Nevada GOP Reps Support Assault On 40 Hour Work Week

Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and Joe Heck (R-NV3) voted on May 8, 2013 in favor of H.R. 1406 “To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector.”  [roll call 137]  The CRS Summary describes the bill:

“Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013 – Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to authorize private employers to provide compensatory time off to private employees at a rate of 1 1/2 hours per hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required. Authorizes an employer to provide compensatory time only if it is in accordance with an applicable collective bargaining agreement or, in the absence of such an agreement, an agreement between the employer and employee.”

Trade your time and a half for comp time? What could possibly go wrong? Let us count the ways!

#1. Right off the bat, this is a frontal assault on the 40 hour work week.  The old system, in place since 1938, (pdf) is a dis-incentive for employers to demand longer hours of their employees because over-time costs more, one and one half times more.  This Republican “innovation” allows employers to require more over time work, without any extra compensation.

#2. There are limits on the employee, not necessarily on the employer. For example, under the terms of the bill employees may not accrue more than 160 hours of comp-time in any calendar year.  If there are approximately 260 work days a year (52×5) and we take out 5 for holidays leaving 255 days, then we’d have a total of 2,040 work hours (255×8) during a calendar year.   160 hours is about 8% of the total number of annual work hours.  In some jobs it wouldn’t take much to hit the limit quickly.

#3. H.R. 1406 slaps the wrists of employers who coerce employees into taking comp-time rather than over-time payment with a serious application of a soggy noodle.

“Makes an employer who violates such requirements liable to the affected employee in the amount of the compensation rate for each hour of compensatory time accrued, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reduced for each hour of compensatory time used.”

Got that?  If an employer threatens an employee who doesn’t want to take comp-time, the employee will be compensated for the “lost hours” plus liquidated damages MINUS each hour of comp-time used.  So, hypothetical Mr. Grinch demands that his employees participate int he comp-time scheme.  Miss Cindy Lou doesn’t want to participate, but is given a “choice” by Grinch to either take the comp-time or (a) get nothing or (b) get canned. She takes the comp-time.  When she complains to authorities she’s to be “paid” back but the time she took off (at the firm suggestion of Grinch) is counted against her?  Lovely.   The “choice” to take uncompensated time off isn’t a viable choice for most working families.

#4. Nothing in the bill requires the employer to be consistent about over-time or comp-time policies.   In fact, an employer can shuck the comp-time scheme if he or she gives the employees 30 days notice.   Then there’s the matter of when the comp-time will be taken.  It would be in the employer’s interest to have employees work over-time during peak seasons and  give comp-time during slow periods.  There’s NO flexibility for employees if the employer is the one determining when the leave can be taken.  Does Cindy Lou need to cash in some comp-time because The Kid is out of school with chicken pox?  Nothing in the bill requires any employer to award comp-time except at his or her own discretion.  This is “flexibility” for the employer and the same old (but this time uncompensated) routine for the employee.

#5.  Employees could easily end up bankrolling the employer in this scheme.  Here’s one example:

“That’s because employers would be able to pay workers nothing at all for overtime work at the time the work is performed and could schedule comp time off at no extra cost to them (for example, during less busy periods when co-workers can pick up the slack). So, when employees request comp time, they essentially become lenders to employers. For example, a worker earning $12 an hour and banking the maximum amount of hours (160) would be giving an interest-free loan of $1,920 to his or her employer.” [AFLCIO]

If we pick the thread in #4, in which the comp-time is scheduled at the convenience of the employer, and the employer is getting the services of the employee at NO EXTRA CHARGE, then those 160 hours of accrued time become a form of freebie loan to the employer.

The Republicans in Congress appear to take some pride in saying they are “pro-business,” and that they promote “pro-business” policies — you can’t get much more pro-business than assaulting the requirement of the 40 hour work week, or the eight hour day, or the notion that employees should “donate” their time to their employer.  What’s next?  By GOP lights should families have the “flexibility” to send their 10 year old kids into the factories? Only in the burbling boiling  cauldron of crazy — does H.R. 1406 constitute a “pro-family, pro-worker” act.

Representatives Horsford (D-NV) and Titus (D-NV) had the good sense to vote against this patently pro-sweatshop bit of legislative stew.

