Our Sponsors:












Nevada NewsMakers Blogs


Randi Thompson

Randi's Rants

Randi Thompson
Nevada NewsMakers Politcal Analyst
Nevada NewsMakers Blogs

 

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.
 
What about getting rid of a couple dozen of the over 100 state boards and commissions like the College Savings Plan Board,  Carson Water Sub Conservancy District, Creation of a Statue of Sarah Winnemucca Board, Cultural Affairs Board & Commission, the Board of Geographic Names, the Humanities Committee, the Fund for the Institutional Care of Medically Indigent, the National and Community Service Board, or the Subsequent Injury Funds for Self-insured Employers Board?   Many of these have been sacred to legislators and governors as a way to thank big supporters, but enough already! 
 
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:
 
Governor Gibbons – 684-6570
 
Majority Leader Barbara Buckley - bbuckley@asm.state.nv.us
Minority Leader Heidi Gansert - hgansert@charter.net
Majority Leader Steven Horsford - shorsford@sen.state.nv.us
Minority Leader Bill Raggio - wraggio@sen.state.nv.us
 

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.

Huckabee Runs Counter to our Constitution

Published: 1/8/2008 11:40:36 AM

Mike Huckabee is running for President on a religious platform that runs counter to our constitution and to the founding principles of America. He’s not running as a morale leader, he’s running as the morale police. 
 
He’s the worst kind of social conservative – he is advocating public policy positions that are entrenched in his religious beliefs. He not only wants to ban gay marriage and abortion, but ban smoking. Oh, and he opposes gambling and isn’t real big on drinking either. Now I respect his right to have those opinions, I just don’t think he should impose them on the nation as public policy.
 
These are basic civil rights – and constitutional rights – remember the pursuit of liberty and happiness? You should be free to love whom you want, have a family if you want, and smoke or drink if you want – as long as your actions don’t violate the rights of others. It is not the role of government to infringe on your basic civil liberties.    
 
Believe me - I want our government leaders to be morale. But I don’t want our government leaders to force their morality on us.
 
And while he may be a social conservative, he is NOT fiscal conservative. As Governor he increased taxes many time, ballooned government spending, and increased regulation. During his time in office in Arkansas he increased sales taxes 37%, 16% increase in motor fuel taxes, and 103% in cigarette taxes, according to the Americans for Tax Reform. Under Gov. Huckabee, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation.
 
Our founding fathers left England for just that reason. The Church of England was the government. A group of rebels left that rule and came to America to establish a country with a constitutional principle that says that government can not dictate what religion you want to practice. That is the freedom of religion doctrine. 
 
The separation of church and state doctrine means that government and religion should be separate and not interfere in each other's affairs. Huckebee is violating that basic constitutional provision.
 
But separation of church and state does NOT mean separation of church FROM state. We are one country under God. Our founding fathers supported us being religious, but they were adamant that we not be forced to be religious, nor that our elected leaders impose their religion on us.
 
Mike Huckabee is doing just that; and for that, he should not be President.

It's not Global Warming, It's Arson

Published: 11/7/2007 1:47:38 PM

I can’t believe all these politicians that are getting media attention as they try to blame Bush or Iraq or Global Warming for the fires raging in Southern California. 

 

There is only one reason for the fires – ARSON.... Or should I say arsonists.  There are apparently several sick people out there who started fires.

 

Now, no, not ALL of the fires were started by arson, but frankly, that’s not important right now anyway.  Eventually it will be.  And looking at how the environmentalists have refused to let forest managers conduct controlled burns is a good place to start…but not yet.  

 

Instead of trying to gain headlines by looking for the cause of the fire, it sure would be nice if those whiney California Liberals would instead look for the money and resources that are needed to get the fires out and the people back on their feet.

 

I seriously doubt the families who just lost all their positions give a damn about what caused the fires.  If I was one of them, I’d sure as hell be mad at folks like the Lt. Gov of California, or Pelosi or Feinstein who used my misery to make political headlines.  They were really thinking of their constituents.

 

And PLEASE stop with all the comparison talk of how the government responded to these fires versus Katrina and Rita.   There is no comparison, because these areas of the country are worlds apart.

Let’s just start with the simple fact that this part of California is economically more affluent. These people are not dependent on government subsidizes as a majority of the people affected by Katrina were – especially those in the 9th Ward.  Many of these Southern Californians are more self-reliant and fiscally responsible. They look to themselves first to get back on their feet.  They’ll reach out to family, friends, and neighbors before even pursuing support from agencies like the Red Cross, let alone government.  Sure, they will deal with local government for help with “paperwork,” but they won’t be looking for a hand out, or expecting FEMA to put them in a trailer while they rebuild.  The role of the Federal government is not as prominent here, because it is not a prominent part of their lives.

