Amodei, Heck Join Big Bank Boys Club: H.R. 1062 Protects Wall Street

Almost lost in the hyperbolic distractions so beloved by the D.C. press, was the House passage of H.R. 1062 on May 17, 2003, a bill to gut the capacity of the Security and Exchange Commissions rule making to protect American investors.   And, Nevada Representatives Amodei (R-NV2) and Heck (R-NV3) voted in favor of it.  Representatives Titus (D-NV1) and Horsford (D-NV4) voted against H.R. 1062.

What did they support?

“SEC Regulatory Accountability Act – Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), before issuing a regulation under the securities laws, to: (1) identify the nature and source of the problem that the proposed regulation is designed to address in order to assess whether any new regulation is warranted; (2) use the SEC Chief Economist to assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation and adopt it only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify the costs; (3) identify and assess available alternatives that were considered; and (4) ensure that any regulation is accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.”  [Thomas CRS Summary] (emphasis added)

Oh, how the Wall Street Wizards will love this one! The Little Wizards in the investment banking sector have long wanted all regulators to use the “cost/benefit” standard for restraining the excesses of investment enthusiasm.   H.R. 1062 seeks to gut the Dodd-Frank financial reform statute enacted in the wake of the Mortgage Meltdown and attendant financial machinations, and unleash the Wall Street Wizards from all regulation “past, present, and future.”  [HuffPo] We already have “cost/benefit analysis”  built into the system — so why another bit of legislation?

Here’s the little kicker in the bill:  “This bill was transparently designed to allow each regulation to be challenged in court by industry, but not by consumer advocates.”  [HuffPo] Got it?

Evidently, Representatives Heck and Amodei believe this to be a good idea — that the financial sector battalion of legal expertise may challenge each and every regulation proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission — but the rules may NOT be challenged by consumer advocates.

As Representative Gwen Moore (D-WI4) explains:

“The ink would not be dry on a SEC rule before the race to the courthouse door to challenge the regulations would begin. Presumably, the most powerful industry participants would challenge the rules in the way that achieves their narrow interest, which may be to the detriment of investors or other less-affluent market participants. In this way, the most powerful industry interests would be able to not only use the courts to undo consumer protections, but to also seek competitive advantage over competitors.”

The big get bigger, the fat get fatter, and the rest of us sit waiting to find out how best to serve the Big Bankers on Wall Street.

But wait! It gets better — if you happen to be a Big Banker on The Street:

Requires the SEC to: (1) consider whether the rulemaking will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation; (2) consider the impact of the regulation upon investor choice, market liquidity, and small business; (3) explain in its final rule the nature of comments received concerning the proposed rule or rule change; and (4) respond to those comments, explaining any changes made in response and the reasons that it did not incorporate industry group concerns regarding potential costs or benefits. [Thomas CRS Summary] (emphasis added)

Any rule has to promote “capital formation?“  Translation: No SEC rule may prevent any investment banking operation from accumulating capital (money) just about any way it wants to, and even further — if the rule does prevent some Wall Street investment house or Monster Bank from accumulating all the coin of the realm it wants then the SEC has to explain (presumably to Wall Street’s satisfaction) why “industry group concerns” weren’t incorporated into the rules.  Another translation might be in order:  The SEC can’t propose and adopt any rule Wall Street doesn’t like.

Wall Street would like to modify some existing rules (like those pertaining to the Dodd-Frank Act) and H.R. 1062 offers them a way to do that:

Requires the SEC to: (1) review its existing regulations periodically to determine if they are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome; and (2) modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them.  [Thomas CRS Summary] (emphasis added)

How nice.  Now, just what does “excessively burdensome” actually mean?  The standard Wall Street dictionary applies the term to any regulation they don’t like.   Is it “excessively burdensome” to require a Wall Street firm to report what it’s doing with derivatives? Is it “excessively burdensome” to make Wall Street stop playing casino games with people’s mortgages?   If the rule isn’t “excessively burdensome,” then how about making rule proposals almost impossible?  The bill had a little something for that prospect too:

“Requires the SEC, whenever it adopts or amends a major rule, to state in its adopting release: (1) the purposes and intended consequences of the regulation, (2) the post-implementation quantitative and qualitative metrics to measure the economic impact of the regulation and the extent to which it has accomplished the stated purposes, (3) the assessment plan that will be used under the supervision of the Chief Economist to assess whether the regulation has achieved those purposes, and (4) any foreseeable unintended or negative consequences. Requires the assessment plan to: (1) consider the costs, benefits, and intended and unintended consequences of the regulation; and (2) specify the data to be collected, the methods for its collection and analysis, and an assessment completion date.”  [Thomas CRS Summary]

Got all that?  How is an “unintended consequence” foreseeable?  That’s why they’re called “unintended” in the first place.   So, the SEC cannot enforce any rule which might at any point in the future have an “unintended consequence” because that would violate the provision calling for a full assessment of the development of the rule.

After this bit of legislative legerdemain on behalf of the Big Banks and their cohorts on Wall Street, Representatives Amodei and Heck have not a quarter of an inch of room to talk about protecting small businesses — who are all too often at the mercy of the Big Banks, nor do they have any leeway to discuss protecting investors and their retirement accounts.  Nevada homeowners facing all manner of difficulties with mortgages that were sold off in packages and then bet on more enthusiastically than the Kentucky Derby might want to inquire precisely how Representatives Amodei and Heck are protecting their interests?

Representatives Heck and Amodei have joined the Big Bank Boys Club in this vote; a connection avoided by Representatives Horsford and Titus.

If you are not a resident of Nevada and would like to see how your Representative voted on this egregious bit of pandering to Wall Street and Big Bank interests click here.

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.

Voices in their heads, money in their pockets?

“I come at this not as an elected official but as a parent,” he said. “My view is that we need to move from a culture of violence to a culture of safety.”  [Stephen Horsford, Representative Elect, (D-NV4) LVSun] Mr. Horsford supports an assault weapons ban.  Good for him.

Some other Nevada Representatives appear to be on “radio silence.”  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2), he of the “NV2 Channel on You Tube” has posted nothing on the subject of banning assault rifles.  Representative Joe Heck (R-NV3) has nothing new on his copious video collection either.   Republican Representatives seem to be more comfortable with those Telephone Town Halls, wherein the questioners are faceless friends who ask questions to which the recipient may drone on at length for the  session.  This guarantees the constituents will (1) probably not get a question answered during the session but will received a written response later, and (2) never have to face up to organized criticism of their policy positions.

We do have Representative  Amodei’s acceptance statement when the NRA endorsed him:

“Mark Amodei is a steadfast supporter of freedom. He earned the NRA-PVF endorsement because of his demonstrated support for our rights, including improvements to Nevada’s right-to-carry law; preventing gun confiscations during states of emergency; and protecting firearm manufacturers and dealers from bogus lawsuits,” said Chris W. Cox, chairman of NRA-PVF. “His proven commitment to our Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage make Amodei the best choice for Nevada gun owners in this special election in Nevada’s 2nd congressional district.”

So we can be reasonably assured that Representative Amodei will not be voting to repeal the shield law for gun manufacturers which was enacted in October 2005, “aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.” [NYT]

Among the 283 members of Congress voting in favor of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, were Representative James Gibbons (R-NV2), and Representative Jon Porter (R-NV3).   The law they voted for contained an exception, but one with an interesting twist.

“While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.” [NYT]  “Knowingly” is a high legal standard.  Further, there’s a Catch 22 involved.  If we have a significant Gun Show loophole, and about 40% of all gun sales are conducted without a background check, then no gun manufacturer can be held liable for any use of a firearm resulting in death or injury where no background check was conducted.

The NRA contributed $4,000 to Representative Amodei’s campaign in 2012.

Congressman Joe Heck (R-NV3) touts his 92% rating from the National Rifle Association, and his 83% rating from the Gun Owners of America.  It’s difficult to imagine his support for an expansion of gun registration, a ban on assault rifles, and comprehensive background checks for prospective gun buyers.

