Fixing the Retirement and Health Care Systems Should be Main Goal in 2011
Published: 5/13/2010 4:26:39 PM
Nevada is looking at a looming financial crisis that dwarfs the expected $3 billion budget deficit.The real crisis is the public employee pension (PERS) and health care system (PEBP) that together have an unfunded liability of $11.1 billion that is growing every year.
The PewCenter on the States just completed a national review of all state and local government pension funds and identified Nevada as one of 19 states where "serious concerns" exist about the long-term health of the retirement plan.
The state’s pension fund for state, local, and other public employees is invested in stocks, bonds and other instruments.But right now it is less than 80 percent fully funded, thanks to a dramatic decline in the market, leaving it’s liability at $9 billion. The program is a “defined benefit” which is almost extinct in the private sector. Without a significant increase in the annual contributions, that fund will continue to remain a looming taxpayer liability.
The unfunded liability in the health system is about $2 billion primarily due to the fact that state employees pay an average monthly contribution of $0 to $28 for their health insurance, while in the private sector those costs run over $100 month for an employee.That means Nevada taxpayers currently pay 95%-100% of the “shared” costs for active public employee’s health insurance.
The result is that taxpayers are now paying about $200 million a year MORE in benefits to state government employees than if they were employed in the private sector.
Changing PERS and PEBP was the top SAGE recommendation, and is something that every state is looking at.Some of the suggested changes from SAGE and other states that are being considered should be on the agenda in the 2011 legislature.
So during this election cycle, I encourage you to ask candidates for the legislature if they will support some if not all of the following:
PEBP changes:
Eliminate all PEBP subsidies for future retirees.
Reduce subsidies for all current retirees 25% in the first year, 50% in the second.
Eliminate PEBP subsidies from Medicare eligible retirees.
Increase contributions for all new employees
Eliminate members of boards, commissions, the legislature and other part-time (under 20 hours a month) from participating in the program.
PERS changes:
Redefine “compensation” to include only salary and not overtime.
Eliminate members of boards, commissions, the legislature and other part-time (under 20 hours a month) from participating in the program.
Divert salary increases into a pension contribution in 2012 - 2014.
Set a retirement age for all new hires to match that of Social Security.
Extend the time that retirees can access the money if they retire before 60.
Why the Rush to Run this Year?
Published: 3/18/2010 10:45:33 AM
Unemployment at 12%. State Revenues down over 30%. The tax increases that passed in 2009 (bringing in $700 million) will sunset in 2011. Another $100 million in federal stimulus dollars will be gone by 2011.
The camaraderie that used to exist in the state Assembly and Senate is gone. During the 2009 session we saw a Senate leader use the Capitol Police to summon Senators to a late night session, where he refused to let them even use the restroom. A male Senator physically confronted an Assemblywoman.
In the February 2010 special session, we saw a Republican senator lambast a business lobbyist for refusing to go along with a tax increase
Voting trends show that moderate voters are turned off and not going to the polls. Dedicated activists are the growing majority of voters in primaries, which is helping elect those who adhere to strict ideological positions. Rational people who have never been involved in policy debates now attend town hall meetings to yell and taunt Congressmen.
Websites and blogs pop up monthly to attack candidates and elected officials, using the internet to spread truths as well as rumors. Opponents have crossed the line from criticizing votes and policy positions to questioning ethics and attacking professional and personal reputations.
All this kinda makes you wonder why anyone would actually WANT to run for office now?
Yet that didn’t seem to discourage the 500 plus people who have filed to run for office across Nevada. With ten open assembly seats and seven open senate seats this year, over 200 people have filed to run for the legislature across the state. That is the most candidates to run in over a decade.
What brought people out this year?
Several first time candidates said their frustration with what is happening in Washington DC spurred them to run. The primary annoyance is that so few Nevadans have received financial support from the billions of dollars the government has handed out in recovery dollars, or for mortgage assistance.
As businesses continue to close and people continue to lose their homes in Nevada, there is little sense of relief from this recession. That is causing many voters to ask, “Where is that money going?”
But instead of just being angry, many are saying, “I can do better.” And this year, they are acted upon their frustration and filed for office.
How will it turn out?
In several special elections held across the country this year, we have seen party changes in many states. Republicans added six seats in the Virginia House of Delegates bringing their majority to 59 R – 39 D with two independents. Republicans also picked up one seat each in New Jersey, Michigan, New Hampshire and Washington in special elections held this year.
Many look to the high profile governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, and the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts as an indication of a trend for 2010. But the elections are not necessarily a trend toward one party or another as much as an indication that voters want change at all levels.
But one thing is true: incumbents are vulnerable this year, no matter their party affiliation.
Even with the Republican gains in the 2009 elections, Democrats still control 55 percent of all legislative seats and Republicans hold 44 percent. But many expect that to change this fall when 83 percent of all legislative seats will be in play along with 37 governors.
In Nevada, all 43 Assembly seats are up, and eleven senate seats are in play. Just how angry or optimistic voters are will be heard loud and clear in November.
Be Ready for More Taxes in 2011
Published: 3/9/2010 12:13:40 PM
In a rather surreal hearing during the Special Session last month, Senators from both sides of the aisle berated business and gaming lobbyists for saying “no” to new taxes.
The dialogue reminded me of the contentious 2003 session that pitted business against gaming over the proposed gross receipts tax. This time, gaming lobbyists sat next to business lobbyists taking the same verbal abuse, refusing to contribute more money during the worst recession in Nevada since the Depression.
Senator Horsford (D- LV) wanted gaming to pay an additional $32 million to cover the cost of the state gaming board. When gaming pushed back, saying it couldn’t afford the increases because of record losses in the last year and the increase on payroll and room taxes that were passed in 2009, the senator essentially mocked the industry.
“Look, $30 million is three $10 million high rollers,” he said. “To the average person who is really struggling to make basic decisions about how to keep their families together, the idea that the entire gaming industry can’t pay” rings hollow.
Senator Schneider (D-LV) who is term limited, continued the whipping. “We have kept the lowest gaming tax in the world here. We have changed laws. We have allowed them to make lots of money. ... And they have built markets around the world on Nevada dollars we let them take out.”
Next, it was business lobbyists who were taken to task for not willing to pay more in taxes. Representatives from the chamber, retail, manufacturing and trucking were called the “Group of No” and were told that their argument that more taxes would mean more businesses closing up shop and fleeing the state “a bunch of bull.”
(Guess those senators haven’t looked at the number of bankruptcy filings in Nevada recently.)
Senators said they bring the business lobbyists before the committee of commerce, tax and transportation in 2011 for a “Come to Jesus” meeting.
Senator Townsend, (R-Reno) who was a longtime friend of big business, was even tougher on the business and banking lobbyist.
“No, is not a plan,” said Townsend. “You need to be at the table and explain how your industry can help us get to where we want this state to go. If business doesn’t offer ideas on how to solve the crisis “you are absolutely wasting our time.”
What was most frustrating for the business lobbyists was the legislators’ inability to recognize that the budget they passed in 2009, which was $700 million more than the Governor’s recommendation, was the reason for this special session. Had they followed the advice of the state’s budget office and Economic Forum, the state would not have been $800 million in debt. (I know hind sight is 20-20.)
Yet with over $2 billion in tax increases since 2003, the business community is tapped out. But the legislators and public employee unions just don’t see that.
Another point of contention for this session was that casinos and the business community called for reforms to collective bargaining, which is severely hurting city and county budgets and costing the taxpayers millions in generous over time pay, retirement benefits, and health care. The issue brought out a phalanx of public employee unions who shot down any reforms. But the issue will come up again as the unfunded liabilities for public employees’ retirement and health benefits continue to grow.
Impact on 2010
Most of assembly democratic candidates in the 10 open seats are public employees. Most of their republican opponents are business owners and private sector employees. This is setting up a clear choice for voters between tax “users” and tax “payers.”
But history often repeats itself, so these candidates should look at the 2006 election to gage how voters will likely act this year.
After the huge tax increase of 2003, and the spending spree of 2005, voters chose to elect a true fiscal conservative for Governor in 2006 who promised to draw the line on spending and tax increases.
After the 2009 session, where significant taxes and fees were increased despite Governor Gibbon’s vetoes, it’s likely that voters will be even more serious about electing legislators this year who will also promise to hold the line on spending.
Business should Fear the 2011 Session
It’s likely the legislature will extend the sales and payroll tax increases that were approved in 2009 but are scheduled to sunset in 2011. And with a looming $3 billion deficit, expect more tax increases to be proposed.
The special session in February showed us that cutting government is not an easy thing for our legislature to do. So unless there is a change in party control of the Senate, and unless the GOP can gain one seat in the Assembly to halt the current 2/3rds majority, we are looking at tax increases, folks. And the tax most favored by gaming and the Democrats is gross receipts. We also expect to see a proposal to tax services such as auto repairs, dry cleaners, lawyers, etc.
The state’s budget has grown to the point that it can not be sustained without significant tax increases. The 2011 Legislature has no choice but to make dramatic cuts to the state’s budget. And we voters have no choice but to elect legislators who will make those cuts.
2011 is also a “redistricting” session. The lines for legislative districts will be redrawn next year, based on the census. Whoever is in power will control those lines and determine the fate of legislative elections for the next 10 years.
I know you hear this every two years, but this really is a critical election. Make sure your employees are registered and that they vote. Business needs voice on Election Day. Make your voice heard!
The Inconvenient Truth About Yucca Mountain
Published: 2/3/2010 12:03:02 PM
I’m having a hard time with Nevada politicians praising the loss of 2000 Nevada jobs for a project with an annual budget of $1.5 billion (80% of which was spent in Nevada.) But that is what happened when Senator Reid and Governor Gibbons got all giddy as the President said he was going to pull the plug on Yucca.
Then I see that the President wants an extra $11 million for the Dept. of Justice to cover the legal costs it will take to defend the Feds against all the lawsuits that will result from the premature pulling of the license for Yucca.
This just doesn’t make sense. But the fight against Yucca has never made sense, especially when we have never been told the truth about the project from our elected officials.
Here’s just a few of the recent “truths”:
Senator Reid’s truth:
From his January 28, 2010 media release: “President Obama and I have worked closely to stop dumping taxpayer money into Yucca, and I have fought hard to ensure Yucca Mountain is dead.”
