U.S. Rep. Lee Terry’s campaign reports raising $1.86 million for the 2012 election cycle in a report filed today with the Federal Election Commission.

The report shows Terry’s campaign as having $276,312 in cash on hand on September 30.

For the quarter, Terry’s campaign raised $489,739.  For the full election cycle Terry has raised $1,863,513.

The report covers the period of July 1 through September 30.

“Our campaign has continued to receive the financial support of individuals and supporters throughout the second district,” said Dave Boomer, Terry’s campaign manager.  “We are on track to meet all of our fundraising goals for the cycle and this will enable us to fully fund all major tactics that we need to undertake in the final weeks of the race.”

The $276,312 in available cash is in addition to a substantial amount of television ad time that has already been purchased by Terry’s campaign.

Terry is ahead of the fundraising pace he set in 2010, a race he won by 20 points.  That year, Terry had raised $1.68 million by September 30, 2010.

October 8, 2012

Douglas County Treasurer John Ewing has overspent and exceeded his approved budget every year he has been in office, a pattern of mismanagement that contradicts Ewing’s assertion that he has cut spending there, U.S. Rep. Lee Terry charged today.

Ewing’s deficit spending and red ink totals $688,000.

Terry’s campaign released a new TV ad today that alerts voters to Ewing’s poor budget management and deficit spending.  The ad states  Ewing is “just what we don’t need in Washington.”

Terry said county budget documents show Ewing asked for budget increases—not budget cuts—every single year.  His requests for new spending total $1.2 million.

Ironically, the county board rejected Ewing’s request for $1.2 million more.  Ewing proceeded to ignore the action and spend $688,000 of the disapproved funds.

“The difference between the two of us is pretty simple.  I consistently vote to cut spending.  Mr. Ewing ignores the county board and spends recklessly,” Terry said.

As an example, Ewing requested $5.318 million in funding for the treasurer’s office in fiscal 2007/08, a period covering July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008.  The Douglas county board approved $5.062 million, a reduction of $256,000.  Ewing failed to adhere to the cap and spent nearly $292,000 more, or $5.354 million.

Ewing’s new spending that year was 5.7 percent, twice the rate of inflation.

“My opponent now wants to take his budget skills to Washington.  America can’t afford that,” Terry said.

Ewing has stated repeatedly during the campaign that he has cut spending in the Treasurer’s office.[1]  Terry said today’s new information shows the claim is not true.

By contrast, Terry’s record includes voting 157 times to cut spending on bills that came to the floor of the House since 2009.  Terry’s votes would cut spending $7 trillion below current levels through the end of the decade.

Dave Boomer, Terry’s campaign manager, said the new TV ad has a significant placement on Omaha area broadcast and cable stations.   The text of the ad follows.

Male Announcer:      John Ewing claims he’s saved money in the treasurer’s office.

But Ewing tried to increase his office’s budget six years in a row by over 1.2 million dollars.

The county board said NO.

But Ewing kept spending anyway—racking up big deficits.

More red ink—just what we don’t need in Washington.

Female Announcer:  Congressman Lee Terry has voted to cut spending one hundred and fifty seven times. Seven trillion more in cuts.

Lee Terry:                  I’m Lee Terry and I approve this message.

October 1, 2012

A Harvard University study credits the Medicare Part D program with keeping seniors healthier and saving $12 billion a year in avoided medical costs.

At the same time, the program is running well below what it originally was projected to cost.

Terry voted in favor of the Part D Medicare drug program in 2003.  His opponent says little about the program other than to criticize it.

The study was conducted by researchers at Harvard University and published in a July 2011 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.[1]  It suggests that the drug coverage is enabling seniors to avoid trips to the hospital or placement in nursing homes, saving an estimated $1,200 in other medical costs per year for each senior.  Yearly savings are estimated at $12 billion.  The study focused on seniors who lacked coverage prior to their enrollment in the Part D program.

