Heller's Provincialism Shines Through: Rural NV Rep. votes against public transportation

Cross posted at Desert Beacon

Representative Dean Heller (R-NV2) was the only member of the Nevada congressional delegation to vote against H.R. 6052, the “Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, on June 26^th. [vote 467] H.R. 6052 is a straight-forward enough bill, providing funding for public transportation authorities to receive grants for expanding and improving their services, or to reduce fares for their riders.

The Los Angeles Times reported that public transit systems recorded their highest ridership levels in the last 50 years, and during the first quarter of 2008 ridership on light rail increased 10% while vehicle miles traveled decreased 2.3%. The American Public Transport Association reports that Last year 10.3 billion trips were taken on U.S. public transportation – the highest number of trips taken in fifty years. In the first quarter of 2008, public transportation continued to climb and rose by 3.4 percent. [APTA]

“Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.) complained that his constituents not only must pay higher gas prices, "but now they have to subsidize people in big cities with the luxury of access to public transportation." [LAT] Evidently, it hasn’t occurred to Rep. Lucas that if more people in urban areas use less gasoline, the demand drops and by the free market standards he claims to uphold – if demand drops so do the prices.

Increasing the use of “the luxury” of public transportation (Perhaps Rep. Lucas hasn’t been on the Metro, MARTA, BART, or the T during rush hour?) also has the salutary effect of diminishing green house gas emissions. But, then, Rep. Lucas is from Oklahoma where global warming is a giant hoax. Unfortunately, it is with this kind of parochial provincialism that Representative Heller has chosen to associate himself. Perhaps it didn’t occur to Representative Heller, as it did to Representatives Berkley (D-NV1) and Porter (R-NV2) that a gallon of gas saved in Las Vegas or Reno (or Boston, New York, Chicago, or Atlanta) might be a gallon of gas just slightly cheaper in Winnemucca, Lovelock, and Elko?

Heller says no silver bullets, fires blanks at energy issues

Cross posted at Desert Beacon

The Republican befuddlement over energy policies to address the current spike in gasoline prices and the need to devise a rational nationwide energy policy were never more evident than in Congressman Dean Heller’s (R-NV2) in a conference call with reporters. [EDFP]

Attempts to solve the overall problem included in the recently passed Energy and Job Creation Act met with Heller’s disdain: “It goes to show who controls this place now. The environmentalists that Congress has sold out to ... trial lawyers and big labor,” Heller said. “That is why you are seeing tax credits for trial lawyers in energy bills.” [EDFP] One should give Heller credit for cramming all three of the Grand Oil Party’s traditional boogey-men into the same sentence; however, the Representative provides no substantiation for their involvement in the current price spikes at the pump.

The 2^nd District Representative calls for an investigation into whether there has been market manipulation with oil futures and brags that he is asking for a hearing on this topic. How this hearing would add more information to the discussion than that already gleaned from the Senate Commerce Committee’s session on the subject early this month isn’t clear; or, for that matter, from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s investigation into the self-same subject. [CNN] Nor is it clear how Representative Heller missed the fact that there is already a bill (H.R. 6238) sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Rep. John Dingell on the subject, co-sponsored by the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). [ECcom]

Heller also boasts of writing to House leadership asking about an energy plan calling for more drilling and the construction or expansion of more refineries to depress prices in the long run; and, then inexplicably adds “I’m concerned if we don’t do something quickly we will see $5 or $6 gasoline.”

Congressman Heller has probably long since sold his Economics 101 text, but might be well advised to review the basics, like “equilibrium pricing,” and “economic incentives.” If the Congressman adheres to the basic free market tenet that an economic entity will act in ways to best secure its profitability, then the present lack of drilling development and refinery capacity should make perfect sense. When prices are high there is no economic incentive to increase supply.

The solutions Congressman Heller is setting forth actually aren’t in the best economic interests of the oil corporations he seeks to support. As noted in a previous post the oil giants could have increased their refinery and drilling operations at any time, but chose not to do so, thus increasing the price of their products and thereby the profitability of their companies.

