ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Pat Toomey

Justice

Pro-Background Check GOP Senator Achieves Record Approval Rating, Gun Safety Opponent Takes A Bath


Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) have a lot in common. Both are Republicans. Both are very conservative senators from blue states. And both benefited from the 2010 GOP wave election. Toomey, however, co-sponsored legislation that would have expanded background checks for gun sales, while Ayotte opposed this popular proposal.

Both are now reaping what they sowed.

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll released today, Toomey now enjoys the highest approval rating of his entire Senate term. In one month, his approval rating spiked from 43 percent to 48 percent. Meanwhile, Ayotte’s approval rating dropped by 15 points according to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted earlier this week.

Ayotte won her initial race for the Senate by 23 points in 2010, yet the PPP poll finds that she would lose a reelection fight against Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan if the election were held today.

Politics

Senators’ Impassioned Defense Of Gun Legislation: ‘We Came Here To Do Something’

On Sunday, the two senators at the helm of the push for stronger gun laws appeared together on CNN’s State Of The Union, where they gave an impassioned call for action on gun laws and brushed off the idea that it was a political risk to focus on gun legislation.

Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) have proposed a law that would tighten the regulations on firearm sales, requiring that every sale except for private transactions include a criminal background check. While that’s popular among 92 percent of Americans, the National Rifle Association has warned that it’s politically poisonous.

But when host Candy Crowley pointed out the political risks of focusing on gun legislation, citing a Saturday Night Live sketch on the topic, both Manchin and Toomey dismissed the risk, saying that’s not why they are in office:

CROWLEY: Are either one of you worried about any kind of challenge, primary or general?

MANCHIN: Let me just say I know Pat and I have talked, we came here to do something. We came here to make a difference. If you would have met with the families, the strongest people I’ve ever met with, the families of the Newtown victims, they never asked for anybody to take their guns away. They never asked to repeal the second amendment. They said, ‘we’re gun owners and we respect and honor all that.’ We know, and they’ll even say, we know that this bill that you’re working on would not have saved our children. We know that. But it might save somebody else’s child somebody. I mean, if we just had half the courage [the Newtown families] had, Candy, just half the courage. So, yes, I came to do something and I want to do something.

TOOMEY: In 1999 I supported expanding background checks. I just think it makes common sense. And I’ll just let the political chips fall the way they fall.

Watch it:

The Toomey-Manchin proposal made it past an initial filibuster last week, garnering 68 votes (including 16 Republicans) for moving to debate. But not everything that will be included in the bill is yet known, and Senators — particularly Republicans — have been tentative in offering their support for the legislation.

Politics

How The Local Press Covered The Bipartisan Deal On Background Checks

Local newspapers in the gun-friendly states of West Virginia and Pennsylvania are embracing the compromise to expand background checks offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), describing the amendment as a “common sense” proposal and a “middle ground” that can help advance the gun debate.

Gun & Ammo magazine reports that 55 percent of West Virginians and 34.7 percent of Pennsylvanians are gun owners and ranks the states as the 21st and 20th “best states for guns,” respectively. Both Manchin and Toomey received an A-rating from the National Rifle Association.

Under their measure, individuals who buy firearms at gun shows or online would have to undergo a background check that would be recorded with a federal firearm licensed dealer. Personal transfers would be exempt.

“A Pennsylvania lawmaker has done something that’s hard to find these days in Washington — he compromised,” read the lede for Lancaster’s Intelligencer Journal. “Proposal may make Toomey a political giant,” roared Harrisburg’s The Patriot-News. West Virginia press was similarly complimentary of Manchin, praising the freshman senator for brokering the deal and for recognizing that “Newtown changed us all.” Here is a sampling of the headlines:

Justice

Not Bought And Paid For: 10 Senators Who Are Bucking The NRA On Guns

While top House and Senate recipients of National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC have mostly towed the line organization’s extreme opposition to any gun violence prevention measures, ten Senators who have received heavy financial backing from the NRA have bucked the group in light of the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Ten Senators have received more than $10,000 from the NRA’s political action committee over their Congressional careers, yet have at least expressed an openness to some new common-sense gun laws. They include:

1. SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) — AT LEAST $33,200


McCain said last month that while he would not support bans on assault weapons or high capacity magazines, he was open to expanding background checks: “If there are improvements that need to be made, as I said, to keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals, I’m sure all Americans, including the NRA, would agree with them, I would think.”

2. SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA) — AT LEAST $27,250


Toomey said last month: “Second Amendment rights are important to many Pennsylvanians and must be protected, but there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety.” Reports suggest he is also open to stricter background checks.

3. SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT) — AT LEAST $27,250


Baucus indicated in December that he was open to a discussion of an assault weapons ban. In January, his office said he is still undecided on expanding background checks.

4. SEN. DEAN HELLER (R-NV) — AT LEAST $21,350


Last week, Heller endorsed expanded background checks, saying: “I think it’s a reasonable step forward.”

5. SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV) — AT LEAST $19,900


Last week, Reid expressed support for expanding background checks and said
gun-magazine limits were “definitely something we have to take a look at.” He also promised to use his position as Senate Majority Leader to bring gun violence prevention measures to the Senate floor.

6. SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ) — AT LEAST $18,400


Last week, Flake reiterated his support for expanded background checks, saying: “All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have recognized that we need more effective and broader background checks than we have in the past.”

7. SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK) — AT LEAST $17,850


Coburn is part of a bipartisan group of four Senators working to tighten background checks. He noted that “the whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals.”

8. SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D-SD) — AT LEAST $16,250


Johnson said last month at a press conference that “one size doesn’t fit all” states for gun laws, but agreed that clip size makes some difference in preventing mass shootings and that a package of approaches should be considered. He has indicated a willingness to expand background checks as well.

9. SEN. JOE DONNELLY (D-IN) — AT LEAST $13,900


Donnelly said last month: “In 2007, just weeks after 32 people at Virginia Tech were murdered by a single gunman, Democrats and Republicans came together to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used to check the backgrounds of most prospective gun buyers. That system still does not work as well as it should and should be examined again in the coming weeks.”

10. SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV) — AT LEAST $11,450


Manchin said last month that expanded background checks are “common sense,” asking, “Why would a legitimate gun retail shop have to go through that, but then the unfair advantage for someone at a gun show doesn’t?” In the days after Sandy Hook, Manchin was among the first to call for new action on gun violence. Like Sen. Coburn, Manchin is part of the bipartisan quartet crafting a background check proposal.

While these Senators may not receive future contribution checks from the NRA PAC, they really have little to worry about politically as a result of standing up for common-sense measures. Even most NRA members differ with the hard-line national leadership and support background checks. Last year’s elections revealed the NRA to be the paper tiger that it is: an analysis of the NRA’s spending revealed that “NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races.” Recent polling suggests voters are more likely to punish a candidate for having NRA backing than to reward allegiance to the gun lobby.

Economy

Congressional Republicans Plan To Introduce Phony Fix For Their Debt Ceiling Mess

President Obama has pledged not to negotiate over the raising of the debt limit. Republicans in the House and Senate have promised not to raise it without extracting more spending cuts. The nation reached the debt limit on December 31 — it is only avoiding it now thanks to “extraordinary measures” from Treasury — and the result of not increasing the limit is almost certainly default. The Treasury will no longer have the authority to pay the bills Congress has already incurred, and by the end of February, the United States will not have enough money to make debt payments, pay Social Security benefits, and keep the government running.

The response to that doomsday scenario from Republicans, however, has been to ignore the perils of not raising the debt ceiling. Members of both the House and the Senate are introducing legislation that will call on the government to prioritize its debt payments to avoid default, as Reuters reports:

Among those advocating the approach is Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who is expected to reintroduce legislation next week to instruct the Treasury to make sure bondholders got paid first if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by the deadline.

In the House of Representatives, Arizona Republican David Schweikert introduced legislation that would force the Treasury to prioritize payments to bondholders, Social Security recipients and military salaries.