The Inconvenient Truth: Taxpayer money was not used to build the repository at Yucca Mountain. The funds come from the users of nuclear power.
Several million households have paid about $1.25 a month since the 1980’s into the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund. Those funds are designated specifically to pay for a repository at Yucca Mountain, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If Yucca is “dead,” then our government is collecting those funds under false pretenses. They are perpetuating a fraud on the millions of Americans who get their power from a nuclear power plant.
Senator Reid’s truth:
From his statement on January 31, 2010: “…funding for the proposed Yucca Mountain project will be eliminated and the Department will take steps to withdraw the license application in the near future.
The Inconvenient Truth
If the Department of Energy pulls the license application for Yucca, it will violate the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It will be subject to law suits from millions of nuclear power users and nuclear power companies. It will likely have to pay back the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund the $10 billion spent to build Yucca (funds that will come from taxpayers this time.) It will be subject to law suits from several states that have agreements with the DOE. It will delay the future expansion of nuclear power, which even President Obama has endorsed in climate change and energy legislation.
Senator Reid’s truth:
“Yucca is dead.”
The Inconvenient Truth The law of the land, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, states that the Department of Energy shall take possession of nuclear spent fuel and store it at Yucca Mountain. That law has not changed. All Senator Reid has done is cut funds to the project, increasing its cost, delaying the government’s legal obligations, and costing 2000 Nevadans their jobs.
Senator Reid’s truth:
Designating Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository was a political decision.
The Inconvenient Truth
True. The so called “Screw Nevada” bill was written to punish then Senator Dick Bryan (D-NV) for derailing the National Energy Strategy bill that was backed by the Senate Energy Committee.
What you don’t hear is that Yucca was the site most favored by the scientific community for a repository, prior to the writing of the Screw Nevada bill.
However, the attempt to kill Yucca is also political. If the site is truly unsafe as Senator Reid claims, he should allow the license application process to continue to prove his claim.
For Senator Reid, his truth is that Yucca must be stopped so he can be re-elected…regardless of the national legal and economic issues associated with this truly political decision.
Then there is the inconvenient truth: A repository at Yucca is still the law of the land. Yucca is vital to meeting our nation’s growing energy needs. Yucca has proven to be the safest place in America to store spent fuel. With an operating budget of $1.5 billion a year, Yucca has positive economic aspects for Nevada… but not as just a repository….
Burying spent fuel is an outdated, stupid idea. It’s time Senator Reid used his power to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to incorporate emerging technologies that will use the spent fuel to generate power, something that is being done around the world. He should make Yucca the new nuclear test site: a place to research and develop nuclear technologies to better address spent fuel and help meet our nation’s need for clean energy. Such a project would also mean hundreds of construction and manufacturing jobs, and over 2000 operational jobs… for over 50 years! The project’s budget would be about $2 billion annually, and provide cheap power to half of Las Vegas.
Where is the common sense in this fight? Where is the common sense in Washington?
Not a Waste Dump but an Energy Park
Published: 1/4/2010 2:53:01 PM
Considering that Nevada is the most economically-stressed state in the nation, it will take bold leadership and action to get Nevada back on its feet and KEEP us there. We can no longer depend on tourists and gaming to fund our state. We have to find new revenue sources.
That is why many of us are re-thinking Yucca. Not as a “waste dump” but as an Energy Park.
This park could host a research facility, an interim and long-term repository, and a reprocessing plant that will generate clean energy. (And yes, there is enough water in the Armargosa valley for a nuclear power plant.) The Park could bring in over $2 billion to Nevada and support a Trust Fund (similar to Alaska) that would provide substantial monies annually to Nevadans.
Despite the rumors and wishes of some Nevada officials, Yucca is NOT DEAD.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is still the law of the land, and it says that Yucca will be a nuclear repository and nothing else. We don’t have the votes in Congress to change the Act, as 34 states have nuclear power plants, and they want a resolution to the issue. No matter how powerful Senator Reid is, he can not get that Act changed until there is an alternative to Yucca.
But we HAVE that alternative! Make Yucca a reprocessing site that will generate power, resolve a national problem, provide jobs, and bring substantial monies to our state!
With DOE’s announcement last month that it is not going to pull the license application, Yucca is still alive. If we act now, we can offer an alternative that will be safe for Nevada and develop a new energy sector that can bring in thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to our state!
Our political leaders need to change the plan at Yucca, as burying the spent fuel is an old and stupid idea.
We should work with Congress and the Feds to incorporate emerging nuclear technologies that will use the “waste” to actually fuel a power plant!
Nevada is in a great position to offer Yucca as a national testing facility to explore reprocessing technologies. Eventually Yucca could become a regional reprocessing site that would reprocess fuel from contiguous states (reducing the transportation across the country.)
By acting now, Nevada could:
· Seek money for new rail lines, roads, bridges, schools, etc.
· Seek funds for facilities at the site to expand research into nuclear and renewable technologies.
· Seek funds for a permanent trust fund (like Alaska) that will allocate money directly to qualified Nevadans.
· Take title to the spent fuel rods to re-sell or reprocess in the future.
Yucca is the ideal location for this facility. It’s the most studied piece of land on the planet and is proven to be safe for storing this material. The land is already contaminated from nuclear testing and has no other economic potential. (And storing and reprocessing fuel is a lot safer than detonating nuclear bombs.) And its remoteness in an already super-secret security area (next to the Test Site, Area 51 and Nellis AFB) makes it one of the most remote and secure locations in America.
So come on politicians, wake up. We are being offered a multi-billion dollar project, and we just keep saying no. It’s time to re-think Yucca and make it work for Nevada.
Increase Your Car Insurance Coverage Now
Published: 11/4/2009 10:18:45 AM
I was in a bad car accident in September that was not my fault. I was stopped in heavy traffic and a truck hit us from behind. My SUV was totaled. My mom, dad and I were all hurt, and mom was taken to the hospital by REMSA.
The incident taught me an important lesson: the $5000 medical coverage on my car insurance is not nearly enough. I chose the minimum amounts because I had to frame of reference for just what costs are involved in an accident. Now I do, and I’m increasing all my limits.
Here’s why.
Mom’s ride in REMSA - $800
The emergency room doctor - $720
The three CAT scans of her head and neck - $8400
The emergency room fee - $8000
Mom didn’t need surgery and was released after a few hours with a few wounds bandaged. But even that care cost nearly $18,000.
Since the accident was the fault of the driver that hit us, his insurance will have to cover the excess cost, IF he has enough coverage. Since three cars were totaled in this accident, and two others were damaged, the maximums on his insurance will likely be hit. I’m grateful I have underinsured and uninsured coverage, but I can see how even those high amounts of $100,000 a person and $300,000 an accident could be reached if further medical care is needed, which is likely in a case like this.
I understand why Congress is working to make health care more reasonable and affordable. But who knows when they will get that done. So in the mean time, I’m taking action to protect myself and increasing my car insurance coverage. It won’t fix the system, but I’ll feel better.
Why Would Anyone Run for Office?
Published: 10/28/2009 1:23:31 PM
Unemployment at 12%. State Revenues down over 30%. The tax increases that passed in 2009 (bringing in $700 million) will sunset in 2011. Another $100 million in federal stimulus dollars will be gone by 2011.
The camaraderie that used to exist in the Assembly and Senate is gone. This session we saw a Senate leader that used the Capitol Police to summon Senators to a late night session, where he refused to let them even use the restroom. A male Senator physically confronted an Assemblywoman.
Voting trends show that moderate voters are turned off and not going to the polls. Dedicated activists are the growing majority of voters in primaries, which is helping elect those who adhere to strict ideological positions. Rational people who have never been involved in policy debates now attend town hall meetings to yell and taunt Congressmen.
Websites and blogs seem to be popping up monthly to attack candidates and elected officials, using the internet to spread truths as well as rumors. Opponents have crossed the line from criticizing votes and policy positions to questioning ethics and attacking professional and personal reputations.
All this kinda makes you wonder why anyone would actually WANT to run for office now?
As we look to 2010, the economy will be the number one issue facing candidates. But many other issues will be in play in 2010 that can help or hurt all candidates, regardless of their own qualifications.
What Helps the Democrats?
A successful stimulus package will help all Democrat candidates.
If Gibbons is the top of the GOP ticket and there is an ugly US Senate race that leaves a rift among conservative and moderate Republicans, many Republicans will stay home on Election Day.
The Democrats have a 90,000 voter advantage statewide. While maybe half of those are Obama voters that will likely not vote in 2010 which still leaves about
45,000 more D’s than R’s.
If the AFL-CIO or Teachers Union succeed in getting ballot measures to increase taxes for health care or education, that will drive more union members to the polls. Unions will also rally their voters, and will have more money than any other special interest.
What Helps Republicans
If the stimulus effort fails, Republican candidates benefit. The health care debate may also help, as this summer did not go as planned for the Democrats.
Two Reids at the top of the ticket will help the GOP, as Nevadans don’t like political dynasties.
If legislators in the special session vote to “un set” the taxes expanded in 2009 that are set to be “sunsetted” in 2011, or increase taxes without reducing spending, that will anger fiscal conservatives, no matter their party registration.
If the GOP can exploit Reid’s declining health, or show how he’s more interested in being majority leader than helping Nevada, that will help his opponent. If they can connect Rory to his inept phrasing (President Bush a “loser;” “this war is lost”), that can help all GOP candidates.
Exploiting how Jon Stewart said his most boring interview was Reid, (he’d rather interview a log) will help reach moderate and younger voters who get their news from Comedy Central.
If the AFL-CIO or Teacher’s Union are able to get a tax increase on the ballot, fiscal conservatives will come out to vote against it.
If the war in Afghanistan is going poorly, liberal Democrats may stay home on Election Day.
If Brian Sandoval is the nominee for Governor, moderates and Hispanics will go to the polls.
Possible Outcomes
Political observers say now that the union vote and the rift in the Republican Party between conservatives and moderates will help Democrats win one or two more Senate seats, and possibly two more assembly seats. Unions have targeted GOP Senate races (Heck and Beers in 2008, Barbara Cegevske in 2010) to gain Democrat control. Their success is keeping them focused. The GOP, meanwhile, remains a party adrift.
