Heather Wilson's Top-Down Economic Policies Crashed Our Economy and Hurt the Middle Class

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, August 1, 2012
CONTACT: Matt Ross (505) 263-4879

Albuquerque (August 1, 2012) – Republican Senate candidate Heather Wilson claims she supports fiscal responsibility, but her unwavering support for the Bush-era tax cuts that chiefly benefit the very wealthy indicates otherwise. Wilson is doubling down on her failed economic policies that put tax cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires ahead of New Mexico’s middle class families.

During her 10 years in Congress, Heather Wilson voted for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Instead of supporting job growth, Wilson’s failed economic policies ballooned the federal deficit and added more than $1.6 trillion dollars to the national debt. Now, Wilson has joined the Republican chorus calling for the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans to be made permanent.

“New Mexicans have seen the results of Congresswoman Wilson's tax cuts for the rich—a crippled economy and a mountain of debt. We simply cannot afford to go back to her failed economic policies,” said Scott Forrester, Executive Director for the Democratic Party of New Mexico.

###

Wilson Consistently Supported Bush-Era Tax Cuts That Overwhelmingly Benefited Millionaires. In 2001,Wilson supported President Bush’s first round of tax cuts. In 2003, Wilson supported another round of tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. In 2004, Wilson supported President Bush’s budget that permanently locked in multitrillion-dollar tax breaks that mostly benefit the nation’s wealthiest. In 2005, Wilson backed a Republican bill that extended capital gains and dividend tax breaks for the rich. And in 2006 Wilson backed another Republican tax break package that the Washington Post dubbed a “windfall for the rich, and a hole in the federal budget.” [HR 1836, Vote 149, 5/26/01; HR 2, Vote 225, 5/23/03; Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, 5/28/03; H Con Res 393, Vote 92, 3/25/04; Vote 621,12/8/05; Chicago Tribune, 12/9/05; HR4297, Vote 135, 5/10/06; Washington Post, 5/11/06]

Wilson Voted For $350 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich While Giving 50 Million Households Nothing. In 2003, Wilson voted for an irresponsible tax cut package that deepened the nation’s fiscal crisis and left middle-income households out in the cold. Some 53 percent of all U.S. households — or 74 million — will receive a tax cut of $100 or less in 2003 from the bill. Additionally, 36 percent of households — or 50 million — will receive no tax cut whatsoever in 2003, while tax filers who make $1 million or more per year will receive an average tax cut in 2003 of $93,500. The bill passed 231-200. [HR 2, Vote 225, 5/23/03; Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, 5/28/03]

Wilson Supported Bush’s 2004 Multitrillion-Dollar Tax Breaks for Wealthy. In March 2004, Wilson supported Bush’s budget that permanently locked in multitrillion-dollar tax breaks that mostly benefit the nation’s wealthiest. According to the AFL-CIO, “To finance these taxes cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the Republican budget resolution—which mirrored Bush’s proposal—inflated the record-high $477 billion U.S. deficit and by $120 billion shortchanged or cut funds for the domestic programs working families need most—from job creation to health care, transportation and education.” [H Con Res 393, Vote #92, 3/25/04; 2004 AFL-CIO Scorecard]

Wilson Supported GOP Capital Gains and Dividend Tax Cut Extension For the Wealthy. In December 2005, Wilson voted “to approve a $56 billion measure to extend capital gains and dividend tax cuts for another two years, until 2010. The extension would leave the tax rate on investment gains at 15 percent. Republicans said the tax bill was an important way to maintain investor confidence, encourage job creation and continue economic growth. Democrats, however, said that the GOP majority cut vital social programs for poor women and children in order to spend billions on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.” [Vote #621, 12/8/05; Chicago Tribune, 12/9/05]