Last Thursday, we discussed the coming "Fiscal Cliff", what it means for us, why we're nearing it, and how to escape it. Long story short: "The Fiscal Cliff" will trigger across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases on January 1 if Congress can't agree on a budget deal in the next six weeks. And since "The Fiscal Cliff" will hinder economic recovery if enacted (by cutting investment in our economy), and since it contains a whole lot of politically unpalatable cuts as well (like military spending cuts), there's certainly plenty of incentive to avoid this "Fiscal Cliff".
Republican leaders are reevaluating their relationship with the tea party, a political marriage that has fueled gridlock and, some believe, played a role in the GOP's dismal outcome at the polls. The intense conservative opposition to tax increases could thwart the desire of Boehner and other Republicans to show voters the party can help make Washington work.
The speaker has made an early effort to strike a balance.
In the days after the election, he sounded a public note of conciliation, telling the president, "We want you to succeed," as he signaled a willingness to shift from the party's hard anti-tax position.
But he also made clear that the party opposed any increase in tax rates. Obama has called for taxes to rise for the wealthiest Americans. Specifically, Obama has said he wants to raise rates to President Clinton-era levels on income above $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals. [...]
This is the complicated courtship the chain-smoking speaker must undertake in the next 50 days as he attempts to satisfy his right wing while meeting Obama across the aisle for the deal that voters — and the stock market — have signaled they want.
Even though Harry Reid is eyeing certain Senate Republicans (including fellow Nevadan Dean Heller) to cross the aisle and support a comprehensive budget deal, the math in the House is much more complicated. And that's primarily because Boehner still fears being toppled in a "tea party" coup. Yet if he stands with the teabaggers in sending America "Off the Cliff", his entire Republican Party may be blamed for another economic slowdown and global financial panic. And because G-O-TEA intransigence (and resistance to fixing the debt ceiling) is what passed the Budget Control Act (which initiated this "Fiscal Cliff") in 2011 in the first place, this truly is a problem of their making.
This is what's weighing on the minds of Republican leaders in DC now. The only surefire way for them to escape being blamed for another "Great Recession" is by reaching a budget deal with President Obama and Senator Reid. But if they do that, they risk another "TEA" fueled revolt in their own party. So what will they do?
So the election is now over. We know at least 99% of who won and who lost. So does this mean we're all done with the political drama of 2012? Not quite. Let me explain.
First, we must flash back to August 2011. Remember the debt ceiling debacle? Because Republicans in Congress refused to a sensible solution, we got "The Supercommittee". And because "The Supercommittee" oh so predictably failed (see above), we got a "trigger" (of budget cuts and tax increases that no one wants to be implemented entirely) that is about to be set in January if an agreement is not reached in the next six weeks.
To keep the economy afloat, the White House cut the deals it felt it had to. Many, such as Obama’s agreement to extend all of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, were poorly received by Democrats. Now comes the payoff. The expiration of those cuts and the automatic reductions set to take effect at year’s end—the so-called fiscal cliff—mean that Obama and the Democrats can gain a huge source of new revenue by doing nothing at all. Republican priorities are the ones suddenly in peril. The combination of tax increases on the rich, higher capital-gains taxes, and sharp cuts in defense spending have congressional Republicans deeply worried. To mitigate these, they’ll have to bargain.
Despite their post-election tough talk, Republican leaders have dealt themselves a lousy hand. Obama can propose a “middle-class tax cut” for the 98 percent of American households earning less than $250,000 a year—while letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning more—and dare the Republicans to block it. If they do, everyone’s taxes will rise on Jan. 1. It’s true that going over the fiscal cliff, as some Democrats believe will happen, would set back the recovery and could eventually cause a recession. But Democratic leaders in Congress believe the public furor would be too intense for Republicans to withstand for long.
Going over the cliff would also weaken the Republicans’ greatest point of leverage: renewing their threat to default on the national debt. Right now, the Treasury expects to hit the debt ceiling in February. But if the cliff can’t be avoided, tax rates will rise and government coffers will swell, delaying the date of default—thus diminishing the Republicans’ advantage. Alice Rivlin, the founding director of the Office of Management and Budget and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says that “as quickly as the IRS began changing the withholding schedule, the date would be pushed back.”
While everyone fears "The Fiscal Cliff", there's far more for Republicans to lose if it comes to pass in January. After all, it includes military spending cuts, tax increases that hit high-income brackets the hardest, and a whole lot of federal funding that would be stripped from their states. Basically, it's pure political poison. And Congressional Republicans are having deep regrets over this very "Fiscal Cliff" that they agreed to in August 2011.
So once again, President Obama and Harry Reid hold the upper hand. But this time, it's far more obvious. And this time, it's Republicans who fear what will happen if no deal is cut by the end of this year. And with Republicans now poised to lose some seats in both houses of Congress in January, do they really want to see what happens if our country is forced to jump "off the cliff"?
[Delegate Laurie Haley from Reno] said she is anxious to go home and start making phone calls and knocking on doors for Obama and for U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas, who is running for U.S. Senate.
“I’m ready to go home and make a difference,” she said. “I’m so energized that my husband probably won’t be able to live with me for the next 60 days until the election.”
