ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Dean Heller

Justice

Another GOP Senator Tries To Trick Constituents Into Thinking He Supports Background Checks

In April, Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) refused to vote for the Senate’s bill to expand background checks on gun purchases, pushing a debunked conspiracy theory that the bill would create a national gun registry to justify his opposition. Now that anti-gun violence groups are targeting him along with other senators who voted against the failed legislation, Heller sent a letter to his constituents insisting on his support for increased gun control.

As 87 percent of Nevadans support background checks, the letter avoided any mention of Heller’s vote against the Manchin-Toomey background checks compromise. Instead, the senator touted his co-sponsorship of an NRA-supported bill that claimed to strengthen background checks but would actually make it easier for mentally ill people to get guns.

I have been adamant from the beginning of the gun control debate that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that could keep guns out of the hands of felongs and the mentally ill. We need to increase submission rates of disqualifying records by state as well as close existing loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). You may be interested to know, I am an original cosponsor of bipartisan legislation, the NICS Reporting Improvement Act (S.480), to strengthen our current background check system and close loopholes related to the mentally ill. This legislation provides clarity to existing law and is a common sense approach to preventing unnecessary violence.

The bill Heller refers to was drafted in consultation with the NRA and would allow patients who were involuntarily committed and treated for mental illness to pass a background check. Despite his professed support for gun control, Heller has actually voted to loosen gun laws. He has repeatedly supported a proposal to allow concealed weapons to be carried into states where they are illegal, co-sponsored two bills to make interstate gun purchases easier and to repeal Washington, D.C. gun laws. Indeed, the NRA-backed bill he’s now trying to pass off as a background checks bill would have also weakened gun laws by making it easier to buy guns across state lines. As gun sales in states with lax gun laws are a common method of evading stricter laws in other states, the bill Heller touts in his letter could very well have made gun violence worse.

Heller is not the only senator trying to dissemble on their gun control stance after voting against background checks. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) responded to an ad criticizing his vote by claiming he did vote to strengthen background checks. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also had some help from the NRA in an ad trying to obscure her anti-background check vote.

Health

Bill Inspired By IRS Scandal Would Increase Health Care Premiums

(Credit: Politico)

A Senate Republican has seized on the growing controversy surround the IRS scandal to introduce a bill that would effectively repeal a huge chunk of the Affordable Care Act and significantly increase health care costs for millions of Americans.

Sen. Dean Heller’s (R-NV) “IRS Accountability Act” would prohibit “the IRS from receiving any ObamaCare funding that would otherwise be used for implementing the massive healthcare law,” preventing the agency from enforcing the law’s individual health care mandate, determining eligibility for affordability credits, and collecting taxes to help pay for the coverage expansion.

“Nevadans are already concerned about ObamaCare, so the fact that Congress could hand over even more power to an agency under intense scrutiny to enforce the health care law is deeply concerning,” Heller said in a statement. “The ‘IRS Accountability Act’ suspends funding for new ObamaCare IRS agents because right now we can’t trust the IRS to do its job.”

By 2014, the health care law will require the agency to assess fines on individuals who can afford to purchase health care coverage, but choose not to, and distribute tax subsidies for families who make no more than four times above the federal poverty line, approximately $94,200 for a family of four. Should Heller’s bill become law, the government wouldn’t be able to collect the penalties or pay out subsidies. It would also struggle to capture revenues from fees on medical devises, health care insurers and high-cost plans.

The penalty for going uninsured — which will be gradually phased in from 2014 to 2016 and then increase annually by the cost-of-living adjustment — is designed to encourage young and healthy people to buy coverage and spread the cost and risk of coverage across a wider population, thus lowering premiums. Though it’s unclear how many fewer people would purchase insurance if they were not penalized for not doing so, a 2012 study from the Urban Institute indicated that without a mandate, “nongroup premiums overall would increase by roughly 10 percent with high exchange participation and by 25 percent with low participation.”

Heller’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Health

Republicans Seize On IRS Scandal To Smear Obamacare

(Credit: Washington Post)

That didn’t take long.

A mere four days after news broke that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had improperly targeted conservative political groups for scrutiny, GOP Sen. Dean Heller (NV) is threatening to introduce legislation that would “deny the IRS funds to hire new agents to implement Obamacare.” The bill would effectively make it impossible for the agency to provide millions of Americans with federal subsidies to buy the very health coverage they are required to have under the law.

Heller argues that this extreme measure may be necessary in light of the unfolding IRS scandal, echoing a growing trope among conservative politicians and right-wing commentators. Since last Friday, big-name conservatives including House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), former presidential contender Newt Gingrich, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and various right-wing media outlets have questioned whether or not the IRS can be trusted to implement Obamacare. The implication is that if the IRS singles out conservative political groups, what’s to stop them from snooping through Americans’ private health care information or imposing fines on companies they don’t like?

This is a reduction to the absurd. The IRS has been collecting health care taxes and compliance information from employers for decades. In fact, it has to, seeing as most Americans receive their insurance through their employer and the employer health insurance tax credit is the single largest tax credit in the federal budget. That system seems to have worked without gross invasions of medical privacy since the the 1950s, and there’s no reason to assume anything will change in 2014.

Furthermore, officials with the Department of Health and Human Services have actually spoken out about the importance of protecting Americans’ medical data, and the Obama Administration has taken action to ensure it. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act widens existing privacy and data-security protections on patients’ protected health information as more of their health records are digitized. The 2009 stimulus bill also included updates to HIPAA rules that limit “the use of patient-identifiable medical data for marketing.”

The IRS requires information from individuals and businesses that will help them determine whether Americans have insurance, and how much help they need from the government to be able to buy it. Some critics have latched onto the fact that the IRS will have access to more household income data than before when making those determinations, and that it can share this information with the statewide Obamacare marketplaces and government health agencies. But it would be impossible to implement the law without at least some data-sharing — and without it, many Americans could not receive the benefits they are due. Legislative threats such as Heller’s might make for good politics — but in reality, all it would do is prevent the 26 million Americans expected to gain insurance through the Obamacare marketplaces from receiving the tax credits that would allow them to afford it.

Justice

Not Bought And Paid For: 10 Senators Who Are Bucking The NRA On Guns

While top House and Senate recipients of National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC have mostly towed the line organization’s extreme opposition to any gun violence prevention measures, ten Senators who have received heavy financial backing from the NRA have bucked the group in light of the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Ten Senators have received more than $10,000 from the NRA’s political action committee over their Congressional careers, yet have at least expressed an openness to some new common-sense gun laws. They include:

1. SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) — AT LEAST $33,200


McCain said last month that while he would not support bans on assault weapons or high capacity magazines, he was open to expanding background checks: “If there are improvements that need to be made, as I said, to keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals, I’m sure all Americans, including the NRA, would agree with them, I would think.”

2. SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA) — AT LEAST $27,250


Toomey said last month: “Second Amendment rights are important to many Pennsylvanians and must be protected, but there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety.” Reports suggest he is also open to stricter background checks.

3. SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT) — AT LEAST $27,250


Baucus indicated in December that he was open to a discussion of an assault weapons ban. In January, his office said he is still undecided on expanding background checks.

4. SEN. DEAN HELLER (R-NV) — AT LEAST $21,350


Last week, Heller endorsed expanded background checks, saying: “I think it’s a reasonable step forward.”

5. SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV) — AT LEAST $19,900


Last week, Reid expressed support for expanding background checks and said
gun-magazine limits were “definitely something we have to take a look at.” He also promised to use his position as Senate Majority Leader to bring gun violence prevention measures to the Senate floor.

6. SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ) — AT LEAST $18,400


Last week, Flake reiterated his support for expanded background checks, saying: “All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have recognized that we need more effective and broader background checks than we have in the past.”

7. SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK) — AT LEAST $17,850


Coburn is part of a bipartisan group of four Senators working to tighten background checks. He noted that “the whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals.”

8. SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D-SD) — AT LEAST $16,250


Johnson said last month at a press conference that “one size doesn’t fit all” states for gun laws, but agreed that clip size makes some difference in preventing mass shootings and that a package of approaches should be considered. He has indicated a willingness to expand background checks as well.

9. SEN. JOE DONNELLY (D-IN) — AT LEAST $13,900


Donnelly said last month: “In 2007, just weeks after 32 people at Virginia Tech were murdered by a single gunman, Democrats and Republicans came together to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used to check the backgrounds of most prospective gun buyers. That system still does not work as well as it should and should be examined again in the coming weeks.”

10. SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV) — AT LEAST $11,450


Manchin said last month that expanded background checks are “common sense,” asking, “Why would a legitimate gun retail shop have to go through that, but then the unfair advantage for someone at a gun show doesn’t?” In the days after Sandy Hook, Manchin was among the first to call for new action on gun violence. Like Sen. Coburn, Manchin is part of the bipartisan quartet crafting a background check proposal.

While these Senators may not receive future contribution checks from the NRA PAC, they really have little to worry about politically as a result of standing up for common-sense measures. Even most NRA members differ with the hard-line national leadership and support background checks. Last year’s elections revealed the NRA to be the paper tiger that it is: an analysis of the NRA’s spending revealed that “NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races.” Recent polling suggests voters are more likely to punish a candidate for having NRA backing than to reward allegiance to the gun lobby.

Election

Chamber Of Commerce Is Spending Millions Supporting Candidates It Pledged To Defeat

U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce — which spent nearly $33 million in 2010 to elect a Republican Congress — strongly backed the 2011 Budget Control Act which averted a national debt default and instituted automatic cuts that will go into effect unless Congress reduces federal spending. But while the Chamber’s CEO Tom Donohue reportedly warned Congressional Republicans at the time “we’ll get rid of you,” if they did not agree to a debt ceiling increase, the group has spent millions supporting Republicans who voted against the bipartisan agreement:

1. Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO). The Chamber spent more than $692,000 on “independent expenditures” helping Akin in his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), with ads attacking both McCaskill and his primary opponent former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman (R). The group has not spent any money in support of Akin since his comments that victims of “legitimate rape” are unlikely to become pregnant. Akin explained his opposition to the deal, saying it “fails to address the problem at hand, and it threatens to severely degrade our national defense with a trillion dollars in cuts to our military.”

2. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY). The Chamber has spent at least $185,000 in “independent expenditures” attacking her opponent, former Rep. Dan Maffei (D), and praising Buerkle. The freshman Congresswoman explained her vote against the deal in a statement, saying “There were some good aspects to the bill, but this version also creates several new problems. At the end of the day, I was not satisfied that all my questions and concerns had been answered as to potential negative effects of this bill on the people in my district.”

3. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV). The Chamber spent more than $489,000 on “independent expenditures” helping Heller in his re-election bid against Rep. Shelley Berkley (D), with ads endorsing his re-election and attacking her record. Heller said he saw “no strategy” in the compromise and would have preferred a “big deal.”

4. Rep. Connie Mack IV (R-FL). The Chamber spent over $3.8 million on “independent expenditures” helping Mack in his challenge to Sen. Bill Nelson (D), with ads attacking Nelson and urging voters to defeat him. Mack said he didn’t think the American people wanted a deal or “gimmicks.”

5. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT). The Chamber has spent more than $1.3 million on “independent expenditures” helping Rehberg in his challenge to Sen. Jon Tester (D), with ads attacking Tester and encouraging voters to defeat him. Rehberg called the deal “little more than business as usual for Washington.”

The Chamber has also spent at least $3.3 million on “independent expenditures” helping Mitt Romney by attacking Barack Obama. While Obama signed the compromise, Romney said he “thought it was a mistake on the part of the White House to propose it” and “a mistake for Republicans to go along with it.”

Politics

10 Republicans Who Have Spoken Out Against Mitt Romney’s Remarks On The 47%

Mitt Romney is facing huge backlash from the leaked video that captured him saying 47 percent of people in the United States believe they are “victims” and that they will never vote for him. Republicans, particularly those in tight elections this year, and conservative pundits are criticizing Romney for the comments, disassociating themselves from his message. Here are 10 Republicans who have disavowed Romney in the last few days:

1. Susana Martinez (R-NM)


The governor of New Mexico knows her state won’t be won through a hard-right campaign strategy, which is likely why she’s disavowing Romney’s write-off of 47 percent of the country. Martinez said of Romney’s comments that “New Mexico has many people who are living at the poverty level and their votes count just as much as anyone else.” Where her policy is concerned, though, Martinez isn’t quite as compassionate to the working poor or those who need government assistance. She has cut food stamps, and insinuated Democrats believe welfare is a “way of life.”

2. Scott Brown (R-MA)


Brown’s campaign for re-election with Elizabeth Warren has been one of the most closely-watched, and hotly contested, in the country. Losing any voters over the comments of his party’s standard-bearer might cost him the race. So Brown ditched Romney in a statement Tuesday, saying, “That’s not the way I view the world.”

3. Linda McMahon (R-CT)


Like Romney, McMahon is extremely wealthy and has been accused of being out-of-touch. In her largely Democratic state of Connecticut, that narrative won’t get her elected, so she’s decided to chastize Romney for his 47 percent comments, saying, simply, “I disagree with Governor Romney’s insinuation that 47% of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care.” McMahon might say she disagrees, but she’s previously said that “Forty-seven percent of the people today don’t pay any taxes.”

4. Dean Heller (R-NV)


Senator Heller told POLITICO that doesn’t “view the world the same way” as Mitt Romney when it comes to the 47 percent dividing line. “Every vote in Nevada counts,” he said. “Every vote. And as a United States senator, my job is represent every one of those votes, whether they voted for me or against me.”

