Category Archives: Heck

Republican Water Wars: Clean Drinking Water and GOP Polluters

Amodei 3 It’s really hard to argue against Clean Water.  It’s especially difficult to argue against Clean Drinking Water in light of what’s happening to the public in Flint, Michigan.  However, that hasn’t stopped Republican members of Congress like Representatives Hardy (R-NV4), Heck (R-NV3), and Amodei (R-NV2) from aligning themselves with those who want to curtail, delay, and ultimately defeat regulations designed to prevent stream contamination in “coal country.”

Easy and Cheap Coal Mining or Clean Drinking Water?

Back in May 2015, opponents of clean water regulations decided to oppose any administration efforts to regulate what mining companies did with the debris from mountain top coal operations:

“Congressional Republicans are seeking to block an imminent rule protecting Appalachian streams from mountaintop removal mining, as opponents of the controversial practice say the mines are getting closer to communities and harming people’s health.

The White House is expected to announce a stricter rule for the disposal of mountaintop-removal mining waste into streams. Some Republicans in Congress are describing the move as the latest campaign in the Obama administration’s “war on coal.” [McClatchy DC] [see also The Hill]

The opposition would go beyond  the Reagan Era (1983) regulations which did not allow dumping debris within 100 feet of a river or stream.  The coal industry thought it had the system beaten when the George W. Bush administration allowed “waivers” from the rules during the last months of his presidency. [SeattleTimes]  The Obama administration promptly rescinded the last minute Bush Gift to the Coal Companies.  Coal interests just as promptly hauled out the hyperbole and declared the administration was declaring a War On Coal.

The result of the opposition clamor against allowing mining companies to dump debris into rivers and streams was the STREAM Act.  While the act doesn’t allow outright the trashing of American rivers and streams, it does wrap the EPA and Corps of Engineers in endless studies, evaluations of studies, and interminable hurdles to protecting water sources.  Representatives Heck, Hardy, and Amodei appear to be marching along with the coal industry.  Each voted in favor of the STREAM Act on January 12, 2016. [roll call 42]

Is Anyone Surprised?

The drinking water calamity in Flint, Michigan is a man-made problem.  Actions taken to “save money” have obviously proven to exacerbate contamination such that the population of Flint has been exposed to toxic lead levels.  We know what lead does – we also know what happens when a state government fails to act swiftly and responsibly to impending disaster.

What happens when creeks are filled with iron and aluminum hydroxides? When streams are polluted with contaminants from mountain top removal coal operations?  Three peer reviewed studies in central Appalachia found: (1) An overall increase in the rate of birth defects in counties with mountain top mining; (2) A 14.4% cancer rate compared to non-mountain top mining areas with a 9.4% rate; and (3) a $74.6 billion per year public health expense burden on Appalachian communities. [KFTC pdf]  This is not an isolated problem, nor is it new:

Between 1985 and 2001, 6,697 valley fills were approved in Appalachia, covering 83,797 acres of land and potentially affecting 438,472 acres of watershed.20 Valley fills can be as wide as 1,000 feet and over a mile long, and each can contain as much as 250 million cubic yards of wastes and debris—enough to fill almost 78,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Burying fragile headwater streams located in valleys exterminates virtually all forms of life that get interred under millions of tons of waste and debris. From 1985 to 2001, the EPA estimates that valley fills buried 724 miles of streams.22 Another study conducted by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) found that approximately 535 miles of streams were negatively affected by mining from 2001 to 2005.23 All told, nearly 2,000 miles of Appalachian headwaters have been buried or polluted by mountaintop removal, and the damage to Appalachian watercourses has continued at an average rate of 120 miles per year. [NRDC(pdf)]

stream pollution

The track record doesn’t sound promising for those who want to protect their drinking water supplies, and the actions of the pollution protectors aren’t helping.  Perhaps Representatives Amodei, Heck, and Hardy, would care to explain why they don’t seem particularly disturbed about higher than normal levels of calcium, magnesium, manganese, sulfate, and selenium in coal country drinking water?

