Category Archives: Nevada politics

Cliven Bundy: How Can We Miss You If You Won’t Go Away?

Bundy Riders

Let’s Talk Nevada covered the adventures of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in Mesquite, NV complete with pictures, and an interesting exchange:

“Cliven Bundy’s son, Ryan, stated there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to hold land and he asked Paul what he would do to correct that problem. Paul agreed that public land should belong to the states and local governments, but that private ownership is best.”

Tricky Answer: The notion that the federal government may not own land, (pretty well covered by Article IV, section 3, clause 2 if we want to get specific about it, put to one side for the moment) – Notice that Senator Paul really didn’t answer the question.  What Bundy 2.0 wanted was reassurance that his outlandish right wing theory was correct, but what he got was pure corporate libertarian-speak. The candidate didn’t say he would actually do anything about the reversion of public domain lands, to the state, to the locality, or to any other public entity. He merely recited the corporate mantra that private ownership is always best.  If Bundy 2.0 was listening carefully, the response could easily mean that corporate interests would be able to purchase land and then charge users (ranchers) for the use of the property.   If for-profit entities were in charge, does Bundy 2.0 believe they would be under any compulsion to perform  land management activities other than that which would enhance the corporate bottom line?  Re-seeding? Noxious weed control? Grazing management? Would Bundy be able to evade paying for land use under corporate control, as his father has tried to avoid paying grazing fees?  And, if a higher bidder came along – would Bundy be looking for grazing property elsewhere?

But wait, there’s more:  There was more than a question from the audience.  Politico reports:

“The encounter came after Bundy attended an event for the Kentucky senator’s presidential campaign at the Eureka Casino in Mesquite, Nevada. When the larger group dispersed, Bundy said, he was escorted by Paul’s aides to a back room where he and the Republican 2016 contender spoke for approximately 45 minutes. (“There were no scheduled meetings at Senator Paul’s stop in Mesquite. He spoke to many people who came to this public event, none for 45 minutes and none planned,” Paul spokesman Sergio Gor said.)”

Cliven Bundy seems to have picked up the point about state ownership, “The state already owns the land…”

“The Nevada rancher said that he had expected only to have an opportunity to shake hands with Paul and make small-talk. He was surprised when campaign aides found a private room and allowed Bundy, his wife and son to speak with the candidate for the better part of an hour.

According to Bundy, the two mainly discussed federal land oversight and states’ rights, in addition to education policy — a theme Paul brought up in his speech.

“I don’t think he really understood how land rights really work in the western United States,” Bundy said. “I was happy to be able to sort of teach him.” [Politico]

How nice of Mr. Bundy to be so “educational?”  He doesn’t claim ownership, he claims “rights.”  Bundy 1.0 apparently understands that private ownership means private responsibilities – for fire prevention and fighting, grazing management, re-seeding, and maintenance – and he doesn’t want to pay for these.  He’d like the state to do it and let him put his livestock on the ground for free. Because? Freedom. Freedom as in Free loader.

Reprise:  Little wonder the Rand Campaign staff was anxious to tell us that the session between the Bundys and the candidate wasn’t “scheduled.” The candidate has already had to back away from Mr. Bundy once before:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Bundy told supporters shortly after the standoff, according to video footage captured by an onlooker. He recounted a time he drove past public-housing in Las Vegas “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom.” [Politico]

Thus much for any outreach to African American voters? So, are the Bundys “in tune with” the Paul Campaign? [MSNBC]

And even more:  Last June two Las Vegas Police officers were gunned down by anti-government extremists.  Officers Alyn Beck and Igor Soldo were assassinated and the motivation was reasonably clear:

“…a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag and a Nazi swastika the couple placed on one of the police officers they ambushed Sunday at a pizza restaurant. They pinned onto the other officer’s body a note saying something to the effect of “this is the beginning of the revolution,” Second Assistant Sheriff Kevin McMahill told reporters.” [CNN]

Later reports said the Millers were too much even for the Bundyland bunch, not necessarily because of their views, but because of Jerad Miller’s criminal past.

“Jerad Miller was eager to support Bundy, who was confronted by federal officials after years of refusing to pay grazing fees. On April 9, he wrote on Facebook:

“I will be supporting Clive Bundy and his family from Federal Government slaughter. This is the next Waco! His ranch is under seige right now! The federal gov is stealing his cattle! Arresting his family and beating on them! We must do something. I will be doing something.”

I was out there but they told me and my wife to leave because I am a felon. They don’t seem to understand that they are all felons now for intimidating law enforcement with deadly weapons. So don’t tell you that they need people. We sold everything we had to buy supplies and quit our jobs to be there 24/7. How dare you ask for help and shun us dedicated patriots.” [MJ]

And here comes another Rand Paul connection:

“Jerad Miller’s Facebook “likes” include the NRA, American Patriot Media Network, Support the 2nd Amendment, The Patriot Party, Rand Paul 2016, Ron Paul, the Washington Examiner, Legalize Weed, Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, American Crossroads, and Allen West.” [MJ]

Granted, any campaign gets its share of whackies. However, the Millers were making connections which the Paul campaign isn’t avoiding: Guns + Ultra Libertarianism + Candidates who espouse the connections between guns and ultra-libertarian views.  And, if one Paul campaign in Nevada could create chaos, there were some people imagining what a second one could do to the state’s clout in national elections.  (AB 302, SB 421, 2015)

