1) Hi, my name is Thad Cochran, and I am a Republican senator in the State of Mississippi. I was first elected into the Senate in 1978, and have been on the Mississippi senate since - I am currently on my 6th term. Born in 1937 in Mississippi, I grew up immersed in academics from a young age, devoting my time to the Boy Scouts, sports, music and church. Working since I was a young man in menial jobs, I also helped out my father in his cattle ranch near Utica. I soon received my BA in Psychology (minoring in political science) at the University of Mississippi, and served in the United States Naval Reserve for years. After that, I became active in politics, eventually working as the Executive Director of Mississippi Citizens for Nixon-Agnew; after that, I was elected to Congress in 1978.
During my time as Senator, I have made many choices to support both defense and academic pursuits, as well as agricultural interests. I supported the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, the Campaign Finance Reform Act and many provisions of farm bills. One of my greatest victories was in winning money for the Gulf Coast from his colleagues to help with the rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina. I have served as a member of a variety of committees in my time as Senator; I have worked as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and Chairman of the Appropriation Committee, currently acting as the ranking member of that committee. I have also served on committees on Senate Ethics, the Judiciary Committee, Labor and Human Resources Committee, and the Committee on Indian Affairs.
According to votesmart.org, the following groups and institutions have demonstrated 100% approval for me in my tenure: The National Right to Life Committee, The American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers, Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance, Americans for the Arts Action Fund, American Shareholders Association, Competitive Enterprise Institute (on the issue of Deregulation), the National Federation of Independent Business, Federally Employed Women, Bread for the World, Partnership for the Homeless, and more. Being supported by pro-life groups as well as military and retiree groups demonstrates my position as a conservative senator who nonetheless takes a moderate stance on some issues.
My voting history in key votes has shown my determination to facilitate greater individual human justice, while I have issues about controversial health care legislation. I voted in 2006 for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, in order to life restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research; however, I also voted against the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which would have prohibited inhumane treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. I also opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2009. In the past five years, I have raised around $2.5 million dollars for my campaigns, most of that coming from law firms, lobbyists, crop production and basic processing interests, oil & gas interests, and health professionals, among others. Nearly half of my contributions have come from large individual contributions as opposed to PACs, with $1,212,290 coming from individuals.
2. a) In this first method for reducing the federal budget deficit, the income tax on high wage earners (those who earn $200,000 a year or more) would be increased. The overall conceit of this plan is that top wage earners, in having a larger pool of income, have a greater obligation and ability to give back to the federal government, particularly as tax cuts for 'job creators' have permitted tax rates for the wealthy to be low. Opponents to this believe that it takes more money away from the top earners than is deserved, since they earned it and they could use it to funnel back into their businesses through job creation.
Senator Thad Cochran, however, would be forced to approve of this tax increasing measure for lack of better options. He would oppose it on its own merits; one of his primary issues is economic development, and his position on the issue is very friendly towards "job creators," as it is his position that business owners need to have the funds free to create those jobs and help their industries and small businesses to grow; taking from them in taxes would inhibit that growth, which is against his position. His voting record and work with interest groups indicates that he is very much approved by groups that value deregulation of business; however, given the unfavorable options available to him I think that Cochran would advocate for higher taxes for the rich. He has voted in the past to not exclude top earners from the Bush tax cuts, voting to extend all of them in 2012. Interest groups such as the Citizens Against Government Waste and Americans for Tax Reform have high approval ratings of him, indicating his record of being anti-tax increase. He also voted to fully repeal the alternative minimum tax, which held top earners more accountable for their taxable income.
b) In this deficit reduction measure, the gas tax would be increased from 18.4 cents a gallon to 30 cents a gallon. Effectively, this would make it more expensive for people to buy gas, and might discourage them from doing this more often. This has the effect of reducing greenhouse gases and carbon emissions, and is meant to be a greening measure for America's reliance on fossil fuels.