What does this stuff do?

 

We know that manganese is one of those minerals we need as part of a normal diet, but we also know that high concentrations of manganese isn’t a good thing for children – the young apparently having a greater absorption rate than adults – and that high absorption often correlates to learning disabilities. [WHO pdf] This is a bit more damage than just the brown staining on laundry common to manganese contaminated water, and much more than the toxicity it has for plant life – a burden for farmers downstream. [USGS]

Magnesium is not considered all that dangerous, in correct (normal) levels.  There is no “maximum contaminant level” assigned to this mineral. [EHS pdf]  However, both magnesium and calcium contribute to what is popularly known as “hard water,” that ever present danger to plumbing, and household appliances such as washing machines and hot water heaters.

Sulfates are another matter.   Right off the bat, water containing more than 400 mg/L should NOT be used when preparing infant formula. [MHealth] And, the stuff is corrosive, if the sulfate in the water exceeds 250 mg/L (MCL)  copper piping is particularly susceptible to corrosion. [MHealth]  Thus leading to copper contamination.  Sulfates have what is known politely as a “laxative effect,” which is not all that appealing when combined with the knowledge that sulfates are causing scale build up in the water pipes. [UGA edu pdf]  Nor should we diminish the impact of a “laxative effect” on young children and infants for whom diarrhea and dehydration can be quite serious health risks.

Selenium is a real mess.  It’s a heavy metal, and the current maximum contaminant level is 0.05 ppm (parts per million).  Long term higher-than-normal exposure can (and usually does) result in hair and fingernail loss, damage to the kidneys and liver tissue, as well as damage to the nervous and circulatory system.  In other words, it’s truly dangerous. [EPA]

Since much of the more obvious damage appears to be targeted at plumbing, pipes, and appliances, it’s too easy to dismiss the pollutants as mild (compared to the Lost Jobs?) about which the coal industry is concerned.  However, there are other contaminants to consider associated with coal mining operations:  Acid mine drainage; Coal Slurry, Coal Ash,  the ever present bug bear – Selenium, and Total Maximum Daily Loads.  [AppV]

And the mountain top removal contribution to the problems?  WV public.org reports: “It was pretty obvious to me that below valley fills, water was pretty tainted, and then it became a question of, ‘Is it getting into the human water supply?’” Stout said. “I started sampling people’s houses; some people’s water is really good, other people’s water is really appalling.” Stout has tested for and found water spiked with heavy metals and other contaminants. “Before it’s disturbed it’s as good of water you’re going to find anywhere on the planet. But after that it becomes tainted with heavy metals and bacteria and so forth and becomes unusable, except that these people don’t have any recourse,” Stout said.”

Nor, we might add, do the people of Flint have much recourse.

It’s a plausible argument that Representatives Hardy, Heck, and Amodei, are staunchly defending the exploiters and polluters who are managing a 19th century industry – rather like defending the profits of the buggy whip manufacturers before Ford.  Not only is natural gas making headway into the former domains of coal, but both wind and solar assets are increasing as well. As one environmental improvement advocacy group puts it, “Coal is making a long goodbye.”

Representatives Amodei, Heck, and Hardy appear to have both feet firmly planted in an America of the 20th century while we’re a decade into the 21st.  When they speak to their “visions” of America, voters might want to remember this point.

1 Comment

Filed under Amodei, ecology, health, Heck

Bits and Pieces: Misleading headlines, and other matters in Nevada Politics

Jig Saw Puzzle Sometimes the headline doesn’t quite fit the story. Here’s an example: “Millions in the red an Obamacare insurer has failed” compliments of the Las Vegas Review Journal.   You have to read a few paragraphs down to get the basics of the story.  In addition to poor administration and long repayment waiting periods, “the co-op made a critical mistake: Only Nevada allows enrollment in non-exchange plans outside of the federal sign-up period, which runs from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31. Most insurers require a 90-day wait to discourage people from going without a plan until they get sick, but the co-op started with no waiting period, then added a 30-day window in late 2014. That created a sicker — and pricier — member pool,..”  [LVRJ]  These aren’t issues with the Affordable Care Act, nor is this indicative of any flaws in the overall system. What this illustrates is that the reason most firms go under is poor administration and management.

