Close this search box.

DSCC Ad Trying to Cover Up Sestak’s Record of Rubber-Stamping Pelosi-Obama’s Job-Destroying Agenda

DSCC Ad Trying to Cover Up Sestak’s Record of Rubber-Stamping Pelosi-Obama’s Job-Destroying Agenda

Allentown – The latest attack ad from the Desperation Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) distorts Pat Toomey’s record because they don’t want voters to know that Pat stood up to his own Republican Party when they spent too much money and that Congressman Sestak has walked in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and President Obama’s job-destroying agenda every step of the way.

“The Democrats’ attacks are laughable and a sure sign of a desperate campaign,” Toomey Communications Director Nachama Soloveichik said.  “Let’s remember who supported the biggest spending measures of President Bush’s administrations – the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Wall Street, and the auto companies – that was Congressman Joe Sestak, while Pat opposed every single one of them.  The truth is, Pat often stood up to members of his own party and the president when he felt they were spending too much money.  Congressman Sestak has never opposed President Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s job-destroying agenda, rubber-stamping the bailouts, the deficit spending, the massive tax increases, the wasteful stimulus, and government-run health care.  No wonder the Democrats are so desperate to cover up Joe Sestak’s record of skyrocketing deficits and 9.6% unemployment.”

Praise for Pat’s independence:

“After having talked in his 1998 campaign about going to Congress to work toward fiscal discipline, he put his principles ahead of party-line obedience.  The best illustration of this came in March of this year when he pulled enough conservative allies together to force Speaker Dennis Hastert to negotiate with him to set aside $4 billion in projected surplus funds for debt reduction . . . At a time when both parties were taking about reducing debt, tax cuts, and new spending, Mr. Toomey’s efforts kept everyone honest.” (Morning Call endorsement, 10/15/00)

“Just getting debt reduction into the $1.82 trillion budget resolution was a coup.  But to do it knowing it could threaten a $9 billion supplemental appropriations bill supported by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, took moxie.  The move surprised Speaker Hastert and House Appropriations Chairman Bill Young, and Rep. Young threatened to kill the budget resolution unless Rep. Toomey’s provision was killed.  Finally he agreed to that in exchange for the debt-reduction promise.” (Morning Call, 03/26/00)

“Constituents of the 15th and 8th Congressional Districts can feel a measure of pride in their Republican representatives for the leadership and wisdom they demonstrated in Washington this week. U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey was instrumental in convincing his Republican colleagues Wednesday to keep a three-term limit on committee and subcommittee chairmen . . . Each is a principled gentleman, worthy of emulation by freshmen lawmakers; this was evident Wednesday when GOP House lawmakers met.” (Morning Call, 11/17/00)

“Toomey is not a new Santorum, not a straight-party stalwart.  His campaign has shown once again that he is a principled candidate with clear ideas rooted in practical experience.  He will be a formidable opponent for whichever Democrat wins the primary election.” (Patriot-News Editorial Board, “Endorsement: Toomey has grasp of issues, 05/10/10)
Pat Toomey often opposed President Bush and the Republican leadership’s policies in Congress because he thought they were fiscally irresponsible and unfair to taxpayers.
Pat criticized Republicans in 1999 when they wanted to eradicate spending caps they had passed in 1997.
Pat campaigned hard against a $4,600 pay raise for members of Congress in 1999 (Roll Call, 09/13/99).
Pat took on his own leadership and he won a guarantee to use a portion of the surplus to pay off the federal debt.
Pat was instrumental in convincing Republican leaders to maintain rules mandating term limits for committee chairs, originally passed in 1995 (Morning Call, 11/17/00).
Toomey voted against the $869 billion 2002 Farm Bill (RC #123, 05/02/02).

Pat and other congressmen led a “filibuster” against his own Republican leadership in order to force House leaders to restrain spending.  They offered a series of amendments on the $19.8 billion Interior Department bill, nearly $900 million more than the president’s request (AP, 07/17/02).

Pat supported the importation of prescription drugs even though the Bush administration and the Republican leadership opposed it (RC #445, 07/25/03).

Toomey voted against the $460 billion Medicare Part D Program (RC #669, 11/22/03).  He was 1 of only 25 Republicans to do so.  He even spearheaded a letter, signed by 23 other Republicans, to Speaker Denny Hastert, saying he won’t vote for the final bill unless it holds down costs, guarantees competition, and prohibits price controls. (Morning Call, 11/19/03)

Pat voted for a more fiscally responsible budget every year one was offered as an alternative to President Bush’s budget because he thought it spend too much money  (RC #73, 03/23/00)  (RC #68, 03/28/01)(RC #79, 03/20/03) (RC #90, 03/25/04)
Pat was very critical of President Bush’s policies:
Earmarks: “We encourage President Bush to issue an Executive Order to cut down on the number of earmarks and insure taxpayer dollars are being spent in the most efficient manner possible.  To be sure, many congressmen will kick and scream over the loss of their pork, but taxpayers deserve better.” (Press release, 12/21/07, “Club for Growth Urges President Bush to Turn off Earmark Spigot”)

