Occupy a real solution

In a previous article, I briefly touched on the Occupy Las Vegas movement and this article is a follow-up to that article. Everyone has a Constitutional right to assemble and peacefully protest and I agree with their right to protest and I even agree with the movement obtaining permits and insurance for their encampment. Several issues they bring up in their redress of grievances I can agree with, at least I can agree that we need to end career politicians, end crony capitalism or corporatism and abolish the Federal Reserve. I do not agree with their solutions to these problems. As President Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
The Occupy movement claims to represent the 99% of Americans that are not part of the “bankster” class. Where was the vote for this group to represent me? I don’t think I’m alone either. I seem to recall a minor counter to the Occupy movement by the so called 53%; representing the 53% of people that paid federal income tax last year. They posted photos of their stories countering the stories of the occupiers.
As I said before, all Americans should be upset with the direction of our country. We are spending billions of dollars that we are borrowing from foreign countries to fund many unconstitutional programs. There is constant bickering among the two political parties in Washington D.C., both point fingers at the other and blame the others for all the nation’s problems. How come when you hear compromise in DC it means that, we, the people are on the short end of the stick?
To provide a solution to the problem, you must first understand what caused the problem and President Reagan was correct in the above quote. The push by the government to make homeownership affordable to all Americans is at the root of the cause and it goes back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and the Federal Reserve. There is an informative article on the economic crisis and the causes here on my blog, "Economic Crisis 101." Once we realize that our government is the problem, we can work on the solution.
In upcoming articles, I will continue with my series on the Occupy movement.

Occupy Las Vegas

A few months ago, the Occupy Movement came to Las Vegas. It’s an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. While some things are the same, some are quite different from other Occupy protests across the country. One of the most glaring differences in Las Vegas and other Occupy movements is the lack of arrests. Las Vegas has had only 21 arrests at one protest. They were arrested for blocking a public roadway and everyone behaved civilly. Protestors were not pepper sprayed, protestors were not confrontational (other than blocking the street). We have seen numerous stories from across the country about the criminal activity within the Occupy movements: rapes, murders, theft and vandalism are just a few that make the news. These stories are missing from the Occupy Las Vegas movement. Another difference is how the Las Vegas chapter went about their protest. They went to the local government and worked with them to find a location to house the occupy encampment. Occupy Las Vegas obtained a permit, provided port-a-potties, trash cans and even have insurance. They claim that fringe groups influence and violent protestors were not allowed in the movement and repeatedly promoted their peaceful intentions and so far have lived up to that promotion. I also agree with the occupy movement in one other aspect, that our country is broken and going in the wrong direction, I also agree that a small percentage of people in the country are controlling things to their own benefit at the expense of the population in general. I just don’t agree with how it got broke, who broke it or who are the 1%.
In some upcoming articles, I’ll go through their redress of grievances or their 99% declaration and point out some flaws in their thinking and mislabeling the blame as well as areas where they are correct. Everyone in the country has the right to be upset with the direction of America, but we have to look at the rational, logical path to correction.

Nevada caves, New Hampshire gets its way?

The Nevada Republican Central Committee met on Saturday and caved in to the pressure applied by the New Hampshire republicans and moved their primary back to the beginning of February. New Hampshire called for a boycott of the Nevada caucus. The reasons for the boycott were rather weak. New Hampshire is traditionally first in the nation to hold a primary, was the main argument and coming in second was the concern that people would not have time to learn about the candidates. Not having time to get to know candidates almost made me laugh; we have seen multiple debates featuring all of the candidates and most have been campaigning for several months now. To logically say the Nevada caucus would keep voters from getting to know the candidates is ridiculous. Does traditionally first automatically mean you are always first? No, especially when the Iowa caucus is being held on January 3, before the expected date of New Hampshire’s primary; which is expected to be held on January 10.
There is more to this than we know and I don’t think we will ever really know what was behind the outrage of Nevada moving its caucus. New Hampshire state law requires that it hold its primary seven days before any similar contest, but in 1996 and 2000 Delaware held its primary within seven days of New Hampshire. While New Hampshire contends that the Nevada caucus is a similar contest so it must hold its primary 7 days prior to Nevada, which would have made January 7 open to New Hampshire. That was not good enough for New Hampshire, they used the bogus claim I mentioned above about no time to learn about the candidates. Regardless of that, the Iowa caucus is scheduled for January 3, which should mean that to keep its ‘first in the nation’ status New Hampshire would have to hold its primary in December. It does not end there, New Hampshire does not consider the Iowa caucus as a similar contest so Iowa’s date does not matter. Both Nevada and Iowa hold a caucus, but only the Nevada caucus is a similar contest to New Hampshire, what am I missing? A primary is very similar to the general election, the voting booth is open and you vote for the candidate of your choosing. A caucus is much like a meeting. Members all get together at one place and join a group of others supporting the same candidate and decide their delegates to the national convention.
Four states were granted early voting status from the Republican National Committee; these are, in no particular order, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada. The one missing is Florida, Florida is not an early voting state and started the whole calendar jumping but only Nevada is being singled out. At the end of September, Iowa Republican Party Chairman said, “The four sanctioned, early states have been very clear that we will move together, if necessary, to ensure order as outlined in RNC rules. If we are forced to change our dates together, we will.” I guess that solidarity was overstated as no one came out to boycott Florida. New Hampshire had no problem with boycott Nevada, they have a website that you can sign the petition, but there is no boycott Florida. Nevada holds a caucus, just like Iowa but according to New Hampshire, Iowa is OK but Nevada is not. Nevada gets shafted by the other early states, the Republican National Committee and a majority of the Presidential candidates.

CNN hosts fight night

Prior to Tuesday’s debate, the Heritage Foundation and the Nevada Policy Research Institute in conjunction with CNN hosted an issues forum. This forum was moderated by David Gergen of CNN and the panel was made up of Mike Franc of the Heritage Foundation, Andy Matthews of NPRI, Alex Garza of the Latin Chamber of Commerce and Heidi Harris a local radio show host. There was a diverse audience present that represented the media, regular people from the western states region and local politicians. This forum was designed to address issues important to the western states and Nevada in particular, but it quickly was dominated by immigration. Those on the panel and in attendance traded jabs on what the role of government should be in immigration. It was such a hot button topic; it dominated nearly the entire forum and left little time to discuss any other issues.
I did not realize at the time, that the fiery debate that afternoon was going to carry over to the Presidential debate that evening, but it did. Right off the bat, Herman Cain’s 999 plan was under attack. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney were also under a constant barrage of attacks from the fellow republicans. The fight within the fight consisted of Romney and Perry arguing so intensely, I thought they were going to go to blows. Maybe next time, CNN will keep some boxing gloves handy just in case. Newt Gringrich again tried to keep the focus on the goal of regaining the White House in November. After Anderson Cooper quit pitting the candidates against each other, they actually had a couple of minutes to discuss some of the issues.
What did we learn from this debate? That the chance of a Perry – Romney ticket is not going to happen. That Ron Paul continues to draw minimal attention from the media and the moderators. That Newt Gringrich may be the smartest person in the race and that Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann are trying to stay relevant. Who won the debate? My knee jerk reaction would be Jon Huntsman, the candidate that boycotted the event because it was in Nevada. As for the candidates on stage, Newt always does well. Ron Paul also did very well on the few answers he was asked and his comments were backed up by the others on stage (with the exception of some foreign policy issues). Perry, Romney and Cain did not look very good, although it would be hard with the constant barrage of attacks they were under. If you could really pick a winner from the candidates on stage, it was probably the same candidate you were supporting prior to the debate.

Let the boycotts begin

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum cancelled his event today in Las Vegas. He has officially joined Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman in boycotting the Nevada caucus. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich has also said he would be boycotting Nevada. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul all came out against the Nevada boycott. Rep. Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain have not committed one way or the other.
Why all the boycotts? As I mentioned yesterday, it all stems from the shake-up of the primary calendar. Those candidates that are boycotting are suggesting that Nevada’s move is upsetting calendar and they are trying to upstage the New Hampshire primary, traditionally first in the nation. I find it very hard to believe that this in Nevada’s fault. The Republican National Committee set rules for the 2012 election allowing New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada the only states that could hold their contests before March of 2012. That all changed when Florida and Arizona threw the calendar on its head by moving up their primary. How come Nevada is the only state facing boycotts? Nevada did not start the calendar jumping, they only jumped ahead to preserve their early voting status that was given to them by the National Committee. Nevada didn’t start the shake-up but is the only state being boycotted by Presidential candidates. Where is the boycott of Florida or Arizona? After all, they started the calendar jumping. What about South Carolina? They jumped ahead of New Hampshire but no boycotts for South Carolina either.
I will be watching the debate tomorrow, it is in Las Vegas and I’m curious about who will be there. I’m expecting to see Rep. Paul, Gov. Perry and Fmr. Gov. Romney on the stage; it won’t surprise me to see Herman Cain up there either. What I don’t expect to see is Santorum, Huntsman, Gringrich or Bachmann on stage for the debate. If they are really going to boycott the Nevada Caucus, I don’t think they should participate in a debate that is held within that state. I also feel it shows a total lack of respect to the citizens of the great state of Nevada to simply dismiss our caucus for the only reason that Nevada was protecting its right as an early voting state. I would also urge all Nevadans to only vote for a candidate that actively campaigns in Nevada, not one that boycotts our state. It shows a total lack of respect to the voters of Nevada and says that our caucus in not important in the nominating process.

All I want for Christmas is a primary?

The republican primary/caucus calendar has been turned upside down. It started with the announcement by Florida that it was moving its primary up to January 31. That violates the Republican National Committee rules that allow New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada to be the first four states to hold their primary/caucus. Violation of the rules could result in the loss of delegates at the national convention. Nevada faces a similar situation, it recently announced the date of its caucus, January 14, and has been threatened with the loss of half of their delegates. With Florida’s jump into January, the early voting states are all going to do the same thing to preserve their early voting status. South Carolina moved ahead of Florida and is holding their primary on January 21. Iowa is now looking at January 3 to hold their first in the nation caucus, which leaves New Hampshire deciding if they are going to hold their first in the nation primary in December of this year. New Hampshire state law requires that their primary be held seven days before any other contest; that could mean that we could be “decking the halls” with primary contests instead of “boughs of holly.”
What does this mean for the primaries? Nothing really, other than possibly holding the nation’s first republican primary nearly a year before the general election. The only impact is from the reaction from the Presidential candidates. Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and Obama’s Ambassador to China, has decided to boycott campaigning in Nevada as a protest to Nevada moving up its primary. Newt Gringrich, former Speaker of the House has also announced his intention to boycott. Also joining in the boycott are former Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Michelle Bachmann. These candidates are in support of preserving New Hampshire’s supremacy as being first in the nation, even though New Hampshire doesn’t feel that the Iowa caucus doesn’t affect their primary, but Nevada’s does. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are expected to join in. Rep. Ron Paul is the only candidate to come out against the boycott and Herman Cain has not responded one way or the other. My question is this, if six presidential candidates are supporting the boycott of Nevada, is the stage for the debate this Tuesday in Nevada only going to be occupied by Ron Paul?

2 years and $7 million

Earlier this month, it was finally decided who would complete the Northern Beltway widening project. This $115 million construction project was originally bid early in 2009 and was awarded to Las Vegas Paving. Las Vegas Paving was previously awarded this project by the Clark County Commission twice, even though they were not the low bidder. Fisher Sand & Gravel, who was the apparent low bidder, was given $5 million to not do the job, after 2 years in court and commission meetings.
Now there are lots of variables involved with this case, bid protests, subcontractor challenges, questionable ethics, union partisan and of course legal battles. What is often overlooked is the impact that this two year delay has had on Las Vegas. First, the freeway has not been widened; causing traffic problems to persist for residents in that area and they still have to wait and put up with the traffic delays associated with the construction. Next, is the economic impact; with one of the worst economies in the country and leading nation in unemployment, we could have definitely used the work and the fiscal impact it would bring with it. Additionally, you have the indirect costs associated with the project being delayed; the cost to the county to defend their decision, the time lost from employees in court and meetings. Finally, you have the cost to the tax payer. All of Clark County’s costs are really paid by the tax payer. The approximate $5 million more for the project and the $2 million settlement are ultimately paid for by the tax payer.
It’s not all about the cost to the tax payer; the underlying theme is that this case was handled, not just in court, but in federal court. Where does a federal court get jurisdiction in a matter pertaining to a county road? In a contract dispute, state courts would have jurisdiction but there is no contract. The Clark County Commissioners were well within the power to award the contract to whomever they deemed in the best interest of the county. This matter never should have seen the inside of the courtroom, let alone a federal courtroom. Bids for public works are very specific and state, more times than not, that the county reserves the right to reject any and all bids for any reason. They also reserve the right to select the bid that is most advantageous to their (county) interests in selecting the most responsive, responsible bidder. This is not a matter for the courts to decide, but the Clark County Commission’s matter to decide, which would have saved the tax payers money over the years. It’s another case of federal intervention into a state issue. Does the state have any sovereignty left?

Romney campaigns in Vegas

With Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s stop in Las Vegas yesterday, Nevada has officially become an important state in the Presidential race. Recently, we have seen Vice President Biden in town and President Obama has made a number of stops here. Predictions show that the 2012 Presidential election will come down to seven states, Nevada being one of them.
Candidate Romney came to Las Vegas, which is leading the nation in unemployment, to unveil his jobs plan. Mitt Romney produced an economic plan, in book sized form, that he claims would create over 11 million jobs and lead to 4% annual growth in his first term. The highest annual rate we have seen since 2007 is 3%, which was 2010.
It’s not a big surprise that Romney picked Las Vegas, which has an unemployment rate of 14%, the largest city in the state leading the nation in unemployment at just under 13%. His plan calls for cutting corporate tax rates and eliminating taxes on savings, investments, capital gains and estates. Additionally, his plan calls for free trade agreements, oil leases and domestic energy exploration. Of the five “executive orders” Romney proposed, eliminating regulations and speeding up the permitting of oil leases would help create jobs.
Will Mitt Romney’s plan work? Will it help out our unemployment problem in Nevada and Las Vegas? The only way we will know for sure is if Romney gets the GOP nomination and defeats President Obama in November 2012. His proposals are nothing new, we have heard these before and they will help spur job growth. Will they help in Nevada? They could not hurt our job growth. Only cutting the corporate tax rate 10% is a good start, but a lower rate would induce more companies to stay in the country. These companies move oversees because it becomes to cheaper to make the products in another country and ship it here, than to make it here and pay the taxes. Rolling back regulations would go a long way to increasing job growth. Mindless regulations and reporting and tracking required by the government for compliance costs millions of dollars a year to Nevada businesses; money that could be invested in research, equipment and labor instead of government reporting. Reducing the tax burden on all Americans has proven to help stimulate the economy by giving everyone more money in their pockets to spend or save how they want to, not how the government tells them.
With the hospitality industry representing the largest employer in the state and construction was representing a good number, until the economy turns around Las Vegas will continue to struggle in those areas. Nevada does have a business friendly climate, so the focus should be on enticing manufacturers to relocate to the state. Another underutilized industry would our mining industry. Nevada is the home to many precious metals and has a rich mining history, it’s time to restore that legacy and put Nevadan’s to work mining the materials other states and countries want and need.
There are things that can be done nationally to help our unemployment and our economy, which is to get out of the way and stop taxing and regulating businesses with frivolous rules and regulations. Let the states determine their own jobs plan, every state is different and requires a unique solution. One size fits all laws cannot apply to 50 unique situations.

Please see my examiner article here for links to sources used.

Biden campaigns in Vegas

Last week, Vice President Joe Biden was in Las Vegas touting the need for green technology and the importance for government investment (taxation) in the fledgling industry. An industry that doesn’t rely on the free market but instead relies on tax payer funded subsidies. Alternative energy is on everyone’s radar with our “dependence” on foreign oil and the recent skyrocketing gas prices. Nevada is seen a possible testing ground for this technology, is it because of our abundance of sun and wind? Or could it be that over 80% of Nevada is “owned” by the federal government and since the fed spends so much on these green technologies it would be a logical place? It’s not because Nevada puts to use its natural resources, after all we don’t even keep the precious metals we are “allowed” to mine in our own state (but that’s a different story).
Nellis Air Force Base is running a solar farm and expects to save approximately $1 million a year on electricity. Before you jump to tout the success of the solar farm, it only supplies about 30% of the electrical needs of the base and cost $100 million. That means is would take 100 years for the investment to pay for itself and it would still require more electricity than the farm could supply. That does not sound like efficient alternative energy.
Other forms of alternative energy have the same needs; they need tax payer money to be economically viable and do not produce enough energy. While I will agree that this is important technology and should be researched and developed, I cannot agree with taking money from the American people to provide corporate welfare to some government favored businesses. How many of the great inventions and discoveries were made by the government? How many of those were created by government subsidies? Did Eli Whitney rely on government money to develop the cotton gin? Did Wilbur and Orville need the government to keep upstarts from trying to develop the airplane? The list could go on and on of society changing inventions that came about by a person and a vision. A vision of creating a better way to do something and the profits that comes along with it.
Nevada may have a leg up in the abundance of solar energy but it cannot become economically feasible until private industries take the lead in research and development. When the government, through tax payer money, is bankrolling your research there is no real incentive to develop new technology, you already have the money and if you develop the product you lose the funding. Free market competition is the only way to create new technology and the government has never created anything it didn’t first take from someone else.

Obama returns from vacation, Heller focuses on economy

President Obama cut his vacation short not to focus on jobs or the economy but to head up the emergency response to Hurricane Irene. In his weekly address, Obama didn’t address Irene or even pivot to jobs or the economy, like he has said before; instead he took the time to call for the nation to visit a government website and volunteer to honor those who lost their lives during the horrific events of September 11, 2001. Hurricane Irene was big enough to shorten his vacation, but not big enough to mention in his address, he claimed his focus was on jobs after vacation but did not mention jobs or the economy in his address.
Senator Heller was tasked with the GOP response and quickly delved into issues that are facing many Americans in this economy, especially in his home state of Nevada; which has the unique distinction of leading the nation, not only in unemployment but also foreclosures and bankruptcies. Senator Heller took time to address the real issues that are hitting our state the hardest.
Why does Nevada have the highest unemployment rate in the nation? Nevada Policy Institute has released a study that might help us understand. One problem that leads to systemic unemployment lies in understanding of simple economics and that has to do with the supply and demand of credit, which is manipulated by the Federal Reserve and the banking industry. False credit creates bubbles and unemployment persists when those bubble burst. Misrepresenting capital savings isn’t the only thing that creates unemployment, government meddling helps to prolong the problem. Capital expenditures show consumer demand and when the government decides where the money goes instead of the consumer; it misdirects the use of the capital, instead of directing capital where it is needed, it goes to prop up a bursting bubble. Not only does the government misdirect funds, the massive spending actually prolongs the problems they created. When the government redistributes funds to spur growth it is actually taking money out of the economy. If you look at the government spending done during the Great Depression, most economists concur that government spending done during the Great Depression actually prolonged the misery. The only way for sustainable growth, which would increase employment is through savings. The credit market must be built on the economic laws of supply and demand, not on the manipulation of money done by the Federal Reserve, the banking industry or the political elite.
Nevada has been hit hard by the Great Recession, double digit unemployment for nearly two and one half years and bankruptcy and foreclosure rates that lead the nation. Our economy has been based on tourism and construction; we were hit hard when the housing bubble burst. It hit not only the value of our homes but also the construction industry and with the economy dragging not only in the United States but worldwide can be attributed to the decline in tourism. What needs to be done is to get the government out of the way, let the laws of supply and demand straighten out the mess so we can get on the road to recovery.

Please see my examiner article for links to sources.

Debt Ceiling Debacle

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is at it again. He has proved the partisan politics is more important than the financial health of our nation. First, we have been hearing the debt ceiling deadline is August 2; but now it looks like it may be a little later, like a week later. President Obama stood in front of the American people and blamed the republicans (nothing new) for refusing to sit down and talk. The republicans are holding this negotiation up? Seriously, Mr. President, the republican led house passed the Cut, Cap and Balance bill, the bill that Senator Reid voted to table instead of bringing it to the floor for a vote; the motion passed straight along party lines. While Cut, Cap and Balance may not be the perfect solution, it does not cut spending on entitlements, it allows for the raising of the debt ceiling and it only makes a promise to send a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, it is the best solution we have right now. It’s not only the best solution available; it’s the only one on the table. Harry Reid called the Cut, Cap and Balance bill one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the country, I guess he missed a couple of bills that passed over the last three years.
Senator Harry Reid and President have no plan for the debt ceiling deadline, well they have the same old plan that all democrats have, tax and spend, or as Obama likes to call it (because it polls better) revenues and investment. The only idea the President presented was that for an increase in the debt ceiling, he was willing to raise taxes in exchange for a promise that he would make future cuts in spending. The President even had the audacity to stand in front of the American people and scare with the thought of not paying social security or providing pay for the military families and veterans. What is left out is the fact that the US brings in enough money to cover our obligations. We do not have enough to cover all of our spending. What does that tell the average person, living in this economy? Tighten the belt, stop spending money on nonessential items. The executive branch decides what gets paid, so if social security, military pay or even interest on the debt does not get paid, the President has no one to blame but himself.
This debt ceiling debate is what is needed, what is not needed is the childish name calling, scare tactics and blatant non-truths. The truth of the matter is the United States is in serious financial trouble and drastic measures need to be taken, we cannot continue to borrow money from foreign countries, we cannot continue to devalue our currency and we cannot continue to spend recklessly. Serious reform is needed in discretionary spending and even more serious is the reform needed in non-discretionary spending. If we continue to kick the can down the road, we will continue on the road to ruin and soon wake up in a third world recreation of our great nation.

A Broken System

Everyone knows that the current system of government is not working. Politicians in Washington are looking out for their own interests, not the people they are supposed to be representing. Their interests lay in the corporations, unions, lobbyists, PAC’s and other special interest groups that fund their campaigns. The current taxing and spending by our “representatives” in DC is in no way representing the people of the several states. Our federal government has transformed into a national government.
A federal government represents a limited central government based on a contract, which the several states signed, the Constitution. A national government on the other hand represents a central government which is directly responsible to the people. This is where are system went off track. The Constitution set up a federal government, not a national one. The several states created the federal government and limited it in its scope, see Article I section 8 of the United States Constitution. The limited nature of the federal government can be seen in several instances like the 10th Amendment and in Article V, allowing states to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. It can also be found in the ratification debates, where delegates guaranteed the limited nature of the federal government to allow the states their own sovereignty. Some states even stressed their right to withdraw from the Union.
When several states decided to sever ties with the ever growing federal government usurpation of power, a war broke out between the several states. History has clouded the causes of the war, but at its root was the limited power of the Union vs. the unlimited power of a national government. They say the union was preserved, but several states had seceded before the War Between the States and had to be readmitted after bowing to the National government. The states lost a lot of their sovereignty following their war, and regardless of what anyone says it’s not a slavery issue. After the Union strengthened its position, it continued to take power away from the states and continued its transformation into the central government monster it is today.
The next major assault came during the height of the progressive era. First, the Union gave itself the right to directly tax the citizens on the fruits of their labor with the 16th Amendment. They eliminated the states check on the federal power by changing the Constitution on the election of Senators. People, not the states elected Senators after the adoption of the 17th Amendment.
This is where we got so off track. The states created a federal government and should fund it. The President presents a budget to run the federal government and Congress, which should represent the people and the states, approves the budget. The states should then send funding to the federal government. The federal government should not be allowed to tax the people or the states for funding. That’s the recipe for disaster, states created the fed, but the fed gets to control the money. To me that would be like putting my kids in charge of the family finances. I would be overrun with toys and candy but wouldn’t have groceries or power. Are they really going limit their spending to their allowance? Look at our national government now; are they staying limiting themselves to their allowance? The national government takes money from the states and then decides how much to give back to them after it takes their cut. How is that right, the states created the national government but it gets to decide how much money the states get to spend. The states, through Congress, needs to approve the budget and send only that money to the national government. Giving the government the legal authority to plunder the states and the residents living within those states just breaths more life into the national monster; couple that with removing the last state check in the Senate and the path was paved to transform our limited federal government, into an unstoppable central national government. We are so far gone, is there any hope for our country when the inmates are running the asylum?

Harry Reid at it again

In 2006, Senator Harry Reid was leading the charge against raising the debt ceiling under a republican administration; fast forward to present day and now Senator Reid is leading the charge to raise the debt ceiling under a democratic administration. What could possibly cause the Senate Majority Leader to change his position? Partisan politics, his flip flopping on the debt ceiling shows the hypocrisy of the left, that he will take the side that his party is supporting. At first, raising the debt ceiling was reckless, irresponsible and would create havoc throughout the economy. Now, not raising the debt ceiling is reckless, irresponsible and would create havoc throughout the economy. What has changed? Only who is in charge of the executive branch. Just to show that his ploy is nothing more than politics as usual, Senator Reid introduced SB 1323, the Shared Sacrifice Bill. This bill is nothing more than a token gesture, the bill has no legislative teeth and does nothing but make a recommendation that those who have more need to pay more. Last time I checked, our progressive tax system already placed a larger burden on wealthier people. Doesn’t that mean they are paying their fair share? Where is the sacrifice from the approximately 50% of Americans that pay no net federal taxes? Is that equal protection under the law?
What could be the purpose of proposing a bill that has little to no chance of passing? What would be the purpose of proposing a bill that makes no recommendations or no laws? The answer is simple; it’s simply a campaign stunt. Not for Reid, his term doesn’t end for a few more years, but for democrats in general. They are playing to the general public, trying to create someone to blame, someone to demonize. Not only do they want to demonize the rich, they also want to use the sham bill that Reid presented as a campaign trick to show the “common” people that they hate the rich and are looking out for the poor. We can’t fall for that trick.

Sandoval's Education Reform

During the campaign, Governor Sandoval talked about the need for education reform. Nevada ranks last in the nation in education and ranks near the bottom in per pupil spending. Nevada’s legislature just finished their regular session and the Governor signed a few laws aimed at education reform. AB 225 allows for a tenured employee to be returned to probationary status relating to unsatisfactory employee evaluations. This would make it that much easier to terminate substandard teachers by removing the protections of tenure. I like this bill, one thing that hampers student learning is an ineffective instructor and anything to that helps remove bad teachers is a good idea. I like AB 229 even better than the first bill. This bill revamps the evaluation process, allowing 4 categories instead the 2 from the old review process. Establishes performance based pay structures, enhanced compensation for retention and recruiting teachers and revised standards for demotion, reassignment and termination including not allowing seniority to be the only factor in lay-offs. SB 197 changes the state board of education and the method for choosing the state superintendent of public instruction. Before this bill, the 10 member board of education would choose the superintendent; this bill gives the governor the authority to appoint the superintendent. It also changes the make-up of the board, going from 10 elected officials to an 11 member board made up of 4 elected, 3 appointed and 4 non-voting members. It also revises the plan to improve student achievement. The last bill, SB 212 creates a charter school authority that would oversee the formation of schools, which is now a duty of the board.
While I feel these reforms are a step in the right direction, I do not feel like they are by themselves are enough to bring our academic achievement out of the cellar. Leaders from both parties agree that the reforms should help our education performance, those that oppose the newly passed reforms claim the only way to reform the system is to dump more money into it. Simply throwing more money at a problem will not solve the problem. Take Florida, for example, President Obama recently visited with Governor Jeb Bush to discuss the reforms that helped skyrocket student achievement in Florida. Florida did not rely on more federal spending, or even the Department of Education. They implemented real reform, much like Governor Sandoval proposed during the campaign. Increasing virtual classrooms, getting rid of the automatic passing of students that do not “make the grade” and allowing more choice in where students attend school. That means allowing more charter schools, magnet schools, technical based schools and allowing parents to decide which schools their children will attend. Parents should not be forced to send their children to a failing school just because it is the closest.
So until we are all ready to what is necessary to implement some real reform in the education system in Nevada, I don’t see us improving on that last place ranking.

More wasteful spending

Nevada is searching for a way to balance the budget and one area that I have not heard anything about is in public works construction. Currently, more than 30 states have prevailing wage laws, at their height 41 states had prevailing wage laws. For those of you not familiar with what prevailing wages are, let me briefly explain. In the 1930's, the Davis-Bacon Act came into existence, mainly to keep non union contractors from winning contracts and to keep the local union workers employed. The claim was to increase the disposable income of unskilled construction laborers, for the area. Nevada adopted it's prevailing wage law in 1937 and has been costing the state and ultimately the tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars every since.
I have a personal relationship regarding prevailing wage rates in Nevada. I run a small contracting business in Las Vegas and at times we bid and have even been successful on a few. The Nevada Labor Commission claims that the prevailing wage rates are derived from surveys sent to local companies to determine what the wage that is prevalent in the area. In over 10 years of contracting, employing several workers falling under the classifications covered by prevailing wage rates, I have never received one of those surveys, of course, we run a non union shop so why would they want my answers? Last week, I was bidding on a job as a subcontractor for a small portion of a larger contract and I mistakenly was bidding on the project as if it was a prevailing wage project. This project used no federal funding so was not regulated by prevailing wage laws. When I realized my mistake and changed my wage rate to the normal rate I pay my employees the cost of my bid dropped by 20%. The prevailing wage rates are nearly 60% higher than the wage I pay my employees and my employees make a fair wage plus benefits. The additional cost is not strictly limited to an increase in wages, it also adds to the overhead burden of the employer. We just finished a contract where prevailing wages were required by law to be paid; the amount of paperwork required to comply with all the reporting laws associated with prevailing wage laws required us to hire additional people just to keep up with the hours reporting, benefits, Labor Commission reports, payrolls and monitoring classifications. Like in most businesses, these costs are passed on to the consumer, but in this case the consumer is the government, ultimately this burden falls upon the tax payer. Let me ask you this question, does an unskilled laborer who is pushing a broom on a prevailing wage project deserve to make over $40.00 per hour, how is that reflective of the average wage of a broom pusher in Las Vegas? It is not, I bet most janitors would love to be paid that amount. The reason an unskilled laborer (broom pusher) earns that much on a prevailing wage project is because the union has decided that is what a person skilled in the use of a broom is worth because he has been trained in the safe use and proper operation of a broom.
The inflated cost of labor is costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars. Nevada spends billions of dollars in construction and wastes millions. If you do not want to believe my personal experiences I listed above, the good people at the Nevada Policy Institute did an analysis on what the prevailing wages are costing our state. This is just another example of how unions are costing every Nevada tax payer.