Rep. Amodei’s Reverse Economics: It’s the Inequality

The U.S. House of Representatives had an opportunity to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 by 2015, and it declined to do so on a 227-184 vote.  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV Outback) and Representative Joe Heck (R-NVTeaParty) both voted against the increase.  Representatives Horsford (D-NV) and Titus (D-NV) voted in favor of the amendment. [roll call 174]

We can use a few charts to demonstrate why the Republican thinking on the subject of raising the minimum wage is counter-productive during an economic recovery.  Before launching into the graphics, a simple reminder is in order.  The only thing that encourages employment is DEMAND, i.e. there is more demand for an item or a service than current staffing levels can meet with acceptable levels of customer satisfaction.  There are few ways to increase demand.  Demand can be mandated, such as the requirement that individuals purchase private health insurance policies if they don’t already have such insurance in place.  Demand can be generated by allowing tax incentives, such as the deduction allowed on home mortgages.  Demand can be enhanced by creating a “must have” product.   However, there are limits to these three basic demand elements.

The limit is INCOME.  As we’ve seen during the debate over the health care reform issue, we can mandate that individuals purchase health insurance from private corporations, but if they cannot afford it then provisions have to be put in place to augment their financial capacity to do so.  Likewise, all the home mortgage deductions in the world won’t assist the housing market if the homeowners are unemployed or become under-employed such that they can no longer afford the payments.   There are numerous “must have” products and services on the market — but, people are also willing to “get by” without them if the price of the new product or service is beyond their reach.  Smart Phones are wonderful items, but for  a household straining on income from minimum wage jobs they are “might someday have,” rather than “must have now” products.

Now to the charts.   Atlantic published some handy charts related to how income is currently be distributed in the United States, and this first one illustrates where that income is going as well as any:

If productivity is increasing, then what happened to the income that is supposed to be generated? “Where did the gains from productivity go? Well, they went to the top. Household income, adjusted for inflation, has grown 12X more for the top 1% than for the middle 20% … and 24X more than the bottom 20%.”  [Atlantic]   Imagine that spending (demand) is like dragging a weight in order to get to the retail counter.  A person in the top 1% of all income earners in the U.S. has a weight 12X lighter than the Middle Class Americans in the line, and 24X lighter than the burden for those in the lower income categories.   The problem is that as of 2012 there were approximately 1,699,000 households in the United States with income above $250,000 annually, out of 114,761,359 households in total.   This works out to about 1.48% of the households in the nation seeing an increase in their income while the other 98.52% are looking at stagnating or decreasing incomes.   Here’s what the result looks like from one of the Atlantic business section charts:

This isn’t healthy.  Nor is it well explained by reverting to vague grandstanding about this is “America,” or we want “freedom.”  Or, isn’t “Liberty” nice?  Demand isn’t an abstraction. It IS the cumulative result of all the daily economic transactions we make in the course of our mundane lives.  How much to spend in the grocery store?  Do we need new clothing? How many pairs of jeans will the kids need this year?

How does the minimum wage look in this context? “In 1964, the minimum wage was about 50% of the average worker’s hourly earnings. By 2011, that figure fell to 37%.” [Atlantic]  In short, in 1964 those earning minimum wages had more “buying power” than they do now.  Buying Power = Demand.

So, what Representatives Amodei and Heck are telling us in roll call vote 174 is that they see no need to address the increasing variance in income across economic lines, and they see no need to increase the purchasing capacity of American workers.   They give every appearance of clinging mightily to the comforting mythology of Voodoo Economics, in which a consumer based economy is to be supported by real transference of wealth to the upper 1.48% of American households who will “invest” in “jobs.”   The Republican screeds about “re-distribution of wealth” as a form of Socialist-Commie Plot to Destroy America are a distraction from the real re-distribution of wealth which is now eroding the purchasing capacity of America’s middle and lower economic classes and destroying our consumer based free market economy.

Amodei votes for GOP version of VAWA

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) was the sole member of the Nevada Congressional delegation to vote in favor of the McMorris-Rodgers substitute for the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act. [Roll Call 54] In doing so, Amodei was the only Nevadan to vote in favor of removing protections for Native American women, and extending protection to persons in gay or lesbian relationships.   Other Nevada Representatives, Horsford, Heck, Titus, voted against the GOP version of the bill.

Representative Amodei changed his vote to ‘yes’ on the second vote of the day, Roll Call 55, to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act. (Senate Version)  However, any attempt by Representative Amodei to later claim “I voted For VAWA,” should be tempered by the knowledge that his initial vote was squarely in line with the Tenther, or radical portion of the GOP which couldn’t find it necessary to extend the protection of the act to ALL individuals in the U.S. in domestic relationships.

