Tag Archives: Mark Amodei

Nevada’s Most Super Sensitive GOP Staffer (with suggestions for alternative messages)

Before all elseMarch for Our LivesReno 11:30 AM, Downtown City Plaza (10 N. Virginia Street) Saturday, March 24, 2018.  Forecast: Mostly sunny, 45F high.

March for Our LivesLas Vegas 10:00 AM, Smith Center for the Performing Arts, downtown Las Vegas 361 Symphony Park. March 24, 2018.  Partly cloudy, 70F high.

March for Our LivesMesquite 10:00 AM, Mesquite City Hall, South Yucca St. and Mesquite Blvd. March 24, 2018.  Partly cloudy, gusty wind, 73F High.

March for Our LivesTruckee (CA) 11:00 AM, Truckee Regional Park, rodeo staging area, Brockway Road, March 24, 2018.  Possible chance of  snow showers (50%), 31F high.

And then there’s Mark Amodei (R-NV2)  whose staff was offended by a student dropping the F-word during a call to his office concerning gun control issues.  According to Amodei, the staffer called the young man’s high school without asking for retaliation or retribution. Amodei promptly ascribed the teen’s suspension to the school and took no responsibility for what happened — which SO sounds like the District 2 representative.

And here’s another Amodei-an excuse for the ages:

“Amodei defended his staffer and said no apology is necessary. The congressman said the situation was not a matter of shutting down the student’s First Amendment rights.

“I’m not apologizing because my guy accurately described what happened in the phone call,” he said.

Amodei said the student’s rudeness prompted Arturo Garzon, who serves as one of the Nevada Republican constituent services representatives, to call the school. Garzon managed to reach the principal by chance, he said.”

Just a few points to make here.  First, no one appears to be arguing about what the young man said.  No one is arguing about whether what our super sensitive staffer heard. No one is arguing that the super sensitive staffer didn’t relay this information.  However, no one should be buying the excuse being shopped by the Representative.  What we might want to ask is: If the person who dropped the F-bomb in the course of calling the Congressman’s office was a 45 year old man — would the super sensitive staffer have called the person’s place of employment?  If the constituent caller was a 30 year old housewife, would our super sensitive staffer call the spouse?  If the caller was an 80 year old retiree would our super sensitive staffer call the retirement home?  Somehow I don’t think so.

Yes, our Super Sensitive Staffer has “first amendment rights,” and is entitled to be as offended as Great Auntie Ellie might be; what he does NOT have is the privilege of whining to a person’s school, place of employment, or others in authority, to express that sentiment to the detriment of the individual.  The ACLU argues that a constituent has the right to expect a reasonable measure of privacy:

“We at the ACLU of Nevada and the public would certainly welcome Congressman Amodei’s justification of his office’s retaliation against his constituent. While congressional staffers do have First Amendment rights, they do not have rights to retaliate against constituents by exposing their confidential conversations and communications,” Story said. “Every constituent petitions the government with an expectation of privacy, if their opinion is to be made public, that choice is the constituents to make, not the Congressman’s or his staff’s. The oath the congressman swore to uphold applies to every constituent, not just the ones with whom he agrees.”

There’s a bit more to examine here:

After this call, a staffer from Congressman Amodei’s office called Noah’s school and, in an act of unconstitutional retaliation, reported this conversation as “offensive.” Noah was then suspended for two days for “disrespectful behavior/language,” even though none of his speech was directed at school staff or other students.

It would seem that the Super Sensitive Staffer decided to not only contact the school with a direct report of the young man’s comment, but added his own opinion stating the call was “offensive.”  Indeed, the Super Sensitive Staffer may have his opinion, but why else would he call McQueen High School unless he intended for the school to do something in retribution for the so-called “offense?”  To do so would leave us with the impression that our Super Sensitive Staffer is the sort of person who would hang out at the mall, and then call schools should those wearing their school identifying clothing engage in public displays of affection?  “I just thought I should tell you that _____ was hanging out with a ____ at the mall, and they were…kissing…in public…right there in front of everyone…”

As a public service, Desert Beacon offers a glossary of terms one might wish to use during calls to Congressman Amodei’s office lest his Super Sensitive Staffers be “offended.”