An Associated Press story on the study showed the effects of the change:  “With subsidized drug coverage, seniors can afford drugs that prevents trips to the emergency room by lowering cholesterol and blood pressure and controlling diabetes . . ..”   The AP also noted that the new law generates savings since doctors no longer have to admit Medicare patients to a hospital just so they can obtain, for example, treatments involving injectable clot-busting drugs for deep vein thrombosis.[2]

Terry noted that the Part D law is a resounding success in holding down costs:  federal dollars to the program are 30 percent lower than originally projected.[3]

“Some people, like my opponent, want the government to totally run this program and control all of the drug prices.  That is the wrong approach.  Evidence is very clear that market forces are forcing all of the plans to compete in the marketplace and the result is lower drug costs,” Terry said.

OIL IMPORTS REDUCED BY 1.6 MILLION BARRELS  PER DAY

 September 24, 2012

Rep. Lee Terry’s campaign is on the air with a new TV ad that shows the benefits of a landmark energy law Terry authored in 2007 with then-Rep. Baron Hill, a prominent Democratic member of the House.

The Hill-Terry law gradually increases the fuel efficiency of most vehicles from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. At that point in time the Union of Concerned Scientists  calculate Terry’s law will result in a reduction of oil imports equal to an astounding 584 million barrels a year.

The respected group also projects the law will result in the creation of 241,000 new jobs and cleaner air through reduced carbon dioxide emissions of 260 million metric tons annually.[1]  The latter is equivalent to removing 40 million cars from the highway.

“Less imported oil from unstable nations.  More jobs right here in America,” the ad states before concluding: “Lee Terry. Nebraska common sense.”

Even though he was in the minority at the time, The Associated Press said Terry’s work “includes a 2007 energy overhaul bill to increase the fuel economy of cars and trucks . . . commonly known as the Hill-Terry bill.”[2]  The legislation ultimately became Public Law 110-140 and is strong evidence of Terry’s ability to work across party lines to get good things done for the nation.

“I was pleased to work on a bi-partisan basis to raise fuel efficiency standards by 40 percent,” Terry said.  “This is a very good law and I stand behind it.”

The law has been called “historic” and constitutes the first time the standards had been raised in 20 years.  “I will continue to advocate for measures that reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil,” Terry said.  “Hill-Terry is a very good start but we must do much, much more.”

Hill-Terry is one of many laws authored by U.S. Rep. Lee Terry.  A full list of these important laws can be found at www.leeterry.com.  Click “Issues” and then “Accomplishments”.

The TV ad has a substantial placement on Omaha-area broadcast and cable stations, said Dave Boomer, Terry’s campaign manager.  The text of the ad follows.

“Hill-Terry”

Lee Terry:  I’m Lee Terry and I approved this message.

Announcer:  We can’t continue to rely on oil from hostile nations.

Congressman Lee Terry authored the bipartisan law that moves America to energy independence.

Cutting oil imports from OPEC by 584 million barrels a year.

Creating 241,000 new jobs here in America.

And, cleaner air.[3]

Less imported oil from unstable nations.  More jobs right here in America.

Lee Terry.  Nebraska common sense.

Business and labor don’t always see eye to eye on issues, but in one case they do: re-electing Rep. Lee Terry to another term in Congress.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed Terry, saying “we believe that your re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives will help produce sustained economic growth, help create more jobs and get our country back on track.”  The chamber’s members represent millions of employees throughout the nation.

The AFL-CIO’s National Association of Letter Carriers PAC has endorsed Rep. Lee Terry.  The support is evidence of Terry’s ability to work with both sides of the aisle to get good legislation passed.  The vast majority of candidates endorsed by the NALC are from the Democratic party.

Also endorsing Terry is the Wholesaler-Distributor Political Action Committee.  The wholesale sector employs 5.6 million people and generates $4.8 trillion in economic activity a year.

September 7, 2012

 TERRY  WINS KEY SMALL BUSINESS ENDORSEMENT; RENEWS CALL TO EXTEND ‘SENSIBLE TAX RELIEF’

Rep. Lee Terry today gained the support of the nation’s largest small business organization, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

The announcement was made at First Edition Printing Company, a longtime printing operation located in the Benson neighborhood of Omaha.  The company’s owner, John Pinkerton, stood with Terry and explained his support.