The Ron Paul Campaign, which made the 2008 Republican state caucus such an interesting debacle for all to watch unfold, could be the prologue to a 2016 version of chaos created by Rand Paul’s version?  Efforts to convert Nevada’s caucuses into primary elections failed in the latest session of the Legislature. [Ralston]

In Nevada it’s hard to find room to wield a fly swatter without slapping at least one Tea Party enthusiast.  However, with that enthusiasm comes some perilous ground:  Association with dead beat rancher and resident racist Cliven Bundy; Association with the circumstances that left two police officers murdered in a Las Vegas pizza parlor; and, Association with one of the most controversial (but entertaining for Democrats) presidential season caucuses the Republicans have ever convened.  However, there are 496 days until the next presidential election so the GOP could find ways to skirt the impact of the Paul campaign in the Silver State.

Leave a comment

Filed under conservatism, elections, Nativism, Nevada legislature, Nevada news, Nevada politics, public lands, Republicans, Rural Nevada

The South Shall Lose Again: The SCV in Nevada

SVC logo In contrast to other states of the Union, Nevada provided few soldiers to the American Civil War; most of the residents of the silver and gold producing areas were busy with Paiute “depredations” and were clamoring for Federal assistance with troops to contain the violence, and screeching the mining towns needed Henry Rifles to defend themselves.  That hasn’t prevented the establishment of two chapters of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in this state.

The “Silver State Grays” are located in Las Vegas, NV and the “Lt. Dixon-CSS Hunley” group is located in Sparks, NV. [SCV]  As the Hunley chapter prepares to ‘celebrate’ the sesquicentennial of the South’s fight for independence (and the pleasure of owning other human beings) they’ll be meeting in a Sparks truck stop on September 20th.  Their web page lists officers: Lee Cross, Mike Tocci, Gerry Dunlap, and ‘historian’ Ernie Zebal.

A scan of their newsletter contents shows some interesting bits of ‘history’ indeed.  For example, there’s a notation that the SCV (Sparks) made a $450 donation on or about June 30, 2014 to the Southern Legal Resource Center, “which is the only law firm in the United States dedicated to preserving Southern Rights and Southern Heritage.”

And at this point we come to the South Carolina connection.  The SLRC was founded by four lawyers in 1995 (Carl A. Barrington (deceased), Kirk David Lyons, Larry Norman, and Lourie A. Salley, III). The organization is a South Carolina corporation, based in Black Mountain, North Carolina.  One of their first claims to fame concerned a Confederate flag dispute:

“The SLRC scored early victories in the late 1990’s when in 1996 it successfully defended the “Blacksburg (SC) 7” and in 1999 sued a Greenville, South Carolina, private academy on behalf of Dr. Winston McCuen, a teacher at the school who had been fired for refusing to remove a Confederate flag that was part of a classroom historical display, and for refusing to salute the US in protest.” [SourceWatch]

One of their novel approaches in litigation is the claim that Confederate Southern Americans are due 1st Amendment protections under the interpretation of ‘national origin’ as set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  They aren’t having much luck with this.

“The problem with successful advocacy of this group, as noted by Chief Trial Counsel Lyons is that “Republican judges are adamantly opposed to any extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Democratic Judges are hostile to almost all things Confederate.” Lyons believes that Confederate Southern Americans are a viable National Origin group that can break through the legal barrier once they break through the political barrier that belittles and divides them.”  [SourceWatch]

There’s no avoiding the irony that the legal group is seeking “special status” which is usually decried in conservative circles.  However, this does provide evidence of the sense of victimhood among members who see federal, state, and local authorities infringing on their ‘rights,’ such as the right to wear a prom dress created from CSA flag patterned fabric, or wearing CSA symbols in schools, public and private.  That preservation of “Southern Rights and Southern Heritage” seems to devolve into protecting the flag of rebellion and those who like displaying it in public.  The Supreme Court decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the controversy surrounding the battle flag in South Carolina, combined with their failure to induce NASCAR into agreeing to ‘fly the flag,’  appears to show  the SCV is not standing on much firm ground.

The SCV cut some of the ground from beneath its own feet during an internal power dispute in the last decade.  The result so far is an organization more racially extremist in its perspective than in previous iterations. [SPLC] Much of the SCV rhetoric is alarming:

From Alistar Anderson (SCV) we find out that the Pledge of Allegiance is to be denounced as enabling  a socialist mentality, and being supportive of a centralized Federal government, including a revision of the “atheist words of the radical French Revolution.”  [Sebesta]

According to Frank Conner, a contributor to SVC publications, the modern civil rights movement is “steadily shredding the traditional white society, first in the South and then the rest of the nation. But the liberals are in a big hurry to replace Christianity with secular humanism and limited government with socialism.” [Sebesta]

There’s a bit of the old Cold Warrior in the adherents to SVC ideology:

“Using the wedge of anti-racism, cultural Marxists orchestrated judicial and legislative changes to society over the course of decades – e.g. Brown v. Board of Education in 1955, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. … The cultural Marxists relentlessly hammered away at Western cultural norms using the sledge of anti-racism as a battering ram to bring down the walls of traditional Western culture” …