Heck’s rating from the Gun Owners of America indicates an appreciation for the GOA’s position:

“Larry Pratt. According to Pratt, the best way to protect people from mass shootings is to make sure more guns are allowed in more places. “Gun-free zones are like magnets for the monsters in our society,” Pratt told Mike Huckabee during a radio interview Monday. More guns, he argued, equal more safety.”  [HuffPo]

And then there was this response from the GOA  to the Newtown tragedy, issued on December 19, 2012:

“While the nation witnessed a real tragedy last week, the media continues to ignore the far greater number of kids who die by other means—like in cars or pools. Sadly, I know about this personally, as one of my children drowned a few years ago.

But just as I’m not going on a nation-wide campaign to ban access to pools, neither should Congress deny access to the very instruments that help good people stop violent thugs from killing children.”

In other words, the answer to gun violence is to put more guns on the streets, in the malls, on the highways, on the airplanes?  This, from an organization which posted this conspiracy theory on its website:

“A top communist defector is warning of an unprecedented “alliance” between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party, reflected in the CPUSA’s endorsement of Barack Obama for president in 2008 and the party’s continued support for Democratic Party policies. But is this warning going to be too hot to handle for the media? And the Republicans?

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking official ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, says in an article for PJMedia that any doubt that the Democratic and the Communist parties had secretly joined forces was erased in 2009, “when Van Jones, part of a left fringe of declared communists, became the White House’s green jobs czar.”

Obama aide Valerie Jarrett had disclosed at a left-wing bloggers convention that “we,” apparently referring to herself and President Obama, had hired Jones for the job. However, Jones was fired when an outcry developed over his communist background, and the media quickly dropped any probes into Jones’ White House contacts.”

OK, it doesn’t get much Looney Tunes wackier than this, but this organization did give Representative Heck an 83% rating.   Rep. Heck also accepted $2,500 from the National Rifle Association.

The grand prize winner for NRA contributions in Nevada is Senator Dean Heller, who accepted $6,950 from the organization, making him the 10th highest recipient of the NRA’s largess.  He also accepted $2,500 from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and $7,000 from the “canned hunt” crowd at the Safari Club.  Senator Heller thus accepted a total of $16,450 from gun related organizations.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation website is still playing possum on the issues related to the massacre at Newtown, on behalf of the Firearms Industry Trade Association:

“We listened with careful attention to President Obama’s statement from the White House today. Being one of the “stakeholders” he discussed, we would welcome the opportunity at the appropriate time to become part of a full national conversation with all policy makers that has as its goal the improved protection of our children and our communities from future violence.”

In other words, “we listened,” now “we’re going to be very quiet until the waves of grief subside, and then we’ll lobby with a vengeance to make sure no meaningful legislation is enacted which might curtail any of our sales?”

Safety First?

Yes, I’d like to discuss ultra-violent video games — but those games are available on every continent.  Why is it our children must be protected from violent video games but not from individuals who purchase assault rifles without undergoing a thorough background check?

Yes, I do believe the broadcast media all too often glamorizes violence. However, these broadcasts are also nothing new on this planet, or exclusive to our society.  Why is it that only our children seem to be at risk?

Yes, I do think we definitely need to take better care of our citizens who suffer from mental illnesses.  Lord knows we need to apply more resources to research, diagnosis, and treatment of mental health problems.  However, this isn’t exclusive to this country either.   So what makes our schools such as Columbine, Platt County High School, Virginia Tech University, and Sandy Hook the object of attack?  And, no, it’s not the “magnetization of gun free zone.”

It is simply the easy access to guns which are too powerful to be used by anyone other than military personnel or law enforcement officers.  We have 5% of the world’s population and 50% of the world’s guns. That’s a recipe for more, not less, disasters.

A reasonable approach would be to ban assault weapons, require comprehensive background checks for all gun sales, and encourage more scientific research on the subject of gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control.  In short, I am a gun owner BUT the NRA doesn’t speak for me. Nor do Representatives Heck, Amodei, and Senator Heller on this subject.

