The Ammosexual Assembly: Nevada Legislature and SB 175

NV Legislature wide A much amended SB 175 is still alive in the Nevada Legislature.  [LTN]  This “gun bill” contains several items on the ammosexual wish list, and with copious amendments got out of the Senate on a 14-5 vote.  There’s a subtle, but important revision in Amendment 136 which should given reasonable individuals some hope for sanity in an otherwise irrational session.  In the Kill At Will portion – otherwise known as Stand Your Ground – the language changes from “knew or had reason to believe” that the shooter was imperiled, to “reasonably believed” the victim of the shooting was in the act of perpetrating a violent crime.

This is improved language because merely because I have a reason to think a person is in the act of committing a felony doesn’t necessarily mean I have a good reason, or even a rational explanation.  The improved language now specifies that I must provide a rational explanation, something a reasonable person might believe.  The new language sets a higher and better standard.

The second change of note is that the aforesaid ‘knowledge’ must relate to the act of committing a violent crime, not merely any felony.  If a felonious action is all that is necessary then a person embezzling more than $650 may be said to be in the act of committing a Class C felony in this state – and who gets shot for embezzlement?  Or mortgage fraud? Or even running a chop shop?

The language is still a bit sloppy in the sections dealing with reciprocity of concealed carry permitting.  Existing law requires that the out of state permit be “substantially similar to” or “more stringent than” Nevada statutes. The new language merely says the state will describe any training, class, or program required by the initiating state.  That an issuing agency (sheriff’s department) knows the training level doesn’t necessarily mean it is an appropriate training level, or that the restrictions on an individual seeking  a concealed carry permit can be discerned from a description of training, classes, or programs.

The domestic violence issue is also barely resolved.  Here’s the portion, with the line reference numbers retained:

37 Sec. 5. Chapter 33 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new 38 section to read as follows: 39 1. If a court issues an extended order pursuant to NRS 33.030, the adverse 40 party shall not subsequently purchase or otherwise acquire any firearm during 41 the period that the extended order is in effect. 42 2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a 43 category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a 44 minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 45 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.”

Here’s the problem – notice that in line 39 the confiscation of firearms is associated with an extended order of protection.  The related statute is NRS 33.030 and 33.033.   It’s necessary at this point to look at the provisions of NRS 33.020 – which says there can be two types of protection orders: temporary and extended.  A temporary order of protection would not, under the language of SB 175, allow the authorities to confiscate firearms from the ‘adversarial party.’ AKA the abuser.  There’s a hair-splitting argument to be made that getting an extended order allows the abuser to have his or her day in court, and thus wouldn’t violate the 2nd Amendment.  This argument works if, and almost only if, the absolutist theory of the 2nd Amendment applies.

If the absolutist theory is attached to other elements in the Bill of Rights then perhaps one couldn’t be immediately arrested for yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater? Or, for indulging in the ancient Aztec religious ceremony of removing the ‘still beating heart’ to offer to the Sun God? One would have to have “his or her day in court” before any preventative measures could be taken to mitigate further damage? Yes, this is a silly argument, but nonetheless it illustrates the limitations of any absolutist theoretical framework. And there is evidence of ‘immediate damage.’

Nevada, Louisiana, Alaska, and South Carolina have the highest rates of homicide for women who are victims of domestic violence, all with a rate in the range of 2.00 to 2.50. [HuffPo] This is not the Top Four in the Nation category of which we should be proud.

We might be able to get out of this unfortunate ranking by inserting language which allows the removal of firearms from a premise if any order of protection is granted, until the expiration of that order.  The firearms have not been permanently taken from the rightful owner, they’ve just been removed temporarily from a volatile environment in which the two ‘adults’ may not be the only potential victims – bullets have been known for going through apartment walls.

If the ammosexual contingent in the Nevada Legislature can contain its enthusiasm for shootin’ up the state, we might want to have a serious discussion about whether we want the least restrictive statutes for firearm possession and ownership, or those which have the greatest potential for removing obvious threats to public safety.

Leave a comment

Filed under domestic abuse, Gun Issues, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics

Tea Party Antics in the Assembled Wisdom

Tea Party Flag

There are 40 days left in the Nevada Legislative Session.  Not that the initial leadership struggles in the Assembly weren’t entertaining, but the decorum on the set appears to be degenerating into sniping sessions worthy of  an agitated  flock of mockingbirds. There’s something about a gun-packin’ right wing Mama telling a fellow member to “Sit your A___ down” which doesn’t quite fit into the image of Legislative debate. Granted, most of what passes for debate in many sessions is essentially soporific and would cure the most intractable insomnia, but Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R-NRA) has perhaps ventured a step too far into the realm of the theatrical. But then we could muse that most of what passes for Issues in this session is just that – political theater.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Political Theater, when used to good effect we get The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, the Nixon Checkers Speech, and the August 28, 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.  It’s when the theatrical elements are endowed with more significance than the policy discussions that we get into difficulties.

At the point where posture becomes more important than policy we are treated to things like the offering of 11 gun bills in a single session of the Legislature.  Some of these bills were predictably extreme – guns galore and guns everywhere!  Posturing becomes problematic when the extreme bills are endowed with Sanctity and aren’t part of a compromise process.

In an age of sound bite politics it’s hard to get a good policy discourse going.  If all one side is willing to offer is a parroting of “No new taxes,” then discussions about equitable ways to raise revenue for essential public services is diminished.  If 2nd Amendment rights may not have any responsibilities attached thereto, then common sense legislation to control the proliferation of firearms and the attendant loss of life becomes a stalemate.

If one side is wedded to the notion that the only way to deliver public services is by corporate interests then nothing of much value gets accomplished.

Combining ideological posturing with election politics simply adds another layer of difficulty to an already delicate democratic process.  The fact that SB 169 – a vote suppression bill if there ever was one – was granted an exemption from the Legislature on March 10, 2015 should send chills down the spines of those who are watching the process in the current Legislative session.  It’s companion in the Assembly, AB 253, a photo ID bill which carries with it an unfunded mandate among other baggage, is still percolating through the Assembly.

A restricted electorate plus the sound bite politics of posturing isn’t a recipe for rational legislative decision making.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil liberties, Gun Issues, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Republicans, Vote Suppression

The Something For Nothing Crowd in the Nevada Assembly

Nevada Legislature And Nevada’s Assembled Wisdom totters on:

“Remember what happened yesterday. Just after the Senate’s grandiose SB 252 floor vote, the Assembly devolved into pure “TEA” powered madness with constant recesses, shouting matches over those recesses, a floor fight over blatantly unconstitutional bill language, mind-numbing flip-flopping over outrageously discriminatory legislation, and an epic freakout over online sales tax. Are you scared yet? Ralston and others clearly are.” [LTN]

Why are we not surprised?  The bill now goes to the Assembly, in which the ideologically pure (sort of) and constitutionally correct (rarely) will have a whack at the funding for Governor Sandoval’s budget.

“The scariest prospect is that with a third of the session left, the biggest issue before the state has been left in the hands of a body populated by some GOP members who don’t understand policy, who don’t live on the same planet the rest of us do and who are the most embarrassing legislators the state has ever seen.” [Ralston/RGJ]

For those keeping score, Steve Sebelius provided a handy list of the good, the bad, the ugly, and the almost comprehensible measures before said Assembled Wisdom this season. It’s a handy reference.  … Which gets us to the Something For Nothing Crowd.

Consider this release from the Assembly Policy Committee, and its spokesperson Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R-Bundyville):

“With all due respect, much of the governor’s proposal is based on the mistaken idea that the way to fix public education in Nevada is to pump more taxpayer dollars into the existing failed system rather than dramatically reforming that system and providing far more school choice to Nevada parents, including the financial assistance necessary to exercise that choice for low-to-moderate income families.

“That said, the unemployment rate in Nevada remains, as Bill Anderson of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation put it last week, ‘stubbornly high’ at 7.1 percent.  As such, the last thing the Legislature should be doing is taking money out of the private sector, where it’s needed to create jobs, and transferring it to the public sector so that government can continue to spend beyond its means.

“Conservatives in the Nevada State Assembly cannot and will not support  SB252 as passed out of the Senate today.”

Let us Parse. First, nothing good ever happens after someone begins with “with all due respect.”  Thence to the heart of the matter – the old privatization refrain, which goes back to the 1874 Kalamazoo Case.

“Kalamazoo Union High School, which many believed to be a necessity for bridging the gap from common school to university, operated with some minor opposition, until 1873. In January of that year, three prominent Kalamazoo property owners filed a suit intended to prevent the school board from funding the high school with tax money. They argued that the 1859 state law had been violated when the high school was established without a vote of the taxpayers. Charles E. Stuart, a former United States Senator from Michigan, along with Theodore P. Sheldon and Henry Brees, initiated the suit. At the time, it was believed to be a “friendly” suit intended to settle the issue legally in favor of the school. However, Stuart’s comments to the Kalamazoo Board of Education years after the suit had been settled, suggest that he and his companions sincerely resented the tax burden that the public high school placed on them. Stuart, like many others of his time, believed that a common school education was sufficient for anyone, and anything beyond that should be paid for privately.” [KPL]

The School Board prevailed in the 1874 litigation, and thus we have public funding for education k-12. [MLive]  The fact that if a school board is charged with administering a k-12 system then it must have the funding to do so raises the second portion of the argument – the part concerning the level of that financial support.

Enter the Something For Nothing Crowd.  What else explains the phrase: “fix public education in Nevada is to pump more taxpayer dollars into the existing failed system rather than dramatically reforming…?” This statement assumes (1) the current level of funding is adequate, or perhaps less is necessary; (2) the schools are failing with the present level of funding and therefore no additional funding is desireable; and, (3) the system needs to be “fixed.”

None of these assumptions can be asserted without challenge.  The first problem is the general issue of the Disappearing Dollars often cited by conservatives. The notion of “pumping in” dollars infers that the dollars are a measure of educational support in themselves.  The concept is a great leap to a highly ideologically framed conclusion.  No. money doesn’t solve educational issues but it does purchase: The services of highly qualified personnel, specialists, aides and assistants, and administrators; school physical facilities, books, libraries, equipment, supplies, etc. 

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Something For Nothing Crowd is channeling the spirit of Charles E. Stuart from the 19th century – if a family wants a better education for their children they should pay for it themselves.  Witness: “dramatically reforming that system and providing far more school choice to Nevada parents, including the financial assistance necessary to exercise that choice for low-to-moderate income families.”   The translation is fairly simple.  School choice equates to a voucher system for attendance at private schools. and “far more schools” usually equates to the establishment of private charter operations.

We’ve touched on the rationales for this thinking before:

“The K-12 schools are “failing” and therefore we should augment the resources for privatization in the form of charter or private schools.  This contention is most often wrapped in “parental choice” camouflage covering.  That the proposed choice doesn’t exist in many rural communities, or that the proposed choice is extremely limited in urban ones, doesn’t enter into the discussion often enough.  Nor is it observed often enough that school voucher programs are a way to siphon off public funds for public schools and channel the money to private ones. [DB 2012]

In addition to the questionable rational for the conservative philosophy as it pertains to public education, there’s the problem of educational standards. What’s “failing?”

The most common measurement of “educational attainment” and the one most often cited by conservatives is standardized test scores.  Standardized testing has its uses.  However, placing them at the center of the argument is to risk overemphasizing their usefulness:

“We can stipulate that most tests manufactured for use in public schools by major publishing houses are statistically reliable and generally statistically valid. What we cannot say with any statistical certainty is whether or not we are measuring what we value in public education.” [DB 2011]

We appear “not to test well” and there may be some valid reasons for that, such as the generally low salaries for teachers, “Teacher salaries have a huge impact when it comes to attracting good instructors. The innovative, smart, highly skilled people you want teaching your kids aren’t exactly in love with the idea of making $38,000 per year (the average for first-year high school teachers) when they could go somewhere else and earn more while doing less.” [ABC]

Or perhaps we should place greater emphasis on early childhood education: “

The OECD found in a separate study that 15-year-olds who had attended at least a year of preschool performed better on reading tests than kids who had not, even when socioeconomic factors were taken into account.  The U.S. spends more on preschool than other countries but money doesn’t do any good unless kids are enrolled, and the U.S. lags on that measure.” [ABC]

The ASCD offers an enlightening summation:

“For several important reasons, standardized achievement tests should not be used to judge the quality of education. The overarching reason that students’ scores on these tests do not provide an accurate index of educational effectiveness is that any inference about educational quality made on the basis of students’ standardized achievement test performances is apt to be invalid.