Speaking of management:  Is Waste Management Inc. living up to the terms of the contract it signed with Washoe County?  The Reno Gazette Journal reports on a crucial point: “One central issue is whether Waste Management has fulfilled the requirement to build an Eco-Center in Reno to sort its single-stream recycling and provide other services to customers. The city allowed Waste Management to raise rates, in part, to finance the construction of the Eco-Center.”  Back in March, 2013, The RGJ reported that the Eco-Center was supposed to streamline recycling in the area, noting that there were still some “kinks” to be worked out. Evidently, the kinks are winning?

The Washoe County Democrats have a quiz for us.  How do you score on a test of Rep. Joe Heck’s statements on Medicare? Social Security? Immigration?  I’ll give you one – yes, he’s called Social Security a “pyramid scheme,” and called for it to be privatized.  By July 2012 he’d called the basic social safety net program a Pyramid Scheme at least four times. [NVDems]

One win for Solar Power:  Perhaps not a long term one, but for now the efforts of NV Energy Inc to slap down the solar power industry in Nevada have been thwarted in the short term. [LVSun]  The power company is all for solar, except: “NV Energy’s proposed plan would reduce the value of credits paid to consumers and add a new fees. In filings with the PUC, the company said that the current structure unfairly shifts costs to customers without solar. The rooftop solar industry expects that the utility-backed proposal would reduce the rate of adoption of solar power.”  Original NV Energy filing here (warning: slow loading PDF)  and here (warning: slow loading PDF).  There’s the Solar Energy’s proponent statement to the PUC August 18, 2015 which makes interesting reading – again a warning: slow loading PDF.

All this in time for the Valley Electric Association to build a 15 mega-watt solar project in the northern part of Pahrump. [PVT]

Comments Off on Bits and Pieces: Misleading headlines, and other matters in Nevada Politics

Filed under ecology, energy, energy policy, health insurance, Heck, Nevada energy, Nevada politics, Social Security

Heck’s Jolting Idea: H.R. 1401

Heck photo Nothing illustrates the tenuous GOP grasp on the concept of job creation quite so well as Representative Joe Heck’s JOLT Act of 2015.  H.R. 1401:

“Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to admit into the United States a qualifying Canadian citizen over 50 years old and spouse for a period not to exceed 240 days (in a single 365-day period) if the person maintains a Canadian residence and owns a U.S. residence or has rented a U.S. accommodation for the duration of such stay.”

By the Numbers

There are 35.16 million people living in Canada. 4.7 million of them are between the ages of 55 and 64. [StateCan]  The 2011 Canadian census counted 4,945,060 individuals over the age of 65. [CanCensus] Of these numbers, approximately 500,000 can be classified as Snowbirds – those owning property in the United States. [FinancialPost] To apply some context, 500,000 is about 0.00157 of the U.S. population estimated at 317 million.

Some Canadians did take advantage of the housing bust in the U.S. to purchase retirement properties in California, Arizona, and in Mexico, but even in 2012 this was described in the Canadian press as a “small but growing group.”  It would be small considering the travel related expenses, and the tax liabilities incurred. [GlobeMail] Not to mention the affluence required to maintain two residences.

Now comes the part wherein Nevada’s representative from the 3rd Congressional District tries to explain how wonderful this bill would be.

Representative Heck wrote:

“Boosting our economy and improving national security are two of the most critical challenges we face as a nation and the JOLT Act addresses them both,” Heck said in a statement.