Legislation to Save Lives

When might it be an appropriate time to discuss these proposals rationally?  When the financial sector collapsed in an avalanche of mismanagement we didn’t worry about “politicizing” the issues. We enacted new laws to protect our money.  Might we not take equal action to protect our children?

In the wake of 9/11 we didn’t “politicize” the issues; we enacted a Terrorist Watch List.  We reorganized the government to create the Department of Homeland Security.  We instituted increased security at airports. Why can’t we reorganize our government priorities to protect kids?

After the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis  we beefed up our  bridge safety protocols demanding better inspection, evaluation, and maintenance of gusset plates on truss bridges.  Why should we take substantive action which our kids aren’t traveling over bridges…but sitting in their classrooms?

NOW is the time to discuss school safety, but we’ll have a much more productive conversation if the voices we hear aren’t the voices in the heads of delusional radicals who have decided that in the event of some fictitious government takeover they are going to reenact the fantasies of their favorite cartoon action figures.

If our politicians are listening to these voices — we have an even larger problems.

We’re Number One! Female Murder Victims in Nevada

One of the bills stalled in the Do Absolutely Nothing 112th Congress of the United States of America is the Violence Against Women Act.  The Senate version extends the protections of the Act to LGBT citizens, Native Americans, and immigrants.  The GOP leadership of the  House of Representatives objects to the extensions.  [CD]  The objections are spurious.  However, that doesn’t prevent the bill from being stalled, and the Next Great Big Debt Crisis — which evidently wasn’t a problem for the Bush Administration “Deficits Don’t Matter” crowd — is chewing up the air time on the cable news networks.  Meanwhile, we have a real economic problem on our hands — domestic violence.

Intimate partner violence is expensive.  We’ve known this since the 2003 Center for Disease Control report. (pdf)

“The costs of intimate partner rape, physical assault, and stalking exceed $5.8 billion each year, nearly $4.1 billion of which is for direct medical and mental health care services. The total costs of IPV also include nearly $0.9 billion in lost productivity from paid work and household chores for victims of nonfatal IPV and $0.9  billion in lifetime earnings lost by victims of IPV homicide. The largest proportion of the costs is derived from physical assault victimization because that type of IPV is the most prevalent. The largest component of IPV-related costs is health care, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the total costs.”

So, as of 2003 the price tag for domestic violence was $5.8 billion annually, and the price tag for the health care component was $4.1 billion.  Want to help bring down health care costs in this country, then reduce the instances of domestic violence!

For those who persist in speaking of the issue as a police matter, or a “woman’s issue,” consider the following information from that 2003 CDC study:

As of nine years ago we were pitching the equivalent of 32,114 full time jobs in the dust bin because women lost valuable work days due to incidents of domestic violence.

The Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence updated the numbers and reported that as of 2005, “The annual cost of lost productivity due to domestic violence is estimated as $727.8 million with over 7.9 million paid workdays lost per year.”   That, of course, is $727.8 million that doesn’t add anything to the national economy every year.

If we could delve only in the realm of national, and therefore generalized, statistics Nevadans might be more comfortable.  However, the Silver State has a problem according to Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto:

“Victims of domestic violence comprise the largest crime victim category in Nevada. Although domestic violence is significantly underreported and statistics are incomplete, the Nevada Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report for 2009 reported 29,091 female victims and 12,060 children present at incidents of domestic violence. The Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence reports that 42,877 first-time victims received services from domestic violence programs in fiscal year 2010-11.” [LVSun]

The numbers sting more when they’re describing what is going on in this state alone.   The sting is even greater when reading headlines like this one: “Nevada Ranks #1 in Rate of Women Murdered by Men for Third Year in a Row According to VPC Study Released Annually for Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October.”   That’s right… We’re Number One… in the rate of women murdered by men for the THIRD YEAR IN A ROW.  But wait, the news actually gets worse.

“The state has held the top position for five of the last six years. The annual VPC report details national and state-by-state information on female homicides involving one female murder victim and one male offender. The study uses the most recent data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report and is released each year to coincide with Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October.