“…And just as the Bolsheviks inflamed the masses to violence against the Russian aristocracy, today’s cultural Marxists harness the massed numbers of a new proletariat – composed of people of color, feminists, homosexuals and other disaffected groups – to secure social acceptance and the numbers sufficient to convey political power.” [Sebesta]

And, then there’s the notion of representative democracy which SCV promoted authors W.D. and J.R. Kennedy find definitely unappealing:

“The liberal concept of one man-one vote, or universal franchise, is so deeply entrenched in the liberal dogma of the Yankee government that very few are willing to challenge its legitimacy. This is especially true in the South. Here we are faced with the danger of being labeled as a society attempting to deny the franchise permanently on the basis of race. Where will anyone find a popular politician who is willing to confront charges of racism and bigotry just to promote an improvement of the quality of the electorate.” [Sebesta]

The current buzz word for this idea is “election integrity?”

The connection between organizations like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the gun-lobby were made clear in the interview given by state Representative Bill Chumley recently [NYDN] the notion being inferred that perhaps the 87 year old lady who was shot should have been packing heat during Bible Study?  As if the victims were to blame for their own murders? [Grio]  Representative Chumley is a member of the SCV.

“We are focusing on the wrong thing,” Chumley told the reporter. “These people sat in there and waited their turn to be shot. That’s sad, when somebody in there with the means of self-defense could have stopped this, and would have less funerals than we’re having.” [digitalt]

Or perhaps we could say, if a rabid racist hadn’t had easy access to firearms we’d be having fewer funerals?

And so the good old boys of the Dixon/Hunley chapter will meet on a Saturday in a Sparks, NV truck stop – likely in a rather small room – and lament the good old days when being a white man meant you could have perfect ‘freedom,’ to: 

  • Refuse the pledge of allegiance to the liberal Yankee government?
  • Practice the discrimination which made white men the arbiters of social mores before Truman issued that blasted order integrating the Armed Forces?
  • Slather your motor vehicle with CSA decals and decorations without the neighbors looking at you as if you were a freak?
  • Pronounce that anyone supporting equal rights for everyone is a Commie Socialist Marxist Atheist minion of the Yankee government?
  • Lament the decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education as an “orchestrated judicial and legislative change” to society?
  • Loudly protest that slavery really really wasn’t the cause of the American Civil War in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and all the twisted logic which makes it seem the whole thing was a grand fight over tariffs and railroad construction?
  • Argue they really should be a “protected minority” in this country?

Have a few drinks fellows, the insanity and inanity will seem far more logical and rational after you reach the appropriate level of intoxication?

Comments Off on The South Shall Lose Again: The SCV in Nevada

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics, racism

Council of Conservative Citizens and the Problem of Money in Nevada Politics

Earl Holt NV On August 21, 2010 the Friends of Sharron Angle received a $500.00 donation from one Earl Holt, Longview, Texas.  There was another donation from the same source on October 12, 2010, also for $500.00.  However, pouring money into Mrs. Angle’s failed campaign wasn’t Earl Holt’s only interest in Nevada.  On September 30, 2012 the Heller for Senate received $500.00 from the generous Mr. Holt. [LVSun]

Mr. Holt and his organization have come under scrutiny since the Charleston church massacre as the probable source of inspiration for the killer.  From the Associated Press, the Guardian, and Politico. And, now Senator Heller has announced he will give his prize money from Holt to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund. [LVRJ]

The donation is good news indeed, the bad news is that the $500 from Holt’s Hate Band has been in Senator Heller’s account from September 30, 2012 until June 22, 2015 without notice on the part of Heller’s own staff.

This says something about money in politics and Republican money more specifically.

Given the massive costs of running a statewide campaign, especially in the top echelon races, it’s comprehensible that individual donations of relatively small amounts wouldn’t be cross checked for provenance.  However, it’s not like the Council of Conservative Citizens is an unknown group. 

“The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is the modern reincarnation of the old White Citizens Councils, which were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South. Among other things, its Statement of Principles says that it “oppose[s] all efforts to mix the races of mankind.” Created in 1985 from the mailing lists of its predecessor organization, the CCC, which initially tried to project a “mainstream” image, has evolved into a crudely white supremacist group…” [SPLC]

Flags As the Republican Party has been co-opted or at least significantly  influenced by the ultra-conservative Tea Party membership, the origins of money are ever more likely to come from organizations which have dubious racial and ethnic agendas – i.e. white supremacists.

Our second “given” is that it is always easier to beg forgiveness than to ask  permission.  Several prominent members of the Republican Party have donated CCC money to charity in the last week, all presumably because the tainted nature of the origins came to light.  Granted this is speculation, but what IF by some miracle the killer in Charleston had not acted on his evil ideation? What if the basis for the hate wasn’t the propaganda of the white supremacist’s associations?  Would those donations still be available to the politicians to buy air time and advertising?

In an era of Dark Money, Big Money, PAC money, and questionable non-profit money – here’s some unsolicited advice:

Well coordinated campaigns have good lines of internal communication.  Policy advocates and specialists should know where the money’s coming from, and the finance specialists should be aware of the image the candidate wants to project.   If a candidate doesn’t wish to be guilty by association with white supremacist groups then that needs to be conveyed to the finance directors with an admonishment to screen donations which appear questionable.

