Blog

  • Apr 15 2014

    Mike Ross Voted for Higher Taxes 109 Times!

    While Serving In Congress, Mike Ross Voted At Least 109 Times In Favor Of Higher Taxes:

    1. H. Res. 83, Vote #37: Motion agreed to 220-204: R 215-0; D 4-203; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Ross

    voted Nay

    2. H. Res. 83, Vote #38: Motion agreed to 217-205: R 214-0; D 2-204; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Ross

    voted Nay

    3. H. Res. 83, Vote #39: Adopted 220-204: R 216-0; D 3-203; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Ross voted Nay

    4. H. Res. 83, Vote #40: Motion agreed to 221-197: R 215-0; D 5-196; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Ross

    voted Nay

    5. H.R. 3, Vote #43: Motion agreed to 228-197: R 216-0; D 11-196; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Ross voted

    Nay

    6. H.R. 3, Vote #44: Motion rejected 204-221: R 0-218; D 203-2; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Ross voted

    Yea

    7. H.R. 3, Vote #45: Passed 230-198: R 219-0; D 10-197; I 1-1, 3/8/01, Ross voted Nay

    8. H. Con. Res. 83, Vote #70: Adopted 222-205: R 218-2; D 3-202; I 1-1, 3/28/01, Ross voted

    Nay

    9. H. Con. Res. 83, Vote #104: Adopted 221-207: R 214-3; D 6-203; I 1-1, 5/9/01, Ross voted

    Nay

    10. H.R. 1836, Vote #116: Adopted 220-207: R 217-0; D 2-206; I 1-1, 5/16/01, Ross voted Nay

    11. H.R. 1836, Vote #118: Passed 230-197: R 216-0; D 13-196; I 1-1, 5/16/01, Ross voted Nay

    12. H.R. 1836, Vote #146: Motion rejected 198-210: R 1-205; D 196-4; I 1-1, 5/23/01, Ross

    voted Yea

    13. H.R. 1836, Vote #148: Adopted 213-177: R 209-0; D 3-176; I 1-1, 5/26/01, Ross voted Nay

    14. H. Res. 270, Vote #400: Motion agreed to 219-207: R 216-0; D 2-206; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Ross

    voted Nay

    15. H. Res. 270, Vote #401: Adopted 225-199: R 214-0; D 10-198; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Ross voted

    Nay

    16. H.R. 3090, Vote #403: Motion rejected 199-230: R 0-218; D 198-11; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Ross