Ranked behind Nevada (2.62) were: South Carolina at 2 with a rate of 1.94 per 100,000; Tennessee at 3 with a rate of 1.91 per 100,000; Louisiana at 4 with a rate of 1.86 per 100,000; Virginia at 5 with a rate of 1.77 per 100,000; Texas at 6 with a rate of 1.75 per 100,000; New Mexico at 7 with a rate of 1.63 per 100,000; Hawaii at 8 (tie) with a rate of 1.62 per 100,000; Arizona at 8 (tie) with a rate of 1.62 per 100,000; and, Georgia at 10 with a rate of 1.61 per 100,000. Nationally, the rate of women killed by men in single victim/single offender instances was 1.22 per 100,000.” [VPC] (emphasis added)

We can extrapolate that the national trends might apply to the Nevada cases.  For example, 94% of the victims knew their attackers.  Of the victims who knew their attackers, 65% were murdered by husbands or intimate partners.  70% of the murders were accomplished with a firearm, followed by the use of knives or cutting instruments (20%), bodily force (12%), and the ubiquitous “blunt object” was the implement of choice in about 7% of the homicides.  (full study, pdf link)

For once, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) didn’t sign on to the misogynistic agenda of some of his GOP colleagues, and he joined the Democratic majority in the Senate voting in favor of the renewed VAWA. [LVSun] Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) voted with the 67 other Senators who favored the renewal of the act.   Sometimes being Number One isn’t the place to be.

Congressman Joe Heck was eager to trumpet his vote for the VAWA, however it was the watered down House version (H.R. 4970), with no protection for immigrant women, LGBT citizens, and Native American women.  [NVProg]  Congressman Mark Amodei (R-NV2) tapped danced around the issue of tribal jurisdiction over rapes and assaults perpetrated on tribal lands, and supported the House version of the bill.  What might their positions be on the ‘real’ VAWA bill, S. 1925?

They, and their cohorts in the U.S. House of Representatives will have to work quickly to deal with the back-load of bills piling up, especially given that they are only scheduled to be in session for 126 days next year.

One of those precious days should really be devoted to the loss of the equivalent of 32,000 full time jobs, the loss of at least $727.8 million to the economy every year, and to the $5.8 billion in health care costs attributable to domestic violence.   Perhaps then Nevada could lose the dubious honor of being “Number One?”

Joe’s Friends

A quick scan through the FEC records for June, 2012 yields an interesting list of donors to Representative Joe Heck’s (R-NV3) campaign. Which one do you think is the most interesting?  (My vote’s highlighted)

Daiichi Sankyo
Lionel Sawyer & Collins
Raytheon
US Travel Association PAC
Blue Cross Blue Shield $5K
Paul Truman, Truline Corporation  Las Vegas
William Wortman Las Vegas
Pioneer PAC, Washington D.C. $4K
American College of Surgeons
Engineers Political Education Committee
Investment Company Institute, Washington D.C.
Wells Fargo
Mike R Fund, Springfield VA (Mike Rogers, R-MI8)
Cox Enterprises, Washington DC
Ford Motor Company PAC
Haliburton Co. PAC  $2000  (6.08.12)
Freedom and Security PAC, Annadale VA (John Klein R-MN)
Independent Petroleum Assoc.
MINEPAC

Cravenly Caving?

The Nevada Progressive has a good title for the subject, “Fast and Frivolous.”   Not only was the deportment of the House Republicans mystifying yesterday, but the the entire performance was underpinned by the acceptance of one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories yet propounded.   And, Representatives Heck (R-NV3) and Amodei (D-NV2) fell for it.

