Des Moines, IA - As Bruce Braley travels across the state to talk about his plans to strengthen Social Security and increase benefits for seniors, Joni Ernst is desperately trying to hide the fact that she supports privatizing this critical program and reducing benefits for Iowa seniors.

Today, Bruce will be in Cedar Rapids talking to seniors about Social Security while Joni Ernst is campaigning with Outsourcer-in-Chief Mitt Romney.

This latest push comes as Iowa voters are increasingly focusing on the campaign, and the more they learn about Joni Ernst's plans that would hurt Iowa families, the more they support Bruce Braley and his plans to fight for all Iowa families, not just the wealthiest few.

Watch Joni talk about her plans to privatize Social Security: http://youtu.be/dMYYFKAJEI0

Joni Ernst may try to hide her positions, but here are the facts:

FACT: ERNST SUPPORTED PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY

Ernst Said She Has "Talked About Privatizing Social Security As An Option."Ernst said: "First, yes, I have talked about privatizing social security as an option. Again, that is one solution. So what I'd recommend is we look at a number of solutions because we really don't know which way is the best way to go yet." [Des Moines Senior Roundtable, 9/03/14] (video & audio)

Ernst Said That Privatizing Social Security Is "An Option" And "One Solution." Ernst said: "First, yes, I have talked about privatizing social security - as an option. Again, that is one solution. So what I'd recommend is we look at a number of solutions because we really don't know which way is the best way to go yet." [Des Moines Senior Roundtable, 9/03/14] (video & audio)

Ernst Said She Supports "Personal Savings" Accounts For Young People In Place Of Entitlements, Said It Could Be Either "Interest Bearing Or Its Tied To The Market." "Ernst supports a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget and reductions to entitlement as well as discretionary spending. 'We need to look at younger workers, workers that are entering the workforce and we need to find a solution there. Something I am willing to look at is a personal savings account. It would be one that, whether it's interest bearing or it's tied to the market, I would need to look at the details, but that is something we need to consider." [Des Moines Register, 5/9/14]

FACT: PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY COULD ENDANGER CURRENT BENEFICIARIES

Expert: Privatization Poses Risks to Current Beneficiaries As Well. Said Kenneth Apfel, a former Social Security Commissioner, "The Bush Social Security plan poses a major threat to the economic security of future generations of older Americans. And it also poses major risks for current beneficiaries. At its heart, the proposal destabilizes the financing base of Social Security, which could over time threaten benefit commitments to current beneficiaries -- maybe not in 2005, but very possibly within a decade. To "save" Social Security, we don't need to weaken Social Security's financing base -- we need to strengthen it." [Campaign for America's Future, 10/21/04]

FACT: PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY WOULD CUT BENEFITS

Privatization of Social Security Increases Risks, Would Cut Benefits, Increases the Debt. According to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, "privatization is not a plan to save Social Security; it is a plan to dismantle Social Security. Privatization means increased retirement risks, severe cuts in Social Security benefits, and a multi-trillion dollar increase in the federal debt. "Privatization diverts money out of Social Security into individual accounts leaving an even larger solvency problem. Privatizers fill this funding gap by dramatically cutting Social Security benefits. They cover the rest by borrowing money, thereby increasing the debt burden on all taxpayers by trillions of dollars over the next half century. With market-based accounts, the risk of an adequate retirement is placed entirely on the individual." [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare website]

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]

FACT: ERNST'S PLAN TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY WOULD BE A WINDFALL FOR WALL STREET

Privatization Would Risk Retirement in the Market, While Creating Billion in Windfalls for Wall Street. According to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, "Privatization will replace Social Security's guaranteed defined benefits with individual investment accounts. In other words, privatization would take money out of Social Security and have workers invest instead in Wall Street." According to MSNBC, even plans to partially privatize "Social Security could be a windfall for Wall Street, generating billions of dollars in management fees for brokerages and mutual fund companies." [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare website; MSNBC, 12/28/04]

Privatization a "Windfall for Wall Street," Worth Billions of Dollars. According to MSNBC, even plans to partially privatize "Social Security could be a windfall for Wall Street, generating billions of dollars in management fees for brokerages and mutual fund companies... because of the massive size of Social Security, with its 154 million covered employees, Mills estimated that even a simple program of individual accounts comparable to the TSP might generate $39 billion in fees, in present-value terms, over 75 years... a more complex menu of options, which might be offered to participants whose accounts grow beyond, say, $5,000, might generate $279 billion in fees over 75 years, boosting projected industry revenues by about 8.5 percent." [MSNBC, 12/28/04]