For “get off your f-ing asses” we might substitute the following:

Please abjure fornication with a beast of burden (or posteriors, backsides) such that time is available for legislative action. 

Do terminate coition with any equus asinus (or buttocks, bottoms) for an interval of sufficient length for the consideration of necessary legislation.

It is requested that coitus be interrupted with a neddy (or hindquarters, fanny, rumps) so that legislative issues might be discussed and debated.

We call for the cessation of copulation with any and all burros (or derriéres)   in order to give ample time to consider the passage of desired legislative action.

We encourage the Representative to discontinue any intimate relationship with donkeys (or posteriors, fundaments) so that necessary legislation may be considered and enacted. 

Here’s hoping other Amodei constituents will find these suggestions helpful when dealing with Amodei’s Super Sensitive Staffers.  Good Luck.

Comments Off on Nevada’s Most Super Sensitive GOP Staffer (with suggestions for alternative messages)

Filed under Amodei, Nevada politics, Politics

The Sound of Silence: Heller and Mass Shootings — Sandy Hook to Parkland

October 2, 2017:  A statement from Senator Dean Heller’s office:

“Nevada families are waking up to the shocking news of the tragic events that occurred last night in Las Vegas. Our communities are all in mourning as we try to understand this senseless massacre on the Strip,” said Heller. “I want to thank our first responders for their swift actions and efforts that without a doubt saved numerous lives. I’ve been in contact with the White House and Governor Sandoval, and I will continue to monitor the situation as this horrific event unfolds. Lynne and I are praying for all of the victims and their families who are experiencing immense pain and grave, shocking loss that cannot be measured.”

Let us parse.

“Nevada families are waking up to the shocking news of the tragic events that occurred last night in Las Vegas. Our communities are all in mourning as we try to understand this senseless massacre on the Strip,”

tragic events?”  It was a Shooting.  A man armed with a small arsenal rented a room with a view to kill concert-goers.  He used a bump stock to increase the lethality of his weaponry.  59 dead and 851 injured.  It was an event — singular, and singularly lethal.

as we try to understand…”  What is it we don’t understand?  When the shooting stopped there were 58 dead people, one more if we count the shooter.  Perhaps we don’t know the killer’s motive, but when the body count is 58 there’s not much more we need to comprehend other than the murderous SOB assembled his arsenal, loaded his weapons, and voluntarily fired into a crowd of concert attendees.  Jury duty training tells us there was a crime; the individual in question perpetrated the criminal act; and he did it with good old fashioned malice aforethought.  There doesn’t seem to be much more we need to understand.

praying for the victims and their families…” Yes that’s appropriate.  What we’d like to find out is what our Senator thinks should be done after we finish with the thoughts and prayers portion of the formulaic Republican/NRA response to this horror.

October 5, 2017: Senator Heller answers questions about what might be done to mitigate the lethality of the next mass shooting event, and his response

“Let me be clear, I’m not interested in watering down the Second Amendment,” Mr Heller, Nevada Republican, said on Fox News.  Mr. Heller was asked if he would support a ban on a device called a “bump stock,” which authorities now say the gunman used.  “You show me the law that would stop that, not only will I support it, I will be an advocate for that law,” he said.”

There’s a lack of clarity in this statement, i.e. what is “that?”  Was the Senator saying if we want to stop the sale of bump stocks he will be an advocate? Or, was he saying if a single law could have prevented the mass killing he would support it?  We do know that he’s previously not wanted to “water down” 2nd Amendment absolutism.  We know what he did in April 2013.