Amodei, tired of drama, introduces his own theatricality

Nevada’s entrant in the Karl Rove Look Alike Contest, Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) has some Rovian rhetoric for readers of the Elko Daily Free Press:

“The Republican Party is making some changes, both internally and externally, following the re-election of President Barack  Obama, according to Nevada GOP leaders at the Elko County Lincoln Day Dinner Friday night.

“I am tired of the drama,” U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei told an audience in the Red Lion Inn & Casino. “I’m full up on drama. Drama doesn’t get anything done.”

The recent adoption of the “No Budget, No Pay” Act by the U.S. House of Representatives is an example of progressing Republican action, he said.

“This was a good start of demonstrating to the president, to the people in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi that the Republicans are capable of putting together 218-plus votes to play some serious ball on getting things started to turn the budget around.”

Where to begin?  Why not start with the Republican Party is making changes statement? Really?  So, what bills were introduced by Republicans in the U.S. Congress as the 113th session begins which might lead us to believe anything has changed, or is changing?

The Return of the Culture Warriors

Representative Paul Ryan (R-Palinistan) introduced a Fetus-Personhood bill.  The bill would give full citizenship rights to one celled human embryos, before they are even planted securely in the uterus. Nothing says change like introducing 8 anti-abortion bills co-sponsored by Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) in the 112th Congress, and then stepping right back into the ranks for the next round of the War on Women.  Nor is Representative Ryan alone.

Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced H.R. 23, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, in which life begins at “fertilization,” and Representatives Diane Black (R-TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have H.R. 217 and H.R. 61 respectively forbidding women’s health grants to any organization which provides abortions — take that Planned Parenthood, 3% of whose funds assist in pregnancy termination.l [GovTrack]  The Party which was interested in 44 bills on abortion in the 112th Congress hasn’t stopped participating in the Culture Wars even though the topic of is great interest to only 18% of the American public.  [Pew]

The Repealer’s Redux

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) was pleased to introduce the first bill for the 113th — yet another bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  There were 33 votes in the House of Representatives to repeal the ACA after the Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality; and, here they go again.  A chart from last summer  illustrates how the 112th spent its time –

The Debt Debaclers

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that: “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.”   True enough, the deficit didn’t matter to the electorate in 2004 — in large part because it wasn’t presented as an all consuming terrifying hideously large totally unacceptable DEBT to the voters.   It’s interesting that the deficit/debt wasn’t a huge ongoing issue because the trends in deficit spending (related to two wars + one nasty recession) by 2008/2013 look like this when graphed out:

Thus we have the ironic situation in which the party which controlled the White House while the deficit spending was trending upward is vilifying the party controlling the White House while the deficit spending trend is headed downward.   Representative Amodei has evidently joined the Debt Debaclers.

If Representative Amodei is really serious about “turning the budget around,” then is he asking for a return to the Bush Administration’s policies which saw an increase in deficit spending trends? Surely not.

Smoke, Mirrors, Tricks, and Gimmicks

“The recent adoption of the “No Budget, No Pay” Act by the U.S. House of Representatives is an example of progressing Republican action, he said.”  The 285-144 vote on H.R. 325 to which Rep. Amodei is referring, doesn’t indicate much of anything — especially a consistent GOP intention to “progressing Republican action” — because a quick look at the roll call vote informs us that such disparate Representatives as Wasserman-Schultz and Joe Heck (NV) both voted against it.  While Rep. Amodei voted in favor of the bill along side Rep. Langevin (D-RI).  Meanwhile, back at the Constitution, there’s this little problem noted by the folks at the Christian Science Monitor about the 27th Amendment:

“Congressional pay is the 27th’s subject. Among other things, it says, “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of the Representatives shall have intervened.”

Oops! We understand that the amendment was intended to prevent fat self provided pay increases, but the language of the amendment applies to pay cuts as well.  “Varying the compensation” means changing the compensation, and that includes Down as well as Up.   If Representative Amodei tires of “drama” then this piece of theatricality should draw boos rather than his applause.

The MRA

However, Representative Amodei is not above a bit of theater himself, like “returning” $155,000 in unspent office funds to the Treasury to help reduce the debt.  [EDFP]  This is a nice gesture, but that’s all it is.  If all 435 members of Congress returned $155,000 the Treasury would garner some $67,425,000.  This assumes that all members of Congress have 10% of their office budgets unspent.  These numbers, presumably apply to what is known in Washington-Speak as the MRA, or Member’s Representational Allowance.