If the Republicans can field moderate, well-known candidates to run for the open seats in Shelia Leslie and Bernie Anderson’s districts, they could win those seats. Both districts have a high NP registration, which tend to be moderate voters. Voter turnout is lower in non-presidential years (generally by about 20%). This, coupled with a bad economy will discourage Obama voters from coming out, which could help Republicans in these races.
With so many variables at play here, from a special session to the economy to Obama’s ratings, the races for 2010 remain wide open right now. And any candidate that is willing to enter the race, knowing what a no-win situation they will be in, is to be admired…or checked for mental stability.
I'm Not Credit Worthy
Published: 9/10/2009 11:08:40 AM
Are there actual people working at credit card or insurance companies, or is corporate America all computer automated?
I ask this because I just can’t believe that a person would actually make some of the decisions that these companies are making these days. I can’t believe a person working for, say an insurance company, would actually increase someone’s car insurance rate right now just because their credit score went down. Forget about how you have always paid on time and have no tickets or accidents. Suddenly a long-time good customer is now a bad risk?
In this recession, with millions of people in foreclosure, hundreds of businesses going bankrupt every day, credit card companies reducing credit, and 12% unemployment, credit scores are falling faster than the stock market after Ben Bernanke speaks.
Even those of us not in foreclosure or bankruptcy are seeing our debt ratio rise as credit card companies lower our credit line. Yet, with the Fed loaning money at 0 percent, and prime rate down to 3.25 percent, isn’t it odd that the national average rate for credit cards has actually risen the past year from 11.3 percent to 12.1 percent.
For businesses dependent upon client billings, when a client is slow to pay (or goes bankrupt) it makes it a challenge to pay our bills on time. And without adequate credit to “float” for a month or two…well, a credit score of 780 drops to 630 real soon. But is that score a true reflection of the person, or is it more about the times we are in? Suddenly, millions of hard working folks aren’t credit worthy.
I know the law allows auto insurers to raise rates based on credit scores, but come on people! Look around you. Small business is hurting! We’re not the ones getting bailouts and receiving million dollar bonuses.
We’re the ones employing about half of the work force. We’re responsible for 52 percent of sales and 50 percent of private sector output. We generate over 60% of net new job growth. When we make money, you service industries make money.
Punishing us for this economy is a sure way to not only lose customers, but delay an economic recovery.
It’s getting harder to believe that I can ride out this economy when I see corporate America punishing the working folk. I know their losing money because of all those people who bought a house they couldn’t afford or invested in a housing market that tanked. But we’re pretty much all you have left. If you suck us dry, then who will be around to build this country back up?
Maybe I should just walk away. I’ll quit working 6 days a week. I’ll stop buying food or gas. I’ll let the bank take my house. Then I’ll just hang out at that nice homeless shelter on Record Street and watch an Aces game through the fence.
Corporate America, you are beating us small business folks down. Can’t you step away from your statistical reports and actuarial tables…and just be human?
A house of ill repute and disrespect
Published: 5/29/2009 1:37:56 PM
The spectacle that was our State Senate last week was disgusting, disrespectful and discouraging. Senate majority leader Steven Horsford used the Capitol Police to "take into custody" three absent Republican senators and return them to the legislative body at 2:30 in the morning to face "such action as the Senate may deem proper."
The reason for the aggressive action was not because of an important legislative deadline, it was pure gamesmanship. The Democrats wanted to get the $781 million tax bill to the Governor with enough time left for the Legislature to override his expected veto before they leave town June 1.
This isn’t the first time our legislators have succumbed to such grubby conduct, nor will it be the last. Bills are being held hostage by committee chairs who then retaliate by holding bills of importance to other committee chairs. Bills that died are being amended to unrelated measures. Secret meetings among a elite few determined our state budget. Bills that impact our daily lives will be resolved in quickly-arranged conference committees comprising six lawmakers. Bills will passed in each house before all the members can even read them.
As someone who has run for the legislature, I actually have respect for the institution and for those who serve in it. It is a place that deserves the “best” of those elected to represent the people. It is place where personal agendas and professional associations take a back seat to acting in the best interest of the public good.
And as someone who has not served in the Legislature, I have been cautious to not be critical of the individuals who have been elected. I don’t know the details of the issues they have to address. I don’t know the pressures they are facing. I don’t know the personality conflicts or the "deals" they have cut.
But after this session, and especially the antics of last week, my respect is gone and my caution is tossed.
The level of acrimony among the 21 adults who are elected to make the serious decisions about our state reached a new high, and their behavior reached a new low (and I didn’t think was possible after the 2003 tax hike battle where death threats were made in the hallways.)
I’m sure many a lobbyist and legislator reading this now is softly chuckling, saying that “that is just the way it works here in Carson.”
It may be, but it doesn’t make it right.
When revenge replaces respect, animosity replaces cooperation, and personal agendas override the public good, how can we have conscientious discourse.
This behavior that is now the norm just is not acceptable. They can do better. We can do better. We deserve better.
Business Owners Beware: The Government is Not Here to Help
Published: 5/28/2009 5:24:41 PM
Bleak news this week indicates that the economic recovery will be long and slow, and what the folks are doing to us in Carson is only going to make it worse.
Just a quick reminder in civics for you folks in Carson. The private sector FUNDS the public sector. But if you increase taxes on businesses that are already hurting, they will cut back, which means fire employees. Those employees will stop paying taxes and start collecting unemployment. Increasing the burden on the private sector will increase the burden on the public sector.
A report released this week from the Federal Reserve indicates unemployment will continue to rise even when growth resumes. A key manufacturing indicator showed that factory activity in the key Mid-Atlantic region was only marginally less weak in May than April. Thanks to these and other key indicators, the Federal Reserve now says that a full economic recovery could take five or six years.
Also this past week, our neighbors in California voted down five measures that would have allowed, among other things, the extension of $16 billion worth of taxes. The only measure that passed was the one that freezes the pay rates of state elected officials in down budget years.
So you’d think that with such bad economic news, the reality that it’s still hard for businesses to get loans, that unemployment in Nevada being over 10 percent, and the message that the voters to the West just made about taxes, that maybe a few legislators would stick their head out of their office window and see that raising taxes on the private sector is not going to help the state one bit.
The legislature says they need about $1 billion in new revenue. So they are considering increasing the payroll tax from 0.63% to 1.17% for payrolls over $250,000. They want to double the business license fee from $100 to $200. They want to increase sales tax by 0.35 percent. They want to reduce depreciation on motor vehicles and increase the registration fee. And they are considering taxing services.
Just four short years ago (2005), the state budget was $6 Billion. In 2007 the legislature approved an $8 billion budget (thanks to that 2003 tax increase.) Now we hear the legislature can only “cut” the budget to $7 Billion. How can they justify a $1 billion increase in our state budget in just two years of little growth?
Before they increase our taxes, the legislature needs to do it’s due diligence and reduce spending by adopting the recommendations from the SAGE commission that spent months researching ways to reduce spending. And they must address the public employee retirement and health insurance system that is going to cost the tax payers billions.
Then, if you still need money, open Yucca Mt. as a reprocessing and power generation center! That will bring in $1.5 billion into the state annually!
Please take a moment to call or email your legislators and tell them its time they start making the tough decisions and stop increasing the burden on the folks who provide the jobs in this state.
It’s the Entrepreneurs, Stupid
Published: 5/12/2009 11:11:44 AM
As former President Clinton’s advisor James Carville told the nation in 1992, Clinton would be a better leader than President Bush because Clinton understood that the economy was the issue.
Somehow it seems we need to remind our state legislators as they ponder multiple taxes that will impact business, especially small businesses owned locally by Nevadans, that it’s the small business guys who will get us out of this recession….if you don’t tax them out of existence.
The big guys getting the bail outs are not the leaders of our nation’s economy. It’s the innovators, the entrepreneurs and the survivors that will lead us out of this recession.
The Kaufmann Foundation analyzed hundreds of studies over the last several years and concluded recently that entrepreneurs drive our economy.
Small businesses generate 60% to 80% of net new job growth, and most American innovations come from “the little guy.”
In 2007, 1 out of every 3 adults in the U.S. created a new business each month, equaling about 495,000 new businesses per month.
From 1980-2005, firms less than five years old accounted for all net job growth in the United States.
Despite the fact that business bankruptcy filings in Nevada almost doubled from 2007-2008, just last month over 200 new business licenses were issued in Carson, Reno/ Sparks and Washoe County. Those small business folks, they are such optimists!
And 70 percent of U.S. voters get it. They think the health of the economy depends on the success of entrepreneurs.
And despite the fear many have about the “socialistic” policies being espoused in Washington, I have faith that we survive because of the legacy created in the Reagan/Thatcher era. Those two inspired almost every world government to embrace entrepreneurship. An article in the March 14 Economist highlights entrepreneurship, saying that despite the downturn, entrepreneurs are enjoying a renaissance the world over - and they can continue to enjoy it in Nevada as well.
Nevada is currently ranked number two for the best state tax system in the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council’s annual Business Tax Index. While many in the legislature use this statistic as a reason to raise our taxes, it’s a key reason why Nevada has prospered.
So as you Legislators seek ways to increase taxes on us small business folks, just remember, we have a majority of voters on our side.
As we navigate these difficult economic times, just know that the American Dream is alive. There are hundreds of small businesses out there who are going to pull us through this. So please, stop by one today and thank them…and spend a few bucks with them, too.
The Business of Politics Should be Looking out for Business
Published: 5/11/2009 12:05:37 PM
If you want to stay in business, you better get into politics.
Never has that line seemed more appropriate than now.
Congress and our legislature are considering bills that will impact how we do business, and how much we pay for that honor.
I thought I’d pass on a few bills of concerns, along with some phone numbers, in case you’d like to inform your elected representative of the impact of his/her vote.
The biggest concern to business in Washington is called “card check.” The bill will allow a majority of employees to organize a union by simply signing cards instead of the current secret-ballot election. It also calls for binding arbitration within three months if management and the union cannot agree on a contract.
The bill will increase union harassment at non-union businesses and take away the right of employees to have a confidential vote. Economists say that 600,000 jobs will be lost in the first year alone, with millions more lost in the future as a result of legal uncertainties, expanded government intervention, and higher costs.
People can choose where to work based upon if they want to join a union or not. Don’t business owners have the right to run their business the way they want? If they run it poorly, people leave.
Senator Reid supports the bill. If you’re so inclined, let him know how you feel. 1-866-736-7343, or fax him a note to 202-224-7327.
In Carson, they are looking at all taxes and fees to see which ones to raise, and considering bill to add health insurance mandates – which will only add more to your cost of health care. But it’s not all bad news.
There is actually one tax increase that makes sense! SB 368 would impose a $5 tax on brothel patrons. The tax would raise about $50 million a year. Call Senator Coffin at 775-684-1427 and let him know you agree with him - it’s about time we tax brothels!And call the Assembly Taxation Chair Kathy McClain and tell her too - 775-684-8835.
Another “good” business bill is SB372, which would revise the voter-approved smoking ban by allowing smoking in bars that serve food as long as minors can’t enter. It also allows businesses to wall off ventilated smoking rooms. Now before you send me those nasty emails, I know all the stats on second hand smoke, and I don’t smoke. There are many non-smoking options for workers and patrons. But the smoking ban has had a devastating impact on small bars and slot route operators – and many have closed down. We need to provide some relief. Call Senator Care and urge him to hold a hearing on SB372 -775-684-6503.
Or better yet, go testify at a hearing, or visit your legislator, if you can get an appointment in between lobbyists. But be warned! Spending a day at the legislature may so anger you that you’ll think about doing something foolish, like running for office.
There is Reality, and There is the Legislature
Published: 5/11/2009 11:14:35 AM
It’s often said that our elected leaders in Washington DC are out of touch with the voters, but I’m shocked at how out of touch the legislators in Carson are with the voters.
Legislators are struggling to come up with new taxes, but they refused to tax the oldest and most regulated (and legal) profession in this state.
They passed two bills to change constitutional amendments that voters already approved.
They need to make serious reductions to the state’s budget, but they refused to discuss the recommendations from the SAGE commission that spent months researching and surveying state employees on ways to best reduce state spending.
They are looking at increasing our taxes but refuse to negotiate for funds that we are allowed - by Federal law - to request for Yucca Mountain.
They are considering a 100 percent abatement of property taxes for 10 years for companies that develop “green” energy, but they refuse to even discuss changing plans at Yucca Mountain to include a nuclear reprocessing center that could generate 500 megawatts of clean power at no cost to us! It seems likely they will also increase to 25% the amount that utility companies have to purchase from renewable sources. Do you know what that is costing us, the ratepayers? It costs about $88.75 a month to power the average Nevada household from coal, and about $1,387 from photo voltaic solar. Compared to $21.25 for nuclear power, I really wonder if anyone in Carson is looking at options.
They called the Governor’s $6.1 billion budget dead on arrival, when just four short years ago the state budget was $5.9 billion. The 2005 and 2007 legislatures spent money as if the word “recession” was not a possibility. Now as we face revenues of about $5 billion, they just don’t know what to cut! Well they can start by reducing or eliminating what they created and expanded the last two sessions!
However, it sounds like the “elite few” who have been meeting behind closed doors to develop the budget will not consider such reductions, as they have apparently developed a $7 billion budget.
The way this budget came about is such a great example of the “new era” of an open and transparent government, isn’t it? It’s incredible how we let them get away with it.
A local government official told me one of the reasons he wants to run for the legislature is so he won’t have to deal with the open meeting law!
Amazing how our legislature is inspiring the leaders of tomorrow. It is truly astonishing how out of touch our legislators have become.
There's Dough in that thar' Yucca Mountain - But the plan for the Mountain has to change!
Published: 3/12/2009 12:25:00 PM
Business owners beware! Just because we are in a recession, don’t think we won’t see a tax increase this year. Our legislature is looking for ways to raise revenue, and one tax that will likely be increased this session is the payroll tax.
But many folks are wondering why our leaders aren’t looking at the most logical and available source of funds – Yucca Mountain. How can they ask taxpayers to pony up more money when they either kill funding to the state, or refuse to explore options?
With our state in financial crisis, why does our congressional delegation cut $100 million from Yucca? That cut will directly cost 550 Nevadans their jobs, indirectly reduce service sector jobs, and increase demand for unemployment funds.
They turned a deaf ear to an offer from Congress last summer for $500 million annually if we would stop our opposition.
They tell us that the stimulus package will bring $1.5 billion to Nevada over the next two years, but Yucca’s budget, when operational, will be $1.5 billion a year for 30 years!
Also frustrating is that, by refusing to negotiate on the project, we could miss out on participating in the most exciting research of this century – the advancing of nuclear technology, recycling of nuclear spent fuel, and reactor technology. We will lose the chance to attract thousands of high tech jobs, create new industries, expand manufacturing, and help build the most high tech “green” power plants.
That is why there is a group forming in Reno that is willing to take on the daunting task of talking to our elected leaders about conducting an unbiased assessment of the economic impact of the Yucca Mountain project.
They all realize that it’s time Nevada takes a more realistic approach to Yucca Mountain, one that includes a drastic change to Yucca as we know it.
Yucca needs to change from this 40-year old, bad idea of permanently storing nuclear spent fuel that still has enough energy in it to generate a significant amount of power. We want the state to force the DOE to change Yucca from a long term storage facility to one that will store the fuel in the interim while a reprocessing facility is built on site to vastly reduce the toxicity and half-life of the spent fuel material - using the residual fuel to generate inexpensive and clean power at the site. There should also be an R&D complex for renewable and advanced energy technologies.
The Energy Department has funded 11 communities who asked to host such a reprocessing facility. Because of our continued opposition, we were not asked to participate. We are losing out on the opportunity to reprocess the fuel and generate clean power right here, along with creating thousands of jobs and bringing billions of dollars into the state.
But instead of working with the Department to pursue changes to the project, Nevada continues its legal battle that still has not stopped the project. Just this week Attorney General Masto says she’ll need another $10 million from Nevada’s taxpayers to continue the fight.
Yet despite 25 years of fighting, it is still the law of the land to build a repositiory at Yucca. And it’s still the law (US Code 42) that Nevada can seek funding for the project. But to date, the State has refused to negotiate.
Our state leaders need to take an unbiased look at the project and explore the funding options before they, once again, increase our taxes.
And don’t believe the recent talk that Yucca is dead… It’s just not the case.
While we don’t know what Energy Secretary Steven Chu meant when he told a congressional hearing in February that Yucca Mountain is not an option for nuclear waste storage, we do know the following:
1) It is still the law of the land that a permanent repository be built at Yucca Mt. That has not changed.
2) The Department of Energy has not pulled back the Yucca Mt. application they submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should it do that, it will be hit with a massive (multi billion) lawsuit from the nuclear industry.
3) Yucca is slated to get $288 million in 2010 – while that is well below the request of $500 million, it’s more than would be needed to decommission and close down the project. That is not the kind of money Congress gives to a “dead” project.
4) Congress has a major say in this matter, and there are 34 states (68 senators) that host nuclear power plants and need to dispose of nuclear spent fuel eventually. On site storage can continue for several more years, but it is NOT the long term answer. This nation must have a permanent repository.
5) President Obama and Sec. Chu have yet to offer an alternative to Yucca.
6) There is still a need for permanent storage of defense nuclear spent fuel (from nuclear subs and military installations.) That will most likely continue to be stored at Yucca. (Funny how the media nor Senator Reid talk about military waste…)
So while the Nevada media is hyping up the Secretary’s remarks, Yucca is not dead.
This seems to be a move by Senator Reid to scare off any potential opponents by showing how close he is to President Obama, and that he is so powerful he can kill Yucca. He has convinced Chu and Obama to say that they will kill the project, even though they have no alternative yet. But I’m guessing that alternative will be announced about a year from now, in the height of Reid’s re-election campaign.
That is why we need to continue to educate Nevadans that Yucca is a safe project that can be a positive economic and technological facility that will bring thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to our state.
Don’t let the ego of one man determined to be re-elected ruin the state’s opportunity to safely prosper.
Follow the Yellow Brick Road, to the Web of Debt
Published: 3/1/2009 4:53:15 PM
The Wizard of Oz is an American Fairy Tale of the power of the individual – how you have the ability to manifest your dreams. But it is also a web of deceit, showing us how there are invisible puppeteers pulling the strings of the people we see on the stage.
What makes this fairy tale so interesting now is that the story behind the Wizard of Oz is apparently about the creation of our current monetary system, and the web of deceit this system has created.
The author, Frank Baum, was a journalist in 1900 and wrote this children's story to say what he could not say in his editorials – that the banks were controlling our country.
In a fascinating book called “Web of Debt” by Ellen Brown, she explores how this simple fairy tale is a monetary allegory – with lessons as pertinent today as they were in 1900.
The 1890s were plagued by an economic depression nearly as severe as that of the 1930s. The farmers lived like serfs to the bankers, having mortgaged their farms, their equipment, and sometimes even the seeds they needed for planting. The farmers were as ignorant as Scarecrow about banking policies. In the cities, unemployed factory workers were as frozen as the Tin Woodman from the lack of a free-flowing supply of money to "oil" the wheels of industry.
In the story, Dorothy’s house lands on the Wicked Witch of the East (the Wall Street bankers) who had kept the Munchkins (the farmers and factory workers) in bondage for many years.
For killing the Wicked Witch, Dorothy was awarded magical silver (not red) slippers, representing silver coins. The debate at this time was between printing notes backed by gold or using silver coins for money.
But when Dorothy couldn’t get home, she and her friends set off on a yellow (gold) brick road to seek help from the Wizard of Oz - the all-powerful President Grover Cleveland whose strings were pulled by Wall Street financiers.
You can read more on this at www.webofdebt.com. And while I don’t consider myself a “conspiracy theorist,” this book goes into frightening detail about how our monetary system is really a network of private bankers, called the Federal Reserve – which is not the federal government. It is a private corporation that has controlled the international monetary system since the early 1900s.
Sir Josiah Stamp, director of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s, said in a speech at the University of Texas in 1927 that, “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing.”
We all talk now about how our government is just printing money…but it’s not the government. It’s the Federal Reserve, and we are continuing to go into deeper debt with them. But we’ve been in debt since the 1920s!
“The Federal debt has not been paid off since the days of Andrew Jackson,” says Brown. Only the interest gets paid while the principle continues to grow.