Haley said she is better off than she was before Obama took office, in part because of his support for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to sue employers for paying them less than men for the same jobs. The law was the first that Obama signed after taking office.
“It means that women like me won’t be paid 23 cents less than men for doing the same work,” Haley said. “That adds up to a lot of money per week,per month, per year and over the course of a career. It affects the quality of our lives.”
And this is exactly what the Democratic Convention was aimed to accomplish. With all the pundits' talk of "enthusiasm gaps" and "disillusionment", Democrats wanted to dispel that talk and show how Democrats are still fired up and ready to go. This week's convention in Charlotte went a long way in doing this.
But today, it looks like the economy is chiming in... And frankly, it isn't sounding all that great. However, we can't forget that exactly one year ago, President Obama offered a solution.
The American electorate was clamoring for action on jobs; the Obama White House crafted a credible plan that would be helping enormously right now; and congressional Republicans reflexively killed the Americans Jobs Act for partisan and ideological reasons.
With this recent history in mind, how are we to assign responsibility for high unemployment? Should we condemn the person who threw the job market a life preserver, or those who pushed it away? Or put another way, are we better off now as a result of Republican obstructionism and intransigence, or would we have been better off if the popular and effective job-creation measures had been approved?
By any reasonable measure, the GOP argument, which will be trumpeted loudly today, is completely incoherent -- they were wrong a year ago and now we're paying the price.
When we really think about it, we're lucky the economy created 96,000 jobs last month. Despite the constant G-O-TEA obstruction and economic sabotage, we're still seeing some kind of economic recovery.
However, it can be better. That's precisely why President Obama proposed the American Jobs Act last September. It would have created 1.9 million more jobs and an extra 2% worth of GDP growth this year. Yet instead of working with President Obama to speed up economic recovery, G-O-TEA politicians just kept obstructing.
Oh, and some G-O-TEA acolytes actually went further in proposing legislation to worsen our economic problems and throw America into depression! In fact, Nevada's own Dean Heller and Joe Heck both proposed bills last November aimed at slashing public investment in our economy precisely when our economy needed that investment the most.
Again, when taking this into consideration, it's actually a bit of a minor miracle that our economy is still growing and creating jobs. And it's become increasingly clear that our economy needs more investment, NOT LESS. This is what we started to hear from President Obama last night in Charlotte, and this is what we need to hear more from him about next Wednesday here in Las Vegas.
But let's face it, we still won't see enough progress if we don't see significant change in Congress. And this is the case President Obama and Congressional Democrats must make in order to sweep away the austerity nonsense and work on delivering real economic growth.
While the media focused their attention on other speakers, there was one person who really set the convention hall in Charlotte last night. And unlike the blustery politicians who blithely crapped on President Obama's record in Tampa last week, she actually knows all too well the value of something President Obama signed into law at the very start of his term.
Lilly Ledbetter reminded the crowd of both her personal struggle and the continuing struggle of working women in America. While there's been plenty of progress in working towards workplace equality, there's still more work to do. Yet when the Paycheck Fairness Act came up for a vote, Republicans shot it down... And yes, Nevada's own Dean Heller proudly (??!!) joined in the effort to kill the Paycheck Fairness Act. Apparently for him and his G-O-TEA colleagues, equal pay for equal work and economic security for America's working women are just another "job killing regulation" (never mind the data proving otherwise).
Earlier last night, several Democratic Congresswomen addressed the convention. They also know the President's record very well. And they know all too well what the G-O-TEA extremists in Congress have done to not just undermine President Obama politically, but truly wage war on women.
Mitt Romney has certainly been going out of his way to fully endorse the G-O-TEA War on Women. So of course, Dean Heller and Joe Heck joined with Romney's running mate Paul Ryan to fight the religious right's battles to take away women's rights... Even to the point of trying to redefine rape! And then to top it all off, Joe Heck has fought alongside his House G-O-TEA comrades in fighting the bipartisan (!!!) Violence Against Women Act. I'm still wondering when helping rape victims and domestic violence victims became so "controversial".
Last night, NARAL's Nancy Keenan also spoke at the Democratic Convention. She made it clear that this election will be a very important choice for women to decide.
And this will indeed be a critical choice here in Nevada. Dean Heller and Joe Heck just keep going put of their way to join with Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and the most radical elements of the G-O-TEA in waging war against the concept of equality for women. Even when it seems like "the issue is dying down", some teabagger always seems to find a way to bring it back to the forefront. Funny enough, Romney, Heller, and Heck always try to dismiss their own party's "women problem" as just "partisan Democrat attacks". Yet if that's the case, why are they always backing up their party when it rehashes these battles in Congress and in their own party's platform? They still don't realize they can't have it both ways.
And they still don't get what women want. Sure, women care about a whole host of issues, issues like health care, education, and economic justice. And guess what? Their party doesn't make sense on those issues, either! If these Republicans had engaged in sensible dialogue to reach common sense solutions to encourage economic recovery and a sound future for America's middle class, we wouldn't even be having this discussion now. But because Republicans allowed their party to be taken over by "tea party" extremists, then followed the "tea party" lead on obstructing economic recovery efforts while pushing "TEH CUL'CHUR WARZZZ!!!" instead, they must now face the wrath of the women they've been threatening and bullying with their forced ultrasounds, attempts to redefine rape, attempts to defund women's health care, and all around continued assaults on women's rights. So when Mitt Romney and his Nevada Republican BFFs whine again about complaints from "the women", remember that they only have themselves to blame for agreeing to wage war on women.
