Close

NEW DSCC AD: Why Congressman Joe Heck Is Wrong for Nevada

The DSCC released a new ad today reminding voters why Congressman Joe Heck is wrong for Nevada women and hard-working families. Congressman Heck has voted ten times to defund Planned Parenthood, and was even willing to shut down the government over funding for the organization. Congressman Heck’s taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall Street, and in return voted to protect them, even though it meant hurting Nevadans. He even wants to privatize Social Security, risking Nevadans retirement funds on the stock market.

 

The ad, “Remember” can be viewed HERE.

 

“When it comes to doing what’s right for Nevada, Congressman Joe Heck just can’t be trusted,” said Sadie Weiner, DSCC Communications Directory. “Whether he’s voting to defund Planned Parenthood or looking out for his Wall Street backers, Congressman Heck isn’t putting Nevada’s families first. Nevada deserves a Senator who’s looking out for them, and that is why they’ll elect Catherine Cortez Masto on Tuesday.”

 

BACK UP:

 

AD CONTENT DOCUMENTATION
 

V/O: As you make up your mind, remember Congressman Heck voted ten times to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

GFX: Congressman Joe Heck

10 Times to Defund

Planned Parenthood

Vote 53, 2/2/16

Vote 6, 1/6/16

Vote 568, 10/23/15

Vote 502, 9/17/15

Vote 503, 9/17/15

Vote 505, 9/18/15

Vote 525, 9/30/15

Vote 527, 9/30/15

Vote 271, 4/14/11

Vote 93, 2/18/11

 

 

HECK VOTED 10 TIMES TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

 

Heck Voted To Override President Obama’s January 8th, 2016 Veto Of The Bill That Would Repeal Portions Of The 2010 Healthcare Law And Block Funding For Planned Parenthood For One Year. In February 2016, Heck voted for: “Passage, over President Obama’s Jan. 8 2016, veto, of the bill that would repeal portions of the 2010 health care law and block federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. The bill would zero-out the law’s penalties for noncompliance with the law’s requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance. The bill would scrap in 2018 the law’s Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges. It also would scrap certain taxes included in the law, including the tax on certain high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans.” The override was rejected 241-186. [CQ, 2/2/16; H.R. 3762, Vote 53, 2/2/16]

 

Heck Voted To Repeal Portions Of The Affordable Care Act And Block Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood For One Year. In January 2016, Heck voted for a: “Price, R-Ga., motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would repeal portions of the 2010 health care law and block federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. As amended, the bill would zero-out the law’s penalties for noncompliance with the law’s requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance. As amended, it also would scrap in 2018 the law’s Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges. It also would scrap certain taxes included in the law, including the tax on certain high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans.” The motion was agreed to by a 240-181 vote. [CQ, 1/6/16; H.R. 3762, Vote 6, 1/6/16]

 

Heck Voted To Repeal Portions Of The Affordable Care Act And Block Funding, For One Year, For Planned Parenthood While Increasing Funding For Community Health Centers. In October 2015, Heck voted for: “Passage of the bill that would repeal portions of the 2010 health care law, including: the requirements for most individuals to have health insurance and employers with more than 50 employees to offer it or face penalties, the 2.3 percent tax on the sale of medical devices, the tax on certain high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans, and the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The measure also would block, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and would increase funding for community health centers by $235 million in both fiscal 2016 and 2017.” The bill passed by a 240-189 vote. [CQ, 10/23/15; H.R. 3762, Vote 568, 10/23/15]

 

Heck Voted For A Bill That Barred Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood And Its Affiliates. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Foxx, R-N.C., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 421) that would provide for floor consideration of the bill (HR 3134) that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that they will not perform abortions during that period, and the bill (HR 3504) that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age, and would set criminal fines and penalties for not doing so.” The motion was agreed to 243-183. [CQ, 9/17/15; H.Res.421, Vote 502, 9/17/15]

 

Heck Voted For A Bill That Barred Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood And Its Affiliates. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the rule (H Res 421) that would provide for floor consideration of the bill (HR 3134) that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that they will not perform abortions during that period, and the bill (HR 3504) that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age, and would set criminal fines and penalties for not doing so.” The rule was adopted 246-179. [CQ, 9/17/15; H.Res.421, Vote 503, 9/17/15]

 

September 2015: Heck Voted On A One-Year Ban Of Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood And Its Affiliates. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Passage of the bill that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. As amended, the bill would effectively redirect funds from Planned Parenthood to the community health center program; specifically, it would appropriate $235 million for community health centers, in addition to any other funds available to the program.” The bill passed by a 241-187 vote. [CQ, 9/18/15; H.R. 3134, Vote 505, 9/18/15]

 

Heck Voted To Provide Floor Consideration Of A Bill That Was The Legislative Vehicle For A Stopgap CR That Would Insert Planned Parenthood Provision Into Bill Before It Was Sent To The President. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the rule (H Res 448) that would provide for floor consideration of the bill (HR 719) that would require the Transportation Security Administration to classify individuals as criminal investigators eligible for law enforcement benefits, is the legislative vehicle for a stopgap continuing resolution, and the concurrent resolution (H Con Res 79) that would require the House enrolling clerk to add language to the CR defunding Planned Parenthood before it is sent to the president.” The rule passed by a 239-187 vote. [CQ, 9/30/15; H.Res. 448, Vote 525, 9/30/15]