“Expediting the visa interview process and expanding the Visa Waiver Program will bring more international travelers and tourists to destinations around our country and creates jobs,” he continued. “Making discretionary visa waiver security programs mandatory will improve our security at home and aid our intelligence community in the fight against global terrorism.”  [The Hill]

Notice the attempt to tie the 500,000 Snowbirds to a booming tourism economy; “Expediting the visa interview process and expanding the Visa Waiver Program will bring more international travelers and tourists to destinations around our country and creates jobs.”  We might venture to ask how increasing the temporary population of the U.S. by 0.00157 or 0.157%  is exactly a big “job creator?”

Who Wants This?

The U.S. Travel Association wants it, as does the Canadian Snowbird Organization.  And, from the Snowbirds we learn that Canadians purchased $2.2 billion in Florida real estate, making the National Association of Realtors very happy. [CSB]  Representative Heck’s interest in this bill may be peaked by the $92,449 in contributions he received (2013-2014) from real estate interests, including $60,559 from individuals and another $31,890 from PACs. [OpenSec]

To sum up the situation: This bill isn’t about jobs.  It really isn’t all that much about tourism.  It is about serving the interests of a relatively few wealthy Canadians who want to retire to Sun States – anything has to be sunnier than Newfoundland – and the real estate interests who want to serve them.

2 Comments

Filed under Economy, Heck, House of Representatives, Nevada politics

To Heck With Your Service? Again?

Heck photo

The issue of protecting military families from egregious practices by predatory payday lenders gets a bit mired in Congressional legislative processes.  However, it’s not hard at all to figure out what the Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee wanted to do.

“House lawmakers narrowly voted to remove controversial language delaying new rules on payday lenders from their annual defense authorization bill early Thursday morning, calming concerns from advocates who saw the move as potentially undoing financial protections for military families.

By a 32 to 30 vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee stripped provisions from the legislation that would have delayed Defense Department plans to expand the scope of the 2006 Military Lending Act by requiring a new report due next spring on DoD’s rule-making procedures in that regard.” [MilTimes]

Congressman Joe Heck (R-NV3) has a seat on that committee.  Further, Representative Heck is the chair of the subcommittee on Military Personnel. The blurb from the subcommittee’s web page reads:

“The Military Personnel Subcommittee is responsible for military personnel policy, reserve component integration and employment issues, military health care, military education, and POW/MIA issues. This subcommittee makes sure that our troops and their loved ones are receiving the first class benefits that they deserve.”

Remember this for future reference.  For the moment ask how the statement squares with the effort to “delay new rules on payday lenders…?”  And, how does this align with comments made by subcommittee chairman Joe Heck:

“The 2006 lending law was passed by Congress after reports of payday lenders charging unusually high interest rates to troops — 400 percent or more, in some cases — and misleading borrowers about the long-term debt they could incur.

Implementation of the law initially was confined to payday loans, vehicle title loans and tax refund anticipation loans. But last September, defense officials proposed new rules that would expand the types of credit covered by the maximum 36-percent interest rate that can be charged to service members and their dependents.

Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., chairman of the armed services committee’s military personnel panel, said those moves have raised concerns that defense officials are applying rules too broadly.”  [MilTimes]

It’s the Pentagon’s belief that service members need protection from predatory forms of credit cards, deposit advance loans, installment loans, and unsecured open ended lines of credit.  The bottom line is simple – members of our armed forces can be charged no more than the quite nearly usurious 36% interest rate. Too broadly?  How does applying rules saying no member of the military can be charged no more than 36% cut off credit options? If a lender can’t profit with a 36% margin perhaps they ought not be in business?

Representative Heck’s idea was to have the Pentagon conduct ANOTHER study of the effects of the Military Lending Act, in spite of the completion of the original study. Translation: Congressional studies can be used to delay the implementation of regulations interminably. Meanwhile, member of the military remain threatened by the terms of predatory lenders. [More at TP]  And, was Representative Heck proud of his delaying maneuver?