“Lee Terry has been there for small businesses time and time again,” Pinkerton said.  “We need him returned to Congress so that he can continue to fight for policies that will create good, permanent private sector jobs.”

Terry said he was honored to receive the NFIB endorsement and drew attention to a major difference between the two candidates on the issue of taxes.

“There is a big difference between John Ewing and me on the issue of taxes.  I support extending the current program of sensible tax relief.  My opponent does not.  His position would result in massive tax increases on individuals, families and small businesses, something that couldn’t come at a worse time,” Terry said.

The nation faces a “Taxmageddon” on January 1, 2013, when current middle-class and small business tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire.  Without an extension, a typical middle class family in Nebraska’s second district will pay between $1,600 and $2,200 in higher taxes starting next year.  Nationally, 114 million families will be hit with increased tax liability of $166 billion in 2013.[1] Terry voted on August 1 to extend the tax relief provisions.

Ewing set his position on the issue in an Omaha World-Herald story published the day before he formally entered the race for Congress last summer.  The article stated Ewing supports “. . . increases in revenue, notably by rolling back Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 . . .”. [2]  The article also said Ewing would be “pushing for the repeal of former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts.”

One key tax relief provision allows small businesses to write-off up to $139,000 in business equipment annually on their taxes, a key incentive for them to upgrade and modernize their physical plant.   Without an extension, the maximum expensing a small business could claim will drop to $25,000 a year—an 82 percent cut.

“My opponent wants to drastically reduce a small business’ ability to invest and remain competitive. His position makes absolutely no sense and will cost us jobs,” Terry said.

The 2001 and 2003 provisions lowered taxes on wage earners, families with children, small businesses and seniors who depend on investment or dividend income to make ends meet.

The ramifications of Ewing’s tax increase are stark:  every tax bracket would increase next year—meaning every taxpayer will pay more.  The child tax credit would be cut in half, falling from $1,000 per child now to $500.  Dividend and investment income tax rates would skyrocket, hitting seniors’ hardest.   Small businesses will be particularly hard-hit as many owners file tax returns as individuals.

September 3, 2012

U.S. Rep. Lee Terry’s new TV ad calls the growing national debt a “ticking time bomb” that needs to be defused by making big cuts to federal spending.

The thirty second ad reiterates the fact that Terry has voted 157 times to cut spending from bills that were considered on the House floor since January 2009.  Terry’s votes would reduce federal spending by seven trillion dollars more than currently planned over the next decade, an astounding amount of deficit reduction.

“The voters have a real choice in this race.  I have a proven record of voting to cut spending.  My opponent offers the same old, tired song of more spending, more debt and a huge increase in taxes on middle-class families,” Terry said.

Terry’s opponent is on record as supporting the failed $800 billion stimulus program and $1.7 trillion healthcare law that together add $2.5 trillion to the national debt.[1]   Incredibly, he has also called for “repeal” of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, an action that would trigger a $166 billion tax increase next year on virtually all taxpayers.[2]

“Voters who I talk to want spending cut,” Terry said.  “I’ve been voting to do just that.  My opponent, on the other hand, says he wants to cut the federal deficit but then turns around and endorses policies that would spend trillions more.   You can’t cut spending by increasing spending.  And, you can’t get the economy growing by hitting families with massive tax hikes.”

An average middle-class family in Omaha would have their taxes hiked by between $1,600 and $2,200 annually under the Ewing plan.[3]  The 2001 and 2003 revisions reduced taxes on wage earners, families with children, small businesses and seniors who depend on dividend and interest income for their retirement.  Terry voted in the House on August 1 to extend the current tax relief provisions.

“I am proud to have voted to continue with the current sensible tax relief.  If we don’t, an average middle-class family in Omaha will pay thousands of dollars more in taxes,” Terry said.