 

Heck Voted For Adoption Of The Concurrent Resolution That Would Require The House Enrolling Clerk To Add Language To The CR Defunding Planned Parenthood Before It Was Sent To The President. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the concurrent resolution (H Con Res 79) that would require the House enrolling clerk to add language to the CR defunding Planned Parenthood before it is sent to the president.” The resolution was adopted by a 241-185 vote. [CQ, 9/30/15; H.Con.Res. 79, Vote 527, 9/30/15]

 

Heck Voted To Direct The House Clerk To Make A Correction In The Enrollment Of A Bill (H.R. 1473) To Provide $1.055 Trillion In Discretionary Funding For FY2011, And Insert A Section That Would Bar The Use Of Funds Made Available In The Bill To The Planned Parenthood Federation Of America Or Its Affiliates. In April 2011, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would direct the House clerk to make a correction in the enrollment of a bill (HR 1473) to provide $1.055 trillion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2011, and insert a section that would bar the use of funds made available in the bill to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The resolution was adopted 241-185. [CQ, 4/14/11; H.Con. Res. 36, Vote 271, 4/14/11]

 

Heck Voted To Prohibit Any Funds In H.R. 1 From Being Made Available To Planned Parenthood Or Its Affiliates. In February 2011, Heck voted for a: “Pence, R-Ind., amendment that would prohibit any funds in the bill from being made available to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The amendment was adopted by a 240-185 vote. [CQ, 2/18/11; H.Amdt.95 to H.R. 1, Vote 93, 2/18/11]

 

 

V/O: He even threatened to shut down the government over it.

 

GFX: House Votes to Defund Planned

Parenthood as Shutdown Looms

ABC News, 9/18/15

Congressman Heck

“Attacking Planned Parenthood”

“Could End in a Government Shutdown”

 

 

HECK & HOUSE REPUBLICANS WERE WILLING TO SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING

 

ABC News: House Republicans “Passed Two Bills Attacking Planned Parenthood” As Part Of A “Fight Over The Organization’s Funding That Could End In A Government Shutdown.” “House Republicans, as expected, passed two bills attacking Planned Parenthood today in an attempt by party leaders to placate conservatives angling for a fight over the organization’s funding that could end in a government shutdown. […]The first bill, from Rep. Diane Black, R-Tennessee, would freeze federal funding to Planned Parenthood for a year while Congress continues investigating the organization. It passed in a party line vote, with 241 yeas, 187 nays, and 1 present vote.” [ABC News, 9/18/15]

 

CNN: House Republicans Advanced Bills They Hoped Would Give Them “A Chance To Act On Their Opposition To Planned Parenthood Funding” Despite Having “No Plan To Avoid A Government Shutdown.” “Although House Republican leaders still have no plan to avoid a government shutdown, they moved forward Friday with a pair of votes on abortion-related legislation they hope give conservatives a chance to act on their opposition to Planned Parenthood.” [CNN, 9/18/15]

 

·         Headline: “As Shutdown Looms, House Republicans Advance Abortion Bills” [CNN, 9/18/15]

 

·         Headline: “House Votes To Defund Planned Parenthood As Shutdown Looms” [ABC News, 9/18/15]

 

MSNBC: House GOP Voted To Pass Government-Funding Bill That Defunded Planned Parenthood, “Setting The Stage For A Possible Government Shutdown.” “The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed on Friday the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, 248-177. The bill strips the women’s health provider of its funding for contraception, pap smears, and testing for sexually-transmitted infections, unless it stops performing abortions. President Barack Obama has vowed to veto the bill, setting the stage for a possible government shutdown. Some congressional Republicans have vowed not to vote for any budget that includes funding for the organization.” [MSNBC, 9/18/15]

 

·         Headline: “House Votes To Defund Planned Parenthood, Shutdown Looms” [MSNBC, 9/18/15]

 

Facing Government Shutdown, Heck Voted Five Times To Defund Planned Parenthood:

 

·         USA Today: GOP Forced Several Votes On Bill To Cut Planned Parenthood Funding, Even Though The Fight “Has So Far Prevented Congress From Making Any Further Progress On Talks To Keep The Government Open.” “Republicans will force several votes on the House floor Friday to cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood and transfer that money to other women’s health services, but there does not appear to be any path to get the bills through the Senate. […]The House is voting Thursday and Friday on a bill offered by Reps. Dianne Black, R-Tenn., and Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., that would cut all federal funding to Planned Parenthood for a year and transfer the $235 million to community health centers and other qualified facilities. Republicans argue that these centers provide all the services Planned Parenthood provides — except for abortions. […] The Planned Parenthood fight has so far prevented Congress from making any further progress on talks to keep the government open.” [USA Today, 9/17/15]