Please see my examiner article for links. http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-las-vegas/more-wasteful-state-spending

FDR was right

While I can honestly say that I almost never agree with President Franklin Roosevelt, I did find one area, public union collective bargaining. In fact, the former President of the AFL-CIO feels the same way. Not only were former union Presidents and United States Presidents against public sector collective bargaining, but teacher union officials openly admit that the unions only look out for the teacher, not the student; usually at the expense of the student.

In my last article, I began to explain how a simple Nevada law, NRS 288 has slowly eroded the quality of education in our state. Not only has Nevada law hurt education in our state, but the Department of Education has hurt student achievement not only in Nevada but across the nation. The actual beginnings of the Department of Education date back to the 1860's, it did not become a cabinet level department until 1980. The US once ranked as high as second on the list and has continually moved down the list over the decades to where we are now, around 14th, even though we spend more money than any other country on education. The US Department of Education has a budget of over $70 billion and does not teach a single student. Since the government does not produce anything, the money must come from the tax payers in the many states. The DOE takes money from the states, take their cut and redistribute where they see fit. The DOE is picking the winners and losers. Would it not be better to let the states keep their money and fund their own education? The omission of education in the US Constitution means that issue is left to the states, not the federal bureaucracy. Vladamir Lenin was quoted as saying, "give me a child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik for life."

NRS 288 is a law passed to appease public sector unions, but some of the sections of the law give overreaching power to the unions at the expense of the tax payer and more importantly the students. The Nevada Policy Institute did a study on the affects of NRS 288 on education, the report does an excellent job breaking down several of the reasons this law is killing not only the achievement in our schools but also helping to break the states budget. The one area I wanted to illuminate was section 150, items that are included under collective bargaining or more importantly what is not included under collective bargaining. NRS 288.150 clearly outlines the items that are mandatory to negotiate like sick days and wages but also includes negotiations on the tax payer paying the cost of union deductions. Yes, that's correct, the school district (tax payer funded) has to pay the additional overhead cost. Section 150.6 states that anything that does not fall under mandatory collective bargaining must still be discussed just not negotiated. This is the area that has slowly been abused, the unions stealing more tax dollars and providing mediocre (at best) results. Unions have also created a atmosphere that strives for mediocrity, rewarding teachers on years of service and credits obtained instead of student achievement. Why put forth the effort when you know when and how much your next raise will be. The seniority system ignores merit and ability and keeps higher priced teachers requiring additional layoffs. Everything the teachers unions strive for is hurting education. Less class time, more prep time, reduced work calendars, higher pay, tax payer funded benefits, tenure, very generous sick and personal leave and the seniority system all work to benefit the teacher at the expense of education.

Please see my examiner article for links.

Collective bargaining is not a right.

Over the last couple of months we have heard a lot about rights. One of the biggest "rights" we have heard about is that collective bargaining is a right. Collective bargaining is not a right; it is about as much as a right as driving is a right. What is a right? A right is bestowed upon us by our Creator, they are unalienable. Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses rights in his book, A Nation of Sheep. We must first make the distinction between laws and rights. Rights are natural in human nature and our freedoms stem from that humanity. Law, on the other hand, is Positivism in nature. It is created by the lawmaker and as long as the lawmaker is legitimately in power, the law is just. Natural law rejects any law that subverts the rights common to all in humanity. The Declaration of Independence includes some of these natural rights, John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government, wrote "that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man, wrote that natural rights include "all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others." One of the simplest explanations I have heard came from the Wilkow Majority and it was simply put, "a person's right can not trump another person's right." With the above explanations, it is quite obvious that collective bargaining is not a right; there is no right to a job, or right to housing or even medical care. All of those items must be given freely (no coercion, not free of charge) by another, a business, an employer, a home builder or a doctor, respectively.
Why is this important? There have been budget battles across the country, even in Nevada. States facing budget deficits are working to balance their budgets anyway possible. Public sector unions have come under much attack and with good reason. Public sector unions have a special relationship with the government monopoly. Public sector unions collect dues from government workers and use that money to elect politicians that are sympathetic to the organized labor movement. It's those same politicians that then negotiate with the very group that got them elected at the expense of the taxpayer, who has no voice in the proceedings. This creates a cozy relationship that drains states coffers as the unions demand more and more. In Nevada, about 40 years ago, NRS 288 came into effect to pacify public sector unions and force collective bargaining between the government and the unions that represent them. This affected all government employees, except state employees. Over the 40 years since NRS 288 became law, the unions have been usurping power from the local governments and school boards until we arrive at the $3 billion budget shortfall we are currently facing.
In my next article, I will continue to look into NRS 288 and how it is bankrupting the state and ruining education in the Silver State.