Bluntly speaking, Citizens United, while beneficial to Republican candidates in terms of corporate donations, may have made it harder for individual campaigns to discern the ultimate origins of campaign donations, which when discovered could prove embarrassing – or career ending.  We have a current example – Rep. Scalise, his speech to a David Duke related organization, and Duke’s threat to reveal his connections to other politicians. [HuffPo]

When in doubt – there’s always Google?

1 Comment

Filed under Angle, campaign finance reform, campaign funds, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, racism

Cluck, Cluck, AB 394 comes home to roost?

Chickens Roosting

A quick review:  Nine Republican members* of the Nevada Assembly introduced AB 394 in the last session, the bill would create a process for breaking up the Clark County School District into smaller, separate, districts because – “…Reconfiguring the structure of the Clark County School District into local school precincts will offer an educational system that is responsive to the needs and concerns of the residents of that school district;..”   (*Gardner, Fiore, Jones, Silberkraus, Hickey, Dickman, O’Neill, Seaman, and Trowbridge)

The bill passed in the Assembly on a 35-5 vote, and the Senate on a 13 to 7 vote, with one excused.  It was signed into law by Governor Sandoval on June 11, 2015.

The Numbers Game

For a party, the members of  which take umbrage at any suggestion they aren’t the party of fiscal responsibility, fiduciary trust, and conservative financial values, AB 394 demonstrates a level of financial naïveté that could easily be categorized as sophomoric. 

There is a inkling in AB 394, during its preliminary discussion of rural district consolidation in which there’s a hint that the Assembled Wisdom understood the principle of Economies of Scale.  However, the venerated Assemblage turned right around in the same bill and pretended these didn’t exist for the one district in the state actually large enough to benefit from those economies of scale.  For the uninitiated, here are some of the babes pitched out with the bath water in the interest of creating “responsive” little districts:

(1) The larger the operation (business) the more individual employees are able to specialize in various tasks creating technical expertise which in turn creates greater efficiency.  For example, a larger school district might be able to finance a specific office that focuses on testing and the administration of examinations.  In a smaller district these tasks might be assigned to a ‘curriculum director’ whose office is also responsible for the development of course content, the in-service training of teachers in that content, and the mapping of the curricular content throughout the district.  In the business domain, larger firms can separate tasks in the offices or on the shop floors that allows specialists to develop proficiencies in technical or production tasks.  

(2) Bulk purchasing.  Think of the difference in pricing between supermarket chain stores and the local corner bodega.  Volume, plus reduction in packaging and transportation costs, mean lower per unit expenses. There are approximately 24,286 first graders in the Clark County School District.  There are approximately 4,869 first graders  in the Washoe County School District.  [CCSD and Washoe SD]  Which has the better capacity to buy in bulk?  Which can negotiate for more discounts?

(3) Spreading overhead expenses.   Republicans, often supportive of mergers and acquisitions, note that the mergers of private sector firms allow for the rationalization of operation centers. or to put in more simply – it’s better (more efficient) to have one main office than two.   Again, the schizoid nature of AB 394 says that the rationalization of overhead expenses is fine for the rural districts, but CCSD is “just too big?”  By this logic, Goldman Sachs, Chevron, and JP Morgan Chase would have been broken up long ago.

(4) Let’s get to one economies of scale factors that’s extremely important for a large metropolitan population, the concept of Risk Bearing Capacity.  Again, the larger the enterprise the higher its risk bearing capacity.  The most common example of this factor is in the pharmaceutical industry wherein large corporate firms are able to finance (borrow for) research because profit lines in popular products provide investors with the assurance that the debts incurred can be paid off at the agreed interest rate.  Now, take a look at the Debt Service reported in the CCSD financials:

CCSD debt service

What we’re looking at above are all the bonds issued by the Clark County School District on which the district is paying off principal and interest.  Nor it is too difficult in a rapidly expanding population to have to issue bonds for school construction or renovation.  Schools aren’t  cheap to build and equip.  Constructing an elementary school for about 600 youngsters, at $190 per square foot will cost about $14,800,000.  A middle school for just over 900 students costs $215.14 per square foot, with a total cost of approximately $30,000,000.  High schools are even more expensive.  The total cost: $54,900,000 (1600 students) [NCEFAt this point one of the largest AB 394 egg layers  comes back to her nest.

“Moody’s Investors Services hasn’t downgraded the Clark County School District’s construction bond rating — yet.

But the credit rating firm late Monday issued a report warning a bill Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval recently signed that could lead to the breakup of the nation’s fifth-largest public school system “poses uncertainty” and “a credit negative” to the district’s ability to repay debt.”  [LVRJ]

Investors who buy bonds (lend public & private institutions money) want their money back + interest.  The greater the risk the higher the interest rate on the bonds.   The ratings agencies, no saints themselves as we witnessed during the financial sector collapse of 2007-2008, are in the business of telling investors how much risk is involved – the lower the rating the higher the risk, therefore the higher the interest rate demanded for the loan.

The Clark County School District currently has an A1 rating from Moody’s.  The outlook was “stable” as of February 17, 2015.   What has “de-stabilized” this projection is – AB 394 – which creates “uncertainty.” Without spending the usual $150 Moody’s charges for smaller reports, let’s guess the nature of that “uncertainty.”   The Clark County School District’s report on its financials assures bond holders:

“Maintenance of the current property tax rate will be sufficient through fiscal 2015 to retire the existing bonded debt since the District issued previous bonds based upon the factors of growth in assessed valuation in addition to increases in student population. The Capital Improvement Program provided authority to issue general obligation bonds until June 2008 and will be repaid from a fixed tax rate of 55.34 cents per $100 of net taxable property. [CCSD pdf

Translation: The Clark County School District – as it is currently functioning – has the financial capacity to retire (pay off) existing debt, and the ability to repay Capital Improvement bonds from its property tax base. A property tax base of the present 8,012 square miles comprising Clark County, which according to the Nevada Department of Taxation has a final assessed value (property) of $69,258,468,466.  A number large enough to assure investors in CCSD bonds that they’ll get their money plus interest, since the ad valorem revenue is calculated at $495,059,633 for the county.   We can use the old reliable Red Book to determine what the Clark County School district can expect from its share of the property tax revenue: $819,903, 015 from a total 2014-15 assessed valuation of $62,904,942,089.

By now it should be getting obvious why Moody’s is getting nervous.  Under the terms of AB 394, there must be a plan in place to chop up the school district by the 2018-2019 school year.  Thus, we’d have an advisory committee and a technical advisory committee contracting with a consultant for the grand purpose of carving up the district – but how?

If the notion is to create “neighborhood schools” then would we amalgamate current high school attendance zones? [map]  However, a quick look at the obvious north/south or east/west divisions compared to the assessed valuations of the areas involved quickly demonstrates that not all school districts would be “created equally.”

Perhaps the “Performance Zones” could be used as a basis?  Where do we put the rural schools, from Moapa Valley to Laughlin?  Again, how does the dissolution of the district help any of these financially?  

Unfortunately for those who would be new map makers, Clark County, like so many other major metropolitan areas is comprised of various zones – residential, industrial, and commercial.  As long as the financial foundation of a school district is based on property taxation, then we have to live with the fact that while upscale residential property comes with high tax bills, there isn’t all that much of it.    A district carved out of a major commercial zone with a rather smaller number of residential properties in that zone might have resources in abundance compared to an area of high residential properties – and therefore higher numbers of students, but a lower total assessed valuation.  Geography can often be a real pain in the derrière and in this instance it’s going to be.

At the risk of petulantly pounding the dais – there appear to be only 12 members of the Assembled Wisdom in the last session who understood the gravity of separating school districts within a diversified metropolitan area, one with an overall assessed valuation currently capable of keeping investors optimistic about bonding capacity and bond retirement.  The remaining 48 – not so much – maybe one more round of Econ. 101 is in order?

Comments Off on Cluck, Cluck, AB 394 comes home to roost?

Filed under Economy, education, Nevada economy, nevada education, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, nevada taxation, Politics, Rural Nevada, Sandoval

Rep. Cresent Hardy Keeps Digging

Stop Digging

Nevada’s own Congressional Representative from Bundyland can’t seem to get his mind around why he’s drawing so much fire from Democrats for his insensitive and inane comment about disabled people.

“Hardy, asked about the speech after a House vote Thursday in Washington, said he did not remember making the comment and suggested it was altered or taken out of context.

“I would like to have it analyzed,” he said. “People try to manipulate things. I’ve seen that happen early on.” Hardy was referring to the flap during the 2014 campaign when video surfaced in which he agreed with Mitt Romney’s infamous comment about 47 percent of people living off the government.” [LVRJ]

This is one better than only using the old cliché, “I was taken out of context.”  Without engaging his brain before putting his mouth in gear, Hardy posits not one but three possibilities.  (1) I didn’t say it. (Wrong: It’s been recorded – anyone can record anything these days without a Reel-to-Reel set up.) (2) It was altered. (Nice try but probably not – it was too ‘good’ all by itself.  Or, (3) It’s being “manipulated.”  There’s no need for manipulation, of any kind, Representative Hardy just cranks up his mouth, inanity ensues.   However, as the LVRJ article reports, Hardy isn’t finished:

“My nature is to defend those who can’t take care of themselves, that’s what I believe,” he said. “I’ve always been a strong supporter of people to be able to get help when needed.”

“People get paid to distort the truth and try to manipulate things,” Hardy said. “That kind of conversation never went on. I think the Democrats ought to be embarrassed.”

If anything, he said, people with disability should be angry at being used by Democrats “to sell their game.”

“People get paid to distort things,” he said. “I’m the No. 1 target, folks.” [LVRJ]

Merciful Heavens, Representative Hardy (R-NV4) has donned the cloak of victimhood, swathing himself in self pity, and begs us to ask his forgiveness for being so mean to him as to call out his hypocritical and mean-spirited remark.

Let’s move back to that first comment above (“My nature is to defend…”) and see if his actions and associations match his assertion.   First, Representative Hardy is a Republican, and his Republican majority in the House had the following ideas about how to develop a budget; they would:

“… propose major spending cuts to programs such as Medicare, health care subsidies, food stamps and the Medicaid program for the poor and elderly to produce a budget that’s balanced. Such cuts, if actually implemented later, would likely slash spending by $5 trillion or so over the coming decade from budgets that are presently on track to spend almost $50 trillion over that timeframe.” [CBS]

So, Representative Hardy favors cuts to Medicare, a program for those over 65 years of age, who prior to the program were denied private health care insurance or could only purchase it at exorbitant prices, and therefore “couldn’t take care of themselves.”  Food Stamps?