Why? It completely obliterates their previously prepared narrative of, "ZOMG!!! Democrats are running away from Shelley Berkley and her SCANDALS!!!!" They're having such a hard time realizing that somehow her campaign has been able to scoot past Dean Heller's manufactured "controversy" and turn the "scandalous" spotlight back onto Dean Heller and his actual record.
Even a REPUBLICAN member of Congress recently admitted the truth behind Paul Ryan's spin. He even sent a flier to his constituents late last month highlighting his opposition to "Ryan-care"!
House Republicans approved a budget in April that would drive up Medicare costs for seniors, and Mitt Romney has embraced the plan crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). But not all in the party are in agreement. Ten Republicans voted against Ryan’s budget in April, and now, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) is campaigning on his opposition to it. [...]
The GOP plan that McKinley opposes would give seniors the option of enrolling in traditional Medicare or taking a stipend to buy their own health care policy on the private market. Republicans have argued it would slow the federal government’s rising costs for Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office says the plan would increase seniors’ out-of-pocket costs by privatizing Medicare.
In the flier, McKinley says Congress “must balance the budget,” but not on the backs of seniors. McKinley spokesman Jim Forbes told the Los Angeles Times that the congressman “is standing for what he believes in,” but in an election cycle dominated by health care and budget issues, McKinley’s stance is out of step with the rest of his party.
And this is exactly what Shelley Berkley has been saying. Unlike the manufactured "Kidney-gate SCANDAL!!!" about nothing, Heller actually voted for "Ryan-care". And if it's really not as frightening as Berkley's ad suggests, why won't Heller run on it? Why won't he just come out and defend his BFF Paul Ryan? What could he possibly be afraid of?
So keep this in mind as you hear media pundits console Dean Heller's campaign as they whine and complain about Shelley Berkley's new ads.
If you haven't done so yet, watch this video. (Sorry, I can't catch the embed code now.) And when you're done with that (or if you can't watch video right now), read this.
The metaphor we tend to use for congressional dysfunction is “gridlock.” When you have gridlock, nothing moves. But that’s not quite what we’ve seen. When Congress grinds to a halt, other governmental actors step into the breach. This isn’t a particularly good alternative: For one thing, these other actors don’t have the powers of Congress, and so they need to use roundabout, inefficient ways of achieving their goals. For another, these actors are less accountable than Congress.
But it’s important to realize that this wouldn’t happen if Congress didn’t want it to: Just as Congress could act to write a climate bill, it could also act to stop the EPA from regulating carbon. But when gridlock is driven by minority obstruction, you often have a majority that would like to see some effort made to address these problems, and if they can’t do it themselves, they’re willing to stand back and let other parts of the government do it. This is just one more reason why the increasing level of congressional dysfunction should worry those on both the left and the right: It’s leading government to work in ways the Founders never intended, and that frankly doesn’t make very much sense.
This is what Dina Titus was trying to explain to The R-J yesterday. While it is disturbing that the executive branch has had to claim more authority and take more unilateral action, what are they supposed to do when Congress won't do anything? As Ezra Klein has explained, this Congress has actually threatened economic recovery with its epic obstruction and gridlock!
And yes, there's a clear source for this trouble. Even Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, two of the nation's preeminent experts on Congress and federal policy making, broke their silence earlier this year and flatly stated why Congress is increasingly looking like a failed institution.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate —think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel —are virtually extinct.
This is NOT how our government is supposed to work. Even when we've seen divided government in the not too distant past, it was never this dysfunctional. Because the likes of Nevada's own Joe Heck and Mark Amodei would rather cave into "tea party" extremists than work with Harry Reid and others to do such basic things as pass a budget on time and take care of the debt ceiling, our federal government is approaching a dangerous level of gridlock... And it's prompted President Obama to exert more executive authority just to keep the federal government functioning.
This is not how it's supposed to work... And it increasingly looks like there's a "TEA" fueled faction on Capitol Hill that likes it this way.
Well, I wouldn't expect less from the former Nevada Mining Association President who just happened to serve in the state legislature as well. Mark Amodei wants us to know that it's hard out there for the multinational mining corporations. That's why he insists we must deregulate mining some more.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, to streamline the permitting process for mining operations.
Earlier this month, H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012, passed the House by a vote of 256 to 160.
The bill was the second introduced by Amodei that has passed the House since he was elected in 2011.
In his floor remarks on the bill during testimony on July 11, Amodei said the bill sets a 30-month time limit for the permitting process, unless the applicant agrees to an extension.
“This does nothing to tax law, this does nothing to safety law, this does nothing to supplant NEPA and this does nothing to supplant any state things,” Amodei said.
Oh, really? I wonder why he hasn't said that to communities across this country who will have a more difficult time protecting their natural resources if Amodei's bill becomes law. HR 4402 aims to eliminate strong environmental review of proposed mining projects and prioritize mineral extraction over conservation AND recreation for most federal lands. It's all about speeding up the permit process so mining companies can pump up their profits, even if they make people suffer in the process.