Stimulus: “One-time rebates and temporary business tax breaks that the president and the Democrats seem to be coalescing around are the wrong approach.  If we truly wanted to stimulate the economy, we would make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent tomorrow. Instead of doling out temporary rebates, it is essential that we increase incentives for work, savings, and investment, and you do that by lowering marginal tax rates and making those reductions permanent so people have the confidence to plan and take risk.” (Press release, 01/18/08, “The Wrong Way to Go on Economic Stimulus”)

Fannie & Freddie Bailout: “The circumstances we face today are a direct result of a fundamentally flawed business model operating with an indirect taxpayer subsidy, but the administration’s refusal to begin an immediate process of fundamentally reforming the model by turning it into its rightful form as a fully private venture only exacerbates a dire situation. Secretary Paulson’s intervention today misses a unique opportunity to fix this mess. American taxpayers could end up paying a very dear price for this mistake.” (Press release, 09/08/08, “Fannie and Freddie Bailout is a Missed Opportunity of Colossal Proportions)

TARP: “The Treasury’s bailout proposal will likely cause more harm than good.  Instead of launching the largest government bailout since the Depression, the government should be implementing policies to stimulate the economy.” (Press release, 09/22/08, Club for Growth Condemns Federal Bailout)

Auto Bailout: “President Bush’s decision to extend loans to the big three auto companies is just the latest in a series of unfair burdens imposed on taxpayers.  The $13.4 billion loan will only postpone the inevitable-either bankruptcy or additional bailouts. Instead, those companies that cannot survive on their own should proceed with bankruptcy now. The point of bankruptcy is to allow companies with valuable assets either to restructure their liabilities and reemerge stronger or sell those assets to someone who can deploy them successfully.” (Press release, 12/19/08, “Club for Growth declares Auto Bailout a Mistake”)
Pat often voted against spending bills even when a majority of Republicans voted for them.
Pat was 1 of 36 congressmen to vote against the FY 2005 DC Appropriations Act because it spent too much money (RC #498, 10/06/04).
Pat was 1 of 18 congressmen to voted against the FY 2005 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill because it spent too much money (RC #346, 07/08/04).
Pat was 1 of 16 congressmen to vote against the FY 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill because it spent too much money (RC #325, 06/25/04).
Pat was 1 of 36 congressmen to vote against the FY 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill because it spent too much money (RC #631, 11/18/03).
Pat was 1 of 132 congressmen to vote against funding asparagus research (RC #360, 06/29/00).
Pat was 1 of 82 congressmen to vote against increasing the annual compensation for the President to $400,000 (RC #302, 07/15/99).
Pat was 1 of 79 congressmen to vote against funding wood utilization research programs (RC #160, 05/26/99).
Pat was 1 of 119 congressmen to vote against funding the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness (RC #161, 05/26/99).
Joe Sestak’s Record:
Joe Sestak has walked in lockstep with President Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s disastrous economic policies, even when other Pennsylvania Democrats voted against them.
Sestak voted to release the second half of the Wall Street bailout money (RC #27, 01/22/09).  99 Democrats, including 4 Pennsylvania Democrats, voted no.
Sestak voted for the $787 billion stimulus bill (RC #70, 02/13/09).
Sestak voted for the $410 billion FY 2009 Omnibus (RC #86, 02/25/09).
Sestak voted for President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget for FY 2010 (RC #216, 04/29/09).
Sestak voted for the cap-and-trade energy tax (RC #477, 06/26/09).  44 Democrats, including 4 Pennsylvania Democrats, voted against it.
Sestak voted for the $2 billion Cash for Clunkers program (RC #682, 07/31/10).
Sestak voted for the $2.3 trillion government-run health care bill (RC #165, 03/21/10).  34 Democrats, including 2 Pennsylvania Democrats, voted against it.
Sestak voted for the $447 billion FY 2010 Omnibus (RC #949, 12/10/09).  28 Democrats, including 2 Pennsylvania Democrats, voted against it.
Sestak voted for a $154.4 billion second stimulus bill (RC #991, 12/16/09).  38 Democrats, including 1 Pennsylvania Democrat, voted against it.
Sestak has voted with Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time (Congressional Quarterly).
Deficit spending when Pat Toomey was in Congress versus Joe Sestak
Pat Toomey: 1999 – 2005: $456 billion
Joe Sestak: 2007 – 2010: $3.3 trillion
Sestak demonstrated less bipartisanship in his presidential support score than Pat
Sestak voted with President Bush 13% of the time (CQ Member Profiles).
Pat voted with President Clinton 28% of the time (CQ Member Profiles).

  • Reader Poll: Should President Joe Biden Step Aside?

    • Yes. He should step aside because of his age, declining ability to do the job. (45%)
    • No. He should not step aside. (39%)
    • Yes. He should step aside because he can't beat Donald Trump. (15%)

    Total Voters: 231

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen