>Heller and the E&P crowd

>
Nevada Congressman Dean Heller (R-NV2) adds one more bit of evidence that he is marching lock step with the “exploiter-polluter” crowd inside the beltway in his response to those constituents who have called him concerning H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation Systems Act of 2007.

This bill was introduced by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) on April 25, 2007, and would enact into law the National Landscape Conservation System created by the Bureau of Land Management in 2000. The function of the NLCS is to “conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations.” [GovTrack]

It’s important to remember at this point that the bill doesn’t create any new bureaucracies, mandate any new operations, or require any new activities by the Bureau of Land Management. However, Heller’s response doesn’t make that clear.

The Congressman opens with: “As you may know, this legislation would require the U.S. Department of the Interior to establish a National Landscape Conservation System. This system would consist of national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness study areas, components of the National Trails System, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The purpose of this legislation would be to establish formal legislative protections of these areas.” Actually, a person would not necessarily know this because there is already an established National Landscape Conservation System. And, the NLCS already incorporates the elements listed in Heller’s letter. Why was this done?

“In June 2000, the BLM responded to growing concern over the loss of open space by creating the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). The NLCS brings into a single system some of the BLM’s premier designations. By putting these lands into an organized system, the BLM hopes to increase public awareness of these areas’ scientific, cultural, educational, ecological and other values.” [BLM] In short, the Bureau of Land Management created an internal organizational scheme to address issues of public land loss. Heller is correct that the legislation would “require” the organizational structure, but misleading when he infers that this might be something new.

Parsing the palaver: “As a lifelong Nevadan and outdoorsman, I have grown up enjoying Nevada’s many wilderness areas. I first enjoyed these great Nevada treasures with my father, and passed that same appreciation and respect along to my children. Therefore, I share your support for lands conservation where appropriate.” (emphasis added)

“However, I also believe a balanced approach to federal land management is needed in our state with access for a variety of different uses.” (emphasis added) This statement from Congressman Heller sounds ever so close to the statement from the “Citizens for Balanced Use” campaign: “Every day more public land is locked away. Join us as we band together to save access for everyone.” This would be the same group that filed a lawsuit on April 18, 2007 stating that federal forest administrators unfairly restricted the use of snowmobiles in the Gallatin National Forest. [Helena AP] CBU membership consists primarily of snowmobile and manufacturing interest groups. However, Heller’s position is compatible with more than just the off road vehicle lobby.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council are “are committed to the multiple-use management of public lands, and value the benefits that livestock grazing has been shown to contribute across a variety of landscapes.” [NCBA] The Public Lands Council was the organization that tried, and failed in 2000 to get the Supreme Court to rule that the Department of the Interior had “overstepped its authority” when promulgating regulations under the authority of the Taylor Grazing Act. [Supct]

The Mineral Information Institute offers its contention that “coal extraction is an important use of our public lands, and is part of the multiple use land management concept. …it can be mined through industry/government cooperation so that the forest visitor is unaware of any mining taking place.” [MII] Or, the industry can simply make the forest go away. (photos)

Representative Heller’s nostalgia with regard to Nevada’s “treasures” seems to have been bested by his concern for the wants of the off road vehicle, cattle production, and mining lobbies.

>NV GOP Caucus Doggerel

>

Nevada Republicans

Have a caucus

That really won’t be

Very Raucous

Though they will meet

From vale to mount

It’s sad to know

Their votes won’t count.

Burma Shave!

>Easing Big Tobacco’s Burden: Does Heller support shifting SCHIP cost to Vets and Elderly?

>The Bush Administration’s Happy Warriors Assault on the American middle class continues unabated, with the support of Nevada’s 2^nd Congressional District Representative Dean Heller. USA Today reports that the Administration would like to “negotiate” on the SCHIP legislation; however the bargaining chips all indicate the Republicans’ emphasis on further narrowing the program and limiting the flexibility of state programs.

Chip One: Limit the Eligibility Formula

Some states exclude child support and all deductions for child care expenses from the formula for eligibility. One Republican Congress man is upset that a state might be allowed to devise a formula including deductions for housing or shelter. The Democratic response is that the exemptions and deductions are meant to insure that lower income families don’t have to resort to welfare to get health benefits for their children. However, that might just be the Administration’s point. The SCHIP program was never meant to cover children in poverty; it was designed to help states provide coverage to working families above the poverty line but without the resources to provide private health care insurance. It is rapidly becoming apparent that the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress want to push privatization onto already economically stressed middle class families. And, that stress is very real.

