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.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)