    voted Yea

    17. H.R. 3090, Vote #404: Passed 216-214: R 212-7; D 3-206; I 1-1, 10/24/01, Ross voted Nay

    18. H. Res. 319, Vote #506: Adopted 214-206: R 210-7; D 3-198; I 1-1, 12/19/01, Ross voted

    Nay

    19. H. Res. 320, Vote #507: Adopted 219-198: R 215-0; D 3-197; I 1-1, 12/20/01, Ross voted

    Nay

    20. H.R. 3529, Vote #508: Motion rejected 177-238: R 0-215; D 176-22; I 1-1, 12/20/01, Ross

    voted Yea

    21. H.R. 3529, Vote #509: Passed 224-193: R 214-2; D 9-190; I 1-1, 12/20/01, Ross voted Nay

    22. H.R. 622, Vote #36: Motion agreed to 216-207: R 215-0; D 0-206; I 1-1, 2/14/02, Ross

    voted Nay

    23. H.R. 622, Vote #37: Adopted 213-206: R 212-0; D 0-205; I 1-1, 2/14/02, Ross voted Nay

    24. H.R. 622, Vote #38: Motion agreed to 225-199: R 214-1; D 10-197; I 1-1, 2/14/02, Ross

    voted Nay

    25. H. Res. 390, Vote #101: Motion agreed to 219-206: R 218-0; D 0-205; I 1-1, 4/18/02, Ross

    voted Nay

    26. H.R. 586, Vote #102: Adopted 218-205: R 217-0; D 0-204; I 1-1, 4/18/02, Ross voted Nay

    27. H.R. 586, Vote #103: Motion agreed to 229-198: R 219-1; D 9-196; I 1-1, 4/18/02, Ross

    voted Nay

    28. H.R. 2143, Vote #215: Motion agreed to 223-201: R 216-0; D 6-200; I 1-1, 6/6/02, Ross

    voted Nay

    29. H.R. 2143, Vote #216: Adopted 227-195: R 216-0; D 10-194; I 1-1, 6/6/02, Ross voted Nay

    30. H.R. 2143, Vote #217: Rejected 197-231: R 6-212; D 190-18; I 1-1, 6/6/02, Ross voted Yea

    31. H.R. 2143, Vote #218: Motion rejected 205-223: R 1-217; D 203-5; I 1-1, 6/6/02, Ross

    voted Yea

    32. H. Res. 527, Vote #398: Adopted 213-200: R 212-0; D 1-199; I 0-1, 9/19/02, Ross voted

    Nay

    33. H. Res. 547, Vote #413: Motion agreed to 217-200: R 216-0; D 1-199; I 0-1, 9/25/02, Ross

    voted Nay

    34. H. Con. Res. 95, Vote #82: Adopted 215-212: R 214-12; D 1-199; I 0-1, 3/21/03, Ross

    voted Nay

    35. H. Con. Res. 95, Vote #141: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 216-211: R 216-7; D 0-203; I

    0-1, 4/11/03, Ross voted Nay

    36. H.R. 2, Vote #178: Motion agreed to 219-203: R 219-0; D 0-202; I 0-1, 5/9/03, Ross voted

    Nay

    37. H.R. 2, Vote #179: Adopted 220-203: R 220-0; D 0-202; I 0-1, 5/9/03, Ross voted Nay

    38. H.R. 2, Vote #180: Motion agreed to 222-202: R 222-0; D 0-201; I 0-1, 5/9/03, Ross voted

    Nay

    39. H.R. 2, Vote #181: Motion rejected 202-218: R 0-217; D 201-1; I 1-0, 5/9/03, Ross voted

    Yea

    40. H.R. 2, Vote #182: Passed 222-203: R 218-3; D 4-199; I 0-1, 5/9/03, Ross voted Nay

    41. H.R. 2, Vote #211: Motion agreed to 221-202: R 220-0; D 1-201; I 0-1, 5/22/03, Ross voted

    Nay

    42. H.R. 2, Vote #212: Adopted 218-202: R 218-0; D 0-201; I 0-1, 5/22/03, Ross voted Nay

    43. H.R. 2, Vote #224: Motion agreed to 221-205: R 221-0; D 0-204; I 0-1, 5/23/03, Ross voted

    Nay

    44. H.R. 2, Vote #225: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 231-200: R 224-1; D 7-198; I 0-1, 5/

    23/03, Ross voted Nay

    45. H.R. 8, Vote #284: Motion agreed to 227-200: R 227-0; D 0-199; I 0-1, 6/18/03, Ross voted

    Nay

    46. H.R. 8, Vote #285: Adopted 230-199: R 227-1; D 3-197; I 0-1, 6/18/03, Ross voted Nay

    47. H.R. 2555, Vote #305: Motion agreed to 222-200: R 221-0; D 1-199; I 0-1, 6/24/03, Ross

    voted Nay

    48. H.R. 2660, Vote #347: Motion rejected 199-222: R 0-221; D 198-1; I 1-0, 7/10/03, Ross

    voted Yea

    49. H.R. 2660, Vote #348: Motion rejected 197-224: R 0-223; D 196-1; I 1-0, 7/10/03, Ross

    voted Yea

    50. H. Con. Res. 393, Vote #92: Adopted 215-212: R 215-10; D 0-201; I 0-1, 3/25/04, Ross

    voted Nay

    51. H. Res. 637, Vote #156: Motion agreed to 221-203: R 221-2; D 0-200; I 0-1, 5/12/04, Ross

    voted Nay

    52. H.R. 4275, Vote #169: Rejected 190-227: R 1-216; D 188-11; I 1-0, 5/13/04, Ross voted

    Yea

    53. H. Res. 685, Vote #301: Rejected 184-230: R 2-217; D 181-13; I 1-0, 6/24/04, Ross voted

    Yea

    54. H. Con. Res. 95, Vote #82: Rejected 180-242: R 3-218; D 176-24; I 1-0, 3/17/05, Ross

    voted Yea

    55. H. Con. Res. 95, Vote #83: Rejected 102-320: R 101-122; D 1-197; I 0-1, 3/17/05, Ross

    voted Nay

    56. H. Con. Res. 95, Vote #88: Adopted 218-214: R 218-12; D 0-201; I 0-1, 3/17/05, Ross

    voted Nay

    57. H.R. 8, Vote #100: Motion agreed to 237-195: R 230-0; D 7-194; I 0-1, 4/13/05, Ross voted

    Nay

    58. H. Con. Res. 95, Vote #149: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 214-211: R 214-15; D 0-195;

    I 0-1, 4/28/05, Ross voted Nay

    59. H.R. 4297, Vote #619: Rejected 192-239: R 2-226; D 189-13; I 1-0, 12/8/05, Ross voted

    Yea

    60. H.R. 4297, Vote #620: Motion rejected 193-235: R 0-226; D 192-9; I 1-0, 12/8/05, Ross

    voted Yea

    61. H.R. 4297, Vote #621: Passed 234-197: R 225-3; D 9-193; I 0-1, 12/8/05, Ross voted Nay

    62. H.R. 4297, Vote #7: Motion rejected 185-207: R 8-204; D 176-3; I 1-0, 2/8/06, Ross voted

    Yea