 

Now I know this is a generalization about the populations of these two parts of our county. But we as a nation have got to understand that personal responsibility is the key to re-building our life.  Looking to government is not the answer.  But after Katrina, it seems that the media and the liberal whiners now expect the government to jump in and take over after a disaster. 

 

As a Republic, we need to get back to the idea that the best government is that which governs least. The most effective, responsible and responsive government is the government closest to the people.  And the foundation of a sound Republic is personal responsibility.

 

If you doubt this, let’s see where Southern California is in two years after this disaster.   Let’s hope they are further along than Louisiana is now.

What is Brewing for 2008 and 2009 - Hide Your Wallets!

Published: 10/5/2007 12:52:26 PM

Expect to see Tax Increases and Tax Caps on the Ballot Next Fall

The 2007 legislative session can really be labeled "Much Ado About Nothing."
Before the session started in February, Legislators were told to expect a surplus of $500 to $800 million. By May that figures was down to under $100 million. The Democrats were pushing for full day kindergarten in every school, but in the end it was only expanded to 63 schools. The Governor wanted "empowerment" for all elementary schools across the state, but funding was granted for only 30 schools. A $5 Billion backlog loomed for road construction, but in the end less than $1 Billion was allocated from existing revenues.

With so many hopes dashed for funding increases, the 2007 session has really done just one thing: forced everyone to revamp their plan for how to get more money in the next election and the next session.

So that means the 2008 election is shaping up to be a battle for tax increase, and it’s a three-way war: Teachers vs. Gaming vs. Business.

Already we hear that the teachers are threatening a ballot initiative to increase gaming taxes to go toward education – that is why you’re seeing ads by gaming saying how they are already pay 50% of the education budget. Expect to see ads, sponsored by gaming, saying how the business community should be paying more to build roads (since a chunk of change was allocated to road construction from the room tax in Vegas - room tax money that normally goes to the Convention Authority.)
In Washoe County, school board officials are putting together a tax package for the 2008 ballot that is likely to increase fees on developers and taxes on real estate.

The question on eminent domain that was on the ballot in 2006 will be on again, even though the legislature did pass a measure dealing with the issue this year. The legislative action should make the ballot question moot, but since they both are amending the constitution, both have more hoops to jump through before either becomes law.

We also hear that The Sands Corp. is considering underwriting the cost of a ballot initiative for 2008 to take "new" room tax revenues and put it into building roads, expanding on the room tax funds that were diverted from the Convention Authority this past session. With so many new high-end rooms opening or planned, expansions at The Venetian and Wynn and new construction with Echelon Place and MGM Mirage's CityCenter, some estimate "new" room taxes might raise as much as $200 million a year for transportation needs. To make this more "saleable," they may toss some of the money at education.

Meanwhile, there are individuals with their own agenda. University Chancellor Jim Rogers is personally paying for a study to determine the feasibility (and potential acceptance) of personal income tax. This action would require amending the constitution, and for decades Nevadans have said "no way" to an income tax.

Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle is still on the path for a Prop 13 style tax relief for homeowners, but the AFL-CIO and Teachers Union filed a law suit against her petition and it has been stopped,for now. Angle claims that the property tax cap that was passed in 2005 is unconstitutional since it set a different cap for residential (3%) and commercial (8%) property.

We are now feeling the economic impact of past ballot questions that raised the minimum wage and banned smoking in stores and restaurants, so we are very concerned with what may happen in 2008 on these questions that will likely raise taxes and fees. Battle lines are being drawn and money is being raised to support or oppose these questions. The bottom line is that your bottom line is threatened. Hold tight to your wallet, and make sure your voice is heard at the ballot box! If not, it could cost you dearly.

2007 Was NOT a Business-Friendly Session

Published: 6/26/2007 3:13:44 PM

2007 Was Not a Business-Friendly Session
On the surface this legislative session looked fairly business-friendly.   No taxes were increased, the pay roll tax did not go up .02% as required under the 2005 bill, and money was allocated for highway construction. 
 
But if you knew what was happening behind the scenes, you’d soon learn that the Legislature, especially the Assembly, is growing more and more anti business.
 
Legislators were a bit spoiled last session when they had about $800 million of “surplus” taxpayer money to play with. After they returned $300 million to drivers, they still doled out money to numerous projects and organizations that normally would not get money from the legislature. What a trend that started! Many of those organizations were back again, asking for even more money. But when the Economic Forum in May said that a surplus just wasn’t gonna happen, let alone cuts should be made in the Governor’s request, reality should have hit hard.   But it didn’t.
 