“On the weekend after Nevada Sen. Dean Heller joined 15 fellow Republicans to kill a GOP-led filibuster of gun-control legislation, he returned to his hometown of Carson City and ate with his family at an IHOP restaurant—the same one where a gunman went on a rampage in 2011, killing four people and injuring more than a dozen others before killing himself. In the process, the gunman unloaded a 30-round magazine clip and rocked the sense of safety in the small Nevada community.”

Did the Senator join with others to alleviate the carnage in the wake of the Sandy Hook Mssacre?

“But when the Senate began to take up individual pieces of gun-control legislation earlier this week, Heller joined with nearly all Republicans and several Democrats to vote no—no on an amendment to ban assault weapons, no on a measure to limit magazine capacity, and no on the Manchin-Toomey amendment to expand background checks for gun sales.” [TDB]

The original Machin-Toomey bill went down to a GOP filibuster 54-46.  If we drill down a little further the form of Senator Heller’s objections — his defense of the absolutism of the 2nd Amendment — become clearer.  The following votes were taken on April 17, 2013.

Vote 97 (113th Congress) Senator Heller votes “nay” on the Manchin Amendment to “protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.”

Vote 98 (113th Congress) Senator Heller votes “yea” on the Grassley Amendment, which purported to improve the background check system and prevent straw purchases and gun trafficking.  However, the poison pill in the Grassley-Cruz amendment was that while it did address trafficking, it also made it easier to purchase and carry guns across state lines. [WaPo]

Vote 99 (113th Congress) Senator Heller also voted “nay” on the Leahy Amendment “To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.”  Not only did our Senator not seem to want to “water down” the 2nd Amendment, he even voted against an amendment which the NRA supported after the language was changed to allow for easy transfer of guns as gifts and prizes.  [WaPo]

Vote 100 (113th Congress) Senator Heller was among those voting “yea” on the Cornyn Amendment to facilitate reciprocity for concealed carry across state lines.  In other words, to create a situation in which the least restrictive states would inform how all other states regulate concealed carry issues.

Vote 101 (113th Congress) Senator Heller was one of the forty US Senators to vote against the Feinstein Amendment to “regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”  There wasn’t much hope that the assault weapon  would be passed, but Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) had promised Senator Feinstein he would bring the amendment to the floor.

Vote 102 (113th Congress) Senator Heller voted “yea” on the Burr Amendment to “protect” the gun rights of veterans and military families.  This is an interesting vote because it contains issues pertinent to today’s debate.  Original language in the proposed legislation said that veterans receiving disability benefits who are deemed unable to manage their own financial affairs would be precluded from owning firearms.  Opponents of this amendment argued that the proposed language would make it easier for mentally ill individuals to obtain firearms.

Vote 103 (113th Congress) Senator Heller voted “nay” on the Lautenberg Amendment to regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Vote 104 (113th Congress) Senator Heller voted in favor of the Barrasso Amendment to  withhold 5 percent of Community Oriented Policing Services program Federal funding from States and local governments that release sensitive and confidential information on law-abiding gun owners and victims of domestic violence.  Senator Barrasso was disturbed that a New York newspaper had compiled a list of gun owners from county information sources.

What did the 113th Congress do? It did agree to provide more funding for mental health services.   There was a pattern evident in the 2013 votes in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting.  Republicans were focused on ‘gun rights’ without restriction and in favor of passing legislation (without mentioning the word ‘gun’) concerning mental health.  Not to put too fine a point to it but when the shooters are white there is a voluminous amount of palaver concerning mental health; when the shooter is Muslim there is a chorus of indignation about terrorism; and, when the shooter is Black the GOP conversations shifts to “broken homes,” “lifestyles,” and “gangs.” Whether it’s mental health, terrorism, or broken homes — the GOP result is the same and the debate is diverted away from guns and toward some security or societal issue.   This pattern would test the Republicans in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015.