The core of the Great Conspiracy: “Republicans in Congress are arguing that the Justice Department deliberately allowed the anti-gun trafficking operation to unfold in a way that would create a crisis, outraging the public and giving Democrats the cover to implement stricter gun controls.” [HuffPo]

This head-scratcher probably began with the musings of a militia-type blogger:  “Michael Vanderboegh, a blogger with militia ties and a long history of talking up armed resistance to the government, asserts that the ATF purposely let the guns go to the bad guys in Mexico so that, after the ensuing bloodbath, the feds could justify a crackdown on assault weapons and gun shows.” [BaltSun]

Mr. Vanderboegh, and his Sipsy Street Irregulars, the same folks who advocated throwing rocks through the windows of Democratic Party HQ’s after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, published the whacky theory, and made his “information” available to Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Charles Grassley (R-IA).   Vanderboegh, a sort of neo-secessionist is better known to the anti-hate investigators of the SPLC:

“Back in the mid-1990s, he wrote a document entitled “Strategy and Tactics for a Militia Civil War” in which he discussed the utility of snipers using “violence carefully targeted and clearly defensive: war criminals, secret policemen, rats (Pitcavage take note).” Mark Pitcavage, a historian, was then running a Web group called The Militia Watchdog and doing some work for police agencies. He is currently the fact-finding director of the antiracist Anti-Defamation League. “

There’s fringe, and then there’s fringe.  The “information” enhanced by the capacity of the NRA leadership to believe that a Democratic Administration which has not sought a single piece of legislation even remotely mentioning gun regulation wants to re-institute the assault weapons ban, made its way to Rep. Issa who ran with it in his Government Oversight Committee.  This was an unfortunate example of an imaginary cart crashing along behind a galloping crazed horse.

The Vanderboegh Conspiracy has been debunked 21 ways to breakfast.   This didn’t prevent the NRA leadership from chiming in:

“This fits in with the broader conspiracy theory of Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association. The NRA boss has insisted that the reason Mr. Obama has done nothing to harm the Second Amendment in his first term is so he can win another four years in office, at which point his administration will start confiscating guns with no fear of retribution from voters. That’s right, according to Mr. LaPierre, President Obama is not taking your guns now so he can take them later.” [BaltSun]

A person might think that rationality alone would be sufficient to stifle this perseveration, but with Fox News treating Vanderboegh as an “expert analyst,” and Chairman Issa treating the theory as lucid in a parallel universe, the upshot is a “vote” taken in the U.S. House of Representatives to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt — for shutting down a demonstrably unworkable and ethically questionable program?

What did Nevada Representatives do?  As noted by Nevada Progressive, Mr. Amodei and Mr. Heck voted to participate in the Alternative Universe, and declare AG Holder “responsible” for — something. [roll call 441] Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV1), functioning in the real world in which the musings of radical right winger Vanderboegh aren’t received wisdom, voted no.

The entire Fast and Furious Conspiracy Theory would be risible if it didn’t result in official sanctions being voted upon by politicians elected to office to engage in serious issues facing the American public.   Indeed, the episode reeks of partisanship of the first water, and irrationality of the first order.   It would be interesting to know if Representatives Amodei and Heck voted in favor of the contempt citation because they truly believed Mr. Vanderboegh’s ramblings, or only because the NRA was scoring the vote and promising retribution during the campaign season?

One rationale makes them look almost psychotic, and the other rationale makes them appear weak?

Monday Morning Roundup

##  Is Nevada ready for it’s close up?  Take a look at Nevada Progressive today.   Meanwhile, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) and Governor Sandoval didn’t seem to want to get anywhere close to the state GOP convention:

“And around the country, Republican officials and the powerful interests that own them worry that their party’s ongoing drift to the Island of Whackadoodledoo could seriously damage their electoral, and hence financial, interests in 2012 and beyond.”  [More From The Gleaner]

While you are at it, and speaking of expunging some of the Whackadoodledoo, take a gander at the NVRDC’s post on same-sex marriage equality. This is one of the better compilations of the current situation you’ll find recently.  No hype, no emotionality, just good old fashioned relevant facts.

## As our Republican Representatives in Congress were voting to shave the national indebtedness by sticking it to working families who need the SNAP program to help with the groceries, the Sin City Siren reports of Nevada’s food insecurity problems,” Unless my eyes are failing me, it looks like the lowest percentage is 8.5%, sadly a real anomaly in our valley (in terms of how low it is), and a high hunger mark of 27.6% (holy crap!). And don’t think that it’s all bad in the valley’s core and cream puff dreams in the suburbs. There’s a 10 to nearly 15% rate in Summerlin zip codes and 11 to 15% range in Henderson. 89109, which is fairly close to center of the valley is 18.3%. The take-away: Hunger doesn’t care where you live.”