Toomey has introduced similar legislation before, but prioritization, however nice it sounds to him and other Republicans, is simply not a workable option. As Tony Fratto, a former White House and Treasury official for George W. Bush, explained on Twitter last night, most of the government’s bills come due at the beginning of each month. That’s when Social Security and an assortment of other benefits are paid. Most of its tax revenue, however, comes in toward the middle of the month. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would force it to wait until it had enough money from tax revenue to make payments of any sort — a strategy that, thanks to its accounting methods, would be virtually impossible, Fratto said.
Read more

Economy

GOP Senator Revives Phony Fix For The Coming Debt Ceiling Standoff

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)

During the 2011 debt ceiling debacle — when House Republicans threatened to push the country into default unless they received policy concessions — Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) attempted to fix the situation with the “Full Faith and Credit Act.” The bill would supposedly prevent default by prioritizing certain federal payments in the event that the debt limit was reached and borrowing shut off.

Now that Congress has to raise the debt ceiling again in the next few months, Toomey is back with his bill, as Slate’s Dave Weigel reported:

On Laura Ingraham’s show today, Toomey averred that “we have to raise the debt ceiling” as a “stop along this path” to fiscal sanity. And then he resurrected Full Faith and Credit.

“We should pass a bill out of the House,” he said, “saying there will be certain priorities attached to certain things, namely payment of debt services and payment of our military.”

As ThinkProgress explained at the time, Toomey’s plan is unworkable and doesn’t prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its obligations. These charts from the Bipartisan Policy Center show why. Once the debt ceiling has been breached and Treasury has exhausted the extraordinary measures at its disposal to avoid default, the government will be limited to only the revenue that comes in each day. BPC lays out what happens:

Toomey’s bill doesn’t fix this problem and doesn’t prevent the U.S. from stiffing someone who is legally owed money.

Election

Two Congressmen To Donate Akin Leadership PAC Contributions To Charity, Others Silent

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

Over the past 48 hours, a wide array of Republican politicians and activists have condemned Missouri Republican Senate nominee Rep. Todd Akin’s Sunday comments that “legitimate rape” rarely produces pregnancy and/or suggested he withdraw from the race.

Two Congressmen who had received contributions from Akin’s Takin Back America leadership PAC — Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) and Bobby Schilling (R-IL) — followed suit, promising to donate the Akin money to charities.

Since the start of the 2010 cycle, Takin Back America PAC gave $20,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) — the campaign arm of the House Republican Conference. The NRCC did not immediately respond to a ThinkProgress inquiry as to what it planned to do with the money.

Additionally, the PAC disbursed:

– $5,000 to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
– $5,000 to Rep. John Carter (R-TX)
– $5,000 to Rep. Tom Price‘s (R-GA) leadership PAC
– $2,000 to Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)
– $2,000 to Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
– $2,000 to Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)

An examination of their websites and Twitter feeds did not reveal any statements from those six about their plans for the contributions. Nor did they appear to have made any statements to date even condemning Akin’s comments.

Update

Toomey released a statement Tuesday: “I believe Congressman Akin’s remarks were completely indefensible, insensitive, inappropriate and just plain wrong. In order to serve the principles and values that Congressman Akin has advocated for during his many years in Congress, it would be best for him to withdraw from the race.” His campaign finance manager declined to comment on whether he would donate the money he received from Akin’s PAC to charity.

Climate Progress

After Being Thanked by Big Oil for Backing Tax Breaks, Pat Toomey Blasts Loans to Cleantech with “Commercial Success”

As the political jostling over Department of Energy loan guarantees to clean energy companies continues, the hypocrisy keeps getting worse.

The latest is from Republican Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, who co-wrote a letter to the Inspector General on Monday urging him to investigate a conditional commitment for a $730 million loan guarantee to a high-strength steel producer under the DOE’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program.

His argument? That this high-strength, lightweight steel technology is too mature to need subsidies:

“Given the tremendous fiscal crisis that we find ourselves in today, it does not seem appropriate for the program to subsidize technologies that have already achieved commercial success through private-sector means.”

That’s quite a noble fiscal mission. However, this is coming from a Senator who has repeatedly voted to maintain tax breaks to the most profitable and commercially successful oil and gas companies in the world.

