NEW DSCC AD: The Facts on Kelly Ayotte’s Record to Cut Social Security and Medicare

V/O: On Social Security and Medicare, these are the facts.

GFX: On Social Security and Medicare
These are the facts.

V/O: Kelly Ayotte voted for deep cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Here are the votes.

GFX: Kelly Ayotte

Deep cuts in Medicare

and Social Security

Vote 77, 5/25/11

Vote 116, 7/22/11

Vote 98, 5/16/12

Vote 46, 3/21/13

AYOTTE VOTED FOR CUT, CAP & BALANCE BILL THAT WOULD FORCE DEEP CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

Ayotte Said She “Fully” Supported The “Cut, Cap And Balance” Budget Plan. “The plan draws from the recommendations of the bipartisan commission established by President Obama that presented its findings last year. ‘Right now, the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance Act’ is the only written plan for addressing the debt ceiling, and I fully support that plan,’ Ayotte said.” [Union Leader, 7/21/11]

Ayotte Voted For Bill To Make Debt Limit Increase Contingent On Setting And Enforcing Statutory Spending Gaps As A Percentage Of GDP In FY 2012-FY 2021. In July 2011, Ayotte voted against a: “Reid, D-Nev., motion to table (kill) the Reid motion to proceed to the bill that would make an increase in the debt limit contingent upon the passage of a balanced-budget constitutional amendment. The bill also would set fiscal 2012 discretionary spending at $1.019 trillion and enforce statutory caps that limit spending as a percentage of gross domestic product in fiscal 2012 through 2021.” The motion to table failed 51-46. [CQ, 7/22/11; H.R. 2560, Vote 116, 7/22/11]

• CBPP: Cut, Cap And Balance Bill “Would Necessitate Deep Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare, “Big Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare Would Be “Inevitable.” “The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions. The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the-board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled. Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big cuts in these programs would be inevitable.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]

• Cut, Cap, And Balance Would Require More Extreme Cuts Than Ryan Budget Plan. “The constitutional balanced budget amendment that the House Judiciary Committee began considering June 2 and is expected to pass next week, is a highly ideological measure that would force Congress to enact the Republican Study Committee’s extreme budget plan or something similar to it. Even the House-passed budget plan of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would not pass muster under the proposal; the more draconian Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget or a close equivalent would be required.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/6/11]

• Center For American Progress: Cut, Cap, Balance Means “Simply Massive Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare. “There is no way around the basic arithmetic. The only way to achieve that level of spending is by radically altering some fundamental public programs and services. A federal spending cap may sound innocuous but it is simply massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by another name.” [Center for American Progress, 7/18/11]

• AARP Opposed Cut, Cap And Balance Because It Did Not Shield Social Security and Medicare From “Arbitrary Reductions.”  “In addition, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act requires that a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution be transmitted to the states as a pre-condition of increasing the debt ceiling.  Social Security and Medicare, which are not excluded under the balanced budget amendment, would therefore be at risk for arbitrary reductions under the constitutional amendment, and as such, AARP is opposed.” [AARP Letter, 7/21/11]

• The National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare: Cut, Cap And Balance “Would Require Draconian Spending Cuts Of Such A Magnitude As To Force Policymakers To Severely Slash Medicare, Medicaid, And Many Other Programs While Opening The Door To Massive New Tax Cuts.”  According to The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare:  As a result, these proposals would require draconian spending cuts of such a magnitude as to force policymakers to severely slash Medicare, Medicaid, and many other programs while opening the door to massive new tax cuts. What is most alarming to our members is that the amendment would negatively impact Social Security by essentially nullifying the trust funds as a source of funding for the payment of benefits.”  [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 7/18/11]

AYOTTE VOTED FOR RYAN BUDGETS, WHICH WOULD CUT MEDICARE

Ayotte Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget Plan. In May 2011, Ayotte voted for a: “Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the concurrent resolution that would allow $2.859 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal 2012.” The motion was rejected 40-57. [CQ, 5/25/11; H.Con.Res. 34, Vote 77, 5/25/11]

• Time’s Swampland: Ryan Budget Contained “Massive Cuts To Medicare.” “But while Ryan has taken a bold step and brought some hard truths into focus, many of the details of his proposal remain fuzzy. Despite its massive cuts to Medicare and redefinition of the program, Ryan’s plan — called the ‘Path to Prosperity’ — devotes just 3½ pages to the changes. I’ve managed to get a few more key details, which answer some glaring questions, but also raise a lot more.” [Time, Swampland, 4/6/11]