As PLAN warned earlier this year, HR 4402 takes us in the wrong direction on mining policy. It's bad enough that our state allows the mining industry to walk all over us. We'll only make matters worse if we allow for mining to weaken federal regulations necessary to protect communities from unnecessary damage.
And again, why must this keep happening over and over again? Steve Benen reminds us of the true insanity of today's House schedule.
But it's the sheer repetition that really rankles. While House Republicans haven't even voted on any major jobs bills this entire Congress, today marked the 33rd time the House GOP felt compelled to try to gut "Obamacare," apparently because votes 1 through 32 were too subtle. Jamison Foser pointed to this great scene from "A Few Good Men," which helped summarize the problem.
As for the policy, let's also not forget that literally House Republican today voted to take away health coverage for young adults staying on their family plans, raise prescription drug prices for seniors, end protections for those with pre-existing conditions, reinstate lifetime insurance caps, scrap tax breaks for small businesses, raise the deficit, and take benefits away from 30 million Americans, all as part of a repeal crusade they can't pass.
There has to be better uses for Congress' time.
So what's being done on job creation? What's being done on immigration reform? What's being done on climate change? What's being done on the multitude of other important issues facing our country now? Why are Republicans in Congress wasting so much time on f*cking up health care? And why are Nevada Republicans applauding Joe Heck, Mark Amodei, and Dean Heller for doing this? How does this benefit anyone?
So the day has finally arrived. Why does it feel so familiar. Oh yes, that's it.
“To date, 32 Floor votes have been taken to repeal, defund, or dismantle ObamaCare. Tomorrow’s vote to repeal ObamaCare will be the 33rd,” read an advisory from the office of Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
The vote, which follows the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, signals that the conservative base’s visceral opposition to the law remains strong. Republicans are set for another unanimous show of resistance to President Obama’s signature law, despite some hedging from politically vulnerable members, and will probably pick off a handful of vulnerable Democrats. [...]
For Democrats, it was an opportunity to highlight the benefits in the law, such as guaranteed coverage for people with preexisting conditions and the ability to remain on a parent’s insurance policy until 26. Democrats also bragged that the measure was pioneered by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and echoed his defense of the mandate as an anti-free-rider provision.
“The Republicans are glorifying freeloaders,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (WA), the only physician in the Democratic caucus. “People who say they don’t want to pay if they can.”
And of course, no one is more excited about today than Joe Heck. He was absolutely giddy last week as we was counting House votes for repeal. Just don't tell him about the vote count in the Senate.
And don't even try telling him about the reality of the Affordable Care Act. It's actually set to save middle class families an average of $5,210 by giving them tax credits to participate in the new health insurance exchange. And in reworking the health care system to benefit consumers, costs will fall for everyone.
Now contrast this with what happens if Joe Heck gets his way and the ACA is repealed. It isn't a pretty picture. Here's the damage in full.
1) Millions without coverage. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the GOP’s repeal measure from 2011 found that “32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).”
2) Health insurance costs increase. The same analysis concluded that “many people would end up paying more for health insurance— because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and [repeal] would eliminate those subsidies.” What’s more, “Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher.”
3) Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose access to coverage. Republicans have said that they would not replace the Affordable Care Act’s federal rules prohibiting insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Instead, they would encourage states to form expensive high-risk pools to cover the sick or, alternatively, leave them to find their own coverage in the individual market —where many will likely go uninsured.
4) Medicare in disarray. Approximately 100 million Medicare claims are processed each month using a formula that was altered by the Affordable Care Act. Should the law be repealed, new rates could not be calculated under the old, pre-ACA formula until after a rulemaking process that can take months before is completed. The result would be that Medicare would not be able to pay doctors for what could be many months.
5) Deficits increase by billions. The CBO predicts that “as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion.” Repeal would also “increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.”
Yes, it's really that bad. If the Affordable Care Act is done away with, health care costs increase as fewer people are covered. And yes, it even means the budget deficit increases as we revert to the failed status quo.
So why again is Joe Heck so excited about today's vote? Basically, this is just a political stunt meant to please teabaggers while sowing doubt among the rest of us about ACA's future. Yet again, House Republicans are putting crass politics above good policy. And they have to resort to meaningless political posturing because it's their only weapon they can use to counter the truth about what the Affordable Care Act really does.
Oh, and they need something to distract from Mitt Romney's world of chaos. Romney can't even decide what the individual mandate is! Since his health care plan was the basis for the ACA, he's especially caught between a rock and a hard place.
So there you have it. Apparently, Joe Heck values Mitt Romney's political career more than delivering better health care for Nevada's working families. Talk about crazy priorities.
We've heard plenty this year about "job creators" and why we shouldn't "punish" them. But really, who are these "job creators"? What's the engine that gets this economy moving?
Seattle based venture capitalist Nick Hanauer provides a surprising answer. He says we've had it all wrong in the past three decades. If we really want to boost "job creators", then we must look beyond Wall Street and take a closer look at Main Street.
"This idea is a way of completely misunderstanding how economies truly work," Hanauer said on The Last Word Monday. "The people who create jobs is the middle class. When a middle class consumer buys something from a company, that is what creates jobs. And that's why it doesn't matter very much if rich people pay higher rates of tax, because the true engine of job creation is a thriving middle class."