Representative Amodei’s gesture would look better had not the MRA been declining already.

The MRA is funded in the House “Salaries and Expenses” account in the annual legislative branch appropriations bills. This account has decreased in recent years, from $660.0 million in FY2010, to $573.9 million in FY2012.  The total amount of each Member’s 2012 Representational Allowance is 88.92% of the amount  authorized in 2010. This is in accordance with a 5% reduction to the 2010 authorization  mandated in House Resolution 22, agreed to on January 6, 2011, and a 6.4% reduction to the 2011 authorization as reflected in H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. The 2012 allowances range from $1,270,129 to $1,564,613, with an average of $1,353,205.  [CBO pdf]

A person might also be less skeptical if it were know why Rep. Amodei’s office expenses were 10% lower than the estimated MRA?

“The MRA may be used for official expenses including, for example, staff, travel, mail, office equipment, district office rental, stationery, and other office supplies.”  [CBO pdf]

Representative Amodei could have been a “job creator” with that unspent 10%.  A constituent services assistant earns about $32,000 per year, a constituent services representative about $40,000.   A Congressional staff assistant generally earns about $30,000 annually.  However, if Representative Amodei isn’t convinced that beefing up constituency services is necessary, then it’s probably a good thing to return the money.

In the mean time, if Representative Amodei is tired of the Drama in D.C. then it might be a good thing if such staff has he has hired would look seriously at the spending trends in the federal government over the past four years.  Further, he could be taking a more analytical look at the components of the current level of indebtedness and seek to reduce Defense Department spending (some 40% of all discretionary spending)  for non-essential items and to calculate the additional revenue which might accrue from passage of the American Jobs Act?

That wouldn’t be as histrionic, but it might indeed be more helpful.

Amodei, Heck Blow Off Sandy Victims

Nevada Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and Joe Heck (R-NV3) voted against the Supplemental Appropriations bill containing relief for victims of Super Storm Sandy.  [roll call 23]  There are a couple of boilerplate GOP talking points which underpin opposition to the supplemental funding bill.  There’s the “It’s full of pork,” argument.  Pork baloney.  It’s often handy to remember that one man’s pork can easily be another man’s economic development idea, and secondly — when haven’t supplemental spending bills contained several disparate funding authorizations?  That’s what supplemental bills are — bills to provide funding for items previously unbudgeted — like, say, the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush Administration?

There’s the “let’s take our time, some of the provisions don’t kick in for two years, so what’s the rush?” argument.  Containing therein an equal measure of pork baloney.  Unlike the ATM the right wing imagines the government to be — it takes TIME to get federal appropriations.  Applications must be filed, reviewed, approved, authorized, and then the money comes.  Why all that red tape?  Because there are those who cry “Waste, Fraud, and Abuse” every time federal money is spent unwisely, and the approval and accounting measures are there to restrain the temptations for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.

There’s the “It’s a real tragedy, but we have a Debt Crisis” argument.  More pork baloney.  The current “Debt Crisis” is a GOP manufactured for cable news phenomena, a total reversal of Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2004 comment that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”   Yes, we have too much debt, BUT it’s far from a “crisis” except in the fevered minds of those who think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance benefits are “The Problem,” and not two off the books wars, one expansion of the Medicare prescription program with no funding formula, and one massive recession.

Then there’s a point of true irony.   There was an amendment to H.R. 152 from Congressman Fleming (R-LA) ” An amendment numbered 9 printed in Part C of House Report 113-1 to cut $9,800,000 from the Fish & Wildlife Service for rebuilding seawalls and buildings on uninhabited islands in the Steward McKinney National Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut.” This, after Congress authorized spending some $71 million for wildlife refuge restoration projects in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.   Representatives Amodei and Heck voted for this amendment too.  [roll call 19]  Representatives Titus and Horsford voted no.

Another moment of madness, offered by Representative Broun of Georgia “called for An amendment numbered 4 printed in Part C of House Report 113-1 to strike $13,000,000 in funding to “accelerate the National Weather Service ground readiness project“.  (Amendment 6) Really?  In what universe is it advisable to cut funding for “ground readiness projects” in the face of potentially devastating storms and other serious weather related situations?   Once more Representatives Amodei and Heck voted in favor of this amendment.  [roll call 17]  Representatives Titus and Horsford, who must have been listening to their elders who taught them “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” voted against this ill-conceived amendment.