The SNAP budget took a 5% whack in 2013, and another round of cuts in the 2014 Farm Bill. The winners in HR 2642 were the farmers, especially corporate farming, and the losers were those who depend on assistance to put food on their tables at meal time. [NYT]  It appears that those cuts were insufficient for Republicans, so they proposed another round of cuts in 2015. [Slate]  Depending upon which GOP proposal is studied, the cuts range from 8% to about 15% in the SNAP program.  If a person is supportive of others being able to get help when needed, then why would that self-same individual advocate for proposals which do precisely the opposite?

Medicaid? CHIP? Nevada, which did expand Medicaid coverage after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, isn’t exactly overly generous with the income eligibility requirements.  A family of four trying to pay for housing, food, clothing, transportation, and utilities out of $2,643 per month is going to be hard pressed, and pressed even more harshly if there are medical bills to pay.  Non-surgical treatment for a broken leg runs about $2,500. [CH]  Thus, Junior’s one accident on the soccer field would almost wipe out the family income for the month.  So, why, if Representative Hardy is so concerned for those who evidently need his defense, does he side with those who would cut funding for programs which assist the defenseless?

Let’s go back to Representative Hardy’s last barrage, the part wherein he’s the “victim of cruel Democrats who are using the disabled as human shields to advance their agenda” —

Jon Stewart discussed this “conservative victimization” phenomena back in July 2011 – in a bit which deserves  a click and watch.  Now that we’ve had our moment of sheer delight…

Note to Representative Hardy:  The liberal agenda is supposed to advance the cause of disabled people – people who, with a little help, can be just as productive as their counterparts in the office.  The liberal agenda is intended to champion assistance for families on the financial brink who need help to meet medical expenses for themselves and their children.  The liberal agenda is to try every way possible to allow a family to feed its children, house its veterans, and care for its elderly.  The liberal agenda supports Public Schools, Public Libraries, Public Parks, Public Health, Public Roads and Bridges, and Public broadband access.    A liberal believes that the rising tide is supposed to do more than just float yachts.

Comments Off on Rep. Cresent Hardy Keeps Digging

Filed under conservatism, Federal budget, Health Care, Nevada politics

Domestic Violence: When do the excuses stop?

Domestic Violence

This weekend a domestic violence issue in Texas transitioned into an assault on the Dallas Police Department. Early reports give every impression of a man, out of control in every way imaginable, extending his personal sense of outrage to his local law enforcement authorities.  “After the shootout at police headquarters, the suspect called 911 and gave a four- to five-minute rant, accusing of police of being to blame for him losing custody of a child,…” [CNN]

There was an incident in Montana last week that barely attracted much attention at all.  Augustine Bournes killed his wife and three children, June 11, 2015.  The children were all under the age of 6.  He set fire to their home, and then took his own life. [NYDN]   He was “anti-government and unhappy with his life.”  There’s a term for this pathology: Family Annihilators.  Pehaps the most tragic comment about the incident came from a relative: “People tried to tell him he needed to get help,” 35-year-old Starla Shannon said Wednesday. “He said he’d rather go to a vet than a doctor.”

There’s no question the Family Annihilators and the Public Attack Perpetrators are a distinct minority subset of those who commit or are involved in domestic violence.  However, they do set the peg for the extreme end of the spectrum.

The Excuses

Unfortunately for any rational discussion, the peg is inserted in swampy terrain, territory in which men are supposedly victimized by a culture that no longer provides Hollywood staple John Wayne-esque characters as role models (as if that were a model to be emulated), or fears of the expressions of male sexuality (as if ‘a little groping just happens naturally’ down at the garage), or Big Government obscures the origins of the “true source of oppression, (whatever in the world that might mean), or men’s natural expression of free speech is truncated by feminine criticism of those who don’t understand that ‘privilege’ begets a perspective which doesn’t necessarily include the lives of women or minorities.   There are other supposedly “pro male” excuses for male disaffection, such as the “lie” about equal pay; because it is said men work at more dangerous jobs? (Missing the point that the call is for equal pay for equal work, the last portion being conveniently omitted.

And then we get to the domestic arrangements – wherein women falsely accused men of rape, and women get the benefit of the doubt in court in terms of child custody and alimony or child support payments.

The Delusions

“There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present and invoke the security of a comfortable past, which in fact, never existed.” [Robert Kennedy, Chicago, 1963]

Okay, in 763 BC the Romans adopted the Law of Chastisement, allowing husbands to beat their wives, and in the 14th century the Church advised a little spousal abuse for her “spiritual improvement.”  However,  we also know that by 1600 there were shelters for women – they called them convents.  In 1871 both Alabama and Massachusetts declared wife beating a crime. [StM]   Thus, if a wife abuser is seeking a “comfortable past” be advised it hasn’t exists in the last 144 years.