    63. H.R. 4297, Vote #74: Motion rejected 192-229: R 4-222; D 187-7; I 1-0, 3/29/06, Ross

    voted Yea

    64. H.R. 4297, Vote #94: Motion rejected 196-232: R 5-225; D 190-7; I 1-0, 4/6/06, Ross voted

    Yea

    65. H.R. 4297, Vote #109: Motion rejected 190-232: R 4-223; D 185-9; I 1-0, 4/27/06, Ross

    voted Yea

    66. H.R. 4297, Vote #121: Motion rejected 197-224: R 6-219; D 190-5; I 1-0, 5/3/06, Ross

    voted Yea

    67. H.R. 4297, Vote #132: Adopted 228-194: R 227-0; D 1-193; I 0-1, 5/10/06, Ross voted Nay

    68. H.R. 4297, Vote #134: Motion rejected 190-239: R 3-228; D 186-11; I 1-0, 5/10/06, Ross

    voted Yea

    69. H.R. 4297, Vote #135: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 244-185: R 229-2; D 15-182; I 0-1,

    5/10/06, Ross voted Nay

    70. H. Con. Res. 376, Vote #156: Rejected 94-331: R 94-134; D 0-196; I 0-1, 5/18/06, Ross

    voted Nay

    71. H. Con. Res. 376, Vote #158: Adopted 218-210: R 218-12; D 0-197; I 0-1, 5/18/06, Ross

    voted Nay

    72. H. Res. 885, Vote #309: Adopted 228-194: R 227-0; D 1-193; I 0-1, 6/22/06, Ross voted

    Nay

    73. H.R. 5638, Vote #312: Agreed to consider 238-188: R 228-0; D 10-187; I 0-1, 6/22/06, Ross

    voted Nay

    74. H.R. 5638, Vote #314: Motion rejected 182-236: R 0-225; D 182-10; I 0-1, 6/22/06, Ross

    voted Yea

    75. H.R. 5970, Vote #419: Adopted 217-194: R 217-1; D 0-192; I 0-1, 7/28/06, Ross voted Nay

    76. H.R. 5970, Vote #424: Motion rejected 190-220: R 2-214; D 187-6; I 1-0, 7/29/06, Ross

    voted Yea

    77. H.R. 6, Vote #40: Passed 264-163: R 36-159; D 228-4, 1/18/07, Ross voted Yea

    78. H.R. 720, Vote #135: Passed 303-108: R 79-108; D 224-0, 3/9/07, Ross voted Yea

    79. H. Con. Res. 99, Vote #211: Rejected in Committee of the Whole 160-268: R 159-40; D 1-

    228, 3/29/07, Ross voted Nay

    80. H. Con. Res. 99, Vote #212: Adopted 216-210: R 0-198; D 216-12, 3/29/07, Ross voted

    Yea

    81. H.R. 1906, Vote #232: Passed 216-203: R 3-189; D 213-14, 4/19/07, Ross voted Yea

    82. S. Con. Res. 21, Vote #377: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 214-209: R 0-196; D 214-13,

    5/17/07, Ross voted Yea

    83. H.R. 2419, Vote #755: Motion rejected 198-223: R 191-5; D 7-218, 7/27/07, Ross voted

    Nay

    84. H.R. 2419, Vote #756: Passed 231-191: R 19-177; D 212-14, 7/27/07, Ross voted Yea

    85. H.R. 3162, Vote #787: Passed 225-204: R 5-194; D 220-10; I 0-0, 8/1/07, Ross voted Yea

    86. H.R. 2881, Vote #890: Passed 267-151: R 43-151; D 224-0, 9/20/07, Ross voted Yea

    87. H.R. 976, Vote #906: Motion agreed to 265-159: R 45-151; D 220-8; I 0-0, 9/25/07, Ross

    voted Yea

    88. H.R. 3056, Vote #959: Motion rejected 196-212: R 186-0; D 10-212, 10/10/07, Ross voted

    Nay

    89. H.R. 976, Vote #982: Rejected 273-156: R 44-154; D 229-2; I 0-0, 10/18/07, Ross voted

    Yea

    90. H.R. 3693, Vote #1009: Passed 265-142: R 43-141; D 222-1; I 0-0, 10/25/07, Ross Voted

    Yea

    91. H.R. 3920, Vote #1025: Passed 264-157: R 38-155; D 226-2, 10/31/07, Ross voted Yea

    92. H.R. 3996, Vote #1081: Passed 216-193: R 0-185; D 216-8; I 0-0; 11/9/07, Ross voted Yea

    93. H.R. 4351, Vote #1153: Passed 226-193: R 0-190; D 226-3; I 0-0; 12/12/07, Ross voted Yea

    94. H.R. 3363, Vote #22: Rejected 260-152: R 42-151; D 218-1; I 0-0, 1/23/08, Ross voted Yea

    95. H.R. 5351, Vote #84: Passed 236-182: R 17-174; D 219-8; I 0-0, 2/27/08, Ross voted Yea

    96. H. Con. Res. 312, Vote #140: Rejected in Committee of the Whole 157-263: R 153-38; D 4-

    225, 3/13/08, Ross voted Nay

    97. H.R. 6049, Vote #343: Motion rejected 201-220: R 194-0; D 7-220; I 0-0, 5/21/08, Ross

    voted Nay

    98. S. Con. Res. 70, Vote #382: Adopted 214-210: R 0-196; D 214-14, 6/5/08, Ross voted Yea

    99. H.R. 6275, Vote #454: Motion rejected 199-222: R 194-1; D 5-221; I 0-0, 6/25/08, Ross

    voted Nay

    100. H.R. 6275, Vote #455: Passed 233-189: R 10-183; D 223-6; I 0-0; 6/25/08, Ross

    voted Yea

    101. H.R. 2, Vote #16: Passed 289-139: R 40-137; D 249-2; I 0-0, 1/14/09, Ross voted

    Yea

    102. H.R. 1, Vote #44: Rejected in Committee of the Whole 170-266: R 168-9; D 2-257,

    1/28/09, Ross voted Nay

    103. H.R. 2, Vote #50: Motion agreed to 290-135: R 40-133; D 250-2; I 0-0, 2/4/09, Ross

    voted Yea

    104. H. Con. Res. 85, Vote #189: Rejected in Committee of the Whole 111-322: R 111-

    65; D 0-257; I 0-0, 4/2/09, Ross voted Nay

    105. H. Con. Res. 85, Vote #191: Rejected in Committee of the Whole 137-293: R 137-

    38; D 0-255, 4/2/09, Ross voted Nay

    106. H.R. 4154, Vote #928: Motion rejected 187-233: R 169-0; D 18-233, 12/3/09, Ross

    Nay

    107. H.R. 4853, Vote #604: Motion agreed to, thus sent to the Senate, 234-188: D 231-

    20; R 3-168; I 0-0; 12/2/10, Ross voted Yea

    108. H. Con. Res. 34, Vote #277: Adopted 235-193: R 235-4; D 0-189; I 0-0, 4/15/11,

    Ross voted Nay

    109. H. Con. Res. 112, Vote #149: Rejected in Committee of the Whole 136-285: R 136-

