Of hobos and balanced budgets: Nevada’s U.S. Senate race escalates and degenerates

Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2011 | 2:35 p.m.

It is a measure of how much is at stake – control of the U.S. Senate and the presidential race in Nevada – that both contenders for John Ensign’s seat today used policy pretexts one year out for campaign purposes.

And neither was subtle.

Rep. Shelley Berkley pretended she was going on the floor to talk about extending unemployment insurance but really wanted to exhume a controversial use of the word “hobos” by Sen. Dean Heller. Later, Heller exploited the timing of a Balanced Budget Amendment vote this week in the House – one doomed to fail -- to try to highlight Berkley’s opposition, even going to the unusual length of calling Nevada reporters to make his case.

It is also noteworthy, albeit not unexpected, that there now appears to be full integration between the staffers and campaign teams for both candidates in what will be one of the more closely watched contests in the country. This kind of activity 356 days out is quite telling.

HOBOS

I was alerted early this AM (about 6:30 PT) – and not by a Berkley congressional staffer – that the congresswoman was about to take to the House floor to talk about unemployment benefits. What I was not told was that she really intended to talk about Dean Heller and hobos. After the initial folderol about backing the bill, Berkley went there about 7 AM:

“What they don't need is name calling.

“Unfortunately, that's what they're getting in Washington.

In fact, one of our Representatives had the nerve to suggest that unemployment insurance is creating a nation of hobos!

“Hobos?

“Mr. Speaker. No one wants to be unemployed.

“No one wants to be out of work. And no one wants to be called a hobo.”

Dean Heller called the unemployed hobos? How outrageous. How insensitive. Did he really?

Here’s the story:

During a speech in Elko in February 2010, Heller alluded to a study on the unemployed, according to a report in the Elko Daily Free Press:

“He said a study found that people who are out of work longer than two years have only a 50 percent chance of getting back into the workforce.

‘I believe there should be a federal safety net,’ Heller said, but he questioned the wisdom of extending unemployment benefits yet again to a total of 24 months, which Congress is doing.

‘Is the government now creating hobos?’ he asked.”

The Sun

later wrote about the statement and the Democrats were soon all over it.

I later asked Heller about it on “Face to Face” and he was obviously bristling about the use of the quote, saying he simply was referring to the study. After the attacks continued, Larry Lindsey, who conducted the study, provided a letter to the Ways and Means Committee, which I have posted at right.

Will that letter stop the Democrats from using the inflammatory word that Republicans now wish Lindsey hadn’t used? I don’t think so.

Here’s the video of Berkley’s speech:

https://demsgov.box.net/s/0glrym892liayui7qfgo

About an hour after she delivered the, ahem, policy speech (8:12 AM, to be exact) Berkley’s campaign sent out a release, likely prepared earlier in the week, attacking Heller – or as he is always called in such releases, the “unelected senator,” on the “hobos” comment.

A rare anti-Heller release without any mention of Social Security, Medicare (or China). But there would be an opening later…..

BALANCED BUDGETS

About an hour after the Berkley release on Heller went out, I was alerted – and not by a Heller DC staffer -- to the senator’s coming release on a Balanced Budget Amendment to be voted on this week in the House. It arrived at 10:17 AM, with Heller calling on Berkley “to Oppose Reckless Spending, Support Balanced Budget Amendment.”

What followed was boiler-plate and not worth wasting space on here. But what followed after the news release was extraordinary – Heller dialing up Nevada reporters, including AP’s Cristy Silva, the Reno Gazette-Journal’s Ray Hagar and yours truly.

I asked Heller about the obvious political purpose – he knows of polling that shows 2-to-1 support here for the BBA – and why he would call on Berkley to cast a vote he knows she will not.

“It’s worth trying,” he told me. “I want Congresswoman Berkley to follow my leadership.”

Really? (How could he lose? She either reinforces what he believes is an unpopular position or flips.)

I asked Heller whether the BBA wasn’t simply an artificial governor on Congress and wouldn’t it be better for the Gang of 535 to behave better and more thoughtful decisions?

Heller responded that Congress has to “send a message” to businesses, especially because he thinks the supercommittee “will punt” any serious decisions. As to whether, as some argue, the BBA will impose cuts on Medicare and Social Security, Heller told me, “It’s all about priorities.” He then went on the obnoxious “preserve and protect Medicare” rote language, while not detailing how he would do so and trying to compare those billions to millions for silly pork projects.

But, I digress. Heller finished by saying, “I ask people at my tele-town halls if they support a balanced budget amendment. They overwhelming support a balanced budget amendment.”

QED.

By the way, when I asked how Berkley would vote, I discovered, not surprisingly, that she will again oppose the BBA, but her statement then pivoted to say Heller is again backing cuts in Social Security and Medicare by backing the amendment and, yes, there was a China mention, too. As for Berkley’s plan to preserve and protect Medicare, it is the same as Heller’s: nonexistent.

Later, a Berkley spokeswoman told me the congresswoman would support a BBA “that includes iron-clad protections for Social Security, Medicare and Veterans.”

That would be a tough math trick.

It’s going to be a long year.