On December 2, 2015 14 people were killed and another 22 seriously injured in a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. On June 12, 2016 49 people were killed and another 58 wounded at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.  During June 2016 a bipartisan group of Senators proposed a “No Fly, No Buy” bill prohibiting those on the TSA No Fly List for terrorism suspects from purchasing firearms. [NYT]  Subsequent attempts to apply “No Fly No Buy” became entangled in the appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies during the 114th Congress.  The following votes are of particular interest:

Vote 103 (114th Congress) Senator Heller votes “nay” on a cloture vote to bring up S Amendment 4751 to address gun violence and improve the availability of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.  This element of the No Fly No Buy fails on a 53-47 vote.

Vote 106 (114th Congress) Senator Heller again votes “nay” on a cloture vote to bring up S Amendment 4720 to authorize the Attorney General to deny requests to transfer a firearm to known or suspected terrorists.

And thus ended the attempt to prevent those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms in the United States of America. It was over on June 20, 2016.

March 3, 2018:  The White House hosted a “listening” session on gun violence in the wake of the Parkland, Florida killing of 17 people at Majory Stoneman Douglas High School.  Senator Heller did not attend.

“The office of Nevada’s senior senator, Republican Dean Heller, would not say why did he did not attend the White House meeting. Heller, who is facing a tough re-election fight, has avoided the spotlight in the subsequent days as well, declining to address specifics about his positions on gun legislation.”

Heller spokeswoman Megan Taylor declined to say whether the senator supported universal background checks, raising the age for gun purchases to 21, or provisions to ban high-capacity magazines and assault rifles, all ideas tossed out by lawmakers or President Trump in recent days.

“He looks forward to continuing discussions with his colleagues as Congress explores ways to enhance compliance with existing law and keep our communities safe,” Taylor said.

Heller has signed on to legislation known as “Fix NICS,” a modest measure supported by the NRA and intended to encourage better participation in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It was one of the few gun bills to find bipartisan support and appeared poised to move ahead, only to be sidelined.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who has said little about the gun debate in recent days, said Thursday that no gun-related legislation would be heard in the coming week. [TDB] [RGJ]

No more formulaic GOP press responses from Senator Heller. This massacre warranted  a tweet. “Lynne and I are heartbroken for those impacted by the senseless act of violence at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. We are praying for the victims and their families, the school’s students and faculty, as well the entire Parkland, FL community,” Heller wrote.” [NVIndy]  The only response less informative came from Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2): “The first thing that needs to be done is find out what the story is with this guy…so we have a 360-degree picture and then we’ll go from there,” Amodei said.” [NVIndy]

Perhaps in light of the Academy acknowledgment of an award winning rendition of Winston Churchill last evening, a quote from the Prime Minister is appropriate:

“It’s no use saying, ”We are doing our best.” You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.”

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on The Sound of Silence: Heller and Mass Shootings — Sandy Hook to Parkland

Filed under Amodei, Gun Issues, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics

Amodei’s Explanation?

February 15, 2018: Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) cast his “yes” vote for HR 620, the Americans with Disabilities Education and Reform Act.

Here’s Section 3 of that bill:

(Sec. 3) The bill prohibits civil actions based on the failure to remove an architectural barrier to access into an existing public accommodation unless: (1) the aggrieved person has provided to the owners or operators a written notice specific enough to identify the barrier, and (2) the owners or operators fail to provide the person with a written description outlining improvements that will be made to improve the barrier or they fail to remove the barrier or make substantial progress after providing such a description. The aggrieved person’s notice must specify: (1) the address of the property, (2) the specific ADA sections alleged to have been violated, (3) whether a request for assistance in removing an architectural barrier was made, and (4) whether the barrier was permanent or temporary.

And this summation from Newsweek describes the bill’s possible consequences:

“The bill would effectively gut the ADA, detractors argue. Without a fear of being sued, businesses might be inclined to ignore ADA compliance rules. Critics of the bill also believe people with disabilities should not bear the responsibility of making sure businesses are compliant with the law.

“Instead of expecting businesses to own the responsibility of complying with civil rights laws, it shifts the burden to the individual who is being denied access,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in a letter to congressional representatives on Thursday.