• Center for American Progress: “Under The Ryan Plan, Seniors Will Be Forced To Spend Thousands Of Dollars More On Health Care During Retirement.” “Although the plan again fails to specify how the cap on Medicare spending would be enforced, converting all Medicare spending to vouchers suggests that the capped growth rate would be enforced by limiting the value of the vouchers provided to seniors. As a result, the vouchers proposed by the Ryan budget will become increasingly inadequate in their ability to help seniors purchase a health plan. […] Under the Ryan plan, seniors will be forced to spend thousands of dollars more on health care during retirement. Those who are unable or unprepared for these dramatic increases will be forced to either reduce spending in other areas or forgo needed care.” [Center for American Progress, 3/12/13]

Ayotte Voted For FY 2013 Ryan Budget Plan. In May 2012, Ayotte voted in favor of a: “Conrad, D-N.D., motion to proceed to the concurrent resolution that would allow $2.794 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal 2013, not including off-budget accounts.” The motion was rejected 41-48. [CQ, 5/16/12; H.Con.Res. 112, Vote 98, 5/16/12]

• CBO Analysis Showed Ryan Budget Would Cut Medicare Benefits And Seniors Could Face Higher Costs. “CBO said it’s possible that seniors would face higher costs under the Ryan plan, and said other possible side effects include ‘reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; less investment in new, high-cost technologies; or some combination of those outcomes. […] CBO compared those scenarios to its own estimates for the existing Medicare program, including estimates that assume Congress will continue to avoid certain automatic Medicare cuts. By 2030, average government spending on each new Medicare enrollee would be about $2,000 less under Ryan’s plan than the status quo. In 2050, Medicare’s per-person spending would be about 42 percent lower under Ryan’s proposals. Under the same assumptions — the existing program remains in place and Congress doesn’t let certain cuts take effect — Medicare would account for 5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2030. The Ryan plan would cut that to about 4.25 percent, CBO said.” [The Hill, 3/20/12]

• Headline: “CBO: Ryan Policies Would Cut Medicare Spending, Increase Number Of Uninsured.” [The Hill, 3/20/12]

• Politico: Ryan Budget’s Cut In Medicare Spending Growth Rate Would Amount To “Hundreds Of Billions” Of Medicare Dollars. “In a little-noticed but vital change last spring, the House Budget Committee chairman cut half a point from the annual growth rate he had allowed for Medicare spending. It gave him the extra margin needed to pay for tax cuts and still placate the right by getting to balance in 2040. But it meant breaking with Ryan’s fellow Medicare reformer, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and raised this question that echoes now in the presidential campaign: Did Ryan cut corners with seniors to pay for tax cuts just as he accuses President Barack Obama of doing to finance health care reform? Indeed, calculations by POLITICO — drawn from a Congressional Budget Office analysis commissioned by Ryan in March — show that without the half-point cut, the House Republican budget would still be in the red in 2040. And Ryan’s small adjustment compounds greatly over time: lowering spending for Medicare by hundreds of billions from 2030 to 2040 and well over $1 trillion from 2040 to 2050.” [Politico, 9/26/12]

Ayotte Voted For FY 2014 Ryan Budget Plan. In March 2013, Ayotte voted for: “Murray, D-Wash., amendment no. 433 that would replace the text of the resolution with language to provide $2.769 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2014, not including off-budget accounts. It would assume that the spending levels required by the sequester remain in place and that non-war discretionary spending for all future years will be at post-sequester levels. It would assume that all discretionary savings from the sequester beginning in fiscal 2014 will come from non-defense programs. It would assume $4.6 trillion in reductions over the next 10 years in both discretionary and mandatory spending. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and a restructuring of Medicare into a ‘premium support’ system beginning in 2024. It would call for an overhaul of the tax code, under which the alternative minimum tax would be repealed, the six current individual income tax brackets would be consolidated into two and tax credits and deductions would be eliminated or curtailed.” The amendment was rejected 40-59. [CQ, 3/21/13; S.Amdt. 433 to S.Con.Res. 8, Vote 46, 3/21/13]