The jobs most often associated with health care coverage are (were) in the manufacturing sector. However, the CBO reported that such employment as of early 2004 was at its lowest point since July 1950, having decreased by about 17.5%. [CBO] As of August 2005 about 70% of workers polled by the AFL-CIO reported that their income was not keeping up with the cost of living. [AFL] The loss of manufacturing jobs and the increase in service sector employment with jobs that do not include health care coverage is already under scrutiny by the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Wisconsin Strategy which notes that: “The bad news is that we found that in the industries that are shrinking about three-fourths of jobs offered health insurance while in the industries that are growing less than half the jobs offer health insurance,” Dresser said. So what’s the strategy for Wisconsin on this issue? Dresser says economic development must be focused on attracting higher end jobs that come with health insurance and efforts need to be made to protect the remaining jobs we have that offer health benefits.” [WRN] In the mean time the Bush Administration would further restrict the capacity of Wisconsin, and its more seriously affected neighbor Michigan, to offer health care coverage for working families in transition from the old jobs to the new.

Clearly, the Bush strategy here is to ‘brand’ the SCHIP program as a poverty project, more associated with Medicare and welfare than with the needs of the American middle class. The Republicans have long sought to have Middle America identify with their party; however, in this case the GOP finds itself in a bind – seeking to advance the interests of the corporate giants in the insurance industry while attempting to retain the image that it is protecting those in the middle from undue contributions to the poor.

Chip Two: Reverse Position on parental inclusion

The article also documents the Administration’s reversal of its previous support for allowing states to insure parents of eligible children: “Just last year, administration officials testified during congressional hearings that extending SCHIP coverage to parents increased the likelihood that their children would get health insurance too. But Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt now calls the coverage of parents an experiment that took resources away from poor kids. About a dozen states received waivers to cover parents through SCHIP.” [USAT] Again, note the emphasis on the SCHIP program as one for “poor kids,” as if the Democratic legislation were some kind of reverse Robin Hood experiment.

Chip Three: Remove the ‘burden’ from the tobacco products manufacturers and place it on (1) veterans, not classified as disabled, who would have higher co-payments for pharmaceutical products; (2) higher income Medicare recipients who would be required to pay more for prescription drugs and doctor’s office visits. Thus much for “supporting the veterans,” and assisting those in the greatest need with medical care accessibility.

If one is looking for a Reverse Robin Hood experiment this is it. One Bush Administration proposal to pay for the SCHIP program would increase the co-payments paid by non-disabled veterans from $8 to $13, gathering in about $1.6 billion over five years. [USAT] The White House proposals would generate about $10 billion over five years by requiring more from Medicare patients. [USAT] The callousness of this bargaining point is amply illustrated by the demographics of our veterans, and the willingness of the Bush Administration to push off the costs onto the elderly.

The Department of Veterans Affairs reported that as of the 2000 census there were approximately 25.2 million U.S. veterans. 21.1% were under the age of 45, 41.2% were between the ages of 45 and 64; and 37.1% were over 65 years of age. Their average age was 58, and most had a combined family income in the last classification in the economic rankings, i.e. over $50,000. [VA.gov] How much over the $50,000 mark is not indicated in the report. Considering the aging of our World War II veterans, along with that of those who served in Korea and Vietnam, and it doesn’t take much to infer that the Bush Administration would like to alleviate any pressure on the tobacco industry by transferring the burden to an aging (and thereby more medically vulnerable) veterans’ population, augmented in time by the young men and women who are currently in uniform, who may already have received a hit from the President’s veto.

An individual must be at least 65 years old to qualify for Medicare coverage. Some disabled individuals under 65 might be eligible, as might those with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis or transplants. [Medicare] Those who did not pay “Medicare taxes” are required to pay the Part A Hospital Insurance premium set at up to $410 per month. There is a $992.00 deductible with coinsurance costs of $248 to $496 per day. Part B (medical insurance) costs $93.50 per month. The Part B deductible is $131 per year. [Medicare] These numbers should be of particular interest to retired public employees in Nevada since some may not be covered by Medicare. Public employees in 14 states (including Nevada) fall into the PENCSS status and may not have the 40 credits for Social Security and hence full Medicare eligibility. [FPC] The bottom line is quickly reached. The Bush Administration bargaining chip would shift the burden from the tobacco companies onto those 65 years of age or older, and onto to some retired public servants in 14 states who are already required to budget up to $503.50 per month for hospitalization and medical insurance.

There seems to be something not quite “compassionate” about a conservatism that seeks to shift the cost of paying for a middle class health program onto veterans and the elderly.