Perhaps the Pork Baloney arguments can find favor in the Fever Swamp that is the controlling right wing of the Republican Party, but to enthusiastically vote for wildlife and coastal projects after Katrina in 2005 when the federal debt increased by approximately $553.7 billion — and then to scream “The Debt Is Coming, The Debt Is Coming,” in 2013 is a bit hypocritical.

Hmm, 2002 to 2005 — that would be part of the Bush Administration’s contribution to the national debt?  Oh well, Representatives Amodei and Heck have offered us yet one more example of why their brand of government is the problem — a government that will not help its citizens in times of real crisis is problematic indeed.

VAWA: Jumping off the Racial Cliff?

Let me hear that part about the Congressional Republicans NOT being tainted with the stain of racism?  Let me hear the tautological complaint once again that accusing members of the Republican Party of racism is racism.  And, then let me hear why members of the Republican Caucus in the Congress of the United States of America aren’t taking action to extend the protections of the Violence Against Women Act to Native American women? What situation would prevent the Senate version of the bill from a quick passage?

Did you read this on the NRDC Blog?

“Today on Indian reservations, the local governments don’t have the ability to respond to domestic violence crimes in their community if the perpetrator isn’t Native. Without this ability, non-Native offenders often go unpunished on tribal land because the only ones who can bring them to justice are federal prosecutors who are often hundreds of miles away and lack local resources to properly investigate and prosecute these crimes. The result, according to a recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded report, the offenders become emboldened, and the violence escalates to rape and in some cases homicide. On some Indian reservations, the homicide rate of Native women is 10 times the national average.”  (emphasis in original)

This isn’t rocket science, it certainly isn’t the stuff of which neurology lectures are composed.  Local law enforcement officers don’t have jurisdiction on tribal lands and federal officers are (1) physically located some considerable distance from the localities, and (2) understaffed and under-resourced to enforce the law on tribal lands.   The situation was discussed here, in some detail.

We’ve also heard from Nevada 2nd District Congressman Mark Amodei:

“I heard from tribes in my district, including the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony Tribal Council, the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, and the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe about this issue and I can assure them that this bill would not only provide increased funding for federal law enforcement and prosecutors to pursue these cases, it would also empower Indian victims to seek protective orders in U.S. District Courts against abusers.”  [Amodei] (emphasis added) [Link]

So increased funding for federal law enforcement is the “answer” to the jurisdictional issue?  No.  And, seeking a protective order from the U.S. District Court in Reno is going to be convenient for assault victims in Duck Valley? No. Again.

So, why would Representatives like Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) resist giving tribal courts jurisdiction over crimes committed against Native American women on tribal lands?

“Cantor and other Republicans continue to stall the VAWA Reauthorization because of baseless constitutional concerns for those accused of abusing Native women.”  [NRDC] And, who are those accused of abusing Native women?  Who would be in this category, and not be subject to the jurisdiction of tribal courts?  Non-tribal people.

Of Representative Cantor, “…his staff has said they’re willing to try to come up with other solutions to responding to violence against women on tribal lands, as long as the solution doesn’t give tribes jurisdiction over the matter. But proponents of the Senate bill see the limited jurisdictional change as the only realistic way to address the problem.” (emphasis added) [HuffPo] What’s the problem?  The only logical conclusion a sentient person can reach is that Representative Cantor he doesn’t want to see white men hauled into tribal courts for assaulting Native American women.   Heaven forefend non-whites might have jurisdiction over white men?

Thus far, Representative Cantor and Representative Amodei seem to be on the same page — VAWA authorization would be just fine and dandy — BUT we can’t have non-white people facing justice in tribal courts.   And, the question does, indeed, drill right down to “protecting the rights” of non-Native rapists, as explained by Rep. Tom Cole (Chickasaw) R-OK:

“There are 535 members of Congress, and 534 of them could go on the Sioux Reservation, commit a crime, and not be subjected to local jurisdiction,” Cole added. “If I did it, though, I would be, because I’m an Indian. We trust tribes to have jurisdiction over Native Americans. As long as you give people the right to appeal, they ought to be subject to tribal jurisdiction.… Most American communities have local jurisdiction; Native Americans do not. It’s not right. I will vote with the Democrats on this if an amendment or recommit is offered. I hope we can get it done this year.” [Indian Country] (emphasis added)

OK, if “we” trust Native Americans to dispense justice to other Native Americans without comment or complaint, then why are the tribal courts — which must follow the same federal regulations regarding the rights of defendants as any other Section III courts — not to be trusted to dispense justice to non-Native people, most often men.