 

o   Heck Voted For A Bill That Barred Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood And Its Affiliates. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Foxx, R-N.C., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 421) that would provide for floor consideration of the bill (HR 3134) that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that they will not perform abortions during that period, and the bill (HR 3504) that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age, and would set criminal fines and penalties for not doing so.” The motion was agreed to 243-183. [CQ, 9/17/15; H.Res.421, Vote 502, 9/17/15]

 

o   Heck Voted For A Bill That Barred Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood And Its Affiliates. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the rule (H Res 421) that would provide for floor consideration of the bill (HR 3134) that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that they will not perform abortions during that period, and the bill (HR 3504) that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age, and would set criminal fines and penalties for not doing so.” The rule was adopted 246-179. [CQ, 9/17/15; H.Res.421, Vote 503, 9/17/15]

 

·         House Passed Bill That Would Strip Federal Funding From Planned Parenthood, But Republicans Still Threatened Government Shut Down. “The House passed two abortion-related bills Friday, including one that would strip federal health-care funding from Planned Parenthood for one year, but it remains unclear whether the votes would appease conservatives who have threatened a government shutdown over the organization. […] That’s why the move is unlikely to stave off growing fears of a government shutdown on Oct. 1. Since House conservatives know the bill to defund Planned Parenthood is unlikely to be enacted, they’re unlikely to back off their desire to attach it to a must-pass government spending measure to keep the government open. […] The other, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, imposes a one-year moratorium on federal funding for the group, which Republicans say will allow for a thorough investigation of its practices. Any funding, supporters said, would be redirected to clinics that do not offer abortions.” [Washington Post, 9/18/15]

 

o   September 2015: Heck Voted On A One-Year Ban Of Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood And Its Affiliates. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Passage of the bill that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. As amended, the bill would effectively redirect funds from Planned Parenthood to the community health center program; specifically, it would appropriate $235 million for community health centers, in addition to any other funds available to the program.” The bill passed by a 241-187 vote. [CQ, 9/18/15; H.R. 3134, Vote 505, 9/18/15]

 

·         Reuters: House Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood “With The Goal Of Attaching It To A Stopgap Funding Bill To Keep Federal Agencies Operating In The Fiscal Year That Begins On Thursday.” “The U.S. House of Representatives, continuing its fight against women’s healthcare provider Planned Parenthood, on Wednesday voted to strip the organization of its funding.  In a mostly partisan vote of 241-185, House Republicans passed the measure with the goal of attaching it to a stopgap funding bill to keep federal agencies operating in the fiscal year that begins on Thursday.  But the Senate is not expected to approve the Planned Parenthood defunding, thus leaving the temporary government spending measure untouched as it moves through Congress.” [Reuters, 9/30/16]

 

o   Heck Voted To Provide Floor Consideration Of A Bill That Was The Legislative Vehicle For A Stopgap CR That Would Insert Planned Parenthood Provision Into Bill Before It Was Sent To The President. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the rule (H Res 448) that would provide for floor consideration of the bill (HR 719) that would require the Transportation Security Administration to classify individuals as criminal investigators eligible for law enforcement benefits, is the legislative vehicle for a stopgap continuing resolution, and the concurrent resolution (H Con Res 79) that would require the House enrolling clerk to add language to the CR defunding Planned Parenthood before it is sent to the president.” The rule passed by a 239-187 vote. [CQ, 9/30/15; H.Res. 448, Vote 525, 9/30/15]

 

o   Heck Voted For Adoption Of The Concurrent Resolution That Would Require The House Enrolling Clerk To Add Language To The CR Defunding Planned Parenthood Before It Was Sent To The President. In September 2015, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the concurrent resolution (H Con Res 79) that would require the House enrolling clerk to add language to the CR defunding Planned Parenthood before it is sent to the president.” The resolution was adopted by a 241-185 vote. [CQ, 9/30/15; H.Con.Res. 79, Vote 527, 9/30/15]

 

 

V/O: Heck took all that money from Wall Street and predatory payday lenders – and voted their way.

 

GFX: Congressman Heck’s campaigns

$700,000 from Wall Street and Payday Lenders

Duckworth Log 143 to H.R. 1735, Vote 23, 4/29/15; Vote 151, 3/29/12; Center for Responsive Politics

 

SECURITIES & INVESTMENT INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTED OVER $750,000 TO HECK

 

The Securities And Investment Industry Contributed Over $750,000 To Heck Over His Career. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the “Securities & Investment” industry was the fourth highest contributing industry to Heck over his career as a Federal candidate. The industry contributed $758,149 to his campaigns. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 10/20/16]

 

HECK RECEIVED NEARLY $35,000 FROM PAYDAY LENDERS

 

Heck Received Nearly $35,000 From Payday Lenders. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Heck has received $34,650 from payday lenders. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 10/27/16]

 

NEVADA HAD ONE OF THE HIGHEST AVERAGE INTEREST RATES FOR PAYDAY LOANS, LENDERS CHARGED 521%

 