“The one-year delay of new financial protections for the military appears to come from Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV), who chairs the subcommittee that produced the provision without discussion. Heck’s office did not respond to requests for comment on the provision.”  [TP]  (emphasis added)

Members of the Armed Forces should welcome the amendment by Representative Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) which stripped Heck’s language from the appropriations bill, and was adopted by the committee on a 32-30 vote.

But wait, there’s more.

“The House voted 213-210 Thursday against an amendment that would have allowed Veterans Administration doctors to discuss medical marijuana with soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions. Opponents of the amendment underscored marijuana’s federally illegal status and said veterans shouldn’t be prescribed pot for psychological problems.” [IBT]

Representative Heck voted in favor of the amendment, but Nevada Representatives Hardy and Amodei voted against it.  Perhaps Hardy and Amodei are clinging to the old War on Drugs theme, a stale leftover from those days when it seemed like every candidate for every office was running for county sheriff?

The amendment certainly wouldn’t have required the VA to prescribe marijuana or related products to veterans, but it would have aligned the services of the VA more closely with NRS 435A on the medical usage for marijuana.  The state of Illinois is currently hearing a report on studies related to the use of marijuana to assist in the treatment of PTSD.  The American Glaucoma Society isn’t thrilled with the side effects of marijuana, but acknowledges that it does reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma patients.

Contrary to the drum beating of the Old Drug Warriors, marijuana has been used successfully to treat moderate to severe “refractory spasticity” in multiple sclerosis patients, to alleviate loss of appetite associated with HIV/AIDS cachexia, and to inhibit chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting among cancer patients.

In short, given Representative Heck’s attempt to give a handout to the predatory lenders, and Old Drug Warriors Hardy and Amodei’s conviction that medical and marijuana don’t fit together – it wasn’t a complete loss of members of the Armed Forces and Veterans in the House, but it was a near thing.

Comments Off on To Heck With Your Service? Again?

Filed under Amodei, Defense Department, Heck, Veterans

A Simple Question for Rep. Amodei

Amodei 3

Here’s a simple question for Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2):  What have you done for us lately? And, please don’t try to tell me your vote to repeal the estate tax for the top income earners in the country is “doing something” for the remainder of working America.  Nevada representatives Amodei, Heck, and Hardy were pleased to vote for H.R. 1105, which is essentially a $269 Billion handout to the richest families in these United States.

First, if the country has $269 billion – with a B – to give up in revenue, then I’d really not like to hear any more from any of the three GOP representatives about “cutting the deficit,” or “balancing the budget,” because cutting revenue has the same effect as increasing the spending – it’s the arithmetic of the matter.

Secondly, labels are essentially useless. Calling the estate tax a “death tax” may do well in focus groups but if we’re serious about fiscal matters, and we ought to be, then we’re not taxing a person – we’re taxing the value of the estate left to the very select few.  The Paris Hilton Legacy Protection Act would be a far more enlightening label.

Is your “estate” worth more than $5.43 million?  Because that’s the size of the legacy which under the current system which is liable for taxation purposes.   And, spare me the “small business” and “family farm” arguments. Please.  As of the moment only 0.2% of Americans would owe any estate tax, meaning of course that the remaining 99.8% of Americans who may own family farms or small businesses are NOT liable for this tax.

“Only roughly 20 small business and small farm estates nationwide owed any estate tax in 2013, according to TPC.[10]  TPC’s analysis defined a small-business or small farm estate as one with more than half its value in a farm or business and with the farm or business assets valued at less than $5 million.  Furthermore, TPC estimates those roughly 20 estates owed just 4.9 percent of their value in tax, on average.[11]

These findings are consistent with a 2005 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study finding that of the few farm and family business estates that would owe any estate tax under the rules scheduled for 2009, the overwhelming majority would have sufficient liquid assets (such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and insurance) in the estate to pay the tax without having to touch the farm or business.[12]  The current estate tax rules are even more generous.” [CBPP]