"A businessperson calling themselves a job creator is like a school claiming to have created evolution," Hanauer added. "It's just not true."
The notion that the rich are "job creators" is at the core of Mitt Romney's economic platform. Like the rest of his party, Romney opposes raising taxes even on the richest 2 percent of Americans, arguing that doing so would stymie job growth.
Think about it. Who buys the bulk of the shiny new electronic gadgets at Fry's? Who buys most of the groceries at Trader Joe's? Who does most of the stocking up at yet another Macy's summer sale? We do! The middle class truly is the engine that drives our economy. We buy most of the consumer goods and services, and that's what fuels job growth.
And in case that wasn't convincing enough for you, Desert Beacon has more facts and figures showing how "trickle down economics" fail to fuel job growth. Since middle class families are the biggest chunk of the population and make most of the consumer purchases, then it makes the most sense to ensure they have money to spend. They need the tax cuts. The super rich don't.
Really, one need not look further than Mitt Romney to see why this doesn't work. Despite all the tax breaks he gets, he's been busy destroying American jobs and hiding his money in offshore bank accounts. If that isn't enough evidence to prove that we've had it all wrong on "job creators", then I don't know what is.
So once again, Joe Heck is simply playing politics with Nevada's health care. Perhaps he thinks this is his "winning issue", but I think he's in dire need of a reality check. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. And Nevada's working families need for Nevada's members of Congress to spend time on more worthwhile matters than taking away their health care.
Led by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who originally planned a walk-out yesterday, most Democrats exited the chamber instead of voting to hold the Attorney General in contempt. Both House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) called for the walkout.
Holder been the target of Republican fury over ‘Fast and Furious,’ a misguided gun tracking effort initiated by the Bush administration and continued under Pres. Barack Obama in which thousands of guns went missing.
Democrats have criticized the vote for being about politics, not action, since Republican’s focus has been on Holder, and not on the gun trading scheme. They feel that Congress should be concentrating on the economy, jobs, and seeking the truth of what happened to the missing guns and a man killed by one.
So what is this really about? Fortune Magazine, which can't really be called a "bleeding heart liberal" publication, just published an expose that revealed there's really nothing there.
So why are House Republicans still pursuing this idiocy? Simple. The NRA told them to do it. Yep, it's really that pathetic. Once again, Congressional Republicans (including Nevada's) are prioritizing "tea party" fantasy over actual reality.
However, Desert Beacon unearthed even more "inconvenient truth" that Joe Heck is trying to bury with this latest desperate publicity stunt piece of legislation.
Congressman Joe Heck may have introduced legislation on this subject, but it’s not like he’s the first one with the idea. A very similar bill, H. 981, was introduced by Representative Richard Nugent (R-FL5) on March 9, 2011. Congressman Nugent’s bill garnered three co-sponsors and still sits in the House Administration Committee. The House Administration Committee has not yet scheduled a hearing, much less a mark up session, on H.R. 981, which tends to imply that H.R. 5951 will meet a similar fate. There is no Congressional Budget Office scoring of H.R. 981, so those “savings” remain securely in the “potential” category.
If Representative Heck wanted to score points bashing public employee retirement programs — such as the one from which his Democratic opponent draws his pension after 20 years of service as a firefighter —then some symbolic bill like H.R. 981/H.R. 5951 might be appropriate. As serious legislation, the idea hasn’t even secured enough support to make it to a committee hearing in the 112th Congress since March, 2011.
Congressman Heck may also want to dim the spotlight on public employee benefits since his own record has a bit of a blip. His Democratic opponent, John Oceguera, points out that when Heck went to Congress he dissolved his company, putting his wife out of work — the Heck’s then reported unemployment benefits for his wife, thus supplementing the family income.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. As always, Desert Beacon unearthed the real reason why Joe Heck is touting this new bill.
As we discussed over the weekend, Joe Heck has a really ugly scandal in his hands now. Somehow, he has to find a way to make "Check-gate" go away to keep alive his political career. After all, Heck thought he had a ready-made issue to use against John Oceguera. But instead, Heck looks like a hypocrite in berating "big government welfare" while Heck himself benefits from all sorts of "big government welfare".
This week, we discussed Joe Heck's social media town hall and what was revealed about Heck's priorities and Congress' agenda. It was really insightful in highlighting what's really at stake in this election.
Yet sadly, some Nevadans don't want to see anything of value in participating in this election. Last night, someone forwarded me Jane Ann Morrison's column in yesterday's R-J. It's simultaneously saddening and infuriating... But not because of Morrison. Rather, she was trying to debunk claims made by someone writing her to justify his rejection of voting.
Basically, this guy is unemployed and underwater on his home, and he wants to blame "all politicians" for it. And because Congress can't do anything, that means it's pointless to vote for anyone.
The Romney campaign, as I've been writing, is banking on the tendency of economically anxious swing voters to turn on the guy in charge and latch on to the opposition candidate as a vehicle for their frustrations. This is why Romney is not exactly straining himself to spell out detailed policy positions and proposals. The idea is to avoid being identified with controversial and potentially divisive views and to focus on stoking the outrage of swing voters over how rotten Obama's economy is. If they want to blame Obama, the thinking goes, these voters will find a way to rationalize it and support Romney; no coherent policy blueprint needed.