With this new administration, the debt will likely top $14 trillion by the end of the year. That is equal to our nation’s GDP. The last time debt equaled GDP was 1929!
The book also details how a few members of the Federal Reserve created this massive investment scheme called "derivatives” that she predicted in 2006 would cost taxpayers hundreds of trillions of dollars to bail out.
This book came out in 2007, but she has a chapter on consumer debt that discusses how “sub-prime” mortgage lending grew more than 500 percent from 1994 to 2002. She quotes a 2005 article by Gary North who wrote, “I think a squeeze is coming that will affect the entire banking system. The madness of bankers has become unprecedented. Banks will wind up sitting on top of bad loans of all kinds because the American economy is now housing-sales driven.”
She also talks about how Freddie Mac was embroiled in a $5 billion accounting scandal in 2003, while Fannie Mae got caught in 2004 and had to pay $400 million to the government and defrauded shareholders. So are we surprised at the mess these folks got into last year?
But through all the tales of debt, she actually offers a solution. The Government needs to take back the money-issuing power from the banks.
Yep. She actually advocates nationalizing the banks.
She says that only by doing this will the government be able to stop the “vulture capitalist investment banking that has come to dominate the banking business that is a parasite on productivity, serving its own interests at the expense of the public.”
Hum, I wonder if President Obama read this book…
A Few Helpful Hints to Survive the Recession
Published: 1/26/2009 5:34:41 PM
Instead of addressing a business issue like I usually do, I thought I’d try to offer some help to the unemployed and to businesses looking for customers.
I’ll start with some words for the unemployed.
1) Get out of bed! Being unemployed is stressful and depressing, but in this bad economy, it’s even worse. The biggest challenge many face is just facing the day. If you are depressed, consider the temporary use of anti-depressants. We all have done it to get through those rough times, and it can help. There are natural ones like Sam-E and St. John’s Wort, but please, talk to your doctor. And go for a walk. Exercise really helps battle depression.
2) Volunteer. Take a day off from the job hunt to do something good. It will keep you busy, make you feel better, and is a great way to network as you look for work. There are so many organizations that need your help. Go walk dogs at the Humane Society. Help the Food Bank stock food. Mentor students. Check out the Gazette’s volunteer section, www.craigslist.org and www.Volunteermatch.org for ideas. And there is a local website that connects non profits with volunteers, www.nevadavolunteers.org.
3) Consider self employment. It takes motivation and discipline, but as companies are downsizing, they are outsourcing more work. Make a list of what you like to do and what you are good at doing, then visit www.cvtips.com or the small business administration site, www.sba.gov, and check out their self employment section.
4) Network. There are groups all around town that help connect people professionally. The next Biz Talk Blender is Thursday Feb. 5th at Art Source (by Winco) at 6:00, learn more at www.aliceheiman.com. Ewomen meets the 4th Wed at the Airport Plaza at 5:00, www.ewomennetworking.com. If your 39 & under, check out www.renotahoeypn.com, the young professionals group.
5) Take some classes. There are many ways to improve your job skills that will make you more marketable. Morrison University offers night classes for undergrad and graduate courses, check them out at www.morrisonuniversity.com. The University and TMCC have a variety of classes that can sharpen your business skills, visit www.extendedstudies.unr.edu. Student loans can help pay for classes that will get you a better job.
6) Get business cards. Just because you don’t have a job doesn’t mean you don’t have an identity. You can order cards from an office supply store, or buy some card stock and print them at home. Even if it’s just your name and contact info, it’s something to hand out to a potential employer. Or be creative and put down what job you want!
If you’re a business looking for customers, remember that the best source for new customers is your current customers. Give them an incentive to come back and an incentive if they refer you to others who become customers.
And for those of you that need work done - now is time to hire! As the president of a home owners association, I am looking at our reserve study to determine what actions we need to take over the next few years, and I’m seeking bids on them now. I’ll likely get the work done quicker and cheaper, and people need the work, especially in construction, maintenance or landscaping.
And finally, just be good to each other.
What will the Legislature do, now that PISTOL has Passed?
Published: 1/13/2009 2:46:49 PM
Statewide Question 2 (commonly called PISTOL for People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of our Land) is a constitutional amendment related to eminent domain. It was proposed in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), which stated that eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan.
Even before Kelo, the Nevada legislature placed restrictions on the state’s ability to infringe upon private property rights. But that didn’t stop Las Vegas attorney Kermit Waters from putting together this initiative. After the measure passed in 2006, opponents crafted a compromise with Mr. Waters that contains 90 percent of his original initiative, and lawmakers passed it in 2007. If it passes again in 2009, it will be sent to the voters in 2010, and it will override the constitutional amendment just passed.
The question is – will the legislature move the measure in 2009, now that voters have approved PISTOL? Will they listen to the concerns of city planners and transportation authorities who say the measure will hamper economic development and transportation infrastructure and also increase taxpayer costs of these projects? Will they be able to resolve the conflicts that now exist between their compromise legislation and the constitutional amendment that is now law? Or will they look at the 60+ percent margins by which this measure passed and let the voters prevail?
Opponents went to court to see if they could delay implementation of the amendment, considering the pending legislative action. But a judge in Carson City ruled that even though a compromise bill could be in front of the voters in 2010, delaying the implementation of the measure would be compromising the rights of citizens who approved the measure.
So what does that mean? Well, most likely, utilities, transportation authorities, and county and city governments won’t use eminent domain until after the passage of the compromise measure in 2010, if the legislature acts in 2009.
In Washoe County, RTC officials say that while they only use eminent domain in about 3% of land acquisitions, the new law would increase taxpayer costs by about $140 million over the next 20 years due to legal and appraisal fees and increased prices for land.
Recent Nevada eminent domain lawsuits were generated in Las Vega around the Freemont Experience and McCarran Airport, so there is concern that the measure will impact the immediate future of redevelopment and expansions. However, the current economy isn’t conducive to redevelopment right now anyway, so the need for its use will likely be delayed until 2010 anyway. But, as land values are going down, especially in Las Vegas, it is a good time to acquire land for road projects or redevelopment, so its use in Vegas may continue once they determine the impact of the amendment on the process.
Just what does the amendment say? Here are some key provisions:
• Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party.
• The government shall have the burden to prove public use in eminent domain actions.
• Prior to the taking, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled to a hearing by a district court jury as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
• If a public use is determined, the taken property shall be valued at its highest and best use.
• If taken for governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the highest value.
• In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money, necessary to place the property owner back in the same monetary position, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
So for now, we will wait to see if the legislature moves the compromise bill, or just lets the current amendment become law.
Merry Credit - Mess
Published: 12/29/2008 10:12:56 AM
If you read last month’s column on the tightening of credit, it won’t surprise you that I had a few folks in the banking business upset with me. So I will try to address their side of the story.
Banks had to tighten credit now. As one banker said, “easy credit got us into this mess.” They are still making loans, but they are paying closer attention to the 5 C’s of credit: collateral, capacity, cash flow, character, and credit score.
A September 1999 New York Times article by Stephen Holmes announced an action that would, in large part, lead to the mess we are now in: “Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people…”
Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans that it purchased from lenders, and also got pressure from banks, thrifts and mortgage companies to help them make more loans to subprime borrowers.
Oh, if we only knew then what we know now. Well, someone did. Peter
Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute was quoted in article saying, "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."
But this is only one part of the problem, we all know. And determining blame is not going to help. The reality is that Congress and this Administration are pressuring the federal regulators to stop the bleeding. So the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve are all pressuring the banks to reduce risky loans.
Even if you have a high credit score and have had a credit line for 10 years, it’s likely to be reduced if you are lacking in the 5 C’s. They have to. If they don’t, the regulators could shut them down or have their ratings reduced, which increases their costs.
One banker told me that to be profitable, he could only allow 1 percent of the loans to go “bad.” But now, about 5 percent of all loans are bad.
But what about the bailout money that we all thought was supposed to trickle down to stop foreclosures and bankruptcies? While some is available to lend, much is going to buy up smaller banks or bad assets – a move that seems necessary to stabilize the system.
So, the only advice I can give you is make sure your 5 C’s are strong, and get to know your banker. And think about this: bankers are the keepers of the American Dream. They are your partner in helping fund a business or buy a home. And in normal times, they can make that dream come true. And they can also protect you from making bad choices.
But for some, that partnership was not important. Greed got in the way – for both lenders and borrowers - and we all are paying the price.
Lenders Should Be Prepared for Backlash
Published: 12/9/2008 3:53:14 PM
This is for you bank executives, loan officers, mortgage lenders and any one else who extends credit. This financial crisis will end. It may be a year or two, but it will end. The question to you is: will any of your good customers still be your customer?
My friend Cathy owns a flooring company with her husband. They have had an American Express business credit line for 10 years. Last week, Am Ex reduced the available credit from $32,000 to $8,000, and will cut all credit in January. They pay their bills on time and have always paid back the credit line. This credit line is the wiggle room they need right now to make payroll and pay for supplies until they get paid. Losing that credit line could lead to layoffs. They went to their bank, to see about a line of credit, but they weren’t encouraging. Despite their years with the bank, they have to provide all new financials and a new application for a credit line she doubts she’ll get.
Another friend, Don, got a letter from Bank of America last week. The bank capped his equity line at $92,000 less than they originally authorized. Now he is unable to finish the remodel of another house that he started when the loan was approved. The bank says they fear they won’t be able to get their money back if he defaults and they have to sell his house, despite the fact that it was appraised at $200,000 more than the current loans. The reduction in credit means workers are out of a job and Don is stuck with a house he can’t finish and rent.
Don built and has lived in this house for 42 years. He has never missed a payment. He and his wife have a steady income that covers their expenses. But all this doesn’t seem to matter. The banks aren’t looking at the people, their history, their income, or their track record of personal responsibility.
Why are people like Don and Cathy being penalized for the people fooled into buying homes they couldn’t afford, or for the predators who gave them the subprime loans? They are the good guys - the ones that keep our economy going.
We simple business folks are struggling to figure out where the billions of OUR taxpayer dollars went. Didn’t “The Banks” get this money so that they would then extend credit to people to ensure they didn’t lose their homes or businesses? What are The Banks (and all the other companies) doing with it? It sure doesn’t seem like it is getting lent to the good guys who followed the rules and now need credit to survive the recession. Not getting this money is costing people their homes, jobs, and businesses.