The ACLU called the bill unacceptable. “This scheme removes the business’s incentive to proactively ensure that it is accessible to people with disabilities,” it said. “Instead, businesses will simply wait until someone’s right to access is violated and notification is received before making the change they were already obligated to make.” (emphasis added)

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), argued businesses were subjected to “drive by” lawsuits concerning implementation of ADA requirements, and therefore “reform” was necessary.   However, shifting the burden of proof from the entity charged with denying appropriate access to the person making the complaint is a rather blunt instrument for assisting the disabled, and a boon to those who make accessibility difficult if not impossible.  And Representative Mark Amodei voted “yes.”  He’s fine with turning the ADA on its head.

He might want to explain this vote to the 108,054 (2015 AFB) people in Nevada who are significantly visually impaired?  There are other people to whom Representative Amodei might wish to explain his vote —  The Institute on Disability (University of New Hampshire) estimates that between 1.0% and 2.1% of Nevadans under 5 years of age were disabled, 5.7%-6.1% of those aged 5 to 17; 10.7% – 12.5% aged 18 to 64; and 33% to 35.1% over age 65. (pdf)  But Amodei’s protecting businesses from a gazillion frivolous lawsuits, right?…. Maybe not so much.

About those ‘frivolous” lawsuits, let’s hear from an advocate for the disabled:

“To be fair, I vehemently oppose frivolous ADA lawsuits for monetary gain. I cherish this law and hate hearing that some misuse it. However, frivolous lawsuits are not as prevalent as some believe. An analysis of ADA lawsuits in 2016 identified just 12 individuals and one organization that have filed more than 100 lawsuits each. And these lawsuits are not an ADA issue; they are a state and court problem. Indeed, ethics rules bar attorneys from bringing frivolous lawsuits. Rather than go after people with disabilities, attention should be focused on stopping these few bad attorneys.”

We can reasonably conclude that House Republicans have decided to “protect” businesses at the risk of targeting the disabled instead of unscrupulous attorneys.  Some explication is required.  At least it would be polite for Representative Amodei to offer one.

Comments Off on Amodei’s Explanation?

Filed under Amodei, Nevada Congressional Representatives, Nevada politics, Politics

What Russians? GOP seeks to terminate Election Assistance Commission

February 10, 2017:  The House Administration Committee votes 6-3 (along party lines) to terminate the Election Assistance Commission, saying the body has “outlived its usefulness.”  [NCSL]

“The bill would also terminate the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), which is the entity responsible for developing “voluntary voting systems guidelines.” According to Harper, the technical guidelines developed by the TDGC and adopted by the EAC are hardly ever used. Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) reminded the committee that the creation of the EAC and the TGDC was a bipartisan effort because of  shared concern after the 2000 election that our election systems and administration of elections needed to be reformed.”  [NCSL]

What the EAC does is to establish guidelines for electronic voting systems.  And, THIS is the commission the Republicans want to fold into the Federal Election Commission.  There is one more element of immediate importance:

“NCSL’s webpage, Voting System Standards, Testing and Certification, describes the standards set by each state. Some states adopt federal standards, some develop their own standards and others use a hybrid of both. NCSL research indicates 37 states use some aspect of federal guidelines in their own certification requirements, and another four refer to federal standards in some way.”

It seems very difficult to argue that the Commission has outlived its usefulness because no one is using its services when 37 states have used the guidelines in some form.

Given that the current occupant of the Oval Office appears to be the last man on planet Earth to agree that the Russians interfered in our election processes and institutions in 2016,  it seems altogether more nefarious that his political party is the one calling for the termination of the commission which sets standards for election integrity.   It’s all the more incomprehensible the GOP would advocate for the termination in light of the continual Republican refrain that the Russian interference didn’t change any election results.