The answers are provided by a paper authored by Bethany Berger of Wayne State University and the University of Connecticut: (pdf)

“Federal Indian Law scholars agree that U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding tribal jurisdiction over non-members are not dictated by judicial precedent. I believe that these decisions are based instead on two assumptions:
• First, the justices assume that nonmembers will be placed at a disadvantage in tribal courts, which they portray as unfamiliar, biased, and ultimately inferior places. The justices, for example, repeatedly refer to “intrusions on personal liberties” if non-members are subject to tribal jurisdiction, the fact that nonmembers do not vote in tribal elections, that tribes are not fully bound by the U.S. Constitution, and that tribal law is “unfamiliar” and will be “unusually difficult for an outsider to sort out.”
• Second, the justices assume that jurisdiction over outsiders has little to do with tribal self-government, because tribal self-government only concerns things that the justices think of as “uniquely tribal,” such as hunting and fishing and traditional practices untouched by time. Taxation, zoning, criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians are all outside what the justices imagine really matters to tribes. In Strate v. A-1 Contractors, for example, the Court held that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over lawsuit arising from an accident on a highway running through the reservation saying that it was not crucial to tribal self government for the tribe to exercise  jurisdiction over a “commonplace state highway accident claim.” Tribal government, somehow, does not involve the “commonplace” stuff that all governments do.”

The first argument is not supported by the actual results of the actions of tribal courts.   So, local justice of the peace courts, or municipal courts, are “competent” but tribal courts are assumed to be “inferior,” “unfamiliar,” or “biased?”  Now, what kind of thinking could automatically revert to those assumptions?  The second argument is equally absurd.

It’s acceptable for tribal courts to do Indiany-Things like take care of Mother Earth, or to protect their hunting and fishing rights — like Native Americans don’t hold construction jobs and exceed the speed limit on highways through tribal areas.  But, Heaven Forbid they’d be interested in things like zoning, contract fulfillment, and child custody?  In short, they are assumed competent to  take care of Mother Earth but not their earthly mothers.

The non-Native man who assaults, batters, rapes or abuses a Native woman is a batterer, an abuser, and/or a rapist.  Think that doesn’t put a Native woman in a place that’s confusing? Unfamiliar? Unpleasant?  Evidently, the constant conservative complaint that we don’t pay enough attention to Victim’s Rights, doesn’t apply to Native women?  What else could explain the devotion of Representatives Cantor and Amodei to the rights of the defendants?

What indeed?

Mark Amodei, A National Debt Primer – With Charts and Pictures

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2): “As a fiscal conservative, I believe that our nation’s deficit is out of control. We now borrow 42 cents for every dollar we spend. The bloated federal government spends some of that money on frivolous projects that benefit only a select group of special interests and other needless expenses. A significant portion of revenue also goes to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — programs that are headed towards insolvency and need significant reform to become financially viable.”

Not. So. Fast.

#1.  I believe that our nation’s deficit is out of control. We now borrow 42 cents for every dollar we spend.   Really?  Easy there Lone Ranger, there’s something breathless about this that doesn’t reflect historical reality.  For example, as of 2009 the federal deficit stood at 10.1% of the U.S. economy. However, during World War II our debt stood at 30.3% — and the nation didn’t collapse, and we won the war.  In FY 2012 we’re looking at a deficit of some 7.6%, not a happy number, but nowhere near the historical high; and, before we become even mildly hysterical about the figure we should note that March 2012 budget projections (pdf) from the Congressional Budget Office the projection should decline to 6.3% in FY 2013, and drop to 5.8% in FY 2014. [MJ]

How is something “out of control” when it’s actually declining?

#2.  From whence comes the borrowing?  Of the current (March 2012) totals,  $15,885.5B debt, $6,397.2B is owned by the Federal Reserve and Intergovernmental holdings, another $9,185.1B is privately held.  $184.8B is in the form of U.S. Savings Bonds.  State and Local governments hold $436B of our national indebtedness, while foreign investors hold $$5136.0B of it. [Treas.doc]  If the Debt is a monstrous, heinous, horrible problem — we should ask again — why hasn’t the yield curve moved? As we can see from the chart for today’s yield curve, it’s costing us less that 1% to “sell” American debt for most securities.