Nevada Had The Third Highest Average Interest Rate In The Country For Payday Lenders, With An Average Of 521 Percent. “Idaho, Nevada and Utah have among the nation’s highest interest rates for payday loans, according to a new report. The study, released this week by the Pew Charitable Trusts, found their rates are so high mainly because they’re among only seven states that impose no legal limits on them. Idaho payday lenders charge an average 582% annual interest on their loans to lead the nation, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. That’s followed by South Dakota and Wisconsin, both 574%; Nevada, 521%; Delaware, 517%; and Utah, 474%.” [Associated Press, 4/20/14]

 

  • As Of 2016, Nevada’s Average Payday Loan Interest Rate Was Estimated To Be As High As 652%. “Map of U.S. Payday Interest Rates […] NV 652% […] Typical APR based on average rate for a $300, 2-week loan advertised by largest national payday chains.” [Center for Responsible Lending, 5/17/16]

 

PAYDAY LENDERS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HECK CHARGED HIGH APRS, BETWEEN 261 AND 1,304 PERCENT

 

12/3/15: Heck Received $5,400 From D. Glenn McKay, President Of Selling Source LLC. [Q4 2015 Heck FEC Report (p. 217), filed 2/4/16]

 

12/3/15: Heck Received $5,400 From Laureen McKay (Spouse). [Q4 2015 Heck FEC Report (p. 219), filed 2/4/16]

 

In Legal Filing, Selling Source President Glenn McKay Admitted To Selling 800,000 Consumer Leads To 60 Payday Lenders With APR Between 261 Percent And 1,304 Percent. “The consent order, also signed Monday by Selling Source CEO Glenn McKay, said the company acknowledged on its website that the typical annual percentage rate on a 14-day loan is ‘somewhere between 261 percent and 1,304 percent.’ The order noted Selling Source had since September 2009 sold to its network of at least 60 payday lenders more than 800,000 New York consumer leads. It said each lender paid Selling Source a fee for every lead it bought and Selling Source in turn paid Williams a fee for every lead it sold through the MoneyMutual brand.” [Associated Press, 3/10/15]

 

·         Cane Bay Partners VI LLP Made Millions Of Dollars A Month In Small Loans To Desperate People Charging More Than 600 Percent Interest. “The sites Cane Bay runs make millions of dollars a month in small loans to desperate people, charging more than 600 percent interest a year, said the ex-employees, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation.” [Bloomberg, 9/4/14]

 

PAYDAY LENDERS WERE SEEN AS PREDATORY

 

U.S. News & World Report: Payday Loan Charges Were Criticized As “Unnecessarily Exorbitant” And “Predatory.” “Payday loans are typically viewed as quick, last-resort options to be used in times of unexpected financial turmoil, like after a car accident or following a medical emergency. Widely accessible online and via brick-and-mortar merchants, payday lenders dole out this emergency cash, often without stringent restrictions based on an applicant’s credit history. This makes them a particularly attractive option for many lower-income Americans with poor credit who may not be able to get approval for a traditional bank loan, or who may need the funds within a certain time frame. […]Supporters of the industry have argued that rates and fees need to be high for outlets to turn a profit, considering payday loans’ relatively high default rates. But others argue the charges are unnecessarily exorbitant, if not predatory.” [U.S. News & World Report, 6/2/16]

 

CFPB Protected Consumers From “Predatory Lending Practices” Used By Payday And Auto-Title Lenders. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Thursday is proposing new regulations to protect consumers from predatory lending practices that the CFPB’s top regulator calls ‘debt traps.’  Americans are being ‘set up to fail’ by payday and auto-title lenders, Richard Cordray, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tells NPR. ’The way these products are structured, it’s very difficult to repay the loan, and therefore people end up borrowing again and again and paying far more in fees and interest than they borrowed in the first place,’ Cordray says.” [NPR, 6/2/16]

 

HECK VOTED TO DELAY A MEASURE THAT PROTECTED SERVICE MEMBERS FROM PREDATORY LENDERS

 

Heck’s House Armed Services Subcommittee Approved A Provision To Delay A Measure To Protect Service Members From Unscrupulous Lenders. “At issue is a regulation being written at the Pentagon seeking to close loopholes in the Military Lending Act, which aims to protect service members from unscrupulous lenders. The 2006 law set a 36 percent cap on the rate and fees for certain forms of credit to members of the armed forces. […] The proposed Defense Department update, which has not yet been published, would aim to expand the lending law to cover most forms of credit like credit cards but not mortgages or auto loans. Heck’s subcommittee last month approved a provision that would have held off the new regulations until after the Pentagon reported to Congress on what comments it received on the proposal and ‘the impact to military readiness, if any’ from service members running afoul with credit.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 5/11/15]

 

·         Heck Voted To Delay Predatory Lending Protections For Soldiers. In April 2015, Heck voted against: “Strike section 594, which requires Department of Defense report on rulemaking under the Military Lending Act and delays implementing new lending rules under the Act pending submission of such report.” [Committee on Armed Services; Duckworth Log 143 to H.R. 1735, Vote 23, 4/29/15]

 

LOBBYISTS FOR PAYDAY LENDERS AND BANKS WANTED THE PROVISION INSERTED INTO DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

 