The Republican members of the House Admin. Committee are Gregg Harper (R-MS), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Barbara Comstock (R-VA), Mark Walker (R-NC), Adrian Smith (R-NE), and Barry Loudermilk (R-GA).  The Democrats who voted against the termination of the Election Assistance Commission are Robert Brady (D-PA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

It might well be high time to contact our Representatives to indicate opposition to the Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (HR 834).   The one who might require more incentive to vote against this ill-considered bill is Nevada Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2):  775-686-5760; 775-777-7705 (Elko), and 202-225-6155.

 

Comments Off on What Russians? GOP seeks to terminate Election Assistance Commission

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics, Voting

Amodei: Several Days Late and More Dollars Short

So, Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) spent time with reporters to talk about (1) Race relations in America? — uh, that would be “no.” Or, (2) American strategy in the Middle East and South Asia? — no, not that either. Perhaps it was (3) Infrastructure investment and jobs programs?  — no, that didn’t form a major part of his remarks. Maybe it was (4) tax reform, or at least tax cuts?  — well, that wasn’t a focal point either.  He wanted to talk about health insurance, “repeal and replace,” as if the GOP hadn’t bungled its strategy and tactics to an extent that was truly remarkable in modern politics.

Never one to climb out on even the sturdiest branch and get ahead of the game, or even to keep up with the topics at hand, Representative Amodei continues to play the “repeal and replace” tune without acknowledging that his party had seven years to come up with a viable, specific, and practical PLAN to replace the Affordable Care Act.  Not to put too fine a point to it:  They Blew It.   However, this doesn’t prevent the Representative from belaboring the issue, rather like listening to someone who persists in telling us what he did on Labor Day during the New Year’s Eve party.

 

 

Comments Off on Amodei: Several Days Late and More Dollars Short

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

Amodei, Your Banker’s Best Friend

House Roll Call Vote 412 wasn’t one of those votes likely to draw much general media attention, even its title seemed designed to induce yawns: “Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to “Arbitration Agreements.”  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) voted in favor of this measure on July 25th, and few noticed, much less commented.  It’s a small thing, but indicative of a mindset that favors the Big Banks over the interests of American consumers.

Background

 “In May 2016, the CFPB issued a proposed rule prohibiting predispute arbitration agreements in providing consumer financial services products. This rule would prohibit mandatory predispute arbitration agreements in consumer agreements for items such as checking or savings accounts, credit cards, student loans, payday loans, automobile leases, debt management services, some payment processing services, other types of consumer loans, prepaid cards, and consumer debt collection. The rule would also prohibit predispute arbitration agreements in connection with providing a consumer report or credit score to a consumer or referring applicants to creditors to whom requests for credit may be made.” [ABA]

Translation:  For “predispute” read Day in Court, as in the rule prevents a financial corporation from requiring arbitration before a person can take his or her case to court as a member of a group of consumers who have been hurt by the financial institution’s action or actions.   The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau explained:

“Many consumer financial products like credit cards and bank accounts have contract gotchas that generally prevent consumers from joining together to sue their bank or financial company for wrongdoing. These widely used clauses leave consumers with no choice but to seek relief on their own – usually over small amounts. With this contract gotcha, companies can sidestep the legal system, avoid accountability, and continue to pursue profitable practices that may violate the law and harm countless consumers.”  (emphasis added)

And, Representative Amodei supported the legislation to disapprove of this rule which was an attempt to protect consumers from actions like the following:

The poster child of bank malfeasance, Wells Fargo’s  —  “admitted its employees systematically created millions of sham bank accounts in its customers’ names, and then in many cases fraudulently billed those same customers for fees and services they never agreed to. Executives of the megabank knew this was happening but did nothing. Then, they decided to blame 5,300 “rogue” employees, who were summarily fired. Now, to ward off thousands of lawsuits, the company is hiding behind binding arbitration clauses in its victims’ contracts.” [USNWR]