Except there's a twist, one that Kornacki seems to have missed. Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with the failure of Congress to agree to anything to help boost the economy. And as Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital comes into clearer view, he's not being viewed as the "economic messiah" many pundits assumed he would. However, some voters are responding to this with "angry apathy" as they wonder how anything can ever be done.
Certainly, we've seen plenty to the contrary as Nevada Democrats are getting excited about reelecting Obama and Republicans are getting excited about... Umm, Ron Paul. However, stuck in the middle are some voters that aren't paying too much attention to what's happening, except they figure they don't like it and there's no point in participating.
Long story short: They're angry. They're scared. They're in distress. And now, they're set to give up as they don't see a way out of "The Great Recession".
Of course, what they're failing to see is that the only way to change course is by voting for the change one seeks. Otherwise, nothing happens. What they're missing is that a certain G-O-TEA faction in Congress is blocking economic progress and playing political games with their lives. And by responding with apathy, these non-voters are doing nothing to end that.
So he's out. (Federal) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chair Greg Jazcko announced his resignation this morning. And since Congressional Republicans were already making noise about reviving the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump here in Nevada, it's likely that they'll try to shove it down our throats yet again as Congress must now find a replacement.
So this leaves the Republicans in Nevada's Congressional Delegation in a pickle. Do they do what's best for the state by joining the bipartisan coalition to prevent Nevada from becoming a radioactive wasteland? Or do they obey the commands from national G-O-TEA leadership to screw Nevada once and for all?
Mark Amodei has already turned his back on his constituents by supporting efforts to reopen Yucca and start "nuclear reprocessing activities" in our state. Oh, and we can't forget that Joe Heck actually got this toxic ball rolling with his amendment to allow "nuclear processing" at Yucca. What neither of them wants to admit is that even their preferred "compromise" is actually nothing more than a back door for their G-O-TEA colleagues to sneak dangerous nuclear material into Nevada.
Really, it's a shame that Heck and Amodei have sold us down the river to curry favor with the nuclear power industry and House Republican leadership. Despite the fact that even prominent Republicans like Governor Brian Sandoval and Senator Dean Heller oppose nuclear activity at Yucca, they don't seem to care. Instead, they're pressing on and trying to make us swallow the nuclear industry's toxic crap.
So now, we must wait and see if they will continue to capitulate. Oh, and we'll have to wait and see just how strong Heller's opposition to Yucca really is. If his US Senate G-O-TEA colleagues filibuster Jazcko's NRC replacement, will Heller join them? Or will he let that position be filled so the NRC can continue its work? What happens in the coming days will tell us plenty about our Republican Congresscritters' true commitment to our state, the state that they're supposed to represent and serve.
So Joe Heck just voted to play games with Nevada women's lives. He's refused to allow reauthorize a true, comprehensive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA.). Oh yes, that's right. Apparently, preventing domestic violence has just become another political football for Joe Heck and his fellow teabaggers in Congress.
Even Dean Heller agreed to the more comprehensive and just Senate version of VAWA that kept the "tea party" crazy at bay. And now, one of his GOP Senate colleagues, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), is asking the House to drop the nonsense and agree to the bipartisan Senate bill. Here's a key excerpt from the letter she just signed onto.
We should not let politics pick and choose which victims of abuse to help and which to ignore. Each previous reauthorization substantially improved the way VAWA addressed the changing needs of domestic violence victims by addressing challenges facing older victims, victims with disabilities, and other underserved groups. The Senate’s bipartisan VAWA Reauthorization Act continues this tradition by placing greater emphasis on training for law enforcement and forensic response to sexual assault, and by strengthening protections for all victims regardless of where they live, or their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
So what does Joe Heck have against Nevada's women? This is becoming more of a habit for him. Perhaps instead of voting to allow violence against minority and LGBTQ women in Nevada, Joe Heck should get a reality check on what Nevadans actually want to see happening in Congress.
The House today passed Paul Ryan's "Roadmap to Austerity Fueled Poverty" budget plan yet again. And yet again, Joe Heck voted for it. Here are two of Heck's favorite BFFs, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, discussing what happened today.
The blueprint by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan is similar to his controversial Medicare plan last year, in that it ends the health insurance guarantee for seniors and replaces the program with a subsidized insurance-exchange system. Unlike last year’s plan, seniors can buy into traditional Medicare as a sort-of public option, and the vouchers it provides are more generous.
Conservative Republicans see the vote as an opportunity to lay down their marker for the sort of sweeping reforms they hope to enact if they win the presidency. Ryan has urged his party’s presidential candidates to cast the election not as a referendum on President Obama but a choice between two competing visions for the nation’s future.
“Today we will pass our budget that proposes real, honest solutions to create a stronger economy and a more certain future for our country,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said on the floor. “Our budget takes bold steps that will get the fiscal house in order and will manage down the debt and deficit.”
As it turns out, Democrats would love to fight the battle on those terms. They’re expected to make Medicare a focal point of their election message, portraying Republicans as seeking to “break the Medicare guarantee” in order to fund large tax cuts for the rich.