This is partially evident when it is considered that the Bush Administration’s leasing of oil and gas fields has out-stripped the industry’s ability or interest in terms of drilling. Oil and gas industry corporations have leases on about 44 million acres of public land in the Rocky Mountain region, but have developed only about 10 million to date. Prices for gasoline have not dropped in spite of the fact that according to the Baker Hughes Rig Count the U.S. has 1,901 rigs operating in the U.S. compared to 1,305 on the remainder of our entire planet. Since taking office in January 2001 the Bush Administration has issued leases for over 26 million acres of on-shore public lands. [WSpress]

There also appears to be some confusion about what might be done and what can be done. Some of the oil shale operations mentioned by the President haven’t begun because the technology isn’t in place: “Government regulations do not prohibit development of this potential resource, technological feasibility does. Current federal policy supports a robust oil shale research and development program on federal lands managed by the BLM. However, despite a significant investment, industry admits they are a decade or more away from establishing the economic viability, technical efficiency, and environmental performance of the technologies. Even Shell admits its new technology remains many years away from viability.” [WS Press Release June 18, 2008]

The hard fact is that the United States has 3% of the world’s oil resources but consumes 25% of the planet’s oil production. Drilling every possible acre and refining every possible domestically produced gallon won’t alter this simple fact of life – Representative Heller’s standard “enviro-bashing” talking points notwithstanding.

Heller Still Promoting Giuliani Tax Cut Proposals

Cross posted at Desert Beacon

Ah, the joys of living in Nevada’s 2^nd Congressional District, thereby getting a spot on Rep. Dean Heller’s mailing list! We’ve been treated yet again to one of Heller’s glossy (and franked) mailers touting his objections to taxes. The taxpayers who funded the sending of this ‘campaign piece’ are not, however, equally rewarded for mailing in the little tear-out “survey” included in the mailer – that portion says: “Place Stamp Here.”

Under the heading “Congressman Dean Heller supports Tax Relief for Hardworking Families,” we discover that:

(1) Heller “co-authored” H.R. 2734 (the bill to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent). The bill was actually “authored” by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), introduced on June 14, 2007, and has 118 co-sponsors among whom is Congressman Heller. What Congressman Heller doesn’t say in the glossy mailer is that by April 16, 2008, H.R. 2734 was a dead letter, as Dick Armey’s right wing “Freedom Works” duly noted.

(2) Heller “co-authored” H.R. 411, to make “tax relief for married couples permanent.” Here again Rep. Heller appears to confuse “co-author” with “co-sponsor.” The bill was introduced on January 11, 2007 by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) with 68 co-sponsors. Representative Heller didn’t sign on as a co-sponsor until August 3, 2007. [LOC]

(3) Heller “co-authored H.R. 5105, simplifying the tax code.” H.R. 5105, was actually introduced by Rep. David Drier (R-CA) on January 23, 2008, and to date has only 12 co-sponsors. This “Fair and Simple Tax Act” is not quite as fair, nor as simple as the title implies. First, it makes the Bush Tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent. Among its other provisions are (a) the establishment of a three level tax rate system of 10%, 15%, and 30%; (b) the repeal of the estate and gift tax (or, the Paris Hilton Legacy Protection Act); (c) the adjustment of the AMT to account for inflation after 2007, and makes permanent those exemptions; (d) the reduction of the maximum corporate income tax rate to 25%; (e) the reduction of the maximum tax rate on capital gains to 10%; (f) the allowance for an inflation adjustment to the basis of capital assets for the purposes of determining gain or loss; (g) the establishment of new tax-exempt accounts for retirement savings, “lifetime savings,” and “lifetime skills accounts” (privatizing Social Security, and unemployment savings accounts); the exemption of those under 65 who do not have employer paid health insurance from the adjusted gross income threshold for the medical care tax deduction; and (h) makes permanent the tax credits for increased research activities. [CRS LOC] The bill might also be titled: “The I Got Mine, You Try to Get Yours, Sucker, Act of 2008,” or the “Socialism for Corporations, Free Enterprise for Individuals Act of 2008.” Perhaps Congressman Heller just ‘forgot’ to mention the privatization of Social Security provision in this legislation?

For all intents and purposes, H.R. 5105 is former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s tax proposal from his aborted 2008 presidential campaign. [ATR-PRD]

In addition to these aborted, abortive, and otherwise legislatively moribund bills, Rep. Heller wants us all to know that, “I firmly support making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. In addition to helping end the death tax on small businesses, which would keep $181 billion over 5 years in the hands of job-creating businesses, these important tax cuts will help spur our economy by encouraging investment.” The first problem with this statement is that tax cuts are not, and in practical terms never have been, a short-term vehicle for economic stimulus. [EPI] Secondly, its been known since 2001 that capital gains tax cuts have little, if any, impact. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts could produce an increase of approximately “a couple hundredths of one percent after ten years” in the Gross Domestic Product. [CBPP] Further reducing government revenues, while running up massive indebtedness to achieve “a couple hundredths of one percent after ten years,” isn’t a formula for fiscal responsibility.