Please check my examiner article for links.

A return to paper ballots

After the recount fiasco during the 2000 Presidential election, many states looked toward technology to solve the problem that arose during the recount. Many states switched from the old paper ballot to the new electronic voting system. Nevada was one of those states that switched to the electronic voting systems. These new systems were in use during the last few elections. Now more and more states are going back in time, to a day of paper ballots.
Nevada is trying to become one of those states. During the 75th session of the Nevada Legislature, Assemblywoman Pierce introduced A.B. 435, which would return Nevada to the paper ballot. That bill, unfortunately, did not make it out of committee but I was encouraged when I saw a Bill Draft Resolution (BDR) prior to the start of the 76th Legislative Session. After some brief correspondence with Assemblywoman Pierce, I learned that a new version of the bill would not be introduced this session.
In the age of technology which we live, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I believe we need to return to paper ballots. I know that these machines have been tested and you get to see a print out of selected candidates. But should we blindly trust these machines? If you remember during the 2008 Presidential Campaign we learned that then candidate Obama's website had been hacked. Private industries have had their computer systems hacked and we are supposed to trust that the same can not happen to the voting machines. With the paper ballot, at least you have a permanent, punched record that can be manually inspected and counted. How do they even recount an election with the machines? I know the whole "hanging chad" fiasco from the 2000 Presidential Election created a fervor that really catapulted the electronic voting machines into widespread use was supposed to eliminate the controversy, but it has not and with the 2010 midterm elections and all the reported glitches in the electronic system has brought about cries of fraud.
There will never be a way to eliminate all fraud from elections, but with paper ballots it will at least be a lot harder to manipulate the results of an election. Paper ballots will increase the integrity of our elections. Be sure to contact your state legislators and tell them to support the return to paper ballots. Let's help Assemblywoman Pierce get this bill through and preserve honesty and integrity to our election process.

Please refer to Examiner article for links to sources.

Sandoval unveils budget

Tomorrow our new Governor will deliver his first State of the State address to Nevada. Governor Sandoval's campaign promise of "no new taxes" could be seriously put to the test. Although nothing has been released by Sandoval, there has been a lot of speculation on what the content of his address will contain. We know a majority of his 45 minute speech will focus on the budget. Sandoval has repeatedly claimed that he will work within the $5.3 billion in revenue projected by the state Economic Forum even if it is less than last years budget expenditure and nearly $3 billion less than the state agencies are requesting.
Health and education departments fear that they will have their budgets slashed, as all departments should. Sandoval has proposed a 5% cut across the board from all state agencies and a state employee pay cut to help keep spending within the projected revenues. Some speculate that Sandoval might push off spending onto local governments adding even more strain to their budgets. Sandoval even visited with the Senate Majority Leader to seek some federal assistance for Medicaid, but the Senator from Nevada is reported to have told him not to expect any assistance and to revise his stance on new taxes. This from the Senator, that just a couple of months prior was campaigning on how much he has done for Nevada and Nevada families.
One thing is for certain, whatever Governor Sandoval does will impact all of us and most likely will cause some pain and hardship. What the government must do is live within its means; we can't continue to spend money we don't have. Nevada families have been facing those hardships for the last couple of years and with the nation's highest unemployment and foreclosure rates the future doesn't look bright.

Please see my examiner article for links and sources.

Green light, red light, check your mail.

You can see them perched high above most intersections throughout the Las Vegas Valley, traffic cameras. What are they used for you may ask? Thanks to a Nevada law passed in 1999, one thing those cameras can not do is issue citations. Currently, the cameras are used to monitor traffic flow and accidents around town. You can even log in and watch the traffic from your computer.
Assembly Bill 34 has to do with repealing the law that makes it illegal to for those cameras mounted all around town to give you a ticket. All across the nation, cities have mixed feelings about the use of the cameras. While many cities use the cameras, the court challenges of their use are on the rise. Orlando, Florida has outlawed the use of the cameras; in Minneapolis the use of the cameras is in court, Florida and Houston are actively trying to outlaw the use.
If you look, you can easily find arguments on both sides; they make intersections safer or make drivers more attentive; on the other side, they increase rear end collisions. In this article, I'm not concerned with the research data supporting or refuting the use of the cameras, I'm more concerned with the Constitutionality in the use of these cameras. Most cities are switching to cameras for an increase in revenue and the camera manufacturers are pushing municipalities towards the use so they get their cut in the money. My biggest problem isn't the easy revenue that the cities are earning, but the infringement on our liberties. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause; you don't lose your rights because you are on a public street. A camera trained to picture all cars, not just the suspicious ones, has no probable cause. You are guilty until proven innocent and you have no chance to confront your accuser in court with the use of cameras. With most liberty stealing legislation, its claim is for safety. While filled with good intentions, this is another law that will allow the government to spy on us, contact your state legislature and voice your opinion. In the words of Ben Franklin, "Those who give up their liberty for more security deserve neither liberty nor security."

For links of reference, please see my examiner column.