Terry’s ad will have a substantial airing on broadcast and cable television in the Greater Omaha area, according to Dave Boomer, Terry’s campaign manager.

The text of “Debt Clock” follows:

Lee Terry:                  I’m Lee Terry and I approve this message, but I don’t approve of this  (Terry points to national debt clock).

Narrator:                   Nebraskans know that the national debt is a ticking time bomb.  Lee has listened.  That’s why he’s voted one hundred fifty-seven times to cut spending.  Seven trillion more in cuts.  And, he led the fight for a balanced budget amendment.[4]

John Ewing’s plan:  more spending, more borrowing and higher taxes on working families.  He even backed the 1.7 trillion dollar healthcare law.

John Ewing.  Failed plans we can’t afford in Congress.

How these two presidents responded to a deep recession reveals polar extremes in policy. And in results.

By PHIL GRAMM

Only twice since World War II has the U.S. unemployment rate reached 10%: It was 10.8% in 1982 and 10% in 2009. The different responses of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama—Reagan lowering taxes and lifting regulatory and other barriers to economic growth, Mr. Obama increasing the size and reach of the government—represent polar extremes in policy. And in results.

Fifty-five months after the recession started in July 1981, the Reagan recovery had created 7.8 million more jobs than when the recession started, and real per capita gross domestic product was up by $3,091. Fifty-five months after the recession that began in December 2007, there were four million fewer Americans working than when the recession started, and real per capita GDP was down $803.

The trajectory of household income is even more telling. According to Sentier Research analysis of monthly U.S. Census data, during the current recovery American households have lost more income than they lost during the recession. In December 2007, real median household income was $54,916. It had fallen to $53,508 when the recession ended 18 months later. But by June 2012, real median family income had fallen to $50,964.

During the Reagan recovery from 1981 to 1986, real median household income on an annualized basis rose by $3,380 or 7.7%.

There are other, deeply troubling differences between the Reagan and Obama recoveries.

In July, most Americans were shocked to discover that 246,000 new people had qualified for disability benefits during the previous three months, while only 225,000 people had found new jobs. A total of 471,000 Americans left the unemployment rolls—but the difference between qualifying for disability benefits and getting a job is profound for the economy and for the people involved. Fifty-five months after the 1981 recession began, the number of Americans drawing disability benefits had actually dropped by 655,000—or 14.3%.

The explosion of disability payments is only the tip of the iceberg. Fifty-five months after the 1981 recession began, the number of people on food stamps had fallen by three million, or 13.4%. The number of food-stamp recipients since the recession that began in December 2007 has grown to more than 46 million, from 26 million—a mind-boggling 71% increase.

While part of this growth is attributable to the failed recovery, a significant amount has been created by the administration’s effort to expand the food-stamp rolls. In a pamphlet on its website, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that its employees provide “games, food and entertainment. . . . [P]utting SNAP [food stamp] information in a game format like bingo, crossword puzzles, or even a ‘true/false’ quiz . . . helps get your message across.” The department is now trying to turn food stamps into an economic development program, asserting on its website that $1.00 in new food stamps generates $1.92 in “new economic activity.”

The number of beneficiaries of the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program had declined by 1%, or 42,000 people, 55 months after the Reagan recession began. During the Obama recovery, the number of beneficiaries in AFDC’s successor program, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, has increased by 467,000, or 12%. This number can be expected to grow dramatically as a result of the administration’s recent decision to waive work requirements for these welfare recipients.

Fifty-five months into the Reagan recovery, the number of Americans drawing unemployment insurance had dropped by 357,000, or 11.9%. Today there are 500,000 more Americans drawing unemployment insurance than when the 2007 recession started, an increase of 19.2%. Historical data and Congressional Budget Office projections for 2012 also indicate that in the Reagan recovery, Medicaid enrollment grew by 535,000, or 2.4%. In the Obama recovery, Medicaid enrollment has grown by more than 11 million, or 19.7%.