“Our main focus will be on Medicare,” the Democratic aide said. “There’s clear evidence that seniors are very worried about what Republicans are doing with Medicare. And we want people to know that this is who they are in a nutshell. There’s no wiggle room for them.”
Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, praised the Ryan plan. “Owing in no small part to the leadership of Paul Ryan, [the House] has put conservative fiscal principles into action and passed a bold budget that directly addresses the drivers of our nation’s spending crisis,” he said in a statement. “The House budget and my own plan share the same path forward: pro-growth tax cuts, getting federal spending under control, and strengthening entitlement programs for future generations.”
Now that sounds all fine and dandy. What's wrong with what Paul and Willard said? Here's what's wrong: They're lying.
Earlier this morning, I received a notice from PLAN that they intend to join Lambda Legal and 130+ other health care and HIV patients' advocacy groups in supporting the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in federal court.
"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid coverage, eliminates preexisting condition exclusions and ends lifetime caps on coverage. In 2006 Massachusetts passed a similar health care law with the same protections and a minimum coverage mandate. The state saw a 37% decrease in HIV infections, while the nation only saw a decrease of 8%. Common sense reforms found in the ACA will make us an even better, stronger nation and will help with some of the heavy lifting needed to finally eliminate the scourge of HIV/AIDS." -Bob Fulkerson, Executive Director of PLAN
In March of 2010, the ACA was signed into law, reforming aspects of the private health insurance industry and expanding access to health insurance for millions of Americans. The constitutionality of the law was immediately challenged in federal court in multiple jurisdictions. In January, 2012 Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief highlighting the crucial link between the ACA and the ability to curtail the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic. The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in several cases challenging the constitutionality of the law the week of March 26, 2012.
PLAN has joined Lambda Legal in supporting the federal government’s position that the ACA’s minimum coverage requirement (also known as the individual mandate) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]
When the ACA was enacted, only 17% of Americans with HIV had private health insurance. In the individual insurance market, people living with HIV are generally considered “uninsurable” and are routinely rejected when they apply for coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Even when these individuals find an insurance company to cover them, most states have no rating limits, allowing insurers to charge prohibitively expensive premiums. The ACA is designed to address this problem by eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions and requiring that everyone acquire health insurance.
This is just another feature of ACA that can help more Nevadans access the health care we need. Perhaps we'll need to get used to seeing this video more often.
But in case you really want to read the benefits of ACA for yourself, I can pull out the full list as well.
A Stronger Health Care System for Nevada:
518,000 residents who are uninsured and 132,000 residents who have individual market insurance will gain access to affordable coverage.
311,000 residents will qualify for premium tax credits to help them purchase health coverage.
328,000 seniors will receive free preventive services and 58,200 seniors will have their drug costs in the Medicare Part D “donut hole” covered over time.
30,300 small businesses will be eligible for tax credits for premiums.
9,400 young adults will be eligible for quality affordable coverage through their parents
Premium Tax Credits to Expand Private Insurance Coverage in Nevada:
Reform will provide $5 billion in premium tax credits and cost-sharing tax credits for residents in Nevada from 2014 to 2019 to purchase private health insurance.
Reduced Premiums:
Health insurance reform will lower premiums in the nongroup market by 14 to 20% for the same benefits – premium savings of $1,380 to $1,970 for a family in Nevada.
Increased Medicaid Support:
The Federal government will fully fund the coverage expansion for the first three years of the policy, and continue substantial support, paying for 90% of costs after 2020, compared to Nevada’s current FMAP of 50.2%.
In total, Nevada could receive $3.6 billion more dollars in federal funds for Medicaid as a result of the expansion from 2014 to 2019.
Improved Value for Medicare Advantage:
The 228,000 seniors in Nevada who are not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan will no longer cross subsidize these private plans, saving $45 in premium costs per year.
The proposal will gradually move toward a fair payment system that rewards performance.
This all comes down to providing more choices, more affordable options, and more comprehensive care for more Americans.
# Health care insurance corporations must provide preventive health care services at no cost in the plans they market to customers. (Mammograms, prostate cancer screening, etc.)
# Health insurance corporations may no longer deny coverage to youngsters under the age of 19 for “pre-existing” conditions.
# Health insurance corporations may no longer rescind coverage because a person made an honest mistake on an application.
# We have the right to choose the doctor we want from our plan’s network or seek emergency care at a hospital outside of our health plan’s network.
# Health insurance corporations may no longer offer plans with lifetime limits on coverage.
# The reforms require that health care insurance corporations spend at least 80% of their premium dollars on actual health care.
# The law requires that health care insurance providers be able to justify any rate increase of more than 10%.
So why again do we want this law repealed? I suspect the new Pew Research Center poll demonstrates why so many Republicans are afraid to talk about the real facts on health care reform. As Americans learn more about the actual benefits of ACA, both approval of the new law and support for President Obama rises. Apparently as time goes by, we're realizing that health care reform really isn't a bad thing.
The kid who’s 18 years old — should that kid have to work to age 70? I don’t know but that could be a possibility to try to make this program work. Because look – Social Security started in 1935. … Fast forward to now. Full retirement age is 67 and the life span is 80. So when they first conceived Social Security they didn’t think they were going to be paying benefits for 13, 15 years. That’s one of the reasons why this pyramid scheme isn’t working.