And, there’s this —

“Military readiness has been negatively affected by unscrupulous payday lenders who prey on military servicemembers and veterans. The victims become overly indebted thanks to exorbitant interest rates and hidden fees they don’t understand, and then find themselves unable to obtain relief thanks to forced-arbitration clauses. Because of this, the Military Coalition, which represents nearly 6 million uniformed service members, veterans and their families, has formally petitioned Congress to ban the clauses.”  [USNWR]

It’s hard to imagine siding with unscrupulous bankers against the interests of enlisted personnel who are in the E6 to E9 ranks  in which pay runs from $2,486.99 to $4,186.09 for a person with more than eight years service, however Representative Amodei found a way to do it.  The problem became such a persistent issue for the military that in 2007 the Department of Defense started enforcing the Military Lending Act to protect its service personnel. However, pay day lenders found loopholes such that they could re-introduce their ‘products’ to members of the military. [MrktPlc] Who would support legislation designed to force members of the Armed Services to accept arbitration before they could have their day in court?  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and his Republican cohorts in the 115th Congress.

What makes this vote particularly noticeable regarding the protection of bankers is that there are ways — at least two — to ‘prevent’ that bete noir of all Republicans, the consumer lawsuit, without pitching the baby out with the bath water.

The first way would be to make all arbitration voluntary.  Companies could save time and money, and avoid publicity IF the consumer agrees.  If there is no agreement then the case goes to court.

The second possible solution would be to put the arbitration on a “business pays” status.  The American Bar Association offers this common sense proposal:

“The CFPB should require any consumer arbitration to be fully business-funded at no cost to the consumer. When a business faces transaction costs of nearly $2,000 per arbitration filed, repeat consumer filings will attract its attention. In addition, the CFPB could consider requiring that any consumer arbitration which results in a favorable consumer award on the merits should be awarded treble damages and attorneys’ fees. This provision would include a sort of “built in” incentivizing provision. The goal of this provision is to encourage organically what we already see occurring, increased settlement of consumer disputes. Still further, the CFPB should require that any consumer arbitration award must result in a written statement of decision, which permits other consumers to know how the arbitrator applied the law to the facts of that case. This will facilitate consumer knowledge of potential corporate overreach (and encourage more recovery), and will also help aid the consumer in arbitrator selection.”

In short, it is not necessary to go full-bore all-out in support of the banksters among us in order to prevent the unscrupulous from skinning the unwary or uninformed, but that’s what Representative Mark Amodei did on July 25, 2017.

Perhaps this may be explained by the fact that as of May 2017 Representative Amodei received $8,000 in donations from commercial banks for this election cycle, another $7,000 from credit unions, and $1,000 from finance and credit companies.  Or maybe it relates to the $25,000 he’s collected from the American Bankers Association over his political career?  Whatever the motivation, it’s clear that Representative Mark Amodei is placing the interests of the bankers above those of American consumers.   This situation could be rectified in 2018.

Comments Off on Amodei, Your Banker’s Best Friend

Filed under Amodei, consumers, Economy, financial regulation, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics

Amodei’s Bubbles: Republican Dreams for the AHCA

Nevada Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) is eager to let his constituents know that the District will not be negatively impacted by the GOP health insurance/tax cut bill currently being drafted in secret on Capitol Hill.  Not. So. Fast.

First, there will be losses.  Total coverage losses are projected to be felt by 37,500 under the AHCA, and 5,700 of those will be children, another 700 are disabled individuals in District 2.   Representative Amodei is optimistic about what will happen to these constituents —

Any Nevadan who has enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program from its inception in 2014 through the end of 2019 is free to remain in the program so long as their income does not exceed 138% of the national poverty level; …

In short, according to Rep. Amodei, his constituents are to be carefree and happy about their health insurance coverage until the end of 2019.  It’s now 2017.  Thus the recipients are to be reassured for another two years because:

  • Nevada will continue to receive the enhanced federal Medicaid funding for enrollees that it is currently receiving for as long as that enrollee stays in the program;

  • Present expanded enrollees lose eligibility only if they exceed income of 138% of the national poverty level, or if they elect to take employer provided or private health insurance;

Lovely, until we peek into the House version (the basis for the Senate version) and find:

“Medicaid provides coverage for over 70 million individuals and relies on both federal and state funding to continue growing. Under current law, the federal government covers, on average, 57 percent of each state’s total Medicaid costs, no matter the amount. The states pay for the remainder.