5. Ovide Lamontagne (R-NH)


Lamontagne, the gubernatorial candidate from New Hampshire, said in response to Romney’s comments, “There’s no 47 percent in New Hampshire as far as I’m concerned.”

6. Mark Meadows (R-NC)


In a statement similar to Lamontagne’s, the North Carolina Congressional candidate Mark Meadows said, “I’m concerned about all 750,000 people… I am here to represent the people of this district,” jokingly adding, “It might come as a surprise, but Mitt Romney didn’t call me before he made those comments and ask for my advice.”

7. Bill Kristol


Kristol’s column about the leaked Romney video were perhaps the most damning. He titled his piece, “A Note on Romney’s Arrogant and Stupid Remarks” and went on to say that Mitt Romney “seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.”

8. Peggy Noonan


Noonan spoke out in a blog post that offered a harsh indictment of the Romney campaign telling them to “snap out of it.” “It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one,” she writes, “It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment.”

9. David Brooks


Brooks said that Romney’s comments “[suggest] that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits… doesn’t know much about the culture of America,” “doesn’t know much about the political culture,” “knows nothing about ambition and motivation,” and that his interpretation of how the country works “is a country-club fantasy.”

10. Mark McKinnon


McKinnon, who worked for both former Pres. George Bush and presidential candidate John McCain, expressed his disappointment with Romney in an article for The Daily Beast Wednesday, writing “Well, the release of the Romney tape was a moment that certainly revealed something about him. But not what I was hoping for…. How can anyone support a candidate with this kind of a vision of the country? Isn’t a divided America under Obama what folks on the right rail against?”

Update

Republican Senate candidate Linda Lingle (HI) also distanced herself from Romney’s comments:

“I am not a rubber stamp for the national party and I am not responsible for the statements of Mitt Romney,” Lingle said. “With that said, I do not agree with his characterization of all individuals who are receiving government assistance, as I know many of them are driven, hard-working individuals who are actively working to better the situation of their ohana. It is not fair to place these individuals into any one category.”

Update

Ohio governor and top Romney surrogate John Kasich:

“We have all misspoken. Do I necessarily agree with him, no, but, I have done it, the president has done it,” Kasich said, according to WOIO-19 TV. On Tuesday, Kasich told The Dispatch he hadn’t seen the footage of Romney’s comments at a private fundraiser nor had he studied Romney’s response to the outcry over what he originally said.

Update

George Allen, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, also distanced himself from the remarks during a debate with challenger Tim Kaine. Allen said that people “don’t see themselves as victims.”

LGBT

Better Know An Anti-LGBT Senate Candidate: Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)

Tenth in a series examining how anti-LGBT Senate candidates have worked to hurt the cause of equality.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) was appointed last year by Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) to fill the vacancy created by Sen. John Ensign’s (R) resignation. He is currently running for a full term and is being challenged by Rep. Shelley Berkley (D). Unlike Berkley, a consistent 100% supporter of full LGBT equality, Heller has opposed the LGBT community at every opportunity since coming to Congress .

Though he had a reputation as a relatively moderate state legislator in the early 1990s, his record over his two-and-a-half terms in the U.S. House and his year in the U.S. Senate paints a different picture:

1. Heller has opposed marriage equality and even domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples — but no longer wants to talk about it. In 2006, Heller said on his campaign website that he “supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman and will work to defend Nevada values in Congress.” This year, he reaffirmed his belief that “marriage is between one man and one woman” and said he “would not support changing that.” But, he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “I don’t want it to be the issue in the campaign. I truly don’t want this to be the issue.” He also voted for a 2007 amendment restricting the District of Columbia government from using any federal funding to provide domestic partnership benefits.

2. Heller voted against Hate Crimes protections for LGBT Americans. In both 2007 and 2009, he voted against adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the federal hate crimes laws.

3. Heller thinks it should be legal to fire someone just for being gay. He voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2007, which would have banned employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

4. Heller opposed letting LGBT servicemembers serve openly. He voted against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal twice in 2010. In 2009 he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he supported continuing the discriminatory policy.

5. Heller has been a total zero on LGBT equality. Over the course of the 110th and 111th Congresses, the Human Rights Campaign rated him as voting against the interests of the LGBT community 100 percent of the time.

Though Heller doesn’t want equality for LGBT Nevadans to be an issue in the campaign, he does acknowledge that voters face a “stark choice” between his right-wing approach and his opponent’s progressive views. Watch him explain:

With his consistent opposition to LGBT equality, Heller’s election to a full term in the U.S. Senate would be a huge threat to LGBT people and families.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up