Employing standardized achievement tests to ascertain educational quality is like measuring temperature with a tablespoon. Tablespoons have a different measurement mission than indicating how hot or cold something is. Standardized achievement tests have a different measurement mission than indicating how good or bad a school is. Standardized achievement tests should be used to make the comparative interpretations that they were intended to provide. They should not be used to judge educational quality.”

Even if we do apply standardized test score to measure “temperature with a tablespoon” there’s no guarantee that the privatized or charter schools will achieve better results.

Researchers at Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes looked at test data from charter schools in 26 states and the District and found that 25 percent of charters outperformed traditional public schools in reading while 29 percent of charters delivered stronger results in math. That marked an improvement over a similar 2009 study by the same research team.

But 56 percent of the charters produced no significant difference in reading and 19 percent had worse results than traditional public schools. In math, 40 percent produced no significant difference and 31 percent were significantly worse than regular public schools. [WaPo]

So, we have the Something For Nothing Crowd in the Nevada Assembly decrying the essence of the Governor’s budget for education with all the old clichés from time gone by, and the tautological statement that if an underfunded school is failing the way to make it better is to further cut its funding.

We can only hope that after the tempers, the tantrums, the protestations, the gnashing of teeth, and the rending of cloth the membership of the Nevada Assembly will manage some form of civility and citizenship, and recognize another time honored statement – You Get What You Pay For.

Comments Off on The Something For Nothing Crowd in the Nevada Assembly

Filed under education, nevada education, nevada taxation, Sandoval

News of Note

newspapers 1

  Stay tuned, today’s agenda in the Assembled Wisdom includes a vote on the foundation of Governor Sandoval’s tax and revenue plan.

“The state senate is expected to take a vote on Gov. Brian Sandoval’s Business License Fee bill, the main business tax component of his overall $1.1 billion plan in new and extended taxes.

If the senate fails to pass Gov. Sandoval’s bill, it will be a sign that any tax plan to fund the governor’s proposed $7.3 billion general fund budget will not be completed by the end of the Legislature’s regular session, which is scheduled to end after the first week in June.”  [RGJ]

And, BTW, Attorney General Tea Party (Laxalt) is quick to inform us that his dive into the anti-immigration lawsuit, isn’t anti-immigrant.   Right. It’s just about the “Rule of Law,” and Congress should be acting on immigration reform, not the President.   And, if you believe this I have some lovely (but rather arid) cliff side real estate I’d love to sell you.  We might also note that the comprehensive immigration policy reforms were hammered out in 2013 and the GOP hasn’t seen fit to allow the package to see the floor since.  Or, as AZ Central points out:

Though some Republicans last year argued that a GOP-run U.S. House and U.S. Senate might be inclined to tackle immigration reform early this year — and national Republicans have stressed the need to get the issue off the table before the 2016 presidential election — most observers now say there appears to be little chance for far-reaching legislation along the lines of the 2013 Senate-passed bill negotiated by the bipartisan “Gang of Eight.”

So, it’s 2017 – if then – before the Congressional leadership has any interest in tackling the issue?

Meanwhile, prominent passenger in the GOP Presidential Race Clown Car, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, is hauling out the old canard – the very old canard – that even legal immigration is a threat to American workers.

“In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying — the next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages. Because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to [Alabama Sen. Jeff] Sessions and others out there — but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today — is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages. And we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward,”  [HuffPo]

This one’s been debunked so many times it’s hard to keep track of the volume. but that won’t prevent the GOP from hauling it out once again.  No, they “aren’t taking our jobs,” and calls for full deportation would Negatively Impact our economy, and if you want the best information on the subject – which is not coming from right wing Republicans and their pet media outlets – that’s still the 2013 CBO report (FactCheck) and related reports from the CBO the links for which are HERE.

However, immigration policy reform isn’t the only casualty in this 18 months before the election hysteria from the right.  The propaganda mill is working overtime.  Additionally, some of the same donors who’ve brought us extreme right wing politics are funding the highly questionable “research” by Peter Schweiser’s Government Accountability Institute.   This doesn’t mean the internecine warfare among the occupants of the Clown Car will diminish any time soon.  The Cruz of the Mouth Club is claiming that Rubio and Walker are “wimping out” on Gun Rights.   The 20 week abortion ban seems to be one of the major points for Republicans in the primary season, even though Planned Parenthood notes that nearly 99% of all abortions take place before 21 weeks.