Representative Heller is also pleased to tell us that he voted against H.C.R. 312, the House version of the budget, because it included “the largest tax increase in American history,” including a tax increase for “116 million taxpayers,” and “an average of nearly $3,000 for families in Nevada.” There’s nothing all that original about these claims; they come directly from a Heritage Foundation “study” that quite predictably found “evidence” to support the contentions. The points were quickly debunked:

“This claim is inaccurate, just as the same claim was inaccurate with regard to the budget resolution the Congress adopted last year. Neither of the plans recommended this week by the budget committees include a tax increase. The House plan simply assumes the same level of revenues over the 2008-2013 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current policy baseline, which essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. The Senate plan actually calls for a small reduction in revenues, reflecting its assumption that Alternative Minimum Tax relief will be extended for one year without any offset of the revenues that will be lost as a result of that extension and that a second stimulus bill this year may include a small tax cut.” [CBPP]

Taking the point a step further, there was a very good reason the proponents of the original tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 inserted a sunset provision: “It should be recalled that the President’s tax cuts expire in 2010 because their supporters deliberately designed them that way, in order to fit the tax cuts within the cost constraints imposed by the Congressional budget resolutions adopted in 2001 and 2003. While acknowledging that their real goal was to make the tax cuts permanent, supporters of those measures opted to “sunset” the tax cuts before the end of the ten-year budget window, partly in order to avoid recognizing the cost of permanent tax cuts.” [CBPP] (emphasis added)

A person could wonder how much the taxpayers might have saved on postal expenses had Rep. Heller opted not to mail out a slick vanity publication boasting of his co-sponsorship of inactive legislation, his adherence to a thoroughly debunked Heritage Foundation propaganda piece, and his adoption of the Rudy Giuliani tax proposals?

Heller to Nevada middle class families: "I Got Mine..."

Cross posted at Desert Beacon:

Should Nevada District 2 Congressional Representative Dean Heller ever have anything to say about the 110^th Congress not accomplishing anything, or some comment to make about parliamentary stunts – merely saying “October 25, 2007” should quiet him immediately. The House Republicans pulled out all the parliamentary stops to prevent the passage of H.R. 3963 (Childrens Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act). The fun began on roll call 1001 and lasted through roll call vote 1009.

The first gimmick from the GOP camp was a motion to adjourn. [roll call 1001] Remember from Civics class that a motion to adjourn is always in order, so as we’ll see, the Republicans tried it twice. The second motion to adjourn failed on roll call 1002, 170-222, with Nevada Representatives Heller and Porter both voting in favor of adjourning the House without discussing the SCHIP bill.

Fresh from that failure the Republicans lost their attempt to prevent the resolution calling for consideration of the SCHIP bill from coming to a vote. [roll call 1003] Again, Representatives Heller and Porter marched along with the Republican leadership.

However, the GOP’s bag of parliamentary tricks was far from empty, so CSPAN views got to watch a vote on whether to table a motion to reconsider H.R. 3963. The motion to reconsider failed as well, 218-183 on roll call 1004. Representatives Heller and Porter continued their “March of the Republicans.” But wait, there was more.

At this point the Republicans pulled out another motion to adjourn, the second attempt to do this on one bill. This second attempt failed on a 165-224 vote. [roll call 1005] Representatives Heller and Porter continued following the party line. The Republicans tried defeating a motion ordering the “previous question,” [roll call 1006] and lost 221-188. Representatives Heller and Porter faithfully followed leadership instructions.

The resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 3963 passed 215-187 on roll call 1007. Once more Representatives Heller and Porter had an opportunity to support the reauthorization of SCHIP and once more they passed on it.

Success for the SCHIP bill was now within sight, but faced the Republican’s New Favorite Toy, the “Motion to Recommit with Instructions.” This attempt to scuttle the bill failed 164 to 242 on roll call 1008. Representatives Porter and Heller were, again, on the losing end.

On the final vote on H.R. 3963, Representative Porter did exactly as he had done during previous SCHIP legislation; voting against it during the parliamentary votes and for it on final passage. [roll call 1009] Once more Representative Heller did exactly as he had done before; voting against the reauthorization of the SCHIP program. Of the three members of the House of Representatives from Nevada only Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV1) voted for the SCHIP reauthorization consistently.

Representative Heller was worried that illegal immigrants might “scam” the SCHIP program; language was added to H.R. 3963 to prevent that. He was disturbed that people earning $83,000 would be eligible, even though none were; language was added to address that issue. He was perturbed that the emphasis wasn’t on “poor children” although the purpose of SCHIP has never been to cover those in poverty; Medicare programs handle services for people with that level of need. In short, Representative Heller (R-NV2) has no interest in supporting state health care services for struggling middle class Nevadans who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid/Medicare programs but too little to afford family health care. He has hi federally subsidized health care program, but evidently sees no value in extending coverage to those less fortunate than himself. If I remember correctly, this attitude was once described as: “I got mine, now you try to get yours, sucker.”