However, Senator Cochran would vote against this measure as well. Much of his campaign contributions have come from oil and gas interests through PACs, and so he would be indebted to those lobbyists and business interests to maintain the nation's dependence on oil and gasoline. In 2011, he voted YES to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, ostensibly to prevent gas prices from going up and to prevent a 'backdoor national energy tax' through the EPA. He voted to require a full Senate debate before voting on cap-and-trade, and voted no to provide tax incentives for energy conservation and to remove subsidies for oil & gas exploration. He has a vested interest in maintaining the oil and gas industries, due to the money that comes in from these interests for his campaign. Therefore, he would not vote for something that goes against their interests, as well as for raising taxes. While he has voted for alternative energy in the past, and is supported by a few energy interests (like the Consumer Alliance for Energy Security), he would see this measure as something extraneous, and potentially untenable for the American people (who still need gas to get around).
c) In this measure, military spending would be reduced by 10% across the board; presumably, this would affect all branches of the military, from active to reserve forces, as well as retirees. This would place the United States military at a diminished capacity than its current position, and leave them less able to provide jobs and benefits to veterans and retirees. However, the argument for this reduction is that we do not need this level of military spending currently, and that we cannot afford it (particularly as it is what we spend the majority of our budget on).
Senator Cochran would have a difficult time doing this, but I believe he would choose to approve this budget reduction. A veteran with close ties to the Navy, he has firsthand experience with the needs and sentiments of the military. To that end, he would be very emotionally close to this issue and not wish to interfere with the military budget. He constantly fights to pass legislation on veterans' jobs; Mississippi in particular has a close relationship with the U.S. Navy (which has a positive effect on his state's economy as well). His voting record demonstrates a strong relationship with the military, and he is highly regarded by pro-military interest groups like the Military Officers Association of America and Non-Commissioned Officers Association. Therefore, he would likely wish to vote no on this provision, as he would want to keep as much money in the military as possible. However, as stated later, his ties to the agricultural needs of his home state, as well as oil and gas interests, would trump these concerns, and he would vote this in.
d) In this measure, the federal subsidy for AMTRAK, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, would be eliminated. This is meant to shore up that money to go toward paying off the deficit, while reducing the money that would go to AMTRAK, leaving it in a diminished financial capacity to operate. Other sides of the argument state that AMTRAK's subsidy does not take up much of the federal budget, and the importance of railway transportation of that magnitude requires its continued funding.
Senator Thad Cochran would, perhaps begrudgingly, vote for the measure to eliminate subsidies for AMTRAK. He has no vested interest in AMTRAK or any other type of subsidy. The GOP currently seeks to eliminate federal funding for these kinds of programs (AMTRAK, PBS), and so it is entirely possible that Cochran would vote along with his party. However, he has voted in the past to restore $550 million dollars to Amtrak funding in 2007, so there is precedent to maintain that funding. Cochran's key issues involve providing jobs to individuals, both federal and commercial; to that end, he might continue the subsidy in order to keep the mostly-privatized AMTRAK still running at the capacity it needs. Cochran's voting record where AMTRAK is specifically concerned conflicts with the current GOP opposition to the subsidy; however, in light of the need to reduce the deficit, and his much greater vested interest in maintaining oil and gas spending as well as military spending, this is the one issue in which he would likely cave.
e) In this measure, federal subsidies (price supports) for agriculture would be reduced by 20%; here, farmers and farm companies would receive less money to operate and a lesser ability to control prices on crops and products. This would leave farmers less able to operate at the capacity they need to survive, but would lessen the burden on the deficit, as that money could go toward paying that off.
Senator Cochran would absolutely not allow the price supports for agriculture to go down. Serving on many committees for Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, particularly on the Production, Income Protection and Price Support Subcommittee, he would not want to see the price supports for agriculture go down in any way. He has voted in the past to replace farm price supports, as he did in 1996. He has also voted in 2007 against limiting farm subsidies for top earners, demonstrating a pattern of voting that strongly favors providing government support to farms in order to maintain their businesses. His childhood and close family history to farms also lends him a uniquely pro-agriculture perspective, lending him a vested interest toward agricultural pursuits and funding. He has strong favor with agricultural interest groups including the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers, and more, leaving him accountable to these groups if he were to reduce their funding. Agriculture is one of his key issues, and a major component of the economy of Mississippi; to vote down agriculture price supports would be to leave his home state at a unique disadvantage. To that end, it would be safe to say that Cochran would not allow price supports and subsidies for farmers to be reduced, as that would punish his constituents and act against their interests.
Works Cited
"About." Thad Cochran.gov. 2012.
Barone, Michael. "That Cochran (R)." in The Almanac of American Politics, 2012. pp. 907-910.
"Thad Cochran - Special Interest Group Ratings." Project Vote Smart. 2012.
"Thad Cochran - On the Issues." OntheIssues.org. 2012.
"Thad Cochran - Campaign Contributions." Opensecrets.org.