In the first three quarters of 2011 alone, the top five oil companies have brought in a staggering $101 billion in profits. But Senator Toomey, who says he’s against funding companies that have “achieved commercial success” due to the “tremendous fiscal crisis” has voted against repealing $21 billion in tax breaks over 10 years that could be used to close the deficit or fund clean energy.

In fact, Senator Toomey’s record has been so consistent, the American Petroleum Institute just issued a new ad praising him on his record:

Read more

Health

Pat Toomey: Religious Employers Need Additional Exemptions From Offering Coverage For Contraceptives

On Friday, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) fired off a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services expressing concern about the conscience protections in a new rule requiring insurers and employers to offer contraception services without additional co-pays. A press release from Toomey’s office admits that the rule does exempt “those religious employers who primarily serve and employ individuals who share their religious tenets,” from offering the services, but argues that “this narrow exemption would prove impossible for Catholic hospitals, universities, colleges, nursing homes and charities given the diverse population that they serve and their workforce.” From the letter:

This regulation requires that a Catholic institution either violate its fundamental beliefs by providing coverage that includes contraception and sterilization or, per the new requirements of PPACA, potentially pay a heavy financial penalty for failing to provide what PPACA deems adequate health coverage to their employees. The myriad of existing regulations generated by PPACA and other federal laws already impair the work of Catholic institutions across Pennsylvania. If this additional federal regulation is imposed as promulgated, it may prompt some Catholic institutions to close their doors, adversely impacting the tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians these entities serve. The aggressive nature of this regulation threatens religious freedom and is unacceptable.

But Catholic universities and organizations already provide contraceptive coverage for their employees — the HHS rule, issued as a result of the Affordable Care Act, simply requires that they offer these services without co-payments or deductibles.

In fact, Catholic Charities has challenged state contraceptive equity laws in both New York and California, but lost “on the basis of a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which barred most religion-based exemptions from laws that are neutral, generally applicable and that do not single out religion for special burdens.” The states argued that “the organizations were not being placed in the position of approving birth control, any more than any other employer that provides health coverage is deemed to express ‘approval of every medication or treatment used by the employees.’” The California Supreme Court has also rejected a challenge by Catholic Charities to that state’s similar law.

Last month, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011,” Senate Bill 1467, “to allow health care providers and pharmacists to deny birth control to women if it conflicts with their religious or moral convictions.” An identical bill was also introduced in the House.

Economy

Sen. Toomey: ‘I Do Agree’ That Hurricane Aid Needs To Be Offset First

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Over the last two days, two Republican governors — Govs. Chris Christie (NJ) and Bob McDonnell (VA) — have publicly rebuked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) call that aid to areas affected by Hurricane Irene be first offset by budget cuts. “Our people are suffering now, and they need support now. And they [Congress] can all go down there and get back to work and figure out budget cuts later,” Christie said. “My concern is that we help people in need,” McDonnell said. “I don’t think it’s the time to get into that [deficit] debate.”

However, there are still plenty of Republicans moving into Cantor’s corner. During a town hall meeting yesterday, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) said that he agrees with Cantor that disaster aid needs to be offset by budget cuts:

Toomey, after a public town hall in Coudersport, was asked whether he agreed with comments made by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor about offsetting federal funding in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene.

“I do agree with that,” Toomey said. “It’s not as though we’re unprepared for this situation. We know that at any time in this great country of ours there are storms, there are floods…” Toomey said it is “reasonable” to have a federal response, but that it should either be budgeted up front or offset by other spending cuts.

Thousands of Pennsylvania residents are still without power from the storm, while 13 counties in the state have been approved for federal aid. The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency said that it’s “far too early to know” an exact damage figure.

Along with Toomey, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) agreed yesterday that disaster aid should be offset so that “it’s just not adding willy-nilly to the national debt.” Previously, Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) said that budget cuts must be a prerequisite for disaster aid in order to reassure “the business markets,” while Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) opined that the days when disaster relief could be funded without offsetting budget cuts “are gone.”

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up