Payday Lenders Advocated For Language In NDAA That Would Delay Implementation Of Military Lend Act By A Year. “The Military Lending Act (MLA) protects servicemembers and their families  from high-cost, predatory consumer credit products and caps annual percentage rates (APR) at 36 percent. […] In a last-ditch effort to prevent the broadened protections from going into effect, payday lenders and their supporters in Congress included language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would delay implementation by up to a year. Rep. Duckworth responded by drafting an amendment removing the language from the NDAA, which garnered bi-partisan support. On a vote of 32-30, the House Armed Services Committee voted to remove the language from the bill. Not only does her amendment prevent further delay, it also sends a strong message to the Senate Armed Services Committee that its version of the NDAA should not pose any barriers to the MLA expansion of servicemember protections and tells the payday industry that Congress will not allow the industry to use underhanded tactics that leave servicemembers vulnerable to high-cost, predatory loans.” [Woodstock Institute, 5/5/15]

 

American Bankers Association, Primary Banking Lobbying Group, Advocated Against Pentagon Rules For Military Lending. “House Republicans are pushing legislation to block predatory lending protections for American soldiers, under pressure from the banking lobby.  GOP lawmakers tucked the deregulation item into the National Defense Authorization Act — a major bill setting the military’s funding, along with a number of other controversial terms on Guantanamo Bay and other issues. If the banking item is enacted, it would impose a one-year delay on new Department of Defense rules meant to shield military families from abusive terms on payday loans and other forms of high-interest credit. […] The American Bankers Association — the primary lobbying group for the banking industry — has lobbied against the Pentagon rules, specifically seeking to shield deposit advance products from their scope.” [Huffington Post, 4/29/15]

 

HECK VOTED TO REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM

 

Heck Voted For The Ryan Budget. In March 2012, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would provide $2.793 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal 2013, not including off-budget accounts. It calls for limiting discretionary appropriations to $1.028 trillion in 2013 and for major cuts in non-defense discretionary and mandatory spending over the next 10 years. It would assume significant future savings by restructuring Medicare into a “premium support” system beginning in 2023, converting Medicaid and the food stamp program into block grants to states, and repealing the 2010 health care overhaul. It calls for an overhaul of the tax code, under which the alternative minimum tax would be repealed, the six current individual income tax brackets would be consolidated into two, tax credits and deductions would be eliminated or curtailed, and the corporate tax code modified to reduce the top rate to 25 percent from 35 percent and converted into a “territorial” tax system where U.S. companies would pay tax only on income earned in the United States. It also would direct the Budget Committee to report a bill that would repeal the sequestration of discretionary spending set for January 2013 by the 2011 debt limit law and direct six House committees to find substitute savings from mandatory programs.” The measure was adopted by a vote of 228-191. [CQ, 3/29/12; H.Con.Res.112, Vote 151, 3/29/12]

 

  • Washington Post’s Wonkblog: FY 2013 Ryan Budget Repealed Parts Of Dodd-Frank Without Proposing An Alternative, Would “Bring Us Back To The Pre-Dodd Frank Era.” “On financial regulation, Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget basically cuts-and-pastes its recommendations from last year: it wants to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank that give new power to federal regulators to break up big banks, arguing that the regulations actually make bailouts more likely, not less so. Ryan isn’t proposing an alternative, however, so his plan to repeal the government’s new ‘resolution authority:’ would bring us back to the pre-Dodd Frank era — which was also, of course, the era in which bank bailouts proved necessary.” [Washington Post, Wonkblog, 3/20/12]

 

  • Los Angeles Times Editorial: Ryan Budget Would Repeal “New Federal Restrictions On Wall Street.” “For the second time in as many years, the House Republican leadership has put forward a deficit-cutting budget plan that’s more of a political statement than a governing blueprint. The proposed budget for fiscal 2013 promotes a long list of conservative policies that are only tangentially related to the federal fisc — for example, repealing new federal restrictions on Wall Street and ending the moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Even the proposals that are purely fiscal in nature rely on changes in law that Senate Democrats won’t support, such as repealing the 2010 healthcare reform law.” [Los Angeles Times, Editorial, 3/21/12]

 

Heck Voted To Exempt From The Prohibition Any Covered Depository Institution That Limits Its Security-Based And Other Swap Activities To Hedging And Other Similar Risk-Mitigation Activities. In October 2013, Heck voted for: “Passage of the bill that would amend a provision of the 2010 financial regulatory overhaul law that prohibits the federal bailout of swaps dealers or participants. The bill would exempt from the prohibition any covered depository institution that limits its security-based and other swap activities to hedging and other similar risk-mitigation activities. Non-structured and certain structured finance swap activities also would be exempt. Under the bill, insured depository institutions and uninsured U.S. branches of a foreign bank would be considered covered depository institutions.” The bill passed 292-122. [CQ, 10/30/13; HR992, Vote 569, 10/30/13]

 

·         Bill Rolled Back Major A Element Of Wall Street Reform, By Allowing Big Banks To Continue To Handle Most Types Of Derivatives Trades In House. “The House of Representatives, with bipartisan support, passed legislation on Wednesday that would roll back a major element of the 2010 law intended to strengthen the nation’s financial regulations by allowing big banks like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase to continue to handle most types of derivatives trades in house. The bill, which passed by a 292-122 vote, would repeal a requirement in the Dodd-Frank law that big banks ‘push out’ some derivatives trading into separate units that are not backed by the government’s insurance fund.” [New York Times, 10/30/13]