In summary, the Obama administration not only has failed to bring back the American economy, it has ushered in a frightening growth in dependence. A review of the data from the 126 programs that today make up America’s $1 trillion welfare system shows the same basic pattern over and over again. Expenditures on means-tested welfare programs have grown 2.5 times faster during the Obama administration than in any similar time period in American history. In those welfare programs that existed during the Reagan era, the recovery resulted in either a decline in beneficiaries or a slower rate of growth. These same programs have ballooned during this administration.

When Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008, they knew or should have known that they were choosing a bigger federal government, higher taxes and an expansion in the role that government would play in their lives and businesses. They voted for it and they got it.

But Americans were not voting for economic stagnation, an explosion of entitlements and a doubling of the national debt. Unfortunately these things go hand-in-hand. As the European experience demonstrates, the cost of big government is not just higher taxes; it’s lower growth, greater dependency and fiscal crisis.

Mr. Gramm, a former Republican senator from Texas, is senior partner of US Policy Metrics.

*Originally published in the Wall Street Journal August 30 Edition

U.S. Rep. Lee Terry’s campaign has hit the airwaves with a thirty-second ad that highlights a key difference between the congressman and his opponent: Terry has voted to reduce spending by trillions of dollars while John Ewing promises to spend trillions more that the country doesn’t have and will have to borrow.

“There is a big difference between John Ewing and me on spending,” Terry said. “I have a record of voting to cut spending. My opponent has endorsed policies that mean trillions more in spending. ‘Ewingnomics’ is more spending, more debt, fewer jobs and continued economic stagnation for years to come.”

Terry’s ad points to the failure of the 2009 “stimulus” program, an $800 billion initiative that was sold to the public as a way to drive unemployment below eight percent, but never came close to doing so. Numerous stories have surfaced in the past year of fraud and abuse in the program, with billions of dollars in questionable loan guarantees going to firms like Solyndra, a California-based manufacturer of solar panels that went belly-up after receiving aid from the Obama administration.

Terry voted against the stimulus in 2009. Ewing supports the stimulus and incredibly has stated he might go for another one.1 “The only thing the stimulus program grew was government,” Terry said.

Terry’s record on cutting spending is beyond dispute. In the past three years alone, he has voted 157 times to cut spending from bills that came to the floor of the House. These include votes to reduce federal spending $7 trillion below current levels.2

Ewing, on the other hand, only feeds the spending appetite by supporting the 2009 stimulus and the 2010 federal healthcare law ($1.7 trillion in cost). He supports the Obama Administration, which by their own projections add $10 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.3

The ad crystallizes this key difference. “Cut spending now,” Terry says, followed by the narrator: “John Ewing: Just charge it.”

Terry’s ad has a substantial placement on Omaha broadcast and cable stations, according to Dave Boomer, campaign manager. Titled “Spending,” the text of the ad follows.

Lee Terry: Washington borrows and spends too much. It has to stop.

Female Announcer: Congressman Lee Terry has worked to do just that.

Voting 157 times to cut spending. Seven trillion dollars more in cuts.

John Ewing? He backed the failed 800 billion dollar stimulus program. And could support another one.

Trillions more in new spending and trillions more in debt.

Lee Terry: Cut spending now.

Female Announcer: John Ewing?

Male Announcer: Just charge it.

Lee Terry: I’m Lee Terry and I approve this message.

1 Omaha World Herald, ”Howard, Ewing agree on most debate issues,“ news article by Robynn Tysver, January 21, 2012
2 House votes from 2009-11; the complete list of all 157 votes is available on Terry’s web site (www.leeterry.com) and includes $7 trillion in reductions below current law over ten years.
3 The Wall Street Journal, “The Kempian Roots of Ryanomics,” op-ed by Stephen Moore, August 13, 2012, page A13.

“This shows Gov. Romney is serious about solving our fiscal crisis and creating jobs in America.

“Paul Ryan and I came into Congress together in 1999 and I know him very well. He is a genius on fiscal and budget issues and sees the way out of our current mess.

This is an outstanding pick by Gov. Romney.”