    104; D 0-181; I 0-0, 3/29/12, Ross voted Nay
    Bookmark and Share
  • Feb 04 2014

    Pryor and Ross: Out of Step With Arkansas Values

    Dear Friends,

    Arkansas was recently ranked as the third most pro-life state in the Nation, however Senator Mark Pryor and Mike Ross do not represent this core Arkansas value of protecting life.

    Republican Party of Arkansas Chairman Doyle Webb recently issued a statement thanking Congressmen Crawford, Griffin, Womack, and Cotton, along with Senator John Boozman, for their support of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which would permanently ban taxpayer dollars from being used to perform abortions. The Arkansas GOP called on Senator Pryor to listen to the voices of his constituents and become a co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, but Senator Pryor has yet to join the delegation and stand up for life. As a matter of fact, Pryor has gone to significant lengths to dodge answering where he stands on the issue of protecting life in general.

    Unlike “Pro-something Pryor”, we know exactly where Mike Ross stands these days on abortion. His stance is a complete flip-flop from his days in Congress as Ross is now portraying himself as a “defender of abortion rights and criticizing state legislators who passed an abortion ban nearly identical to one he supported in Washington.” This is completely out of step with Arkansans.

    The Republican Party is the only party that can be counted on to defend the inalienable right to life that is granted to us by God, enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, and protected by our U.S. Constitution. Arkansans are overwhelmingly pro-life, yet Senator Pryor and Mike Ross aren’t representing their values. Arkansas deserves better than wishy-washy answers and flip-flopping views.

    Thank you for your support,

    Holly Wilson

    Communications Director 

    Bookmark and Share
  • Aug 29 2013

    John Hutchison to Seek 2nd Term in State House

    John Hutchison to Seek 2nd Term in State House


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                CONTACT: John Hutchison

    August 26, 2013                                                                (870) 897-0353

    HARRISBURG, AR -- State Representative John Hutchison announced today that he will seek re-election to the 52nd District, which covers all or part of Poinsett, Craighead, Jackson, and Independence Counties.

    Hutchison, age 53, said he is seeking re-election because he believes Arkansas needs more problem-solvers and less partisan politicians. "As I said when I first ran for this office: A politician runs for the next election; a statesman runs for the next generation," said Hutchison.

    Hutchison says he has worked across party lines to get things done in the state legislature: "I believe it's my job to represent every single one of my constituents, not just a select few. We're all Arkansans, and we need to put our state first," he said.

    "Agriculture and improving education will continue to be my primary areas of focus moving forward," said Hutchison. "I'll continue to represent the people of my district, not the party bosses or the special interests."

    John Hutchison is a Poinsett County native. He lives in Harrisburg, where he is a farmer. John is a family man, having been married to his wife Karen for over 32 years. Together, they have three daughters, Emaly, Alissa, and Andria. They also have one son-in-law, Eric, and 2 grandchildren, Emilia and Everett “Hutch” Stonecipher. Hutchison was first elected in 2012.

    Bookmark and Share
  • Aug 02 2013

    6 Birthday Gift Ideas for Mike Ross

    by RPA Staff

    Today is Mike Ross’ birthday, and we thought it would be appropriate to provide Arkansans with ideas of things they could get Ross for his birthday. Below we list our top 6 suggestions.

    Disney Classic Pinocchio

     As Ross travels the state trying to convince reporters that he’s never changed his position on important issues to run for Governor, his nose grows a little longer, just like Pinocchio. Perhaps this lovable Disney classic will remind Ross to tell the truth about his flip-flops.

    Magic 8-Ball

    This popular children’s toy will help Mike Ross determine what his next policy stance will be on important issues. For instance, once the primary elections are over, Ross can ask the Magic 8-Ball if he will need to change his position on abortion or gun control again for the General Election.

    Maple Syrup

    Even though his campaign is less than 4 months old, Ross’ waffles are starting to pile up. Whether it’s abortion, the 2nd Amendment, or the Arkansas Lottery, we figure Ross will want some maple syrup to go on those waffles.

    Dodge Ball (The Movie)

    Ross probably doesn’t need to watch a movie about dodging anything. He’s perfected the art of ignoring, ducking and dodging honest inquiries about his flip-flops and past positions. Move along, everyone! Nothing to see here!

