Last night, Jon Ralston reported that unelected Senator Dean Heller mislead Nevadans when he said last week on Face to Face that he only voted against taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil because Democrats “always wanted to use them for more stimulus and more government.” The problem with Heller’s answer – it isn’t true. Ralston reports that Heller has voted against repealing oil subsidies at least nine times, including voting against them when the resulting savings would have been redirected to reducing the deficit.
From the Flash:
When my producer, Dana Gentry, interviewed Sen. Dean Heller on “Face to Face” on Friday, I thought it was odd that he was so dismissive of her when she questioned his record on oil subsidies. Heller claimed he was always for closing oil company loopholes but had opposed cutting them in the past because “they’ve always wanted to use them for more stimulus and more big government.”
But that’s just not so.
Heller, like many Republicans, has opposed repealing oil subsides in the past, no matter what they were going to be used for. At least nine times I see, including this one for deficit reduction.
You can argue that these subsidies account for a minuscule percentage of federal spending. Fine. But Heller, until this year’s Senate race, has opposed them, when they were targted for paying for college student help or energy development or a raft of other issues that have nothing to do with stimulus or big government.
But it’s a good sound bite.
By the way, when Gentry challenged him, he accused her – as he does me all the time – of regurgitating “DNC talking points.” Actually, she was presenting what are known as facts. [Ralston Flash, 4/9/12]