Further,  if we look at the trends in interest rates for U.S. securities, the trend is generally downward.

One doesn’t need to be an academically trained economist to observe that someone (indeed, lots of people) think U.S. securities are a good investment.  If the DEBT was a horrible, heinous, terrible, icky thing this would not be the case.

#3. “The bloated federal government spends some of that money on frivolous projects that benefit only a select group of special interests and other needless expenses.”   What, pray tell, is a frivolous project?  Would it be the TARP disbursements to our national banking system in the wake of the Crash of 2007-2008?

Of course, we could have let the financial system collapse in a messy heap and launched another Great Depression…

How about wasted taxpayer dollars in the Pentagon?  The New York Times offers a person the chance to figure out how to save money in the Defense Department, in order to meet the “cuts” deemed necessary above the current savings proposed by the Obama Administration.  By the way, good luck with this exercise!

OK, what about the inevitable Solyndra talking point/question?  Return with us now to the Jon Stewart Show (video) , which pointed out that the private sector rate for investing in eventually bankrupt companies as exemplified by Bain was a generous 22%, while the number of Department of Energy’s record is a more reasonable 8% bankruptcy rate.  (October 25, 2012)

#4. “A significant portion of revenue also goes to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — programs that are headed towards insolvency and need significant reform to become financially viable.”

Here comes the “we gotta reform entitlements” argument.  In a reality based world we “don’t gotta do much reforming.”  And, we certainly don’t need to hand the Wall Street Wizards the coffers of the Social Security Administration.  As has been discussed numerous times on this blog, Social Security is NOT going bankrupt.  In 2011 Social Security ended the year with a $2.7 TRILLION surplus.

“So why all the talk about Social Security “going broke?” That theme filled the news after release of the latest annual report of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, as Social Security is formally called.

The reason is that the people who want to kill Social Security have for years worked hard to persuade the young that the Social Security taxes they pay to support today’s gray hairs will do nothing for them when their own hair turns gray.

That narrative has become the conventional wisdom because it is easily reduced to a headline or sound bite. The facts, which require more nuance and detail, show that, with a few fixes, Social Security can be safe for as long as we want.”  [Johnson, Reuters]

Medicare and Medicaid are another matter.  We DO need to do something to reduce health care costs.  And, if we’re serious about adding resources to the trust funds which support Medicare and Social Security we could increase the capped rate of $110,100 in earnings.   There is no question of Social Security viability.  We do have some work to do to make the savings in the health care segments — there will be some savings with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act — the infamous $716B cut — which turned out to be $716B in savings in part from reducing the taxpayer subsidization of profitable private Medicare Advantage plans.

Before Representative Amodei, and his Republican cohorts, take the jump off the fiscal cliff, which they created, (pdf) they might want to attend to the FACTS concerning entitlements — those programs to which we are entitled because we paid for them — and to consider the proposition that it is not a good thing to balance the federal budget on the backs of the elderly, the ill, and the disabled.

Energy and Amodei

** Thus much for all the “Doom Despair and Agony On Me Deep Dark Depression and Excessive Misery“– Nevada’s unemployment rate has dropped to 11.8%.  [LVSun]  Not too shabby for a state that got caught in the midst of the Wall Street Casino generated Housing Bubble.

** There is an economic sector in which Nevada could do quite well:  “Nevada is rich in renewable energy potential but has few fossil energy resources. Nevada leads the Nation in geothermal power potential and much of the State is suitable for wind power development. The Colorado River, which forms Nevada’s southern border, is a powerful hydroelectric power resource.” [Eredux]  What could we be doing to create more jobs in the energy sector?

Wind Energy: “Over 24 million acres of land in Nevada within 10 miles of an existing transmission line is classified as ‘good’ to ‘outstanding’ for wind energy development. Nevada has the potential to generate 63 million megawatt/hours — 280% of the State’s current consumption.”

Solar Energy: “Nevada has the highest solar energy potential in the nation and is already the number one state in per capita solar energy production. The DOE estimates that 100 square miles of Nevada land could supply all U.S. electricity needs with current (~10%) commercial efficiency rates. With over 250 days of sunshine a year, Nevada is looking forward to a bright solar future.”

Geothermal Energy: “1500 MW of geothermal capacity that could come on line in Nevada by 2015. With 340 MW of geothermal power currently in operation and hundreds more coming on line in the next couple of years, Nevada is poised to become a world leader in geothermal power generation.”