And then there’s the “taxed twice” argument, which doesn’t make any more sense in the real world than protecting those 20 business and farm estates nationwide – here’s the trick – most of the biggest estates consist of “unrealized capital gains” which have NEVER BEEN TAXED in the first place. [CBPP]

From this point forward, Representatives Hardy, Amodei, and Heck have no room to speak of the “income inequality gap” in the country.  They’ve just voted to increase the beast.  Again, it’s not even mathematics, it’s arithmetic. If the GOP wants to increase spending for its Pentagon projects then someone has to pay for that. At present discretionary spending in the federal budget amounts to about 29% of the total, and of that 29% some 65% is related to the U.S. military. [NPorg]  Thus, the increases sought for Defense Department spending, and the hole created by losing another $2.69 billion in revenue – to protect the 0.2% – has to be made up by the remaining 99.8%.

So, what have Representatives Heck, Hardy, and Amodei done for us (the 99.8%) lately?  Not to put too fine a point to it – they’ve just told us it’s up to us to make up that $269 billion handout to the ultra-rich, and accept that we “can’t afford” to feed children, the disabled, and the elderly, to promote agricultural development, to help provide housing for the nation, to guarantee student loans for middle income families, to promote and encourage industrial and manufacturing technologies…..  And, all to protect the precious 0.2%.

Comments Off on A Simple Question for Rep. Amodei

Filed under Amodei, Heck, tax revenue, Taxation

GOP: Protect the Sharks!

Pay Day Lending Shark Some dots connect.  Dot Number One:

“A bill passed Wednesday by the House would set new limits on, and effectively cut, the amount of money the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can spend.

The legislation, passed with nearly exclusive Republican support, was originally aimed at placing new limits on agencies writing regulations, requiring them to conduct more analysis on their impact and subjecting them to additional legal review.” [The Hill]

First, the amount cut from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be some $36 million dollars less than the expected expenses for the CFPB in FY 2016.  Secondly, the “more analysis” part translates to “cost/benefit analyses” which have been a crucial part of the Republican litany.  There’s a reason to suspect that this particular dot comes with some major freight.

The “cost/benefit” analysis nearly always comes skewed in favor of the corporations.  The Institute for Policy Integrity found this to be the case in the instance of coal ash regulation in 2010, and while the major impact of the bill would be to the Environmental Protection Agency – a popular whipping boy for the Right – the abuse of the cost/benefit analysis regime could be equally unhelpful for American consumers.  The problem can be summarized as follows:

“Regulatory cost-benefit analyses are inherently vulnerable to challenge. The long-term benefits of regulations are often difficult to quantify, while the costs can be immediate and straightforward. The calculations can be even more complex with public health and safety issues, where the value of human lives must be weighed against corporate costs.” [HuffPo]

In this case we have to ask do the short term losses to the payday lenders outweigh the long term benefits of not having working Americans subject to usurious lending rates?  Evidently, Representatives Heck (R-NV3), Hardy (R-NV Bundy Ranch), and Amodei (R-NV2) [rc 64] believe that the short term losses which might accrue to the payday lenders are of more significance than the long term problems associated with payday lenders in underserved communities?   At the least, they’ve voted in favor of placing more hurdles – in the form of more litigation – in the way of any agency such as the CFPB seeking to curtail some of the more egregious business practices of payday lenders. (For more information on Cost/Benefit Analysis see Better Markets.)

Dot Number Two:

“But a late amendment from the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), would also place new limits on the funding for the CFPB.

Foxx’s amendment, added to the bill at the House Rules Committee before it reached the House floor, would cap CFPB funding at $550 million — $36 million less than the Congressional Budget Office estimated the CFPB would spend in fiscal 2016.”  [The Hill]

Now, why would this particular agency be mentioned in this “late amendment?”  If Dot Number One makes it more difficult for an agency, such as the CFPB, to finalize regulations on corporate activity,  Dot Number Two makes it even more difficult for the CFPB to defend its proposed regulations.  Leading us to Dot Number Three.

