Quick Donate


Mike McFadden is not for us

The Facts:


 McFadden Called Pay Equity “An Election Year Trick.” ”[McFadden] called the vote concerning gender-based pay discrimination an election-year trick and said personhood legislation, which seeks to give fetuses the same rights as people, is a ‘polarizing’ issue that he wouldn’t focus on.” [Huffington Post, 4/10/14]

McFadden: Proposed Pay Equity Legislation Is Part Of “Election Year Tricks” And “Politics As Usual,” Said He Wanted Political Leaders To Focus On Other Issues. During an April 2014 press conference, McFadden was asked about proposed pay equity legislation in the Senate. After initially evading the question, another reporter followed up:

REPORTER: “To Brian’s Question – that was a yes or no, again – would you have voted to move the debate forward? Or not?”

MCFADDEN: “Well, once again, I think it’s the wrong question. The right question is how we get…”

REPORTER: “But that’s a question you would have been asked if you were in the Senate yesterday.”

MCFADDEN: “But I wasn’t in the Senate yesterday. I hope to be in the Senate next January. These are election year tricks. It’s politics as usual. This same bill has come up in 2010, 2012, it will come up in 2014. I want politicians and leaders to focus on how we get this economy growing.” [McFadden Press Conference, 4/10/14]

View Video Of McFadden’s Comments Here:


McFadden Supports Raising The Age Of Eligibility For Medicare. In July 2013, the Associated Press reported: “A major field of debate between Franken and his opponent is likely to be how to reduce the national debt. McFadden said Congress has to tackle the costs of Social Security and Medicare, and he suggested one way could be raising the eligibility age of 65 for both programs. ‘Not for people near the retirement age now — that’s not fair because they don’t have time to change their planning,’ McFadden said. ‘But it seems to me that some conversation around some age, and below, that the age upon which you receive these benefits would increase. The logic behind this would be that the mortality rate has gone up since those programs were created.’” [Associated Press, 7/23/13]

McFadden Said He Supported Raising Eligibility Age For Medicare, “Take The Average Lifespan Minus Some Number Of Years.” During an interview, McFadden said: “So on Medicare you’ve got two issues: you’ve got a demographic issue and a cost issue. And I think we need to look at the retirement age and what age an individual becomes eligible for Social Security, excuse me, for Medicare.” The reporter asked: ”Obviously look at raising it?” McFadden: ”Yeah. Absolutely. And you know, Eric, if we were progressive, when this was put into place when the average lifespan was significantly lower than it is today, you’d almost put it in as a formula, take the average lifespan minus some number of years. Because otherwise we’re gonna have to revisit this question.” [MinnPost, 7/23/14]

CBPP: “Raising Medicare’s Eligibility Age Would Increase Overall Health Spending And Shift Costs To Seniors, States, And Employers.” “Raising Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 67 … would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would increase them. While this proposal would save the federal government money, it would do so by shifting costs to most of the 65- and 66-year-olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to employers that provide health coverage for their retirees, to Medicare beneficiaries, to younger people who buy insurance through the new health insurance exchanges, and to states.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 8/23/11]

Meanwhile, CBO Estimates Show Raising The Medicare Retirement Age Wouldn’t Even Save The Government That Much Money. According to The Atlantic, “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now estimates that gradually increasing the Medicare age from 65 to 67 would only save the government $19 billion between 2016 and 2023 — or 0.01 percent of GDP over that time. Nor would it save much more over the longer term; just 0.07 percent of GDP by 2038.” [The Atlantic, 10/25/13; CBO, 10/24/13]


McFadden Said Privatization Of Social Security Should Be On The Table.

REPORTER: “Ok, and does that allow perhaps some of that public money to be invested in the stock market, which some people say is privatization?”

MCFADDEN: Potentially. Potentially. I would want to look at that, Tom. I think everything needs to be on the table. We need to save these programs. I mean, they’re important to our seniors. I mean, we, as a society, have to take care of our seniors. I absolutely believe that. [Minnesota Public Radio Policast with Mike Mulcahy, 7/16/13]

MinnPost: In Answer To A 2013 Question About Social Security Privatization, “McFadden Said it Should Be On The Table.” “Coleman had supported Bush’s first push to partially privatize Social Security. But heading into his 2008 reelection campaign, he downgraded his support to a statement that privatization was an option that should be ‘on the table’ (the quote in that link is not actually from Coleman but from his campaign manager speaking for him) and that anything to revise Social Security should come from a commission that has considered all the options. It foreshadowed the McFadden position about putting everything on the table but hesitating to endorse the options once they were tabled. In fact, although I negligently failed to ask McFadden where he stood on privatization, MPR reporter Tom Scheck did ask him last year; McFadden said it should be on the table.” [MinnPost, 7/24/14]

CBO Estimated That A Social Security Plan That Diverts Money Into Private Accounts Will Force Benefit Cuts. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, President Bush’s private accounts plan “would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs [individual accounts] under CSSS Plan 2 are included… For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower.”  [CBO, “Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 7/21/2004, page 15 and Table 2] 

Minneapolis Star Tribune: Because President Bush Proposed No New Revenues, “Benefit Cuts Would Be Deeper Than Necessary.” In an April 2005 editorial, the Star Tribune wrote, “So far, the president has said almost nothing about new revenues as part of a solution. This means, ipso facto, that benefit cuts would be deeper than necessary.” [Star Tribune, Editorial, 4/30/05 (emphasis added)]

Minneapolis Star Tribune: Private Accounts “Carved Out” Of Social Security “Would Require Social Security To Make A Second Round Of Benefit Cuts In The Future To Recover The Lost Revenue.” In an April 2005 editorial, the Star Tribune wrote, “The president continues to insist on private retirement accounts that are ‘carved out’ of Social Security – that is, funded by rebating a portion of current payroll taxes to younger workers. This has two grave consequences: It would require hundreds of billions of dollars in new government borrowing, at a time when Washington already is deeply in the red, and it would require Social Security to make a second round of benefit cuts in the future to recover the lost revenue.” [Star Tribune, Editorial, 4/30/05 (emphasis added)]

CBPP: Seven In Ten Workers Would See Benefit Cuts From Privatization Proposal. In a 2005 report, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that seven of ten workers would have their benefits cut. They wrote, “All workers with income above $20,000 today would be subject to benefit reductions. Seven of every ten workers would be affected.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/29/05]


McFadden Attacked Franken For Voting To Close Tax Loopholes For Companies That Ship Jobs Overseas. Two different McFadden campaign ads have attacked Franken for an August 2010 vote for a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. According to the Washington Post, “To pay for the new spending, the measure would cut off in March 2014 an expansion of food-stamp benefits enacted in last year’s stimulus. And it would end tax breaks for some multinational corporations that are based in the United States but have operations and pay taxes abroad. Closing those ‘loopholes,’ as Democrats call them, is the centerpiece of a House Democratic campaign to promote domestic manufacturing and discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas.” [WCCO, 9/10/14; McFadden Press Release, 9/16/14; Vote 228, 8/5/10; Washington Post, 8/5/10]