>Congressman Dean Heller (R-NV2) seems tickled to be appointed to fill Senator Ensign’s very soon to be vacant seat, and issued the following statement: “I am deeply humbled and honored to be appointed to the Senate by Governor Sandoval. There is a lot of hard work ahead to get our state and nation moving in the right direction. Nevadans across our state have been struggling with job loss, high gas prices, and foreclosures. There is no question that our nation needs to change the way we do business if we are going to get our economy back on track and get Nevadans working again. “As I have stated before, it is time for government to be accountable to the American people and make decisions that lead the way for greater prosperity and fulfill our promises to future generations. Serving in the United States Senate will provide Nevada a stronger voice and greater opportunities to influence the policies that matter most to our great state,” said Heller.”
What he said: Nevadans across our state have been struggling with job loss, high gas prices, and foreclosures.
What he did: Yes, indeed, Nevadans have been struggling with job loss — so, how does Congressman Heller explain his vote against the ARRA, the infrastructure and temporary economic stimulus bill that sought to save jobs in Heller’s district and create others in infrastructure and new energy technologies? [GovTrack]
And, there are those “high gas prices,” part of which are the result of investment/speculation — according to Goldman-Sachs analysis perhaps as much as a range of $21 to $27 per barrel — So, how does Congressman Heller explain his vote against the Dodd-Frank bill to rein in the commodity speculation by enhancing the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate derivative trading? [GovTrack] At the time he told constituents the bill was “flawed,” and “unnecessary regulation,” — Does the Congressman believe that if speculators were allowed to return to the days of unregulated commodity trading the volatility of the commodity markets (including oil) would decrease?
Further, if Nevadans are struggling with high prices at the pump, then how does the Congressman explain his opposition to eliminating $4 billion in subsidies for oil corporations? The pass-along argument stumbles at the point whereat the taxpaying public is expected to pay higher prices for gasoline products in a “free market” while at the same time subsidizing oil depletion allowances.
As to foreclosures, if Congressman Heller were actually listening to the problems of Nevadans facing foreclosure, then why the vote against HAMP? (The Home Affordable Modification Program) [GovTrack, 198] If foreclosures were so important to Congressman Heller, and he wants us to believe that he understands the impact foreclosures have on Nevada cities and towns, then why did he vote to terminate the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program on March 11, 2011? And, to terminate the FHA Refinance Program on March 10, 2011? To terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (March 16, 2011; H.R. 861) [DAH] [Roll Call 188] Republicans, Heller included, were quick to find fault with measures to ameliorate the effects of foreclosures — but have yet to introduce any legislation that would address the effects of foreclosures on homeowners and their communities.
What he said: As I have stated before, it is time for government to be accountable to the American people and make decisions that lead the way for greater prosperity and fulfill our promises to future generations.
What he did: About those future generations — the ones who may be looking forward to having the Medicare system in place, as it is for current senior citizens — why did Congressman Heller vote to eliminate the Medicare system in its present form and replace it with a voucher (aka “premium support”) scheme that will mean higher out of pocket costs for seniors trying to pay for health care, AND the possibility that affordable health care insurance may not even be available for future retirees? [GovTrack 277]
The Republicans have evidently decided to describe this vote as a way to “save Medicare for future generations,” for those of us in the “Vietnam Era” generation, this sound perilously similar to “destroying the village in order to save it.”
Desert Beacon 