[...] Nowhere in Heck's "Restoring America's Faith and Trust Act" does it address the Bush tax rates, war spending, or economic health. Instead, Heck wants to slash federal investment in our people to 2006 levels and fire more public sector workers! Even though we have more miltary veterans in need of VA care, college students in need of Pell Grants, working poor families in need of Medicaid and food stamps, retirees in need of Medicare and Social Security, and unemployed workers in need of unemployment insurance, Heck refuses to acqknowledge this reality and instead has introduced this bill that would plunge our economy into double-dip recession if enacted!
If we were to slash all these programs and more, we would all pay the price of further suffering. Without unemployment insurance, those without work can't survive. Same goes for seniors on Medicare, working poor families on food stamps and Medicaid, students with Pell Grants, and veterans using VA assistance. If they can't even buy food and basic supplies, let alone purchase anything else, our economy would take a massive hit. Oh, and in the longer term the budget deficit would only worsen as tax revenue plunges because of even more people losing their jobs.
How on earth is that supposed to "help with your Social Security benefits"? When did hurting become "helping"? Maybe that's the case in "Tea Party Fantasy Land", but here in the real world Nevadans want to make sure Social Security remains strong and available for all seniors in need. Once again, Joe Heck needs a reality check.
Earlier today, President Obama called Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University in DC, to thank her for speaking up for America's women.
President Obama called the Georgetown University law student who testified at a House contraception hearing last week, thanking her for speaking out about the concerns of American women.
Sandra Fluke told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that the president called her while she was in the green room waiting to go on television. Obama “said I should tell my parents that they should be proud,” Fluke told Mitchell.
Fluke has been subject to some very harsh words from Rush Limbaugh, who called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.” And his remarks have set off a firestorm of criticism. Georgetown University President John DeGioia praised Fluke’s testimony and called Limbaugh’s comments “misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”
According to the Census Bureau, there are 2,723,322 residents of the state of Nevada, and 49.5% of them are female. The Centers for Disease Control 2010 study tells us that nationwide 68% of Hispanic women, 89% of white women, and 78% of African American women have used “the pill.” [DB] We might reasonably assume that these statistics generally apply to women in Nevada. So, for the 1,348,045 women in Nevada we can estimate that some 72% (970,600) have used The Pill. Again, it isn’t necessary to repeat the term used by Mr. Limbaugh to characterize these women. [...]
As we would frown and tell a child that “That’s not funny,” or “That’s not appropriate,” in the home, we should frown and tell Mr. Limbaugh that his comments on women and ethnic group members are not acceptable. Freedom of Speech has never been a License to Insult and Defame. Respectable home have standards, and we should strive to make our nation a respectable, and respectful, place to live.
In the interest of raising the standards of our national discourse, in the interest of setting examples for our younger citizens, in the interest of advancing respect for all the residents of Nevada — white, African America, Hispanic, and women — I ask that you take exception to Mr. Limbaugh’s comments concerning Ms. Fluke, and that you ask him to apologize to the 49.5% of Nevadans to whom his discourse is objectionable, tasteless, and beneath any standard of civility.
Yesterday, Dean Heller joined his G-O-TEA colleagues Joe Heck and Mark Amodei in attacking American women and demonizing any woman who uses contraception. And even worse, they're repeating the lies that Limbaugh and his fellow "tea party" media flame throwers have tossed out. But that's just it: Limbaugh and his ilk are LYING, and Nevadans shouldn't have to worry about their members of Congress taking their marching orders from Limbaugh's lies in attacking American women.
While it’s difficult to believe that he doesn’t by know what Fluke actually said (her entire testimony is on video), Limbaugh and other conservatives like bloggers Erick Erickson and Michelle Malkin are fabricating the claim that Fluke wants taxpayers to pay for contraception. That is blatantly flase. Fluke’s testimony, and the entire contraception debate, is about insurance companies paying for contraception as part of their health coverage, they way they pay for any other medication, such as Viagra. Morevoer, Fluke’s testimony was not about herself, but about a friend who need contraception to fight cancer and other fellow law students.
This conservative narrative, which is pure fantasy, seems to be based on a single bogus article from CNS News, which Limbaugh repeatedly cites, with the ludicrous headline, “Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate.”
Meanwhile, Limbaugh apparently doesn’t understand how birth control works. His entire stance is premised on the notion that women need more birth control the more sex they have. Of course, as anyone who has taken an 8th grade sex ed class could inform him, that’s not how it works.
So if Rush Limbaugh, Dean Heller, Joe Heck, and Mark Amodei can expect their health insurance to cover Viagra and Cialis, why can't Sandra Fluke and Nevada women expect their health insurance to cover contraception? Is that really too much to ask?
Nevadans, including Nevada's women, deserve better representation in Congress. And perhaps instead of mumbling and groaning privately about the political implications of their choice to attack women and women's health care options, and perhaps instead of throwing a public temper tantrum on camera over Democrats pointing out the obvious, the (all male) Republicans of Nevada's Congressional Delegation should ask their buddy Rush Limbaugh to apologize for his disgusting, slanderous attacks on Sandra Fluke and the 98% of American women who have used birth control. And perhaps they themselves should apologize for pushing to strip Nevada's women of the ability to make their own health care decisions.