In contrast, under the AHCA’s per capita cap Medicaid program, starting in 2020, the federal government would provide states with a flat, capped dollar amount of funding for each person they enroll. The dollar amount is based on states’ 2016-level per-enrollee spending.”

One way to interpret this is that the District’s enrollees will be fine for the moment, but should be aware that the sword labeled ‘the Medicaid Per Capita Lid’ is swinging over head.  This has the potential to burst the first of Amodei’s bubbles.

Secondly, there’s this part of Representative Amodei’s eternal optimism:

“While we understand that Medicaid Expansion will eventually be phased out, we expect the recovery of our economy to continue, giving us reason to believe we will not need as robust of a safety net as we once needed at the height of the recession.  Additionally, with Nevada leading the nation in job growth in 2016, we also can expect employer-based coverage to become available to more people.”

A bit of confusion reigns here — don’t worry about Medicaid expansion cuts because Nevadans will be covered — but notice that the Medicaid expansion will “eventually be phased out.” One really doesn’t get to have it both ways.  But, there’s more.

Yes, the Gallup 2016 Job Creation Index gives Nevada top marks for job creation, but remember that this polling is based on asking workers if the employer is increasing hiring.   It is also statewide.  If we drill down we find positive news, but an incomplete picture.

“Employment increased in Nevada’s two large counties from September 2015 to September 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (Large counties are defined as those with 2015 annual average employment of 75,000 or more.) Washoe County’s employment rose 5.0 percent and Clark County’s employment rose 3.7 percent.” [BLS]

What we are required to believe  is that employment increases in District 2 will be sufficient to cover some 37,500 people who will need to find employer paid insurance coverage by 2020.  Exactly how this is supposed to happen isn’t all that clear.

There are too many “ifs” in the proposition to adopt it with any enthusiasm.  IF there is continued employment increases — in the face of the financial deregulation legislation in the House and Senate which threaten to recreate the Wall Street Casino environment that wrecked Nevada’s economy in 2007-2008.  IF the employment increases in the rural portions of District 2 are sufficient to put Medicaid expansion enrollees into employer plans.

And then, there are the problems intrinsic in the AHCA in the employer sponsored insurance plans.  Those believing that the AHCA will deliver the same level of health insurance coverage in employer sponsored plans as the ACA may be in for a rude shock.

“The amendment (to the AHCA) would allow states to apply for waivers to rescind two major regulations of Obamacare, if the state can prove that healthcare costs would decrease as a result. That has led to concerns about its potential effects on the individual insurance market, but it could also change insurance for people that get coverage through their employers.

One of those Affordable Care Act-implemented protections — called essential health benefits (EHB) — requires insurers to cover a baseline of 10 health procedures and items including emergency-room visits, prenatal care, mental-health care, and some prescriptions.

Under Obamacare, employer plans could not place a lifetime limit on the amount that the plans pay out on EHBs, and required plans to limit the amount of out-of-pocket costs an employee had to pay annually, according to The Journal. That made plans more costly for employers but also provided better coverage for employees.”

Thus, there are three problems — junk plans might be back in the market; essential benefits can be reduced; and lifetime and annual benefit limits could be reintroduced.  We can safely assume that Representative Amodei’s analysis contains the usual measure of Trickle Down Happy Talk (if only the tax cuts are big enough all employers will hire enough people to make the magic happen! — See Kansas) and assumptions which sound superficially rationale but don’t hold up to much scrutiny.

Comments Off on Amodei’s Bubbles: Republican Dreams for the AHCA

Filed under Amodei, health insurance, Medicaid, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics