offer seniors, starting in 2016, the choice to stick with the government-run fee for-service program, or choose health insurance policies offered by private companies that would bid for the right to participate in the Medicare program. According to Burr, the Seniors’ Choice Act also would: Provide a maximum out-of-pocket protection so that a senior would not have to pay more than $7,500 per year in medical expenses. Gradually raise the age of eligibility for participating in Medicare by two months for each year until age 67, starting with people born in 1949. Gradually increase the premiums on Medicare by an average of 3 percent each year beginning in 2013 so that a 9 percent increase is accomplished by 2016.” [Winston Salem Journal, 2/18/12]
Kaiser Family Foundation: Burr Medicare Privatization Plan Contained A “9 Percent Increase” In Medicare Premiums. “Burr-Coburn ‘Seniors’ Choice Act’ February 16, 2012 Part B premiums would be increased by 3 percent of Part A and B program costs each year, beginning in 2013, to achieve a 9 percent increase prior to implementation of premium support in 2016. Beneficiaries would pay the difference between the defined federal contribution and the bid for the plan in which they chose to enroll. Unclear how the Part B and Part D formulas would be calculated or applied beginning in 2016.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 7/26/12]
Burr Medicare Plan Would Raise Standard Medicare Part B Premiums By 9 Percent, Up To Roughly $240 Annually. “Burr–Coburn would raise the standard Medicare Part B premiums from 25 percent to 34 percent of total premium costs over three years. The Senators say that the impact would be on the order of roughly $15 to $20 per month.” [Heritage Foundation, 4/4/12]
|
|
V/O: Richard Burr. Twenty years in Washington … serving himself.
GFX: Richard Burr 20 Years In Washington Serving Himself
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.
|
BURR HAS SERVED IN CONGRESS FOR 21 YEARS
Charlotte Observer: Burr Has Served In Congress Since 1995, 21 Years Total. “Burr said that after serving in Congress since 1995 – he spent 10 years in the U.S. House before running for Senate – it will be time for a new generation of leaders to take over. Asked why he’s announcing his plans in the midst of a heated re-election campaign, Burr cited his wife, Brooke.” [Charlotte Observer, 7/20/16] |