    Ginko Biloba

    Used as a popular herbal supplement to fight memory loss, Ginko Biloba should help with Mike Ross’ selective memory. You see, Ross has conveniently forgotten that he voted to pass a 20-week abortion ban when he was a member of Congress. Now he’s running around telling Democrats that he was against the same 20-week ban passed this year by the state legislature.

    Flip-Flops

    Flip-flops are the gift that every political opportunist should have! We’ve included a pair of flip-flops so that Mike Ross can wear them everywhere he goes. His entire campaign has been one big flip-flop, so it just makes sense that he add these to his attire out on the campaign trail.

    Bookmark and Share
  • Aug 01 2013

    Here’s What National Press Think About Mark Pryor’s Chances

    By RPA Staff

    Yesterday’s news about the Arkansas U.S. Senate race prompted several national media outlets to assess the state of Arkansas’ 2014 matchup – and it doesn’t look good for Mark Pryor. Here’s a smattering of what was written yesterday…and none of it is good news for Arkansas Democrats.

    Washington Post: “If there were any doubts that Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) is the most vulnerable senator in the country this election cycle, Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) appears to have put them to rest.”

    New York Times: “Mr. Pryor was already facing an uphill fight in his increasingly Republican home state. Mitt Romney won Arkansas with 60.5 percent of the vote in 2012, and voters there elected an entirely Republican slate of House members last year, as well.”

    The Hill: “Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) is viewed as the most vulnerable Senate Democrat up for reelection. Arkansas has shifted sharply toward Republicans in recent years, and President Obama is deeply unpopular in the state.”

    Washington Post: “This turns Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), already in trouble in his bid for reelection, into an endangered species.”

    Town Hall: “This senate seat is considered one of the most vulnerable in the country in 2014. With Republicans now in control of the state Legislature and Republicans holding all four U.S. House seats, it looks like there is a good opportunity for Cotton to win this seat.”

    New York Times: “For Mr. Pryor, a two-term Democrat, the bid would further complicate his efforts to hold onto his already vulnerable seat.”

    Salon: “All of this is bad news for Pryor. The GOP needs to win six seats in order to take back the Senate — and Pryor is an easy target. As a Democrat in a red state, he was already vulnerable, but to top it off he faced backlash from within his own party over his vote against gun background checks in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shootings.”

    Roll Call: “Freshman Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., will announce his candidacy next week to challenge Sen. Mark Pryor, arguably Democrats’ most vulnerable senator of the cycle.”

    Politico: “Republicans view Arkansas as a prime pickup opportunity: The four-member House delegation is uniformly Republican; the GOP controls both chambers of the statehouse; and Mitt Romney beat President Barack Obama there by nearly 24 percentage points in 2012.

    Reuters: “Arkansas has moved steadily to Republicans in recent years despite being the home state of former Democratic President Bill Clinton. President Barack Obama lost the state in the 2012 election and Republicans won majority control of the state legislature.”

    Washington Post: “On the other side stands Pryor, a Democrat fighting for his life in an increasingly red state.”

    Bookmark and Share
  • Jul 29 2013

    20 Examples of Mark Pryor's New Part-Time America

                Under Obamacare, businesses that employ more than 50 employees will be required to provide Obama-approved health insurance to all full-time employees (defined as 30-hours a week or more). If employers are unable to meet this requirement, Obamacare hits them with a stiff penalty (i.e., tax) totaling thousands of dollars per worker. This definition of “full-time” as 30 hours a week must come as a shock to the millions of Americans who work 25-35 hours a week and are desperate to add more hours to their workweek or pick up a second part-time job so they can make ends meet, provide for their family, and put food on the table each week. It’s also a shock to employers who are now being forced by Obamacare to cut worker’s hours in an effort to avoid these additional costs.  

    Last week, the Senate voted on this bipartisan amendment that would change Obamacare’s mandate for employers to provide health insurance from 30 hours a week to 40 hours, which has historically been considered the threshold for “full-time” in America. Unfortunately (but unsurprisingly), Senator Mark Pryor voted with the liberals in his party to keep this threshold at 30-hours per week.

    Obamacare is turning America into a nation of part-time workers, and Mark Pryor is helping Barack Obama lead the charge. Here’s 30 examples of how the Obama/Pryor vision for healthcare is hurting the American worker:

     1. An Ohio small business cuts workers to under 30-hours to avoid Obamacare penalties

    2. In Virginia, part-time and seasonal workers are seeing their hours cut to under 30 each week.

    3. Maryland employers are cutting worker's hours down to 25-28 per week to avoid Obamacare's penalties.

    4. Tennessee School Districts are slicing hours of workers to part-time status for matinence, cafeteria, and transportation workers because of Obamacare.

     

    5. Brevard County, Florida is making the decision to cap worker's hours to keep them in a part-time status so they don't hit Obamacare's 30-hour threshold.

    6. Central Michigan University is telling student workers who rely on the extra cash to pay for books and rent they can no longer work more than 25 hours per week. Thanks Obamacare!

    7. Trig Supermarkets are chopping the hours their part-time workers, who make up almost 2/3rds of their employees. Otherwise, their supermarket chain would be bankrupt within a year because of Obamacare.

    8. Major labor unions such as the Teamster's, United Food and Commercial Workers, and Unite Here! have all sent a letter to President Obama warning him that his healthcare law "creates an incentive for employers to keep employees hours below 30-hours a week."