Biggest Losers:  The jerks who vandalized a memorial, including killing a newly planted tree, to Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.

Comments Off on News of Note

Filed under abortion, Gun Issues, Immigration, Nevada legislature, nevada taxation, Republicans, Womens' Rights

Taxing Tesla and Its Promises

Tesla

It isn’t quite a bait and switch, but it’s close enough to warrant further scrutiny.  Back on April 17th there was a news report about Tesla, it’s promises for wages, and the tax incentive package awarded if Tesla would build a really big factory in northern Nevada.  I’ve argued against tax incentive packages in general because: (1) Tax rates are not among the priorities given real consideration by corporations when determining factory locations.  (2) The actual criteria include (a) transportation and commercial infrastructure – can the materials be received and products shipped with ease and economy? (b) availability of local and accessible research and development assistance – are there research institutions in proximity which can enhance the research and development goals of the factory/corporation? (c) is there a well trained work force immediately available that can meet the corporation’s employment and staffing needs?

Tesla made the argument that Nevada was not first on the list in terms of the usual criteria, and the tax incentives were a “significant factor.”

“The application confirmed that the plant will employ 6,500 full-time employees but raised its average wage estimate to $26.16 per hour. Tesla expects to employ 300 workers during the first year of the project, growing that to 2,000 workers by the third year and 4,000 workers by the fifth year. Tesla plans to have 6,500 employees by its eighth year. Initial projections had the gigafactory being fully operational by 2017.” [RGJ]

Predictably, there are problems now – such as The Lawlessness of Averages.  Return with us now to elementary school arithmetic. There are three kinds of averages: the mean, mode, and median.  And, just to make certain we do well on the test – there’s also the Range.

Reports from October 2014 indicated Tesla’s personnel costs would include $22.79 for production associates and material handlers; $27.88 for technicians, and $41.83 for engineers and senior staff.  

One of the obvious problems with projections is that they are always based on figures said to be the ‘best available at the time.’  What else could they have been based upon?  Thus we had Tesla saying “$22.00, and the state saying $25.00” and no one offering hard and fast numbers on which to base the calculations.  Enter a new factor – contract negotiations elsewhere:

“Contract negotiations this year between the United Auto Workers and Detroit automakers are likely casting a spotlight on Tesla wages, said Kristin Dziczek, research director at the Center for Automotive Research. Tesla’s Fremont manufacturing operation, however, might be playing a bigger role in the wage issue, Dziczek said. The Free Press story noted, for example, that the starting pay at Tesla’s Fremont facility is $17 per hour.

“They don’t pay ($25 per hour) for their assembly wage,” Dziczek said. “Certainly, there are forces that would like to organize the Tesla assembly plant and would use a $25-an-hour wage in Nevada to rile up assembly workers.” [RGJ]

Yes, some people could become a bit riled if the wages for production workers (the most numerous in any operation) were as far apart as $25 and $17 per hour.  It’s not like we weren’t warned that the state was overestimating the economic benefit of the tax incentive package.

tesla chart

The Los Angeles Times offered the graphic shown above in September 2014.  There were some assumptions not necessarily in evidence:

“The projection, for instance, counts all future tax revenue, but makes no allowance for government spending to serve the influx of residents. It counts every dollar of workers’ salaries as if they were unemployed or lived out of state before Tesla arrived. And more than half of the estimated economic jolt relies on the assumption that the bulk of the factory’s supply chain will relocate to Nevada.” [LAT]

We can calculate dandy results for Nevada’s economy if we simply ignore some pesky details – such as: the cost to state and local governments to absorb the influx of new residents; or, we assume that everyone who applies for work at the battery plant was previously unemployed; or, we assume the suppliers will relocate to Nevada…

We might also have to factor in the costs associated with getting those suppliers to relocate?  Are we to offer “tax incentives” (read breaks) to suppliers who want to move to Nevada – on top of the tax breaks already given to the parent factory?

What we might want to consider before we go launching off on any new forays into ‘economic development’ and diversification is guidance which:

(1) Calls for a minimalist approach to employment prospects; one in which we do not assume that all applicants for positions are previously unemployed.