And you banks and credit card and mortgage companies are also hurting yourself.
In 2010, when Cathy’s business is back in full swing, I doubt she’ll be an Am Ex member anymore. And Bank of America – you will lose Don and me, and many more folks who didn’t cause this mess but who are being penalized just the same.
You are punishing the wrong folks. And we good customers will remember that.
Everything is NOT on the table
Published: 11/10/2008 5:34:38 PM
The Governor announced this week that everything is on the table to address the economic crisis - including tax hikes.
His statement is disappointing to all who voted for him based on the promise, pledge, guarantee, and “Read My Lips” statements that he would NOT raise taxes.
Now I know that he could not predict the dire circumstances that we are facing, but everything is NOT on the table.
Where are the job cuts? Only 9 people out of 17,500 have been laid off, while thousands of Nevadans in the private sector are out of work.
And why isn’t Yucca Mountain on the table? The State and affected counties have received over $400 million dollars for the Yucca Mt. project since 1982, but we still refuse to ask for “compensation” for hosting the facility. We’ve fought the project for 20 years, but the facility is built. They are just waiting for a license to open it. Folks, the battle is over. We have lost.
The DOE is deciding a new rail line through Nevada. The nuclear industry is now looking at building a re-processing facility. These actions are going ahead without our input.
It’s time for Plan B. We should seek compensation for new roads and rail lines. We should ask for a power plant that will reuse the waste and power Las Vegas. We should get a scientific center to study how to better reduce & reuse nuclear waste as well as study alternative energy like sun and wind – and where better to do that than in the middle of a desert! And we should get compensation for hosting this facility that will benefit the nation.
Just this summer an amendment was offered by Senator Inhofe (R-Okla.) to provide Nevada $500 million a year in cash payments in return for hosting the nation’s nuclear waste repository. There is support for giving Nevada significant funds – if we’d only ask!
The lies surrounding Yucca have gone on long enough. Check out www.yuccafacts.com to learn the “rest of the story” and realize that the waste can be safely transported (2700 casks have been shipped across 1.6 million miles without incident), safely stored, and quite possibly used to generate power and reduce the waste even more.
Our leaders need to hear from more you. Tell them that we should not have to give up more money until they have cut jobs & reduced arcane commissions & offices. Tell them to look at getting paid for hosting this national facility that will benefit every other state... so why not us?
To save you some time, here’s some contact information:
Who’s Helping the Democrats Win? The Conservative Non-Republicans
Published: 11/6/2008 2:34:58 PM
Who’s Helping the Democrats Win?
The Conservative Non-Republicans
Third Party Candidates Gave Democrats Control of the Senate & the Clark Commission
by Randi Thompson
Senator Joe Heck is no longer a Senator, thanks to Tony 'Grass Roots' Blanque (IAP) and Tim Hagan (LIB). These two conservative candidates garnered 7597 votes on Election Day, while Heck lost to Democrat Shirley Breeden by 765 votes.
And you can thank Scott David Narter (IAP) for allowing the Clark County Commission to be all Democrats – the first time in 40 years. While Narter got over 8000 votes, Brian Scroggins (R) lost by less than 2000.
And while we are at, let’s thank Floyd Fitzgibbons (IAP), Jeffery Reeves (IND), and Joseph Silvestri (LIB) for giving Dina Titus the Congressional seat in Vegas. These three garnered 32,000 votes, while Porter lost by 17,000.
You guys aren’t providing an alternative to the GOP, you are giving the Democrats victories they don’t deserve.
We could have won the Carson Assembly District, but perennial IA candidate John Wagner’s 1150 voters took away that chance, with Cheryl Lau losing by 410 votes to Bonnie Parnell.
You also almost cost us Dean Heller’s seat. Dean won by 1754, while IAP candidate John Everhart got 4800 votes. Chad Christensen only won by 889 votes out of over 80,000 cast, thanks to Leonard Foster who got 2,590 votes – way to close of a race in a safe GOP district. Richard McArthur (R) only got 49% of the vote in a very safe GOP district, thanks to Brad Lee Barnhill (IA) and Wayne F. Rudolph (L) who took 5% of the vote.
Whatever your intent, it’s not helping you reach your goals of smaller government, less taxes, and less government intervention in your life. And this year, you helped give the Assembly a veto-proof 28 seats to the Democrats and a two seat lead in the Senate.
I may personally agree more with the Libertarian party than I do the GOP right now, but if you guys really want to make a difference, come back to the GOP and help us reform from the inside. We need you back to help us change.
So my question is this: Will you third parties continue to put people in races they can’t win, only to hurt the GOP candidates? Or will the GOP get the message and start acting more like Republicans to win back the Libertarians and Independents?
I wish third parties could have more of an impact, but we are a two party system. If third party candidates continue to run, we will continue to lose to the Democrats; and our mutual goals of smaller government and less taxes will remain goals that we can not attain.
I urge Sue Lowden to reach out to the leadership of the third parties and work with them to develop a vision that we can all support. If not, future GOP candidates will be on their own to not only fight the folks that actually disagree with our principles, but they’ll be fighting those that generally agree with us. And that is a battle we will continue to lose.
Homeless Complex Not Consistent with Redevelopment Goals
Published: 7/29/2008 2:40:13 PM
I have a new favorite building in town. It is stylish and contemporary with great windows overlooking downtown.
In case you haven’t seen it, you should check it out. It’s on Record Street off 4th. It’s the new homeless shelter.
When I drove by it after the Homeless Summit in late July, I understood why one friend calls it the Taj Ma Homeless!
All the new buildings are cool. There’s a men's drop-in and triage center, a women's shelter, a family shelter, and new dining hall. It’s quite a complex. And it should be for $25 million!
And so convenient to downtown! It’s just a few blocks from casinos, bars, liquor stores, and the soon-to-be baseball stadium.
Ok, I’ll stop being facetious.
But I just have to ask two questions:
1) Who approved the idea of such an elaborate complex, when studies show that providing temporary shelter, food, clothing and other services simply make it easier to be homeless? These complexes are not successful at solving the root causes of homelessness, if that is indeed the goal of this complex.
2) Why build it so close to redevelopment areas and our core downtown?
The second question has been easier to get answered then the first, so I’ll start there.
“Politics,” says Bob Rusk, a leading homeless expert who has been active in the issue for over 20 years.
Over the past 20 years, Bob presented 32 sites as potential locations for a homeless shelter and dining hall. The one favored by all was located near Galetti Way.
The City of Reno spent thousands of dollars in the 1990’s studying that site. All the county and social services folks agreed to the location. Since it was contiguous to the State mental hospital, the City even got Governor Guinn to support it. But at the time, Bruce Breslow was Mayor of Sparks, and he refused to have it there.
So they came up with an alternative site on 4th Street by the city dump. Again, all the governments and social service agencies agreed to the site - expect St. Vincent’s dining hall. They didn’t want to move from their location near the tracks on Record Street. St. Vincent’s was the only “approved” dining hall in Reno, as the council had wanted to consolidate the “soup kitchens” to one location and told all other organizations and churches to stop their operations.
When ReTrac was built and the city received the land along Record Street as part of the deal, it sort of made sense to locate the shelter there since St. Vincent’s was already there and the land was essentially free. So Catholic Community Services, which runs St. Vincent’s, agreed to locate their other social services to this area, and the City decided to build the triage center there as well.
But I don’t know how this old dining hall, a social services center and a new triage facility has now grown to include a NEW dining hall, a men’s shelter, a women’s shelter and a family shelter. (Oh, and a Tent City, but that is to be gone in September.)
No doubt the facility got momentum during the 2007 legislative session, when Reno Assemblywoman Shelia Leslie led the fight to get $20 million from the legislature for the homeless in Nevada, including some money for the Reno complex. She staged a homeless “tent city” in Carson during the legislature and had homeless men and woman bussed to Carson from Reno and Las Vegas to join in their protest. (Many questioned the cost of bussing the homeless from Las Vegas, let alone the appropriateness, and wonder if that is the inspiration of the current Tent City in Reno.)
Shelia, like other homeless advocates, claims that the complex will help break the cycle of high hospital emergency room costs. That is the main reason the two hospitals and local officials like Mayor Cashell bought into the idea and agreed to raise over $25 million to build the complex. But hospital costs are just one element of this, as studies show that such complexes don’t break the homeless cycle. Many fear that it will only attract more homeless to Reno, and several people involved with the homeless have mentioned a “homeless network” where the chronic homeless (generally those that choose to be homeless) travel from city to city and advise others of services that are available. (If you doubt it, read The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls.)
Now I’d admire you good folks who look out for the little guy who’s down on his luck and needs a little help to get back on his feet, which, national studies have shown, is only about 25% of the homeless population. But I’m looking out for the other little guy: The small businessman. A guy like Fred Myer who three years ago bought a building on 4th and spent thousands of his own money to restore it to help rejuvenate a blighted part of town in an area targeted by the City for redevelopment. St. Vincent’s was there at the time, but he never heard about plans for a complex in this redevelopment area.
In three years he has seen the vagrant population increase. He shows the building to potential tenants who are hit-up by panhandlers or watch guys relieving themselves on the building.
Some businesses intentionally look closed. Fred told me about a cool lounge that just opened on 4th Street, but there is no sign. The owner doesn’t want the “locals” to know it’s a bar. Only those “in the know” go there. (Hint, go the Imperial Lounge and ask them.)
Reno’s own study on homelessness says that “we must dramatically shift our approach from serving those in crisis to meeting the needs of those at-risk before the situation becomes a crisis.”
Did you guys not read your own study? This is a “crisis complex.”
Too bad they didn’t spend some of that $25 million on fixing up some of those dilapidated motels downtown and turn them into longer-term transitional housing, which is really what is needed to help folks get back on their feet.
Despite studies that show shelters and soup kitchens don’t stop homelessness - that is exactly what we have. Rusk agrees that the complex is an outdated idea, since permanent housing is what the Federal Interagency Council on Homelessness recommends to actually reduce homelessness. So he hopes the complex will be adapted to better address the goals of the Reno and national studies that focus on preventing homeless (drug awareness, especially meth), transitional housing, and providing services to help folks get back to work.