Barbara Buckley continued her push for full day kindergarten with a $100 million price tag.   Shelia Leslie still wanted $20 million for the homeless. Dina Titus wanted $60 million for teacher incentive. They wanted the money despite the reality that there wasn’t any to spare. So what was their answer? Raise taxes.
 
At one point Buckley was pushing a tax increase of close to $2 billion to cover roads and schools
 
But it wasn’t state programs that were the only problem. Private sector organizations like The Cancer Institute wanted $10 million, Truckee Flood Control wanted $20 million, $1 million for Chronic Fatigue… the list goes on and on. With little surplus available, the fight over the scraps intensified. 
 
The real kicker was the one no legislator wanted to touch – a $5 billion shortfall in transportation with a pledge of no new taxes from the Governor! This legislature was looking for money every day, and they were looking for it in ways that could circumvent the Governor’s pledge. They’d passed bills out of committee that added on a fee, only to have the fee stricken later. So when that didn’t work, they tried the unusual tactic of “letting the VOTERS decide”. That’s a surefire way to kill a new levy—the voters won’t support it. Then they want to put a question on the ballot to see if voters want to raise money for school construction. They tried another one for roads, but that bill died. 
 
When they weren’t trying to raise taxes and fees, they were reducing existing tax breaks. We all know how they changed the “green tax” to reduce the property tax abatement. They also killed any bills that would have reduced payroll tax, even if it encouraged health insurance, or property tax abatements for education. They also refused to roll back the bank franchise fee or adjust the higher payroll rate, which many believe are unconstitutional, let alone totally unfair.
 
Beyond the money issues, the Democrat leaders in the Assembly tried time and again to put more rules and regulations on businesses.   From trying to manage Pay Day loans out of business, to forcing stores to report every shipment of allergy pills, business lobbyists spent more time killing bad bills that limited competition, then pushing ones that encouraged free enterprise. This anti-business sentiment is only getting stronger, and it will continue as long as the Assembly remains in Democrat (and union) hands.
 
The business community has got to come together and find qualified business people to run for the Assembly. With term limits, there will be 10 Democratic Assembly seats opening up in 2010 (while only 2 Republican seats are open in solid GOP districts.) If you’re a boss, you need to look ay your employees and see if there is someone you can spare for a few months. Otherwise, we’ll continue to have an Assembly run by government workers!
 
But Business also has to come together on the transportation issue. Business in general was united in its opposition to increasing the weight distance fee or the diesel tax, as its cost would hurt commerce and consumers. Gaming opposed the reallocation of their room tax. And no one would touch a gas tax increase – the most logical source. The Governor’s plan is a temporary fix until business and gaming can come together. And they had better do so by 2009, or the tax fight of 2003 will look like a schoolyard brawl compared to the championship smackdown that will be 2009. I don’t want ringside seats for that fight!

Democrats Show True Color - Yellow

Published: 5/12/2007 12:21:57 PM

Last week an “emergency” bill came out of the Democrat-controlled Assembly to overturn the “green” tax. This was a 50% reduction on property taxes for companies that spent more in the construction of their building to comply with strict national environmental standards. The Dems created this bill in 2005, but they failed to look at the full consequences of it – which is nothing new.
 
The idea was to encourage companies to be more “green.” But when education leaders cried “poor” this year due to the enactment of the 2005 property tax cap (that Democrats Titus and Perkins pushed to help their failed runs for Governor) and this “green” tax abatement, the Assembly Democrats saw red and turned yellow.
 
They chickened out.  They caved to the teachers union. They chose education over the environment. They chose taxpayer funded day care (full day kindergarten) over clean air. 
 
Now this isn’t a shock. We know they are the party of the teachers union. But to consider this an emergency and go back on their word is bad policy. They are once again reacting too quickly to something they created. They failed once again to look at the unintended consequences of their actions.  
 
Luckily the Governor is being more responsible and looking at the legal ramifications of removing this tax abatement. And he’s not buying the teacher’s union cry for more money. Until educators and Democrats realize that our education system is failed (over 30% drop out rate) they will continue to face a fight from the rest of us who don’t want to throw money at a failed system. 

Illegal Immigrants Want Path to Citizenship

Published: 5/2/2007 1:45:47 PM

I read about the rallies across the country on May 1st, May Day.

 

May Day...the day generally reserved for communists and socialists to rally for the labor movement...is now a day of protest for illegal immigrants who want a path citizenship.

 

Mother’s were telling reporters how we shouldn’t deport their families. Of course, they didn’t dare tell the reporters how they came here illegally to birth their children so they can take full advantage of our health and educational system - at no cost to them.