##  Hey We’re Number ___! Oh, who cares?  The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the globe in providing health care, and many important measures included in the Affordable Care Act aren’t scheduled to kick in until 2014.

China, after years of underfunding health care, is on track to complete a three-year, $124 billion initiative projected to cover more than 90 percent of the nation’s residents.  Mexico, which a decade ago covered less than half its population, completed an eight-year drive for universal coverage that has dramatically expanded Mexicans’ access to life-saving treatments for diseases such as leukemia and breast cancer.  In Thailand, where the gross domestic product per person is one-fifth that of the United States, just 1 percent of the population lacks health insurance. And in sub-Saharan Africa, Rwanda and Ghana — two of the world’s poorest nations — are working to create networks of insurance plans to cover their citizens.  [WaPo] (emphasis added)

Unfortunately, “American Exceptionalism,” is rapidly coming to mean that everyone EXCEPT Americans can expect basic services from their governments.   Speaking specifically to the ACA, FactCheck finds the Chamber of Commerce advertising on the ACA “misleading.”   Surprised?

## How’s that Austerity Thingie working for you?  Not all that well for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  “Yesterday was a bitter day, it was a bitter, painful defeat,” Merkel said after results showed the SPD won 39.1 percent against 26.3 percent for the CDU.”  [Reuters] The voters seem annoyed. Additionally, an overly complex system perpetuates mistakes in the Eurozone?  More from Reuters.

## ICYMI:  The Congressional Budget Office has some very pertinent and cogent comments to make on the national debt, among them the following:

“There is no commonly agreed-upon amount of federal debt that is optimal. Higher debt has a number of negative consequences that CBO discusses regularly, but reducing debt or constraining its growth will require some combination of tax increases and spending reductions, and those policy changes can have negative consequences themselves.”

Negative consequences like cutting off the SNAP program and diminishing the automatic economic stabilizer effect maybe?

##  JP Morgan Chase isn’t the only bank having “a problem.”  There’s still some fall out from the GMAC (ALLY) venture into the mortgage market during the Bubble, “Ally’s mortgage unit, called Residential Capital, or ResCap, filed for bankruptcy protection in federal court in Manhattan under a plan that has the support of some of its creditors, although it was still expected to be a drawn-out and litigious process.”  [Reuters]

In view of the mess over at JP Morgan Chase, perhaps this isn’t exactly what we want to be hearing from the CFTC?

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today voted to propose an Order regarding the effective date for swap regulation.  The Order is a six-month extension from certain provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act that otherwise would have taken effect on July 16, 2011, the general effective date of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act .  Today’s order further narrows the scope of the Order because some rules, for example the further definition of swap dealer and major swap participant, have become effective.

Today, the Commission is extending the effective date for swap regulation until December 31, 2012, or until the Commission’s rules and regulations go into effect, whichever is sooner. The Order proposed today would allow the clearing of agricultural swaps; and remove any reference to the exempt commercial market; and exempt board of trade grandfather relief previously issued by the Commission.   (emphasis added)

How long can the traders’ lobby keep dragging out the regulations?

## Some good news: “The Securities and Exchange Commission today suspended trading in the securities of 379 dormant companies before they could be hijacked by fraudsters and used to harm investors through reverse mergers or pump-and-dump schemes. The trading suspension marks the most companies ever suspended in a single day by the agency as it ramps up its crackdown against fraud involving microcap shell companies that are dormant and delinquent in their public disclosures.”  [SEC]

As You Head Out From These Hallowed Halls, We Republicans Have A Message For You

June approaches and House Republicans, perhaps like Representative Joe Heck (R-NV3) or Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2), will be out on the graduation speaker circuit?  Whatever will they talk about?  Maybe they’d like to tell us they “voted in favor of reducing the costs of student loans for college?“  Cue the Boo Birds.