(Nevada headlines at Blue Sage Views)

>Nevada GOP: Big Money from Big Donors

>

Anjeannette Damon’s report in the Reno Gazette Journal reminds me of yet another reason to vote for Democrats. The Donkey Party has less of the tendency to march lockstep behind Big Money “major donors.” The Republicans seem quite pleased with the money they are raising in Nevada, most of which is coming from the likes of Sheldon Adelson (Freedom’s Watch benefactor and Iran War promoter), and Roger Norman, the “Crystal Bay Killer” who took pride in shooting an endangered specie: a white rhinoceros during a safari. “Republicans have opted instead to headline high dollar fundraisers that attract only a few hundred of the political elite.” The Republicans have gathered $1.8 million in Nevada compared to the $1.1 raised by Democrats. However, this doesn’t quite square with the happy talk from Reno GOP strategist Greg Ferraro that money translates to votes. If Ferraro’s analysis is taken at face value then the GOP candidates can expect the support of a “few hundred of the political elite,” while the Democrats will get the support of those citizens who have attended the low-dollar high turnout caucus training sessions and candidate events.

>Yucca Mountain hearing scheduled for Wednesday

>

One might have thought that scientific analysis would not support putting a nuclear waste dump 90 miles northwest of a major metropolitan area, Las Vegas, NV. Or, that a bit of common sense might prevail and residents along the transit routes would see the down side of having a “mobile Chernobyl.” However, that’s not stopping the Bush Administration from backing out of its 2000 campaign promise (actually parsing its wording) to oppose the Yucca Mountain Glow-Dump. The Nuke Industry is already upset that there are “too many opponents” at an upcoming hearing. [LV Sun] Those opponents may have the temerity to bring up the nasty hydrochloric acid spill in Minnesota [RGJ] and that runaway railroad car in Las Vegas…Nevadans have become rather sensitive to these stories.

>The Sunday Punch: Listening to the wrong voices?

>Nevada did the neighborly thing and sent 25 members of its National Guard, a couple of helicopters, and some local firefighters to assist in southern California. However, as the Los Angeles Times reports today no amount of neighborly assistance from any and all quarters can provide the security necessary during a catastrophic fire event to make up for the lack of local support. The Santiago Fire is a cautionary tale in the manner of the failing levees of New Orleans, and the collapsing bridge in Minneapolis.

There was not enough political will to spend more funds improving the Louisiana levees and improving the coastal wetlands that might have helped absorb the power of Hurricane Katrina. There was not enough political will to spend the funds necessary to make the I-35 Bridge safe for traffic. There was not enough political will to fund a 2005 Orange County bond issue that would have added funding to fire departments. The sixth wealthiest county in the state has one professional firefighter for every 1,800 residents. Nor could the residents affected by the Santiago Fire have relied on the state. After the 2003 fire season a blue ribbon commission recommended the purchase of 150 more fire engines; 19 have been ordered, none have yet been delivered.

However, there’s always enough political will to mouth “No New Taxes.” Twenty five years and counting of Reagan-esque reverse populism predicated on “individualism” have seriously undermined our very own individual safety and security; whether we face hurricanes, cross bridges, or watch in horror at brush fires that might have been contained had we enough trucks and professional crews to man them. There are always selfish people among us who don’t wish to pay for other peoples’ safety, or security, or education, or health care. How many more catastrophic examples do we need before we stop listening to them?

>The Sunday Deck Bass

>

Should anyone else like to create a Sunday Deck Bass, or some similarly uncomplimentary blog component, here’s a simple bit of advice: Move to Nevada. When the rampant partisanship in modern politics results in politicians maintaining rigid postures all week, and there doesn’t seem to be anyone capable of changing his or her mind, much less doing a Deck Flop – you can count on the Nevada Governor, Jim Gibbons (R) to provide a classic.

This, we’ll remember, is the Governor whose interest in opposing the development of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was so limited that he appointed a proponent of that project to the commission in Nevada most noted for opposing it.

However, once the news was published that the U.S. Senate was investigating the Yucca Mountain project and that the Nevada Attorney General who has been filing suits to prevent the project’s development was scheduled to address a Senate Committee, the Governor stoutly whined that he had been “left out.” He whined so loudly that the chair of the committee, California Senator Barbara Boxer, offered him an invitation.

Since the current Governor has something of a reputation for not always being original in his public statements, it might do to publish a link to the 1999 testimony of former Governor Kenny Guinn to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power for reference, and his 2005 comments before the House Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization. One might also want to refer back to Guinn’s 2002 official “Statement of Reasons Supporting the Governor of Nevada’s Notice of Disapproval of the Proposed Yucca Mountain Project.”