Dot Number Three: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is, in fact,  about to release rules governing payday lending practices [NYT] against which the $46 billion a year industry is lobbying hard and fast.

“The rules are expected to address expensive credit backed by car titles and some installment loans that stretch longer than the traditional two-week payday loan, according to industry lawyers, consumer groups and government authorities briefed on the discussions who all spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are private. Certain installment loans, for example, with interest rates that exceed 36 percent, the people said, will most likely be covered by the rules.

Behind that decision, the people said, is a stark acknowledgment of just how successfully lenders have adapted to keep offering high-cost products despite state laws meant to rein in the loans.” [NYT]

Translation: Because the payday lenders have been relatively successful thus far in avoiding or mitigating the attempts by the states to rein in some of their more egregious practices, the CFPB has stepped in to assist consumers avoid these financial pitfalls.  And, the Republicans are quite obviously marching in step with payday lending industry lobbyists.  Now, we can see why this was one of the first bills introduced in the 114th Congress, the timing isn’t simply a matter of coincidence.

Dot Number Four: There is a secondary market for payday lender loans. [HoustonSmallBus] [ABA]  And, wouldn’t you know it – AIG and private equity group Fortress Investment Group launched a securitization of sub-prime personal loans (read: payday) in February 2013. [WallStJ]

“The $604 million issue from consumer lender Springleaf Financial, the former American General Finance, will bundle together about $662 million of loans secured by assets such as cars, boats, furniture and jewelry into ABS, according to a term sheet. Some loans have no collateral.” [WSJ]

The last time someone tried this – Conseco Finance Corporation – things did not end well. Conseco ended up in bankruptcy in 2002.  ZeroHedge opined that the Springleaf Financial deal was a resurrection of the worst of the pre-Great Recession credit bubble.   With this in mind, should it come as any surprise that Springleaf Financial partnered with private equity firm Centerbridge Partners LLP in wanting to buy into Citigroup’s One Main Financial – the big banks subprime lender? But wait, there are more suitors.  Citigroup is trying to offload that subprime business, to focus on “the affluent customer,” and Apollo Global Management has joined the potential buyers list as of January 2015.  [BloombergBus]

Let’s muse: If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announces regulations that might put a crimp in the profitability of payday loans, particularly those subprime personal loans which have been securitized (ABS) then the bidders from the Springleaf/Fortress operations and Apollo Global Management might not want to pay more for Citigroup’s One Main Financial – which it would very much like to offload onto someone – Lonestar, Springleaf/Fortress, or Apollo Global Management?

Or, to muse and speculate less kindly:  There’s a deal in the works to sell a subprime personal loan unit from a major U.S. bank; there are bidders from private equity firms, and it would be better for the Big Bank if the CFPB would butt out of any activity which would make the subprime personal loan units less attractive.  Further, the subprime personal loan securitization schemes might be less profitable if the CFPB puts the brakes on some of the more “profitable” practices.   If the subprime personal loan lenders aren’t as “profitable” then they might not be able to bid as much as wished for the One Main Financial spin off?

Hence, it’s necessary, nay Vital, that the CFPB be made to back off the subprime personal loan regulations and allow the bankers to continue to securitize those loans and to deal for a bigger share of the subprime personal loan pie?  Would this be part of the reason for the rush to get H.R. 50 through a compliant House of Representatives?

The Republicans have not demonstrated any particular interest in protecting the sharks of the natural variety, but they seem bent on protecting the financial ones.  And, the bigger the shark the better?  Nevada Representatives Amodei, Heck, and Hardy played right along.  Representative Titus (D-NV1), to her credit,  voted “no.”

Comments Off on GOP: Protect the Sharks!

Filed under Amodei, banking, Economy, financial regulation, Heck, Nevada politics

Heck, Hardy, Amodei vote for Big Government in Women’s Health

Woman's Womb 

H.R. 7 is a beauty, that would be Beauty with scare quotes around it. Here’s what Nevada Representatives, Hardy (R-Bundy Ranch), Amodei (R-NV2), and Heck (R-NV3) voted in favor of: [RC 45]

No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.