Back on March 29, 2012 both Republican Representatives from the state of Nevada voted in favor of the Romney/Ryan Budget H.Con.Res. 112 which included a permanent increase in the rate of student loans to 6.8% interest. [roll call 151]

Then on April 19, 2012 both Republican Representatives from the state of Nevada voted in favor of H.R. 9, the so-called “small business tax cut” act.  [roll call 173] There were NO offsets, NO “payfors” in this $46 billion tax windfall for the 1%.   What were those loopholes for the rich if not famous?

50% of the benefits of this bill go to millionaires, and NOT to the average small business owner.  A “small business” was defined as a company employing fewer than 500 employees — including Paris Hilton Entertainment, Inc., the Los Angeles Dodgers, and Donald Trump Tower Sales and Leasing Inc.  Some beneficiaries of Congressional Compassion would include highly profitable  Washington, D. C. lobby shops that employ fewer than 500.  Major law firms with 500 or less on the payroll …  Hmmm, not exactly your local neighborhood Able Heating Contractors, or Baker’s Dozen Deli, or even Charlie’s Sports Bar and Grill.

There is no provision in the bill to induce companies to hire domestically. “Under the Cantor bill there is no requirement that a business owner use the extra cash from the tax cut to reinvest in his or her business, as opposed to spending it on personal consumption or simply putting it in the bank. Businesses that do not create jobs—and even those that lay off employees—are still eligible for the deduction,…“  [CAP] (emphasis added)

Worse still, H.R. 9 was a “windfall” and not an incentive for domestic investment or hiring.  Again, the CAP explains:

“For most business owners H.R. 9 would be a pure windfall with no effect on investment or job creation. Business owners make investments and hire people not because they have extra cash lying around but because those investments and hires will increase revenues by more than their cost. And because labor costs are deductible, a reduction in tax rates on business profits, which is essentially what H.R. 9 offers, does not change marginal incentives for hiring.”

And, how do we pay for these tax windfalls?  We don’t. The entire tax cut/windfall is “paid for” with BORROWED MONEY.  Well, thus much for the Deficit Hawks in the audience.

Now, on April 27, 2012 the House Republicans, Representatives Amodei and Heck included, voted in favor of H.R. 4648 to reduce the interest rates for Stafford Student Loans.   [roll call 195] But wait! There’s a catch.  This has to be “paid for” — we supposedly can’t afford to “borrow” money to pay for this — “think of our grandchildren….”

How did the House GOP membership propose to pay for the bill? By raiding the preventative health care funding from the Affordable Care Act.  And, what were those funds supposed to be used for?

The preventative health care funds included money for federal, state, and local agencies to address smoking cessation programs, childhood obesity issues, nutrition education, and funding for federal, state, and local health care infrastructure improvements in information technology, workforce training, and improvements to state and local health departments so as to improve public detection and responses to epidemics. [HHS]

What does this have to do with Nevada? “Nevada is receiving $5,916,502 from the Prevention Fund this year to reduce disease rates in the state and help ensure today’s children are not the first generation in U.S. history to live shorter, less healthy lives than their parent.” [TFAH]

The message is reasonably clear — if we are speaking of giving more than half of $46 billion to “small businesses,” in H.R. 9 it’s perfectly OK to borrow the money to pay for that approximately $23 billion bill for the 1%’ers.  However, if we are speaking of reducing the costs of Stafford Student Loans then, by the lights of Representatives Amodei and Heck, we have to raid the fund that would have allowed Nevada to pay for the use of non-lighted athletic fields by youth groups promoting sports and healthy lifestyles, or allowed Nevada to help support school district efforts to reduce trans-fats in school lunch menus, or to supporting the hiring and training of epidemiologists, health information specialists, and lab scientists for our public health system.  (Remember that Hepatitis C thing in Clark County?)

Perhaps our commencement speaker would like to say, “The message is clear, the vision is certain, there are choices we must make in life, and if you are RICH we will reward you, even if we have to borrow the money to do it; but, if you are not then you must choose between better health care services in your state and community, or getting a reduction in your student loan interest rate.”

Some choice, some message…