Heller's School Daze

Cross posted by request from Desert Beacon:

Congressman Dean Heller's (R-NV) sending post cards again. Franked of course, one wouldn't want the Congressman to actually have to pay postage on a relatively obvious 'campaign piece' complete with a smiling (and lily white) young girl on the front, to illustrate Heller's "Back to School Message." There is, however, one little catch. There's this line: "I have also supported legislation to reduce the cost of college by lowering interest rates on student loans."

Not. So. Fast. Rep. Heller refers to the "College Cost Reduction Act." This would be H.R. 2669, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the FY 2008 budget. This bill reduced lender subsidies by $19 billion, and calls for investing those funds in programs to increase student grants, improve access to student loans, and cutting interest rates. [GovTrack] What Representative Heller omits to say on his postcard is that during roll call 612 he voted to have H.R. 2669 sent back to committee, adding his "yes" to 199 others who tried to kill the bill with a motion to recommit. Heller reversed his position and voted in favor of the bill's passage in the House during roll call 613. One might suppose that Rep. Heller's general statement is better than saying, "I was against it before I was for it." However, this wasn't the first occasion on which Representative Heller could have displayed his support for decreasing student loan interest rates.

Heller does not refer directly to H.R. 5 a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers. His record on that piece of legislation isn't what one might classify as enthusiastic support. For example, on January 17th roll call 29 on ordering the previous question to bring H.R. 5 to a vote Congressman Heller's name is noticeably absent from the 225 "yeas." It does appear among the 191 "nays." Perhaps Rep. Heller means he supported the resolution to bring H.R. 5 up for consideration?

Well, no. During roll call 30 on agreeing to H.Res. 65 providing for the consideration of the College Student Relief Act, Rep. Heller was among the 190 "nay" votes. 223 other Representatives voted "aye." Maybe Representative Heller means that he didn't support stuffing the bill back in committee on a motion to recommit?

Not exactly. Roll call 31 finds Rep. Heller standing shoulder to shoulder with 186 other Republicans voting in favor of the motion to recommit. 241 other Representatives voted to keep the bill alive.

It is only on the very last vote, roll call 32, that Rep. Heller votes in favor of H.R. 5, along with 356 other Representatives, 71 other members of the GOP held out and voted "no." In short, out of the four opportunities Representative Heller had to support "legislation to reduce the cost of college by lowering interest rates on student loans," he voted "no" during three of them.

Perhaps it would have taken too much space on the post card to write, "I had at least two definitive opportunities to vote in favor of lowering interest rates on student loans, and I voted against both of them until it was obvious they were going to pass, so then I voted in favor of them on the last possible roll call."

Heller: All for it until he voted against it?

Cross posted at Blue Sage Views:
Nevada Representative Dean Heller (R-NV2) is pleased as punch to announce he got funding for water and energy projects in Nevada; [Heller] but perhaps not so ready to announce he voted against H.R. 2641, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008. [roll call 641] l Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV3) also voted against the bill, which passed 312-112. So, how does that work? The Congressman crows about securing funding for water and energy projects in a bill he voted against?

Heller: For the Record

Perhaps someone ought to ask for a receipt? U.S. Representative Dean Heller (R-NV02) has raised a total of $501,000 for his re-election bid in 2008, gathering $233,000 during the second quarter. [RGJ]

Thus far, here's what Heller's accomplished during his tenure in Congress:

Bills introduced:

H.R. 2246 introduced on May 14, 2007, to validate conveyances from the Union Pacific RR Company to facilitate construction of transcontinental railroads. No co-sponsors. Last major action: Referred to House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands on May 14, 2007. No further action.

H.R. 2299 introduced May 14, 2007, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey Federal land located in the city to Henderson, NV. Last major action: Referred to House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands on May 18, 2007. No further action.

H.R. 2326 introduced May 15, 2007, to approve the settlement of water rights claims by the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley. Last major action: Referred to House Subcommittee on Water and Power, May 18, 2007. No further action.

H.R. 2515, introduced on May 24, 2007, to authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out Lower Colorado River multi-species conservation program. Last major action: Referred to House Subcommittee on Water and Power May 31, 2007. Hearing scheduled for July 24, 2007.

H.Amdt 229 to H.R. 1100 to delete language in the bill which authorized the use of federal funds to acquire land for the expansion of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site. Introduced May 23, 2007; Not agreed to by a vote of 183-243, May 23, 2007.

Five legislative measures introduced, one defeated, one scheduled for a hearing, and no action on the remaining three -- a record perhaps predictable for a Congressman with a power ranking of 435th in the Congress, and 199th in the Congressional GOP. [Cong.org]