    9. Fast food chain White Castle recently announced that because of Obamacare, they are considering only hiring part-time workers -- meaning less than 30 hours a week?

    10. The University of North Alabama will no longer let student workers surpass the 29-hour mark, which will be a huge blow to graduate students who use assistantships to earn money will continuing their education.

    11. Thousands of part-time workers will see their hours cut by Regal Cinemas in response to Obamacare.

    12. A local restaurant in Michigan is limiting its non-management employees to 25 hours a week. The reason? You guessed it...Obamacare!


    13. A family auto shop in Indiana is faced with having to eliminate hours for many of their most loyal workers that have been with the company for years because they can't afford Obamacare's mandates.

    14. Restaurants like Papa John's, Olive Garden, and Red Lobster will be scaling back employee hours. Obamacare's regulatory stranglehold will cost Papa John's an estimated $5-8 million more per year.

    15. Substitute teachers and bus drivers at Indianapolis public schools will see their hours reduced so the school districts can afford to comply with Obamacare's mandates.

    16. Many non-management workers at Wendy's will go from working 36-37 hours per week down to only 27 per week after Obamacare. Many of the workers will struggle to make ends meet with that few hours.

    17. FOX News reports on the perverse incentives created by Obamacare that will keep employees stranded in part-time, sub-30 hour work weeks.

    18. Grocery store chain Wegman's made the tough decision to drop health insurance for their part-time workers. Again, Obamacare's perverse incentives makes it easier for employers like Wegman's to shove the costs over to John Q. Taxpayer (hint: that's you!)

    19. In Vigo County, Indiana, elementary school children will take fewer field trips because the school system is limiting the hours of bus drivers to keep them from reaching full-time status. Otherwise, they'd be considered "full-time" employees under Obamacare.

    20. The fastest-growing jobs in America are part-time or temporary. The Bureau of Labor statistics reports that in June, twice as many part-time jobs were created than full-time jobs.


    Bookmark and Share
  • Jul 26 2013

    Will Mark Pryor Listen to Arkansas Small Businesses?

                Senator Mark Pryor is fond of saying that he always “puts Arkansas first,” despite being the proud owner of a voting record that lines up 95% of the time with President Barack Obama. And despite Pryor’s insistence that he listens to Arkansas, it’s clear he isn’t hearing the voices of the state’s 241,000 small businesses, which account for half of all of the private sector jobs in the state.

                Small businesses have made it abundantly clear that Obamacare will irreparably harm them, and that they want nothing to do with it.

    According to a recent survey of small business owners by the US Chamber of Commerce:

    • 71% say that Obamacare will make it much more difficult for them to hire new employees
    • 61% plan to avoid hiring any new workers next year.
    • ½  of small business owners plan to cut hours or replace full-time employees with part-time employees to avoid being subject to the employer mandate
    • 24% plan to reduce hiring.
    • Only 30% of small business owners feel that they are prepared to navigate the legal labyrinth created by the more than 1,000 page bill
    • 1 in 4 are not even sure what is legally required of them because of the bill  

    The President of the Arkansas Chamber of Commerce, Randy Zook, wrote about Obamacare’s health insurance tax earlier this week. The law creates a new, $100 billion tax called the “Health Insurance Tax.” Democrats in Washington claim that this is a tax on health insurance companies, but they have failed to consider the impact it will have upon these companies’ customers, including small businesses. Health insurance providers will surely pass the cost along to small businesses and families by increasing premiums, which can only serve to hinder economic recovery and kill jobs. The National Federation of Independent Business estimates that this tax will result in 250,000 jobs being cut over the course of the next 8 years. In Arkansas, small businesses will account for 59% of the jobs lost in the state due to this tax. It will also increase premiums for families by $5,000 over the next 10 years.

    Arkansas’ small business owners have made it clear that they want Senator Pryor to support a repeal effort that will save jobs and prevent increased insurance costs. However, Senator Pryor cares less about the needs of small businesses and their hard-working employees, and more about imposing the will of Obama and other Washington Democrats upon everyday Arkansans. In a recent interview on KARK’s Capitol View, Pryor doubled-down on his support for Obamacare and even said “it was good for Arkansas.” Of course, this news from Pryor would come as a surprise to Arkansas small businesses, which are feeling the damaging effects of Obamacare. Not only has Pryor doubled-down on Obamacare, he has refused to vote for any attempt to repeal Obamacare in interviews, saying simply “I’d be against it.”

    Mark Pryor must think he can be re-elected in 2014 without the support of Arkansas’ small businessmen and businesswomen, because it’s clear he is ignoring their cries for help when it comes to Obamacare.

    Bookmark and Share
  • Jul 22 2013

    Mark Pryor’s Top 3 Obamacare Stumbles (Just This Week)

    by RPA Staff

    It’s been less than 2 months since Senator Mark Pryor doubled-down on his support for Obamacare on KARK’s Capitol View, saying that not only would he not vote to repeal the law, but also saying he thought Obamacare was “good for Arkansas.”

    Since that appearance, things have gotten worse each and every day for Pryor and the legislation he provided the 60th vote to pass. Let’s revisit this week’s “Top 3” Obamacare developments as they relate to Mark Pryor. We’ve even helped you out by ranking them in order of importance.