2004 Report Estimated $940 Billion In Fees From Privatization, "The Largest Windfall Gain In American Financial History." According to a report by prominent economist Austan Goolsbee, "Creating individual accounts in the social security system would lead to a massive increase in payments of financial fees to private financial management companies. Under Plan II of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), the net present value of such payments would be $940 billion...The fees would be the largest windfall gain in American financial history. The $940 billion payment to financial companies would be an increase more than 8 times larger than the decrease in revenue from the 2000-2002 collapse of the bubble." Plan II was the initial proposal that would create optional private retirement accounts, which the Bush administration favored. [The Fees of Private Accounts and the Impact of Social Security Privatization on Financial Managers, September 2004; Omaha World Herald, 12/28/04]

Ernst Acknowledged That "It Might" Cost More To Privatize Social Security And "There May Be A Few Years Where It Is Difficult." In a May 2014 interview with the Des Moines Register, The Registerasked, "You'd take social security pay roll taxes out of the mix and let young people invest that, then that money isn't going to pay the seniors that you've promised -- That's gonna cost you more in the long run, isn't it?" Ernst replied, "Well, it might, and that's why I said we need to take a look at this. This is something I'm willing to take a look at. But there may be a few years where it is difficult, but we have to change it." [Des Moines Register, 5/9/14]

Des Moines, IA - Fresh off a commanding victory at last night's Iowa Senate debate and a new Des Moines Register poll that saw him surge 8 points in just two weeks, Bruce Braley was back on the road today in Northeast Iowa focusing on his policies that put Iowa families first. At stops with volunteers, grassroots organizers and members of the community in Waterloo, Independence and Manchester, Bruce continued to lay out his plans to break through the gridlock and fight for an economy that works for all Iowa families, not just the wealthiest few.

"I am running for U.S. Senate because I will fight for all of our state's families, not just special interest millionaires and billionaires," said Braley. "I am proud of my record of breaking through the gridlock and working with Republicans to deliver results for Iowa, and I'm happy to talk about that record. But Sen. Ernst doesn't seem to understand that sound bites have consequences, and while her policies protect corporations who ship Iowa jobs overseas and oil billionaires like the Koch brothers who oppose the job-creating Renewable Fuel Standard, they hurt Iowa families who rely on Social Security, government student loans, and the promise of fair pay for a hard day's work. While Ernst's policies only lead to more gridlock, I will work with anyone who has a good idea that puts Iowa's families first."

In stark contrast to Bruce's clear commitment to Iowa's middle class at last night's debate, Sen. Joni Ernst failed to hide her out-of-step plans to privatize Social Security, protect corporations that ship jobs overseas from paying their fair share in taxes, abolish federal student loans, and oppose a minimum wage increase that would give 300,000 Iowans a raise.

Bruce also talked about the importance of early voting, and encouraged all Iowans to vote early?either in person or by mail. More and more Iowans are voting early every election cycle, because it is the simplest and easiest way to make your voice heard. Iowans can learn more about how they can vote early at vote.brucebraley.com

You may have noticed that the NRA has begun running an ad against Congressman Bruce Braley this week (you can see it here) that claims Braley voted to take away gun rights.

But what you might not know is that it's essentially a carbon copy of an ad the gun lobby has been running against Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu - one that has been fact-checked by at least four different media organizations and found to be outright dishonest.  The Washington Post gave it the maximum four Pinocchios for its "hyperbolic disconnect between between the images on the screen and the practical impact of the law in question", FactCheck.org called it "misleading", while Time Magazine named it one of the five most dishonest political ads of 2014 and Politifact's rating for that same ad: "Pants on fire".

The same results would be found on a fact check of the NRA's claim against Braley's record as well.  Braley co-sponsored the House version of the same background check legislation backed by Landrieu - a bill that would have closed the loophole that allows criminals and other dangerous people to easily get guns, no questions asked.

The NRA knows background checks don't infringe on anyone's rights and that they don't put law-abiding citizens in danger, as the ominous ad would like voters to believe. Yet the NRA sought to radically deceive voters by running a shadowy attack ad smearing Braley's record.

When covering the heated Iowa senate race, we're hopeful you'll let your readers know about these NRA distortions - and consider editorializing in favor of having local stations pull this ad down because it is based on a lie.