 

Heck Voted To Replace The CFPB’s Director With A Five-Member Commission And To Lower The Vote Threshold Required For The Financial Stability Oversight Council To Override CFPB Rules. In July 2011, Heck voted for: “Passage of the bill that would replace the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s director with a five-member commission. It also would lower the vote threshold required for the Financial Stability Oversight Council to override Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules from two-thirds to a simple majority and allow the council to override regulations that threaten the stability of individual institutions.” The bill passed 241-173. [CQ, 7/21/11; HR 1315, Vote 621, 7/21/11]

 

Heck Voted To Repeal The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Authority To Exclusively Prescribe Rules On Consumer Financial Issues. In February 2014, Heck voted for: “DeSantis, R-Fla., amendment that would repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s authority to exclusively prescribe rules on consumer financial issues.” The amendment was adopted 227-186. [CQ, 2/27/14; HR 3193, Vote 82, 2/27/14]

 

WALL STREET WANTED TO DISMANTLE WALL STREET REFORMS

 

The Hill: Banks And Financial Institutions Wanted To “Dismantle” Wall Street Reform. “Banks and financial institutions are planning an aggressive push to dismantle parts of the Wall Street reform law when Republicans take control of Congress in January.  Fresh off a victory in the government funding debate that liberals decried as a giveaway to Wall Street, advocates for the financial sector aim to pursue additional changes to Dodd-Frank that they say would lighten burdens created by the 2010 law. Among the top items on the wish list: easing new requirements on mortgages, loosening restrictions on financial derivatives and overhauling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” [The Hill, 12/17/14]

 

New York Times: Nation’s Biggest Banks And Investment Firms Wanted To “Weaken” And “Slow” Enforcement Of Dodd-Frank Regulations. “In the span of a month, the nation’s biggest banks and investment firms have twice won passage of measures to weaken regulations intended to help lessen the risk of another financial crisis, setting their sights on narrow, arcane provisions and greasing their efforts with a surge of lobbying and campaign contributions.  The continuing assault on the 2010 Dodd-Frank law has achieved remarkable success, especially compared with the repeated failures of opponents of another 2010 law, the Affordable Care Act.  The financial industry has been methodical, drafting technically complicated legislation that can pass the heavily Republican House with a few Democratic votes. […] But House members also took up a narrower measure that would slow enforcement of Dodd-Frank requirements and weaken other regulations on financial services companies.” [New York Times, 1/23/15]

 

·         Headline: “In New Congress, Wall St. Pushes To Undermine Dodd-Frank Reform” [New York Times, 1/23/15]

 

V/O: He even wanted to privatize Social Security, risking it on the stock market.

 

GFX: Congressman Heck

Risking Social Security

on the Stock Market

Las Vegas Review Journal, 10/20/14; Los Angeles Times, 1/18/05

 

 

HECK SUPPORTS PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY…

 

Heck Proposed Allowing Younger Workers To Invest Retirement Funds In Private Accounts. “The two candidates also got into an angry back-and-forth in discussing veterans benefits, Medicare and Social Security. Bilbray said Heck wants to privatize Social Security, and she said he’s done nothing to raise Medicare reimbursement rates so doctors won’t drop patients. Congress had boosted reimbursement rates, but on a year-to-year basis instead of a permanent fix. Heck, sounding exasperated, said he introduced the first bill to ‘repair Medicare’ and reintroduced it this year. He said it passed the House. As for Social Security, Heck said he has proposed allowing younger workers to invest retirement funds as they like, instead of with the government.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/20/14]

 

Heck Said He Supported Private Social Security Accounts. HECK: “No, I’m not as evil- and I’ve never talked about privatizing Social Security. What I have said is that…” AUDIENCE: “You’re gonna invest in the stock market?” HECK: “Yeah- no, no. So what I’ve said is that I believe that younger individuals should have the opportunity to take a portion of their Social Security withholding, and put it into an account that they might want to manage!.” [Joe Heck Speech, Washoe Republican Women’s Luncheon, 8/17/16]

 

Associated Press: Heck Said All Options “Including Some Form Of Privatization And Increasing” The Retirement Age Should Be On The Table When It Came To Social Security. “Heck said he doesn’t know how to improve Social Security, but all options, including some form of privatization and increasing the eligibility age for future recipients currently entering the job market, should be evaluated. ’Everything needs to be on the table to talk about how to save it,’ he said.” [Associated Press, 6/10/11]

 

Heck Proposed Allowing For Private Social Security Accounts. MODERATOR: “As a solution, do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their social security payroll taxes into a personal retirement account?” […] HECK: “After that we need to look at other ways to increase the solvency of [Social Security] for the out years, and that could include allowing people to pay into a private account; it could include changing the retirement age; it could include raising the cap on the amount of earning to which Social Security is taxed.” [YouTube, Heck at PBS Debate, 10/11/12]