    3. Pryor Flip-Flops on IPAB

    IPAB is the acronym for the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of un-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats created under Obamacare that is charged with instituting cost savings in Medicare. The measure is extremely controversial and has come under heavy criticism by conservatives because it gives too much power to Washington bureaucrats to decide which services Americans will and will not receive under Medicare, which could ultimately lead to rationing of care.

    We’re all used to Mark Pryor flip-flopping, as he has on abortion, concealed carry, and the so-called “assault weapons ban.” But to flip-flop on a key provision of Obamacare is a shocker – even for Mark Pryor.

    Pryor voted for Obamacare’s passage in 2009, knowing that it contained the IPAB provision. A year later (2010), he voted to block an attempt to remove the IPAB provision from the law. As recently as last year, Pryor publicly defended IPAB, telling Democrat-Gazette reporter Alex Daniels that before it, people were “at the mercy of private insurance companies.” (You can read all Pryor’s background on IPAB here)

    But Pryor has now flipped on the issue. On July 11, Pryor voted for an amendment by Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) that would have defunded IPAB, thereby leading to its elimination. Why has Pryor flip-flopped on a key provision of Obamacare? Here’s how Pryor defends his flip-flop to the Democrat-Gazette:

    “In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Pryor said Congressional Budget Office projections on the panel that were released in March convinced him that it wouldn’t necessarily save money. The projections showed that the panel would not result in any savings in the next 10 years. Earlier projections estimated $15 billion in savings over the first decade of its existence.”

    So did Mark Pryor have a “Road to Damascus” moment – realizing how unworkable Obamacare really is? Or is this simply more election-year posturing from a politician who knows he’s on thin ice with the voters? Either way, it doesn’t reflect very well on Senator Pryor.



    2. Pryor’s Claim About “Obamacare rebate checks” gets blown up by the AP’s Fact-Checker

    Obamacare is becoming SO unpopular that its supporters are desperately grasping for straws to convince Americans it’s good for them. That’s why President Obama gave another highly-advertised speech to sell his healthcare boondoggle for the 10,000th time. But in his speech, the President again misled the American people by repeating false and misleading claims that roughly 8 ½  million Americans would be receiving rebate checks (averaging $100 each) from insurance companies who spent too much on administrative expenses, as Obamacare requires.

    Problem is: it’s not quite that simple. Here’s what the Associated Press’ fact-checker had to say about that claim:  

    “The health care law requires insurance companies that spend too much on administrative expenses to issue rebates to customers. But those customers are often employers that in turn offer insurance to workers and bear the bulk of the costs. In workplace plans, the rebate goes to the employer, which must use it for the company health plan but does not have to pass all or part of it on to the worker. People who buy their own insurance and qualify for a rebate get it directly…Of the 12.8 million rebates announced last year, health policy experts estimated 3 million would go directly to the insured.”

    So how does this concern Mark Pryor? We’re so glad you asked. You see, Pryor has been trumpeting the same misleading and false statements about Obamacare’s “rebate checks” on his official Facebook page. Below is a screen shot of one such post from June 11 where Pryor repeats the same Obama mantra about rebate checks.

    As if flip-flopping on IPAB wasn’t bad enough, the Pryor/Obama claim about rebate checks was blown out of the water, thanks so some good investigative journalism by the Associated Press.    

    3. Baptist Health Lays Off 170 Workers, Blames Mark Pryor’s Vote for Obamacare



    We’ve all seen the headlines about Obamacare’s broken promises and job-killing consequences, but when that news hits close to home, it puts a face on the problem. This week, Little Rock-based Baptist Health announced it was laying off 170 employees here in Arkansas.

    Why are they laying off these employees? We’ll let you read their statement and you can decide for yourself:

    “We are undertaking a number of initiatives that will position our organization to address the challenges of health reform and severe federal budget cuts… In a difficult and challenging environment of substantially less government reimbursement, burdensome government regulations, rapidly rising costs of supplies, increasing charity care and bad debt, and the need for technology and medical innovations, we believe these efforts will serve to make Baptist Health more effective.”

                Does that sound like Obamacare to you? Here’s the list of reasons Baptist Health provides:

    1. “To address the challenges of health reform” (i.e. Obamacare)
    2. “Substantially less government reimbursement” (Obamacare guts Medicare to pay for its programs)
    3. “Burdensome government regulations” (Obamacare’s 20,000 page tower of red tape)
    4. “Rapidly rising costs of supplies” (Obamacare contains a 2.3% surcharge/tax on medical devices)


    Senator Pryor is quick to step forward and claim credit any time something good happens (just look at the press releases on his website). But will he accept the blame now that Arkansas families are getting handed the pink slip because of his vote for Obamacare? We doubt it, which is why voters will have to give HIM the pink slip in 2014.

    Bookmark and Share
  • Jul 09 2013

    How Low Can You Go?

    by RPA Staff          

    Washington liberals are so desperate these days to hold onto control of the U.S. Senate that a Super PAC connected with Senate Majority Leader (i.e. Obstruction Leader) Harry Reid has launched a false attack ad at Congressman Tom Cotton. The ad is patently false, so we want to take a few moments to rebut its false claims.