And a critical component of the complex management better be “tough love” says Rusk. Any resident that breaks shelter rules twice should get 6 months in jail! Many of these guys would rather leave town then serve 6 months in jail, and that is just fine with Fred Myer and all the other business owners who are trying to bring back our downtown!
Time to Build Yucca
Published: 6/27/2008 4:21:16 PM
I have been accused of being “pro Yucca” since 1993. That was the year I worked for the American Nuclear Energy Council (now Nuclear Energy institute) and lobbied our state legislature to consider talking with the Dept. of Energy about the possibility of being compensated for hosting the nation’s nuclear repository, should Nevada become the site.
I’m not necessarily “pro yucca.” I’d prefer that Nevada was not the only site being studied for this waste. But I worked in Washington DC for 9 years in the 1980’s and 90’s, during the time of the designation of Nevada as the only site to be studied for the repository. I saw how determined Congress was to saddle Nevada with this burden, and I could count. In the Senate, we had two votes out of 100 to stop the repository. In the House, it was three out of 435. So frankly, I was just being practical. And I still am.
Here we are, 15 years later, and the program is still moving forward, and Nevada is still not willing to talk to the DOE about compensation. (Nye County gets $10 million a year, but don’t tell the State, as they might see that as getting a “benefit.”) Despite what Bob Loux of the State’s anti-Nuclear Waste office says, there were offers of financial compensation made in the 1980’s. I know. I was there. I worked at the Dept. of Energy and heard the conversations.
But even now, as the license application is awaiting approval, the State continues to bury its head in the sand and say they will fight this. And still, the State is not receiving any financial benefit. Nor is the state even contemplating “Plan B” - in case the project is approved. They still refuse to make demands for compensation for this national burden, or money for roads, or money for taking our own actions to safe guard the repository. I’m frankly just flabbergasted that our elected leaders – our visionaries – refuse to deal with the possibility of the repository becoming a reality. Nor are we demanding that should Yucca win approval, we also get a re-processing power plant built on site that will burn the waste to fuel a power plant, reducing the half-life of the waste.
And I’m not alone. Nationally, our refusal is ridiculed. The article below is from Geotimes, a publication about earth and energy issues. These two distinguished scientists make the argument on the science side, something Bob Loux and his cronies say continually can not be done.
This is just one of many articles and papers being written these days that show a repository can be done safely. Too bad we can’t get our State leaders to open their minds to that possibility and partner with DOE on the project to ensure that Nevadans have a seat at the table.
Time to build Yucca
Rachel Carr Geotimes contributing writer
6/13/08
After 30 years and $9 billion worth of federal research, Yucca Mountain is one of the most intensely studied pieces of real estate in the world. But the Nevada landmark — the proposed site of a national geological repository for high-level nuclear waste — remains shrouded in controversy. In a new report, two experts admit that scientists cannot answer every question about the site's future security. Still, they say, it is time to move forward and build a carefully monitored facility.
"The point we're making is that there will never be closure to all the questions about Yucca Mountain, or any other site" that could host an underground nuclear repository, says Isaac Winograd, an emeritus scientist of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). But that's no excuse for inaction, argue Winograd and Eugene Roseboom, also a USGS emeritus scientist, in a paper published today in Science. "We have to live with some unknowns," Winograd says. "The real question is whether it's safer to put this waste in one isolated, monitored site or to keep it spread among 121 sites throughout the country."
The idea for a centralized nuclear waste repository dates back to a 1957 recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences. Since the beginning of the U.S nuclear program, waste from nuclear reactors and other projects has been stored in temporary facilities in 39 states. Moving it to a single, underground site would reduce the environmental, health and security risks of storage, the Academy said. Congress endorsed the strategy in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which authorized detailed studies of three potential storage sites. In a 1987 amendment, Congress settled on Yucca Mountain. Since then, the Department of Energy (DOE) has worked to design the facility.
The original plan called for waste storage to begin in 1998. Ten years after that deadline, however, the project is still mired in debate. Citizens and policymakers from Nevada and across the nation have waged an ardent legal battle to prevent implementation. Winograd and Roseboom examine the reasons behind the opposition. For one, they note, the Yucca Mountain Project was born in political controversy. Congress passed the 1987 amendment before officials completed technical reviews of the three proposed sites, fueling distrust among Nevadans who now call it the "Screw Nevada Bill."
But the other factors, they say, would apply to many proposed repository sites and thus should not continue to hamper the project. One sticking point is the public's belief that radioactive waste, once stored underground, cannot be accessed if new problems arise and the waste needs to be moved.
That's simply false, the authors explain. In fact, one of Yucca Mountain's chief benefits is its openness to monitoring and possible future retrieval. The public's more general discomfort with radioactive waste storage, they argue, stems from a fear of nuclear radiation, wariness of experts and NIMBY ("Not In My Backyard") sentiments — not from technical questions about Yucca Mountain.
One technical question does have some scientific basis — lingering unknowns about the facility's security and its future stability. Yet that's just the nature of scientific endeavors and pioneering projects, Winograd and Roseboom write: "The more we learn about a given subject, the more complex it becomes." Given the vast time scales involved — much of the radioactive waste has a half-life of thousands or millions of years — precise predictions are an especially tough business.
The best way to limit that uncertainty, the authors say, is to build the repository in stages, initially as a pilot plan. "Each step of the process should provide feedback to the step that follows it," Winograd says.
Bob Loux, director of the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, says that's not enough to clear the controversy. In the minds of Nevadans, he says, uncertainty isn't the real issue. "The problem is with the site, not with the predictions."
Loux offers a long-range forecast of his own. Most Nevadans, he says, will never support the Yucca Mountain Project — even if officials follow a closely monitored, multi-step plan. "There's no chance," he says. "There's such a distrust of the DOE and the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission]. Nevadans believe the whole process is rigged."
For now, the fate of Yucca Mountain remains uncertain. On June 3, DOE finally submitted its application for a license to build the full-scale repository at Yucca Mountain (a pilot project repository has been built) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the approval process will take three to four years. Says NRC spokesman David McIntyre, "It's definitely too early to say what will happen."
Leave it to a kid from Sudan to Teach us the Value of Education
Published: 5/28/2008 8:37:25 PM
John Bul Dau didn’t start first grade until he was 18, but he still ended up getting a college degree.
Dau is one of the Lost Boys of the Sudan who fled a war torn village in the late 1980’s, and walked literally for years before finding a refuge camp where he able to finally live in peace, and go to school.
In a fascinating book of survival, God Grew Tired of Us, Dau relates how important education was to these kids who had to flee their villages during the 1980’s and 1990’s as civil war broke out. Over 25,000 boys were left to grow up in refuge camps around Africa, and the only way for them to get out of these camps was to get an education.
Education in a Sudanese refugee camp was not easy. Dau, who started first grade at age 18, talks of his desire to learn, despite sitting in the hot African sun for hours on end, having no supplies or books, and having to understand his lessons in his native tongue as well as English, which he had never heard until he got to the camp.
The teachers in the refugee camp in northern Kenya, “were a mix of Sudanese adult caretakers and educators from the Kenyan school system. They didn’t have any fancy school supplies. My teachers made their own blackboard and markers. They built a three-legged easel out of long sticks and a handful of nails. Atop the crossbeam they placed a blackboard fashioned from the bottoms of a half-dozen square tins that originally held vegetable oil, topped with a layer of corrugated cardboard. In place of chalk they marked on the cardboard with lumps of charcoal rescued from the camp’s fire pits. When they were done, they wiped the smudges clean with a cloth.”
Dau talks of how the refugees understood that without an education, they had no future. He would watch his friends get the results of their tests, and they would cry if they did not pass. “A score of 350 meant the end of the line for a refugee student, with no appeal.”
When was the last time you saw a Nevada student cry at not passing a test? Heck, when was the last time a Nevada student even appreciate going to school?
These refugees were able to pass their exams each year despite not having pencils and papers, let alone a computer. When you see how much they valued education and were willing to endure so much just to have the privilege to learn, well, I just don’t have much sympathy for the financial "crisis" our educational leaders desperately want us to believe exists in Washoe County today.
Dau talks of the challenge of getting access to books, and said that his biggest problem was getting inside the library. “Most boys wanted to study just as hard as I did, and long lines formed outside the library doors every day. The librarians would not allow anyone to remove a book from the building, so I had to wait in line for as long as two hours for people on the inside to finish reading.”
To ease the overcrowding, a system was set up that designated certain schools to access the library on certain days. “I made a note of which days had been set aside for my school and jumped out of bed before dawn to get a spot near the head of the line.” I wonder how many kids jump out of bed to study these days.
When was the last time you saw a line to get into a Nevada library?
I can’t help but compare Dau's experiences with the comments I read from the principal of my old high school, Reno High. In an April 7th Reno Gazette Journal story, Reno High Principal Bob Sullivan said the “school's windows need to be replaced because they're showing their age and allow cold air into the school.” He also says the heating and cooling system also needs to be modernized.
The weekly articles in the Reno Gazette about the poor conditions of our schools seem to imply that it is those poor conditions that cause poor student performance. The problem is not with the schools; it’s with the attitude that the principals, teachers and students have about education. Kids don’t value education because the teaching community is more focused on getting more tools and nice schools than it is on communicating the importance of education to kids. Students don’t appreciate the tools, the talent, and the buildings that they are getting at no cost.
Maybe if God Grew Tired of Us was mandatory reading in our schools, teachers, principals and students alike would better understand how good they have it.
Oh, and to let you know about Dau. He finished his high school learning in Kenya, and applied for a United Nations program to migrate to America. There he and three friends shared a small apartment in New York, worked two jobs, and went to community college. They all graduated.
Meanwhile, Nevada has a 30% high school drop out rate.
It doesn’t take nice buildings and computers to graduate from high school and college. It takes desire, appreciation, and commitment to a better life. Let’s see if teachers can teach that.
Term Limits
Published: 4/18/2008 8:25:48 AM
I’ll admit that most voters don’t generally know the intended and unintended consequences of some ballot questions, especially when they are intentionally confusing. The competing smoking ban questions in the 2006 election, or the multiple questions to limit malpractice liability in 2004, were intended to confuse voters. That is a bad way for special interests to change policy in this state, let alone deceptive to the voters. Now it appears that some legislators are playing a similar game of trickery.