Someone missed the message from the Hyde Amendment, there is NO federal funding for abortion procedures.  But wait! It gets worse.

None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

No funds subsidized by federal monies may to applied to health care insurance which includes abortion procedures.

No health care service furnished–`(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the Federal Government; or`(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the Federal Government to provide health care services within the scope of the physician’s or individual’s employment,may include abortion.

There can be no abortion procedures in any federal facility or by any doctor employed by the federal government.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

If a family or individual wants health insurance coverage which includes abortion services it must be purchased privately.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage, so long as only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law are used and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

Insurance companies are ‘perfectly free’ to draft and sell individual health insurance policies covering abortion procedures.  For a price? Probably a hefty one?

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion–`(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or`(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Notice the big gap in this section! Only if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or is PHYSICALLY dangerous can an abortion be provided.  A woman who is at serious risk for debilitating postpartum depression would be denied abortion procedures under the terms of this bill.  We should drill down more deeply on this one, because this is the point at which the politicians are getting between the woman, her family, and her physician.

Postpartum depression is NOT a “mood swing,” and it’s not merely the old “baby blues” after delivery.  There’s postpartum depression, which can be treacherous, and worse still in some cases the situation devolves into post partum psychosis.   Evidently, the three male Representatives from Nevada aren’t all that concerned about the symptoms described by the Mayo Clinic, including: loss of appetite, insomnia, intense irritability and anger, overwhelming fatigue, feelings of shame/guilt/inadequacy, severe mood swings, difficulty bonding with the new baby, withdrawal from family and friends, and thoughts of harming self or the baby. The psychosis element includes confusion and disorientation, hallucinations and delusions, paranoia, and actual attempts to harm self or the infant.

However, the provisions of H.R. 7 would not consider the needs of a family in which the mother had previously been treated for postpartum depression (or psychosis for that matter) when it comes to a recommendation from the family doctor that should a pregnancy occur, then it should be terminated before the mother’s mental health issues worsen.

Let’s be clear, postpartum depression occurs in an estimated 9-16% of all postpartum women. Among women who have already experienced PPD after a previous pregnancy the odds of a relapse go up to 41%.  [APA] We’re not speaking of small numbers here.  As of the CDC’s last report, there were 3,932,181 births registered in the United States (2013). A quick resort to the calculator and we’re speaking of 353,896 women who are projected to have postpartum depression using the conservative estimate of 9%.  And, yes, postpartum psychosis is rare, occuring in about 0.1% of all births, but that’s still 3,932 instances taking the 0.1% rate. [PPN]  If a mother has a history of bipolar disorder or has had a previous psychotic episode there is a significant risk of postpartum psychosis, which unfortunately can lead to a 5% suicide rate and a 4% infanticide rate associated with the illness. [PPN]

It takes a bit of intelligence and sensitivity to think through the difference between the “baby blues” common in about 80% of perinatal women and the postpartum depression in up to 16%, or even postpartum psychosis at the 0.1% rate.  Quite evidently, our male Representatives to the Congress of the United States are still stuck on the hackneyed and debunked myths; myths like “postpartum depression is rare,” or “PPD will go away on its own,” or “if you just stay positive you won’t get PPD,” or “if she’s not crying all the time it’s not PPD.”  What makes the voting record all the more astonishing is that one of our Representatives is a health care professional who should know better.

Omitting the mental health component in the bill is tantamount to saying women’s perinatal mental health issues aren’t important, or women just use the “baby blues” to rationalize an unwanted child, or women and their physicians can’t be trusted to determine the best outcome for the family. Or, all of the above.   And, yes – Nevada’s three male Representatives just said We’re All For A Government Big Enough To Control Every Woman’s Womb.

Comments Off on Heck, Hardy, Amodei vote for Big Government in Women’s Health

Filed under Amodei, Health Care, health insurance, Heck, Nevada politics