    Less than 24 hours after the ad launched, the Washington Post’s fact-checker awarded the ad a rating of “4 Pinocchios,” which is the rating reserved for only the most factually-challenged ads. The same day, Politifact (a Pulitzer prize-winning, non-partisan fact-check organization) gave the ad its “Pants on Fire” rating. You don’t have to have a big imagination to figure out what that says about the ad. The next week, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ran an editorial which says the ad is full of “smears”, contains “a web of mischaracterizations”, “distortions”, and “low tricks.”

    What exactly are these low tricks? We’re glad you asked.

    Liberals are telling voters that Tom Cotton voted “to end Medicare.” The only problem? It’s not true. In fact, Politifact called that claim the 2011 “Lie of the Year”. There has not been any actually vote (or proposal) to “end Medicare,” but that doesn’t stop the liberals from scaring seniors that the mean, nasty Republicans are going to take away their Medicare. The vote they cite is a vote for the Paul Ryan budget plan. Under the Ryan Plan, all seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal, and the program’s budget would increase every year.

    As you can see, there’s a reason the Washington Post gave this tactic a name: Mediscare.

    The ad also claims that that Congressman Cotton voted to increase senior’s out-of-pocket healthcare expenses by $6,000. But that’s based on an estimate done by a left-leaning group on a different proposal that Congressman Cotton has never even voted on. That’s why both the Washington Post and Politifact call this claim false.

    But the ad saves the most outrageous claim for last. They charge that Congressman Cotton voted to give Congress taxpayer-funded healthcare for life. Of course, they don’t tell you in the ad what they’re actually referring to is Cotton’s vote to repeal Obamacare. Republicans included language in Obamacare in 2009 to force members of Congress to enter into the exchanges created by the law, but there has never been a vote to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to members of Congress. Pretty disingenuous, right?

    About the ad, The Washington Post had this to say: “It’s pretty shameful that Democrats are still attacking Republicans for a Medicare proposal that has been substantially revised, especially in an ad that concerns a lawmaker who was not even in Congress when the initial version was unveiled.”

                So why are liberals stooping so low this early in the campaign season? It’s pretty simple – they’re trying to prop up Mark Pryor, Arkansas’ last liberal standing in Washington. Pryor has already been named the most vulnerable Senator in the entire nation by both Roll Call and National Journal. Add that to the fact that Mitt Romney carried Arkansas with 61% of the vote, and it’s no secret that Mark Pryor is skating on thin ice.

                Recent polling shows Pryor’s approval rating at dangerously low levels for an incumbent Senator, and hypothetical head-to-head polling show him somewhere in-between toss-up territory and trailing by as much as eight points.

                When you factor these things into consideration, it’s no surprise Harry Reid would come rushing to the defense of his solid ally Mark Pryor. Reid and Obama know they can count on Pryor when it comes time for the big votes. That’s because Pryor supported Reid and Obama on the stimulus, the bailouts, Dodd-Frank, taxpayer funding for abortion, and of course, Obamacare.

                So the next time you see one of these Mediscare ads, take the Washington Post’s advice and just mute the television.

    Bookmark and Share
  • Jun 18 2013

    Mark Pryor's Fuzzy Math

    Mark Pryor’s Fuzzy Math

    by RPA Staff

    This week, Senate Conservatives Fund released a new ad focusing on Pryor’s vote for Obamacare.

    The ad uses the voices of Arkansas voters to make two important points:

    1. Mark Pryor cast the deciding vote for Obamacare.
    2. Despite the wishes of his constituents, Pryor still supports Obamacare and won’t vote to repeal it.

    This upset Senator Pryor, who tried to claim his vote was not the deciding vote for Obamacare. So who’s right? Let’s take a look:

    Obamacare needed 60 votes for final passage (to obtain cloture to overcome a Republican filibuster). The Senate passed it on December 23, 2009 without a single vote to spare (the final vote was 60-39, with one Republican missing the vote). Pryor voted with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of his Democratic leadership to pass Obamacare.

    You’ll remember the House was having some trouble passing Obamacare on its side and was looking at passing its own version of the bill. But then Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, throwing a wrench into the Democrats plans. With Brown elected as the Republican’s 41st Senate vote, Democrats could not overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

    As a result, the House voted to approve the Senate version of Obamacare and it was signed into law.

    In the end, Obamacare could have been stopped by a single U.S. Senator.

    Had Mark Pryor voted the wishes of his constituents, the bill would have failed. It’s as simple as that.

    Had Mark Pryor stood up to Barack Obama and Harry Reid, the bill would have failed. Again, it’s as simple as that.

    For Pryor to claim his vote was just another vote that didn’t have a deciding outcome on the passage of Obamacare is pure baloney.

    But Pryor’s “deciding vote” push-back is just a distraction. It’s election-year smoke and mirrors to distract from the fact that Obamacare is driving up the cost of health insurance premiums, raising taxes, causing employers to cut worker’s hours to stay in business, and reducing the quality of healthcare in America. It’s also smoke and mirrors to distract from the fact that Pryor stands by his vote for Obamacare and has refused to vote for repeal of this terrible law.

    When you vote with President Barack Obama 95% of the time, but represent a state where Barack Obama only received 37% of the vote, you can expect people to be upset with your voting record.

    Republicans shouldn’t let him forget it in 2014.

     

    Bookmark and Share
*Currently displaying the latest 10 records. Use the select boxes from the filter bar above to view more records.