Veteran legislators are now saying that the voters didn’t vote for the exact same question twice, and thus the term limits law is not “legal.”
The 1994 ballot question limited terms for all elected officials, including judges. But the Supreme Court stepped in and split the 1996 question into two parts. One covered judges and was rejected by voters. The second part covered all other officials and passed, with about 70% of the vote. Voters voted twice to limit legislators and local officials. Their intention is perfectly clear. Whether it’s legal is in question, but shame on the courts for not correcting this issue by saying that both questions should appear again in 1998. But the intent of the issue is clear. Voters want term limits. To blatantly go against voter intent is not only outrageous, but incredibly self-serving for the noblesse oblige who run our legislature. (Of course, they are getting third parties to do fight the battle so that they don’t look self-serving.)
Voters know the intended consequences of term limits – they don’t want career politicians who become beholden to the special interests. They also knew the unintended consequences – that some long-time leaders, whom they may like, won’t be able to run anymore. But that is a price they are willing to pay so that they can have a little control over the election system.
I’m not surprised at the assault on term limits. Some of these folks just can’t let the power go. I just hope that the voters will revolt at this blatant attempt at job protection and fight off this end run around the constitution and voter intent. I also hope that the court rules that while the Supreme Court messed up by separating the 1994 question into two questions in 1996, voter intent was clear on the issue. We voted twice to limit the term of legislators. If the court doesn’t rule this way, then they should be prepared for another term limits fight – and this time it should include judges!
Realities of a Recession....
Published: 3/28/2008 3:31:37 PM
There may be more budget reductions coming soon to state government, and what do educators say?
According to a Las Vegas Review Journal story, state public schools Chief Keith Rheault said that the next round of cuts could lead to reductions in staffing for athletics or other non-teaching programs.
Now, I like Keith Rheault, but come on, Athletics? Well that is one way to get the parents engaged. Cut athletics instead of oh, say, a few administrators, or a few assistant principals.
He’s taking a page from the teacher’s union handbook and making cuts that will get the public’s attention. They are considering cuts to programs that parents actually help pay for! That’ll tick them off and get them to come out and vote for a ballot question to raise taxes for schools, because they will see that the school boards have cut all that they can, now that they are cutting athletics. Oh please!
Come on Mr. Rheault – do the right thing and get rid of the middle management as the private sector does when money gets tight. Early retirement buy outs are good, too.
But doing that won’t get the public’s attention.
But my favorite gripe comes from Mary Jo Parise-Malloy of Nevadans for Quality Education. She is mad at the Governor for further cuts in education, saying “education wasn't supposed to be a part of the cuts last time around either. “
Oh come on. Education is 35% of the state budget. You can’t take it out of the mix. Across the board cuts are the most equitable cuts. Considering that 80% of the state budget goes to salaries, the reality is that real budget cuts mean job losses. Just like in the private sector.
I have three friends who have lost their jobs in the past few months. It sucks, but it happens. I fail to understand how government employees feel that their jobs are above “cutting”.
And for all of you that say, “oh let’s just raise taxes.” That is the last thing the government should do in a recession! We all have to slow our spending, and government is no different.
McCain's Lead Gives Me Hope
Published: 2/12/2008 8:29:39 PM
I’m not a big McCain fan - can’t say I was thrilled with any of the candidates running for President. But McCain’s lead indicates, to me at least, that the Christian right wing, pro-life activist don’t control the Republican Party. It gives me hope that moderates still have a voice in the GOP. And it shows that the silent majority is really us moderates – the folks that the media totally ignores.
Let me remind you that the basic core value of the Republican Party is less government in our life. To me, and many others, that means it’s not the role of government to tell you how to run your life - how many kids you should have, or who you should marry. Those are decisions better dictated by your religious beliefs than by your government. This position is more aligned now with the Libertarian Party, but it truly is a Republican position.
Sure McCain is pro-life, but he’s not suggesting a constitutional ban on abortion like Huckabee, I can handle a pro-lifer like McCain.
Sure McCain is not the best fiscal conservative, but if he sticks to his promises of making the Bush tax cuts permanent and will veto spending bills containing earmarks, then I can live with that.
I like McCain because he has risen above the negative rhetoric and hate-speak that dominates national politics. He’s reached across the isle to work with “the enemy.” What a novel concept.
Now maybe McCain-Feingold-Cochran is not the best bill ever, but at least he was wiling to go where few politicians have in the past and do something to level the playing field in campaigns. Much more needs to be done, but his bill was a start.
Our elected leaders should take a clue from McCain and try working with the other party. Voters are fed up with the hate-speak and rhetoric. We want you guys to work together, to get along, and to find common ground. McCain has done that, and we like. Get a clue politicians – stop bashing the other party and start working with them to tackle the tough issues.
And for those who say McCain is too liberal, just look at the recent National Journal’s ratings of the Senators. Obama was the most liberal Senator, while Clinton ranks 16th. McCain is looking a little better.
Nevada’s Role in Presidential Politics is Not New
Published: 1/22/2008 1:09:55 PM
Many think that the presidential caucus this month is going to put Nevada in the national political spotlight. Well, Nevada has been in the presidential spotlight for decades, though not always in a positive light.
“West Wing” fans remember the last episode of the show as Matt Santos is watching the election results - and as he wins Nevada, he wins the election. Similar to what happened in 2000 when Bush won Nevada, which put him over the top in electoral votes. Our role in national politics was memorialized by NBC, but it’s not the first time our role was revealed.
In a fascinating book on Nevada’s role in national politics, “The Money and the Power” by Sally Denton and Roger Morris, they explain the role Nevada played in the 1960 race - when Jack Kennedy, backed by gaming interests, was running against Nixon, who was backed by Howard Hughes.
Many know the stories of Joe and Jack Kennedy and their time spent the Cal-Neva at Lake Tahoe, and on The Strip. This relationship with gaming turned into a major source of funding for Kennedy.
It was that potential funding that caught Joe Kennedy’s attention in 1958. According to Morris and Denton, Joe Kennedy sent scouts to Nevada to investigate the state and ended up giving money to help Grant Sawyer become Governor - as Kennedy believed the way to gaming was through the Governor. And it did. According the Morris and Denton, JFK received over $15 million from Las Vegas interests – an astronomical amount in 1960.
When Election Day arrived, the odds on The Strip were three-to-two for Kennedy. Morris and Denton recount how Teddy Kennedy called casino boss Ross Miller at the Riviera to place a $10,000 bet on his brother to win. It’s a little ironic that grandson Ross Miller is now the man responsible for fair and honest elections as our Secretary of State. At least betting on elections is illegal now.
Nevada was the only far west state to go for Kennedy, which he won by 1,900 votes. But many questioned the results. Precincts in North Las Vegas turned in way more votes than anyone reasonably expected. Across the nation, election fraud was verified in numerous areas, by both parties, but the new Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy, halted most of the investigations, while corrupt judges around the country took care of the rest. Kennedy won the election by 114,000 votes out of nearly 69 million. (So when you hear people say how George Bush stole the election in 2004, the same could be said of Kennedy, and probably many others.)
It was the votes of Nevada, and the money from gaming, which gave Kennedy his win over Nixon. As we continue to play an important role in presidential elections, let’s hope it isn’t quite so tainted.
Democracy is not a perfect system
Published: 1/21/2008 8:39:21 AM
While Democracy is a participatory sport - caucusing requires full body contact.
That’s what made the caucus so fun to me. You could not help but get engaged in the democratic process.
Unlike a primary where you just go vote in an atmosphere of anonymity, the caucus forced you to interact with other voters. People talked with their neighbors about issues and listened respectfully as people shared their beliefs.
As a worker at the Galena High caucus, I went from room to room to provide guidance on the process. I was impressed with the way people were not afraid to share their views and opinions on issues from immigration to the economy. But I was most impressed with the respect and civility that these strangers showed their neighbors.
While I’m torn on whether we should caucus again, or go back to a primary, I’m glad that I participated. I have renewed faith in the voters of Reno. I’m proud of those who expressed their opinion on issues or candidates. I’m pleased with how many of you sought a delegate spot to the convention. But I’m most impressed with the sheer number of people who came out on a beautiful Saturday morning to participate.
Democracy is not a perfect system. Neither is caucusing. But for those that participated, you experienced democracy at the most personal and important level.
Now as we move forward, it is the job of the State and County party to keep you engaged, and I will work to help make that happen!
And on a different note about the caucuses: Why aren’t the Democrats releasing the vote totals for the candidates like the GOP did. They released the delegate count, but are refusing to release the actual votes that each candidate got.
I suspect that in their precinct meetings they only really counted the number of delegates that went for Clinton or Obama, but if they are boasting about the record turnout, why don’t they authenticate it with the actual numbers of people that voted? Seems like a smart idea to me. But then, I’m a Republican.
In an attempt to make Nevada relevant, Nevada GOP voters became irrelevant
Published: 1/16/2008 11:02:13 AM
“For the first time in 50 years, my husband can’t vote in a Presidential primary. This caucus idea is discriminatory.”
That’s what a friend’s mom said to me recently. Her husband, who’s mind is active, but his body is not, can not physically attend the caucus. He votes absentee in elections, but he isn’t allowed to vote absentee in the caucus – you must attend in person.
That’s when it hit me. She is right. This caucus is discriminatory to our military who are not in town, to anyone on travel or who work on Saturdays, and to those physically unable to attend. That is not a fair and open election.
But what’s worse – it’s not even an election! The presidential vote that the GOP will hold on the 19th is a straw poll only. While we will vote for delegates to the county and state convention, they are not bound to outcome of the straw poll.
So, essentially, Nevada Republicans have no say in this year’s presidential primary.
Now I know that by the time we normally vote in September, the nominee is pretty much determined, so Nevada’s vote is irrelevant, but at least we have a vote!
The original intent of Nevada participating in these caucuses was to get more attention from presidential candidates – but that didn’t work out too well. Most of the candidates have been here at least once, but we’d expect that anyway. We also didn’t get the advertising buys that many caucus supporters had hoped.
Republicans are mad. The process had been confusing. The planning has been chaotic, (like postcards being mailed with wrong information.) And the outcome doesn’t matter.
I hope the state GOP leadership will analyze the situation and develop a solution that makes our votes count. Let’s either go back to a September primary, or change the process to ensure that we have a say in the election process.