Another useless excuse is that “they – meaning women – do it too!” The misogynists among us are fond of providing statistics which “prove” women are also engaged in spousal and domestic abuse.  The stuffing comes out of this straw man quickly.  No one is saying all spousal abuse is done by men – but a sizable proportion of it certainly is.

A study of the reports of intimate partner violence between 1994 and 2010 found that 4 out of 5 victims were female. [NDVH]  The American Bar Association’s study of domestic violence found that:

(1) “Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.”

(2) “Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.”

Therefore, we should rid ourselves of the delusions that (1) slapping the little lady around is good for them because the Romans did it; (2) it’s just as bad for men; and (3) a gun in the home will make things safer.

Home Not So Sweet Home

Nevada could do a much better job of preventing the instances of domestic and intimate partner violence, and violence against women and families in general. Our current statistics could use some improvement. The Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence reported that for 2014 there were 65,026 contacts; 40,927 were for the first time; 15,534 were repeats; and 8,565 were follow ups. 1,091 adults needed shelter for 22,040 ‘bednights.’ 1,178 children were sheltered for 26,390 bednights. Most of the adults sheltered were between the ages of 30 and 44. Among those sheltered 12,096 were Caucasian, 3,396 were African American, and 7,725 were Hispanic.  Those numbers provide some context for the trauma.  Other numbers illustrate the strain on the system

Law enforcement was contacted 12,999 times, arrests were made 6,830 times. In 5,589 incidents arrests were not made. Police reports were made 481 times, temporary orders of protection were issued 11,354 times.  There were 4,520 court appointments, and 18,540 individual counseling sessions.

Looking for Solutions

First, and foremost, let’s make an attempt to alleviate the problem of escalating domestic violence by enacting common sense gun laws.

Local law enforcement authorities should have the power to immediately remove firearms from any home in which they have been called to deal with an incident of domestic violence – for their own safety if nothing else. [TCJ] [KMGH]  And, for the safety of the spouses and children the firearms should be locked up in police custody during the period covered by an order of protection.

Background checks should be expanded to private and gun show sales, and should include any records of domestic violence, stalking, or harassment.  No firearms should be sold to any person who is currently under a restraining order – temporary or extended.

Funds should be appropriated to adequately staff those agencies which keep records of criminal behavior, including incidents of domestic violence, the adjudication of mental health status, and the approval of temporary and extended orders of protection.

The state should require that all firearms in a home be kept locked when not in the immediate process of being maintained.

If we can take some small steps to create a safer environment for women and children, then we can better consider how to develop strategies for improving our society.  It would be helpful if we’d think beyond the extreme forms of firearm violence (Columbine, Va Tech, etc. or Montana and Dallas) and improve the way we deliver the message about violence and its results in general terms.  For example, behaviors like bullying are unacceptable, whether it’s bullying members of minority groups, women, or children.  Period.  Every school, public and private alike, should be required to update and upgrade their anti-bullying policies.

Getting a better grip on history wouldn’t be a bad idea either.  Yes, 14th century Europeans were encouraged to “beat the women” but those aren’t the best role models.  Edward I of England was a fearsome warrior with a sound reputation on the battlefield, and a person known for being troublesome if not downright petulant.  However, when it came to his domestic life things were quite different.  His marriage in 1254 to Eleanor of Castile was by all accounts a genuine life-long romance. Her death at Harby in November 1290 left him devastated.  Some of the visible reminders of his love and loss can still be seen in that country – as in Charing Cross (Chere Reine, or Beloved Queen).  There are far better role models available throughout history, even European medieval,  than the thuggish peasant “improving his wife.”

At the extreme, the Montana family annihilator would rather have gone to a veterinarian than a psychiatrist – and that’s a sad tale in itself.  We’ve done a relatively poor job of diminishing the stigma attached to mental illnesses in this country. We could and should do better.  No one would sit around contemplating whether to get treatment for a broken arm – why would or should anyone not seek treatment for a broken mind?  We’d not let a person with a dangerously high fever stay away from a hospital – so why do we not have services immediately available for family members who are coping with a person who is experiencing mental instability?  And, those services should be provided in a setting which isn’t the county jail!

Stop letting the perfect become the enemy of the possible or even the pragmatic.  Opponents of common sense gun regulation, those who don’t wish to make the investment in mental health care services, and even those who have mistakenly analogized boorishness for masculinity, repeat the mantra that “it (whatever solution is proposed) won’t prevent tragedies from happening.  True. However, that doesn’t negate the improvements which could be made if we’d try.  Laws against bank robbery don’t prevent the criminals among us from trying, but they do provide for a place to put them when they are caught.  Increasing the number of mental health care facilities and programs will not provide 100% security – but it would be better than what we have at the moment. And, providing anti-bullying and anger management programs and projects at an early age won’t mean that some erratic person won’t engage in violent behavior – but the incidents prevented before they ever happen will reduce the strain on our educational, police, and health care services.

A productive perspective will do more to accomplish the reduction in domestic violence and related homicides than sitting stone silent wrapped in the fear a solution might not produce 100% success.  Franklin Roosevelt had two sentences for that:

“It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

Comments Off on Domestic Violence: When do the excuses stop?