• FY 2014 Ryan Budget Cut Medicare Spending By $346 Billon And Included $89 Billion In Medicare Cuts From Sequestration. “The Medicare proposals in the 2014 budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) are essentially the same as those in last year’s Ryan budget.  Once again, Chairman Ryan proposes to replace Medicare’s guarantee of health coverage with a premium-support voucher and raise the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67.  Together, these changes would shift substantial costs to Medicare beneficiaries and (with the simultaneous repeal of health reform) leave many 65- and 66-year-olds without any health coverage.   The Ryan budget would cut Medicare spending by $356 billion over the 2013 – 2023 period compared to CBPP’s current-policy baseline.  It would save $129 billion by repealing the Medicare benefit improvements in health reform (including closure of the prescription drug ‘donut hole’), limiting medical malpractice awards, and raising income-tested premiums.  Ryan’s budget also includes $138 billion in scheduled cuts from Medicare’s sustainable growth rate formula for physicians and $89 billion in Medicare cuts from sequestration.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]

V/O: She voted against protecting Social Security from the threat of privatization.

GFX: Kelly Ayotte

Social Security

Privatization

Vote 84, 3/24/15

AYOTTE VOTED AGAINST PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY FROM PRIVATIZATION OR BENEFIT CUTS

Ayotte Vote Against Creating A 60-Vote Point Of Order Against Any Legislation That Would Reduce Social Security Benefits, Increase The Retirement Age For Benefits Or Privatize Social Security. In March 2015, Ayotte voted against a “motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Enzi, R-Wyo., point of order against the Wyden amendment no. 471 for not being germane. The Wyden amendment would create a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that would reduce Social Security benefits, increase the retirement age for benefits or privatize Social Security.” The motion was rejected 51-48. [CQ, 3/24/15; S.Con.Res.11, Vote 84, 3/24/15]

• The Hill’s Floor Action: “Senators On Tuesday Blocked An Amendment From Senate Democrats Aimed At Protecting Social Security.” “Senators on Tuesday blocked an amendment from Senate Democrats aimed at protecting Social Security. Senators voted 51-48 on a procedural motion, after Democrats tried to override the decision of Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Budget Committee, to block the amendment. The amendment would have required any proposal that cuts benefits or raises the Social Security retirement age meet a ‘point of order’ requiring a supermajority of 60 votes for passage.” [The Hill, Floor Action, 3/24/25]

V/O: And said she’s open to raising the retirement age for Social Security.

GFX: Kelly Ayotte:

Raising Retirement Age

-Concord Monitor, 9/24/10-

AYOTTE WAS OPEN TO RAISING THE SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT AGE

Ayotte Said She Was Open To Raising The Social Security Retirement Age. “Ayotte has told the Monitor she would consider changing the eligibility age or instituting means testing – though not for those about to retire. She opposes any tax rate increase. Asked whether she would support raising the cap, Ayotte said she does not believe Congress should raise taxes, ‘but we have to look at each idea.’” [Concord Monitor, 9/24/10]

Ayotte Would Consider Raising The Retirement Age For Social Security. “Hodes would not raise the retirement age for Social Security; Ayotte would consider it for younger workers. Hodes would reinstate the inheritance tax with exemptions; Ayotte opposes its reinstatement.” [Associated Press, 9/22/10]

Ayotte Vote Against Creating A 60-Vote Point Of Order Against Any Legislation That Would Reduce Social Security Benefits, Increase The Retirement Age For Benefits Or Privatize Social Security. In March 2015, Ayotte voted against a “motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Enzi, R-Wyo., point of order against the Wyden amendment no. 471 for not being germane. The Wyden amendment would create a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that would reduce Social Security benefits, increase the retirement age for benefits or privatize Social Security.” The motion was rejected 51-48. [CQ, 3/24/15; S.Con.Res.11, Vote 84, 3/24/15]

• The Hill’s Floor Action: “Senators On Tuesday Blocked An Amendment From Senate Democrats Aimed At Protecting Social Security.” “Senators on Tuesday blocked an amendment from Senate Democrats aimed at protecting Social Security. Senators voted 51-48 on a procedural motion, after Democrats tried to override the decision of Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Budget Committee, to block the amendment. The amendment would have required any proposal that cuts benefits or raises the Social Security retirement age meet a ‘point of order’ requiring a supermajority of 60 votes for passage.” [The Hill, Floor Action, 3/24/25]

V/O: Look it up yourself.

GFX: www.KellyAyotteFacts.com

V/O: The fact is, Kelly Ayotte’s supporting big corporate special interests. She’s not working for us.

GFX: Kelly Ayotte

She’s not

working for us.

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.