 

Heck Voted To Allow Funds To Develop Or Implement A System That Would Cut Social Security Benefits Or, Privatize It. In March 2011, Heck voted against a: “Critz, D-Pa., motion to recommit the joint resolution to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be reported back immediately with an amendment that would bar the use of funds made available in the measure to develop or implement a system that would cut Social Security or Medicare benefits, privatize Social Security, eliminate guaranteed health coverage for seniors or establish a Medicare voucher plan that limits payments to beneficiaries.” The motion was rejected by a 190-239 vote. [CQ, 3/15/11; H.J. Res. 48, Vote 178, 3/15/11]

 

·         Republican Cloakroom: Legislation Would “Prohibit The Use Of Funds To “Cut Benefits Or Privatize Social Security.” The Republican Cloakroom website states that H.J. Res. 48 was a motion to recommit the bill “with instructions to prohibit the use of funds to: Cut benefits or privatize social security” [Republican Cloakroom, 3/15/11]

 

Heck Voted Against Barring The Use Of Funds To Privatize Social Security. In September 2013, Heck voted against “Enyart, D-Ill., motion to recommit the joint resolution to the House Appropriations Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would fund military personnel accounts, the Social Security Administration’s administrative expenses, the Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program management account and the Veterans Benefit Administration’s operating expenses through Sept. 30, 2014. It also would bar the use of funds provided by the bill to implement a system that would privatize the Social Security program, reduce the insurance benefits it provides or to establish a Medicare voucher plan that provides limited payments to purchase health care in the private sector. It also would increase funding for the Essential Air Service by $2.7 million and decrease the Transportation Department Planning, Research and Development account by the same amount.” The motion failed 190-228. [CQ, 9/20/13, H.J.Res.59, Vote 477, 9/20/13]

 

  • Rep. Enyart: “This Amendment Prohibits Social Security From Being Privatized And Medicare From Being Turned Into A Voucher Program.” Mr. ENYART: “As we stand here today, we’re hurdling toward a government shutdown and once again facing default. I’m offering this amendment because the last thing we should be doing is threatening seniors with losing their Social Security and Medicare. Our troops, protecting us both domestically and overseas, shouldn’t have to worry about whether they’ll be paid. With this amendment, Social Security checks will be processed and mailed on time; Medicare and veterans benefits will not be cut nor delayed; our service men and women, serving around the world, will receive the pay they have earned. This amendment prohibits Social Security from being privatized and Medicare from being turned into a voucher program.” [Congressional Record, 9/20/13]
…WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE ITS GUARANTEED BENEFIT & GAMBLE IT ON WALL STREET

 

NCPSSM: “Social Security Provides A Guaranteed Income” But Private Social Security Accounts Would Expose Benefits To The Stock Market, Where “Returns Are Never Guaranteed.” “Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts. And risk must be taken into account, because stock market returns are never guaranteed!” [National Center to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Accessed 8/25/16]

 

AARP: Social Security Privatization “Would Eliminate The Guarantee That Social Security Provides And Reduce Benefits.” “AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security: ‘Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations.  […] AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation’s bills.” [AARP, Press Release, 6/17/11]

 

  • AARP: “For Most Older Americans, Social Security Is The Only Retirement Income Source That Is Guaranteed For Life.” “For most older Americans, Social Security is the only retirement income source that is guaranteed for life and adjusted to keep pace with inflation.” [AARP, 3/16]

 

Social Security Works: Social Security “Provides A Guaranteed Benefit” But Private Social Security Accounts “Would Remove This Guarantee” And Gamble Social Security Benefits On Wall Street. “Social Security is so valuable because it provides a guaranteed benefit. Privatizing Social Security by allowing people to divert their Social Security contributions into private accounts, would remove this guarantee and let people gamble their retirement savings in the casinos of Wall Street.” [Social Security Works, Accessed 8/25/16]

 

Economic Policy Institute: “Creating Voluntary Personal Accounts Within Social Security” Would Mean That It “Would No Longer” Provide “A Guarantee Of Inflation-Proof, Lifelong Retirement Income.”  “In his proposal for Social Security, presidential candidate George Bush would allow a portion of each worker’s payroll taxes to be placed in a personal account and invested in stocks and bonds. Creating voluntary personal accounts within Social Security would change the fundamental character of the program and potentially carve a path toward its eventual demise. Social Security would no longer be a social insurance program providing a guarantee of inflation-proof, lifelong retirement income.” [Economic Policy Institute, 5/1/00]

 

  • Economic Policy Institute: Under Private Social Security Accounts, “Workers’ Core Retirement Income Would Be Put At Risk In An Investment Program Where Benefits Are Determined By” The “Ups And Downs Of Financial Markets.” “In his proposal for Social Security, presidential candidate George Bush would allow a portion of each worker’s payroll taxes to be placed in a personal account and invested in stocks and bonds. Creating voluntary personal accounts within Social Security would change the fundamental character of the program and potentially carve a path toward its eventual demise. Social Security would no longer be a social insurance program providing a guarantee of inflation-proof, lifelong retirement income. Instead, workers’ core retirement income would be put at risk in an investment program where benefits are determined by the luck and wisdom of their investment choices and the ups and downs of financial markets.”