Governor Gibbons, who describes himself as a scientist, has also made some interesting pronouncements that might have given Chairman Boxer pause before issuing an invitation. The Gibbons-Pombo Report concluded that mercury, if not exactly good for you, really isn’t an environmental problem. One can see how the Chairman might have been a bit reluctant to have Gibbons pontificate about another toxic substance before her committee.

For his major flippity flop from distanced disinterest to droning self promotion, this week’s highly uncoveted, thoroughly dubious, completely unsought, Sunday Deck Bass is awarded to Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons. This is the 7th Deck Bass awarded to Nevada’s chief executive.

>Top Four Incredibly Silly News Performances of the Week

>

# 4 Nevada Governor whines until he gets an invitation. California Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) graciously issues an invitation to Nevada’s perfectly forgettable (and utterly forgotten) Governor Jim Gibbons to speak to the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, [LVRJ] after Gibbons got his nose bent out of shape, and wasn’t invited by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) either. Senator Boxer has manners, even though she’d likely be correct in assuming that Governor Gibbons won’t have anything original to say.

# 3 “House Judiciary Committee screws up and publishes whistleblowers’ e-mail addresses.” TPMM has the full, miserable, story.

# 2 Former Senator Rick Santorum disses Christians and Christianity. “In general, Santorum said, the mainstream news media and political leftists have down-played the threat posed by radical Islam. He said the religion’s basic approach to life is drastically different from Judeo- Christian culture — a point that he has said has been lost on many Americans. While Christianity presents a humble, meek message emphasizing love, he said, Islam stemmed from the strong rule of the prophet Mohammed. “Every aspect of life was ruled.” “Islam, unlike Christianity, is an all-encompassing ideology,” said Santorum, a Penn State alumnus. “It is not just something you do on Sunday. … We (as Americans) don’t get that.” [CentreDaily] via TCR Well then, thus much for “Onward Christian Soldiers,” and Daily Mass?

# 1 White House spokesperson Dana Perino does the Putin Shuffle:

Beginning with: President Putin said that today, that he believes that there’s a path where the United States and Russia can work to figure out a way to get the system to work in a way that works for both people — for both countries. …

Moving to: And the President does believe that Iran — that Russia agrees that Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. And he came away feeling that that was a solid answer from President Putin. …

Followed quickly by: Q And as to whether these kinds of comments by President Putin show that he’s not anywhere near on the same page as the Bush administration? MS. PERINO: I’m not going to comment on them. …

Subsequently saying: Q Can I ask you about President Putin? I mean, how would you characterize the relationship with President Putin? I mean, is he a strong U.S. ally with rhetoric like this? And also the Cuban missile comparison, is that helpful? MS. PERINO: I think that — look, the President has said that we have a good but complicated and complex relationship with Russia. And the President has a relationship with President Putin, one, that he treats him with a lot of respect, and because of that, he’s able to have very frank and honest discussions with him.” [WHPR] And, this, all in one single press briefing.

>Heller pleased with his SCHIP opposition

>

The new version of the SCHIP reauthorization bill contained a ban on coverage of undocumented immigrants, prohibited states from covering children in families with incomes above $61,950 for a family of four, and made restriction on adults even clearer. [NYT] It wasn’t enough for Nevada 2nd Congressional District Representative Dean Heller (R-Boehner).

“…Heller was not impressed. “Unfortunately, the new SCHIP bill is the same as the old one,” he said in a statement. After Bush’s veto last week, Heller joined more than three dozen House Republicans in sending the president a letter expressing their hope that a compromise could be reached between the administration and Congress. Heller reiterated that desire after Thursday’s vote but said the new bill didn’t go far enough. “This legislation still covers adults, provides taxpayer funded health benefits to illegal immigrants and includes an unnecessary tax increase.” [LV Sun] Either Representative Heller’s reading comprehension skills could use some improvement, or he’s simply mouthing White House talking points — most likely the latter.

Heller’s position is simply an echo of the latest White House message that the bill “put lipstick on a pig,” wasn’t “meaningfully changed,” and was just a “political game.” [NYT] One of the rather more intriguing Republican objections was that they didn’t have enough input, although all the modifications in the bill addressed GOP concerns.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson opines that the reason for the unfathomable Republican votes of late could be “Republican Hot Flashes.” Robinson suggests one pharmaceutical product that might be helpful, one can only add that there are several others on the market that would serve as well.

#Nevada news roundup at Blue Sage Views

>Heller to Nevada middle class families: "I Got Mine…"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Cross posted at Helluva Heller)