UNR “Nevada’s Renewable Resources” Click for interactive maps and pdf reports.

**  The energy resources available for development in Nevada aren’t merely a matter of tree-huggin’ environmental interest — rural counties which need to diversify their economies are prime locations for energy development projects.   This ought to be a bi-partisan, if not non-partisan, issue.  Communities based on mining are all too familiar with the Boom and Bust phenomena — witness Hamilton,Belmont, or Bullfrog, and other ghosts of booms past.  Agriculture is a solid but geographically limited contributor to local rural economies.  Manufacturing clusters are developing, but face staffing challenges when competing with mining corporations for highly skilled employees.  Energy development is a sector which could contribute to rural economic development — the installations require construction (which would help in the short term), maintenance and staffing; better still they can’t be out-sourced to another country.

Instead of dismissing alternative energy development as a “passing fad,” which economists assure us isn’t the Chinese or German conclusion, or pretending that support for energy development is a futile exercise in picking winners and losers — could we guess that the Oil Giants believe they might be losers? — we should be looking at alternative energy development as a way to help diversify the economy in rural Nevada.

** And then there’s the short term vision of Nevada’s Second Congressional District incumbent.  Representative Mark Amodei’s view is remarkably foreshortened — as in limited to the next utility bill.

“If federal money is going to be spent on research and development to make wind, solar and geothermal energy more competitive that’s one issue, Amodei said.  “But if those, when they get done, go to sell into the grid and that increases rates, especially right now when things are they way they are in Nevada, and competition for sustainable living wage jobs is what it is in the Inter-mountain West, I think that’s the wrong energy policy,” he said. [NNB]

Somewhere in that word salad there’s a point which might be translated as  alternative energy development is OK if it is to make the projects competitive, and if there’s no increase in electricity bills.   The ultra-conservative NPRI chimes in with a misleading comment presented as if it proves alternative energy development doesn’t create jobs, and if it does it’s too expensive.  The NPRI took the total $1.3 billion investment in alternative energy since 2009, and divided it by the number of permanent full time jobs and came up with an astronomical price for each job created.

First, no one ever said alternative energy was going to create jobs for everyone in the country. Secondly, the NPRI’s complaint ignores the fact that the projects may also support those who are already employed in the industry — thus relieving downsizing pressures.  Third, construction jobs DO count.  Even though construction and installation jobs are by their very nature temporary, they do feed into the local economy, especially if local contractors and subcontractors are hired to do the work.

Economic diversification could be enhanced by including alternative energy projects, IF Representative Amodei were willing to take a longer view of the potential and less persistent in his opposition to anything that might require start up assistance.   It would be better for his rural constituents if he could even see past the envelop containing his power bill.

Chalkboard Talk: Heck, Amodei and the Ryan Budget

Specifics and explanations are available here.

Amodei, Heck: Fire, Ready, Aim on TANF Waivers

Don’t look now, but Nevada Representatives Amodei (R-NV2) and Heck (R-NV3) just voted to usurp the power of governors in our 50 states to implement ‘welfare to work’ programs designed to  increase the number of persons finding employment who are now receiving public assistance.  [vote 589]  Voting against new programs to move more people from welfare to work doesn’t sound like a traditional GOP position — However, that’s what happens when guns are jumped and propaganda replaces position papers.

Here’s what the House Republicans passed:

HJRes 118  Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of HHS relating to waiver and expenditure authority under the Social Security Act with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program…

Here’s what the Department of Health and Human Services actually said:

“HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.  Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.“  (emphasis added)

Note: The states only get the waiver on the work rules IF their new policies Improve Employment Outcomes — translation — IF more people are moved form the welfare rolls to the employment rosters.

Who requested the waivers?  Nevada and Utah, both with Republican Governors.

“Nevada is very interested in working with your staff to explore program waivers that have the potential to encourage more cooperative relationships among the state agencies engaged in economic stimulus through job creation, employment skill attainment and gainful employment activities. Nevada is also interested in exploring performance measures that ensure program accountability and also increase the probability of families becoming self-sufficient by providing meaningful data as to the services or combination of services with the best outcomes. [Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, 8/2/11, via The Huffington Post]” (emphasis added)

So, congratulations Representatives Amodei and Heck, you’ve both voted in favor of less program accountability, and against innovations that might increase the probability families in Nevada currently receiving public assistance could become self sufficient.

An unsolicited suggestion — next time turn off the cable TV broadcast and read the relevant statutes  before voting?  Just Sayin’