Filed under Gun Issues, Nevada, Nevada politics, violence, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Polls, Pols, and Timing

Ballot box 2

There are 517 days until the next general election. 517.  That is almost 17 months.  Or, to illustrate it another way, an infant born today will be walking at the time the election comes around, and the little darling will be feeding itself (sort of, if you count spaghetti “worm wrestling” as a form of feeding).  By 18 months the toddler will have about a 20 word vocabulary, to apply along with an assortment of noises, some of which will be comprehensible.  Our toddling little newbie will also be a master of mimicry – which is fine if we’re talking about wiping a table with a sponge, not so fine if it’s an antique hardwood table.  In other words – it’s a LONG time before the next presidential/general election.  There are some things we can do as “consumers” of election and political news which can help make the 2016 experience more positive.

#1. Insist on the development of ISSUES.  For example, what is the best way to promote the growth of the American economy.  This is a long established issue, but remember, we want the development of this issue, not merely a collection of sound bites and dog whistles, and in a rational world this is the appropriate time for the parties to prepare the general outlines of their specific proposals.  Contrary to the common media offering of “What will Candidate X’s statement on job creation mean for blue collar voters?” think about what economic philosophy is the Candidate espousing?  Once the philosophy is clarified then individual proposals can be evaluated on the basis of how they will affect crucial elements of our economy and not merely for select electoral groups.  Consider the source.

Unfortunately, those who get air time, and the attention of punditry, are those who are dramatic, flashy, confrontational — or “newsworthy.”  Is that dramatic, flashy, confrontational candidate really the standard bearer for the party?  If not, then all that’s been accomplished from the issue development side of the ledger is the addition of much bombast and hot air.  This, like the tantrum of a not-quite-two year old, can be safely dealt with by taking a few deep breaths and staying calm.

#2. Insist on transparency.  In an era of “dark money” we need to know if the candidate is being manipulated by large donors of the Super Pac variety. Again, this far out from the general election, it’s still ‘finance’ time for the candidates.   And, in terms of finance, do I want to cast my vote for an individual who is receiving massive amounts of money from sources which are unidentified? Perhaps, it’s more important at this point in time to know to whom candidates (especially presidential aspirants) are speaking than exactly what they say.

Let’s assume at this early date that the candidates will say what they perceive the audience wants to hear – because the candidates are not necessarily there to propose profound ideas – but to collect money.  Buzz words beget buzz and buzz opens billfolds.

#3. Ignore polling. Of all my gripes with modern cable news, the persistence of polling and the reports of polling, heads the list.  17 months out from a general election the only thing we learn from polling is the level of a candidate’s name recognition.   Recognition is a long long way from establishing a ‘brand’ and even further from creating ‘identification’ on the part of the voting public.  I am about to decide that the level of poll reporting done by a media outlet is an indication of its general lack of resources and talent. The more polling reports the greater the paucity of resources and the less imaginative and intelligent the management.

And, herein I’ll give Secretary Clinton some props.

One of the more interesting bits of whining from the D.C. media came from Politico’s publication of Glenn Thrush’s ear-splitting screed about how Secretary Clinton ‘hates the press.’   There is a time for more media access, but 17 months out from a presidential election  isn’t it.  This, for politicians behaving like adults, is the time for dealing with finances and issue development.

Politico also seemed distressed that when Secretary Clinton recently visited Iowa she focused on “preaching to the choir,” in “controlled environments.”  Of course she met with “activists.” Who else does one meet with to set up the ‘ground game’ and seek donations?  Could we also say that when three Republican governors met with mega-donor Sheldon Adelson in late March, the candidates were “preaching to the choir in a controlled environment?”  Of course they were – it’s what candidates do at this stage of the game.

Speaking of issues – the only time we’ll see the entire project launched in a single moment is in a shipyard. Otherwise, we’ll see proposals rolled out one at a time; especially when there’s an advantage to be gained by putting the opposition on the defensive.  On Thursday, June 4, Secretary Clinton released her proposals concerning the expansion of voting rights.  Republicans, who’ve been hard pressed to find significant examples of voter fraud, were caught without a clear response:

“The result is a dynamic in which Republicans are outraged by an ambitious Clinton proposal, for reasons they have not yet identified. Christie thinks voter fraud is a massive problem in New Jersey, which isn’t true, and under the circumstances, isn’t entirely relevant. Perry thinks the status quo in Texas is already great, which would come as news to the 600,000 people the Republican governor helped disenfranchise. Kasich is worried about being “divisive,” as if expanded voting access is somehow inherently acrimonious.” [Benen]

Governor Scott Walker opined that the proposal was out of the mainstream and defied logic – although he couldn’t explain why or how. [Benen]  When issue positions are carefully crafted, and selectively timed, the result is usually good, i.e. the opponents are on the defensive, and “when you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

Thus far the Clinton Campaign has done a good job of staying on target, not rushing the timing, and not clamoring for any more attention from the press than is necessary to get selected messages out while concentrating on the issue development and financial aspects of the campaign.  (Don’t worry, I’ll have kind things to say about Senator Bernie Sanders later, but I think he’s running a very different model of campaigning.)

In the mean time, as those toddlers start walking and feeding themselves, the Beltway Media may want to take some time to review the structure and timing of politicians and campaigns, and not become too enamored of explaining and analyzing their own somewhat worthless polling.

Comments Off on Polls, Pols, and Timing

Filed under Economy, media, Nevada politics, Politics