 

  • Economic Policy Institute: In A Privatized System “Social Security’s Income Guarantee Would Be Lost.” “In a privatized system, workers’ retirement income would depend upon many factors: the performance of the stock market, luck, investment savvy, the timing of retirement (i.e., whether the stock market was up or down), and other factors outside a worker’s control. Social Security’s income guarantee would be lost, and it would no longer serve as a source of ensured income for the elderly, especially lower-income workers, women, and minorities.” [Economic Policy Institute, 5/1/00]

 

PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY WOULD PUT HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE POCKETS OF WALL STREET

 

Los Angeles Times: University Of Chicago Study Said Social Security Privatization “Could Generate Fees For The Financial Industry Worth $940 Billion.” “The issue of Wall Street fees has become a hot button for groups on both sides of the debate. Financial companies betray ‘an enormous conflict of interest’ if they support private accounts, said Bill Patterson, director of investments at the AFL-CIO. ‘This is driven by fees.’ Financial companies betray ‘an enormous conflict of interest’ if they support private accounts, said Bill Patterson, director of investments at the AFL-CIO. ‘This is driven by fees. ‘A study last year by University of Chicago economics professor Austan Goolsbee asserted that the accounts could generate fees for the financial industry worth $940 billion, in current dollars, over 75 years.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/18/05]

 

Securities Industry Association Said Wall Street Would Make As Much As $279 Billion In Fees From Social Security Privatization. “No one knows whether workers would prosper in private Social Security accounts, but financial firms would likely pull in big bucks… The Securities Industry Association calculated that the plan would generate at most $279 billion in fees, or about 8.6 percent of the $3.3 trillion in the financial sector’s total revenues, over 75 years.” [Newsday, 2/20/05]

 

NCPSSM: Privatization Of Social Security Would Lead To “Wall Street Brokers And Fund Managers […] To Make Billions Of Dollars Of Year.” “Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts. […] Wall Street brokers and fund managers would stand to make billions of dollars a year thanks to privatization, so it’s no surprise that they strongly support the privatization movement!” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Accessed 6/11/16]

 

·         NCPSSM: Under Privatized Social Security, “Commissions And Fees Could Easily Burn Up As Much As 15 Cents Out Of Every Dollar Of A Workers Annual Investment.” “Administrative costs for Social Security are very low – less than 1% of the program’s budget. Diverting money to the stock market would incur the very high costs of brokers’ commissions, mutual fund management fees, and other expenses inherent in buying and selling stocks and bonds. Small investment accounts are very expensive to administer. Commissions and fees could easily burn up as much as 15 cents out of every dollar of a worker’s annual investment as they do in some countries with privatized systems.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Accessed 8/11/16]

 

The Century Foundation: Wall Street Brokers, Banks, And Mutual Funds Would Gain “Enormous Fees” Under Private Social Security Accounts, Which Would Come From “The Balances” Of “The Individual Accounts.” “Brokerage houses, banks, and mutual funds have been very active in the campaign to privatize Social Security. Small wonder, since they stand to gain enormous fees if billions of dollars are shifted each year from Social Security payments into accounts under Wall Street management. Of course, those fees must come from somewhere, namely from the balances in individual accounts.” [The Century Foundation, 12/14/04]

 

Economic Policy Institute: “Administrative Charges On” Private Social Security Accounts Would Be “Another Factor Cutting Into Rates Of Return.” “Another factor cutting into rates of return on private accounts will be the administrative charges on individual accounts and premiums for private insurance to pay for survivorship and disability benefits.” [Economic Policy Institute, 6/1/01]

 

Investment Operating Fees Are Assessed Regardless Of Performance. “Mutual funds provide investors with professional management, but it comes at a cost. Funds will typically have a range of different fees that reduce the overall payout. In mutual funds, the fees are classified into two categories: shareholder fees and annual operating fees. The shareholder fees, in the forms of loads and redemption fees, are paid directly by shareholders purchasing or selling the funds. The annual fund operating fees are charged as an annual percentage – usually ranging from 1-3%. These fees are assessed to mutual fund investors regardless of the performance of the fund. As you can imagine, in years when the fund doesn’t make money, these fees only magnify losses.” [Investopedia, Accessed 8/8/16]

 

 

V/O: Congressman Heck just doesn’t care about people like us.

 

GFX: Congressman Joe Heck

Not for Us

 

V/O: DSCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

 

GFX: Paid for by DSCC, www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. DSCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

 

 

 

Next Post

NEW DSCC ADS: Roy Blunt’s a Washington Insider Who Looks Out For Himself, Not Missouri

Stay Connected


ICYMI: For Democrats, abortion pill case opens new front in election-year battle [The Washington Post]

13 hrs Ago

ago on Twitter

Close

Defend Our Democratic
Senate Majority


Sign up to receive text updates. By participating, you consent to receive recurring committee & fundraising messages from the DSCC, including automated text messages. Msg & Data rates may apply. Privacy Policy & ToS.

or