 

I’m sorry.  I know the illegals are key to our service and construction industry. I understand how we are taking advantage of them for jobs no legal citizens will take.  But I’m losing empathy, and I’m losing respect for their fight because of their attitude.

 

You want a path to citizenship, follow the rules all the legal citizens followed. 

You want a path to citizenship, learn English.

You want a path to citizenship, stop cheating the system with fake social security numbers, and stop using the emergency room as your primary care physician.

 

If not, you want a path to citizenship - just follow the Rio Grande.

Teacher's Union Newest Stooge

Published: 4/30/2007 4:42:26 PM

Rookie Democrat Ruben Kihuen is the latest legislator to fall into the hands of the teachers union. He is pushing a bill that allows a teacher to continue to teach for up to 90 days after their teaching license lapses. 
 
I watched him on Headline News Legislative Update and I just couldn’t believe his rationale for this bill.  
 
I’ll paraphrase some of the highlights:
 
If a teacher fails to pass the test for his license, he should not have to stop teaching and be pulled from the classroom where the kids just love him.
 
If the teacher loses his license because he is too busy mentoring a student or can’t get fulfill his 6 hours of continuing education, he should not be pulled from the classroom, cause it’s just not fair to the students who love him.  
 
There is such a shortage of teachers, so kicking them out of the classroom for not having a license is only making the shortage worse, and the kids will suffer.
 
He had several more reasons; most of them just as inane, and most of which ended with… it’s just not fair to the kids who love their teacher…
 
Right now the school district can immediately suspend a teacher without pay if their license lapses - as it should be!   Maintaining your license is one of the most important criteria for a teacher.
 
And goodness knows how having one of those licenses keep so many potential good teachers OUT of the classroom. 
 
Hey, teachers union, I’ll make you a deal. If you’re gonna give such slack to a just-out-of-college teacher who can’t pass his license test, then why not allow, say, a retired CPA to teach accounting for 90 days without a license. Or better yet, open up the teaching profession to all retirees that want to teach by allowing them to even TAKE the test. That’s one way to help the shortage.
 
Once again, the union is doing its job – protecting bad teachers. (And it’s not just me that says that – ALL my teacher friends say that. And yes, I have friends that are teachers.)
 
All we’re doing is setting low expectations for our teachers, and they are meeting them. It’s not their fault, its ours. (And yes, the union that perpetuates these low expectations.) But that also means that students are meeting those low expectations. 
 
If we really want to improve the education our students receive, we should look at what is being done in the country with the highest performing students – Finland. They’ve been kicking butt since 2000. That’s because they starting requiring that their teachers have a Master’s Degree. They also paid them more and put their profession on par with doctors and lawyers.
 
We must do the same. But a bill like Kihuen’s is not the right message.
 
Oh, and I hate to say it, but the bill passed unanimously in the Assembly. So I’m just as crabby with all the Republicans that voted to reward bad behavior. 

The Benefits of Term Limits?

Published: 4/23/2007 10:34:06 AM

I like term limits. With campaign finance laws that allow $10,000 donations, the only way to beat an incumbent in Nevada is to wait until they retire or are forced out by gaming or the unions. (The teachers union spent close to $300 K to take out Senator Sandra Tiffany last election. Was that because she wanted to break up the Clark County School District?) So term limits level the playing field.
 
So as the 2010 deadline for term limits approaches, I had such high hopes for our legislature. I really thought that they’d take on the tough issues, like a long-term solution on how to pay for growth - like school construction and roads. I hoped that they’d tackle the $5 billion deficit in the State public employee benefits program. 
 
Why wouldn’t they? They didn’t have to worry about ticking people off.   They could do what was right, not what was politically acceptable. They could focus on the next generation, not the next election.
 
I’m so naïve. 
 
This year the Senate Tax committee approved a tax increase on home sales to go for school construction, but ONLY if it is sent to the voters for approval.
 
There is talk that there will be a tax and fee increase to pay for roads, but it will likely be sent to the voters for approval.
 
Why do we elect you guys if you’re not gonna make the tough decisions? You have more information than voters ever will, so you know what are the best actions to take. Yet you think WE should make the final decision?   This is a Representative Democracy, not a Cover-Your-Butt Democracy. We sent you there to represent us, not ensure your re-election.
 
Come on folks - deal with the big issues. Make the tough choices. Do what’s right. And if you lose at the ballot, at least you know you did the right thing. Sure beats going to bed at night saying, “Oh, I’m still a Senator…the State’s in the tank, but I’m still a Senator.” 
 
Yeah, I’d be proud.