(2) Specifies that ‘average wages and salaries’ do not include senior executives and specialists.  Those higher salaries have a way of skewing the arithmetical averages.  Since Nevada has no personal income tax, we cannot expect revenue to stream straight in from wages and salaries; we have to assume that most of the wages will be spent within the state.

(3) Takes a situation as it is not as we would want it to be; that is, we do not assume the existence of an imaginary number of suppliers who would move at no cost to support a manufacturing facility.

(4) Takes into consideration the impact on local governments and their services in terms of an influx of population, and the need for physical infrastructure to support manufacturing.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing that the Tesla plant will be built in Nevada, but it is not helpful when the tax incentives applied to attract such manufacturing may end up costing the state and local governments more than they can bear.  And, certainly less than what Nevada citizens might have expected in return.

1 Comment

Filed under Economy, Nevada economy, Taxation

A Simple Question for Rep. Amodei

Amodei 3

Here’s a simple question for Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2):  What have you done for us lately? And, please don’t try to tell me your vote to repeal the estate tax for the top income earners in the country is “doing something” for the remainder of working America.  Nevada representatives Amodei, Heck, and Hardy were pleased to vote for H.R. 1105, which is essentially a $269 Billion handout to the richest families in these United States.

First, if the country has $269 billion – with a B – to give up in revenue, then I’d really not like to hear any more from any of the three GOP representatives about “cutting the deficit,” or “balancing the budget,” because cutting revenue has the same effect as increasing the spending – it’s the arithmetic of the matter.

Secondly, labels are essentially useless. Calling the estate tax a “death tax” may do well in focus groups but if we’re serious about fiscal matters, and we ought to be, then we’re not taxing a person – we’re taxing the value of the estate left to the very select few.  The Paris Hilton Legacy Protection Act would be a far more enlightening label.

Is your “estate” worth more than $5.43 million?  Because that’s the size of the legacy which under the current system which is liable for taxation purposes.   And, spare me the “small business” and “family farm” arguments. Please.  As of the moment only 0.2% of Americans would owe any estate tax, meaning of course that the remaining 99.8% of Americans who may own family farms or small businesses are NOT liable for this tax.

“Only roughly 20 small business and small farm estates nationwide owed any estate tax in 2013, according to TPC.[10]  TPC’s analysis defined a small-business or small farm estate as one with more than half its value in a farm or business and with the farm or business assets valued at less than $5 million.  Furthermore, TPC estimates those roughly 20 estates owed just 4.9 percent of their value in tax, on average.[11]

These findings are consistent with a 2005 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study finding that of the few farm and family business estates that would owe any estate tax under the rules scheduled for 2009, the overwhelming majority would have sufficient liquid assets (such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and insurance) in the estate to pay the tax without having to touch the farm or business.[12]  The current estate tax rules are even more generous.” [CBPP]

And then there’s the “taxed twice” argument, which doesn’t make any more sense in the real world than protecting those 20 business and farm estates nationwide – here’s the trick – most of the biggest estates consist of “unrealized capital gains” which have NEVER BEEN TAXED in the first place. [CBPP]

From this point forward, Representatives Hardy, Amodei, and Heck have no room to speak of the “income inequality gap” in the country.  They’ve just voted to increase the beast.  Again, it’s not even mathematics, it’s arithmetic. If the GOP wants to increase spending for its Pentagon projects then someone has to pay for that. At present discretionary spending in the federal budget amounts to about 29% of the total, and of that 29% some 65% is related to the U.S. military. [NPorg]  Thus, the increases sought for Defense Department spending, and the hole created by losing another $2.69 billion in revenue – to protect the 0.2% – has to be made up by the remaining 99.8%.

So, what have Representatives Heck, Hardy, and Amodei done for us (the 99.8%) lately?  Not to put too fine a point to it – they’ve just told us it’s up to us to make up that $269 billion handout to the ultra-rich, and accept that we “can’t afford” to feed children, the disabled, and the elderly, to promote agricultural development, to help provide housing for the nation, to guarantee student loans for middle income families, to promote and encourage industrial and manufacturing technologies…..  And, all to protect the precious 0.2%.

Comments Off on A Simple Question for Rep. Amodei

Filed under Amodei, Heck, tax revenue, Taxation

Thank you for your patience

DB is still taking care of matters civic and domestic. In the meantime, please visit some of the excellent sources in the sidebar.

Comments Off on Thank you for your patience

Filed under Politics