The Ever Entertaining GOP Primary in Nevada

Is it something in the water?  The main GOP candidates for the lieutenant governorship in Nevada are a real bunch.  Exhibit A, the Recall King (Roberson) whose efforts yielded a large Zero [LVRJ] and then there’s Exhibit B, the Scientology promoter. [NVIndy]

The GOP headliner in the governor’s race looks to be Trumpian Adam Laxalt [NVIndy].  Laxalt is the Koch Brothers’ own boy: “Laxalt has far outraised his opponents, cornering donations from the Adelson family that owns the Las Vegas Sands, Station Casinos and their owners, the Fertitta family. He has more of a structural advantage, garnering endorsements from sheriffs across the state, opening campaign offices and mobilizing large teams of volunteers. He also counts on support from outside groups such as Freedom Partners, part of a network run by conservative billionaires the Koch Brothers, which has paid for $1 million in ads to introduce Laxalt to Nevada voters.” [NVIndy] Interesting.  If one’s last name is “Laxalt” and there’s a felt need to use the services of Kansas based fossil fuel behemoths (Kochs} to “introduce” you to Nevadans, something may be amiss?

It seems like a fine year to be a Democrat.

Nevada’s not-so-smart ALEC’s?

Who are the ‘smart-ALECs’ in the Nevada Legislature?  Marc Morial, head of the National Urban League sums up the problem with the ultra-conservative organization which promotes ‘model legislation’ for the consideration of state legislatures:

It is bad enough that since its founding in 1981, ALEC has been the shadow author of numerous pieces of legislation aimed at boosting corporate power and profits, reducing worker rights, weakening environmental protections, and restricting voter rights.  Now, the organization is actively supporting a law which is moving this country back to the lawless days of the Wild West when it was common practice to “Shoot First and Ask Questions Later.”  That is not the kind of America we or our children deserve in the 21st century. [NUL]

What does ALEC want, and who in the Nevada legislature might be willing to introduce and support their legislation?

What’s on the ALEC agenda?

1. Bills to privatize public lands, and promote the interests of exploiters and polluters.   In 1995 ALEC supported the Sagebrush Rebellion Act, drafting model legislation to transfer ownership of unappropriated lands from the federal government to the states.   There is serious doubt that any of the bills introduced in western states, and passed in Utah, will withstand judicial scrutiny, but that doesn’t matter to the exploiters and polluters who want to bypass federal environmental rules.  [RSN] ALEC also sponsored a 1995 resolution encouraging rolling back the Endangered Species Act.

In case the federal government doesn’t get the message by 2013, ALEC has a draft resolution ready for members of state legislatures to introduce severely limiting the designation of national monuments, unless there is unanimous agreement from all parties.

2. Promote the interests of corporations, and corporate profitability.

“ALEC works fervently to promote laws that would shield corporations from legal action and allow them to limit the rights of workers. The group’s model legislation would roll back laws regarding corporate accountability, workers compensation and on the job protections, collective bargaining and organizing rights, prevailing wage and the minimum wage. ALEC is a main proponent of bills that undermine organized labor by stripping public employees of collective bargaining rights and “right to work” laws.They also push “regulatory flexibility” laws that lead to massive deregulation. It is no surprise that the director of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force previously worked as a Koch Associate at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.”  [PFAW]

It’s no secret from whence came all the anti-labor legislation in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana.  Nor is it any dark secret about the source of model prevailing wage, or anti-collective bargaining legislation.  “In 2011, Republican governors and GOP-dominated legislatures introduced more than 500 anti-labor bills, many carbon copies of ALEC model legislation, all of them inspired by the group’s work. These proposals restricted collective bargaining, limited project labor agreements and shredded living wage laws and other labor standards.”  [IAFF] 2013 will, no doubt, not be any different.

There was a bit of leftover legislation, S.B. 41 which would have eliminated collective bargaining for local government employees, which by April 16, 2011 was a dead letter issue.   However, this wasn’t the only anti-union bill introduced in the last legislative session.  S.B. 342 removed all supervisors from bargaining units, and removed recognition from the scope of mandatory bargaining. The bill also made dues deductions optional.  S.B. 342 was sponsored by State Senators Roberson, Cegavske, Brower, Gustavson, Halseth, Kieckhefer, and Settelmeyer.   State Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-8) proudly lists her affiliation with ALEC, since 1997, in her official bio.

There is confirmation in public sources of ALEC membership for Dean Rhoads, Greg Brower, Ben Kieckhefer, and Barbara Cegavske, current members of the Nevada Legislature.  [DB]

Senator Gustavson introduced S.B. 162, which prohibited school districts and teachers from negotiating transfers and reassignments. AB 555 was introduced on behalf of the governor on March 28, 2011, and included among other provisions a statement legislating one year contracts for all public school teachers.  ALEC has model legislation for these topics too.   Someone forgot to note that in Nevada all teachers already have one year contracts?

However, nothing says ‘promotion of corporate interests’ quite like legislation to repeal the minimum wage, and Senator Joe  Hardy (R-12) obligingly introduced S.J.R. 4 in the Nevada legislature to do precisely that.   Not surprisingly, ALEC has a model for this legislation as well.

3.  Bills to restrict voting rights and promote corporate influence.   There has been a deluge of anti-voting rights bills in recent state legislatures, and they are directly related to ALEC activity:

“ALEC is directly tied to the emerging trend among state legislatures to consider voter ID laws. Using false allegations of “voter fraud,” right-wing politicians are pursuing policies that disenfranchise students and other at-risk voters,–including the elderly and the poor–who are unlikely to have drivers’ licenses or other forms of photo ID. By suppressing the vote of such groups, ALEC’s model “Voter ID Act” grants an electoral advantage to Republicans while undermining the right to vote. In addition, ALEC wants to make it easier for corporations to participate in the political process. Their Public Safety and Elections taskforce is co-chaired by Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics, one of the most vociferous pro-corporate election groups, and promotes model legislation that would devastate campaign finance reform and allow for greater corporate influence in elections.” [PFAW]

Enacting burdensome regulations regarding voter identification and access to the polls has been a hallmark of ALEC model legislation.   Thirty three state legislatures considered such legislation in 2011 alone.  Wisconsin, Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina and Tennessee have passed such bills. [Nation]

Compare this piece of model legislation in regard to voter identification from ALEC to the inclusions of A.B. 327 in the 2011 Nevada Legislature. The legislation was introduced by Assemblyman John Hambrick (R-Dist.2). Assemblyman Hambrick does not list ALEC as one of his affiliations, but his sponsorship of A.B. 327 certainly places him firmly in the category of those doing ALEC’s bidding.  A.B. 327 wasn’t the only piece of legislation in the 76th Session which sought to suppress voting,  Assemblymen Lynn D.  Stewart (R-22) and Melissa Woodbury (R-23) sponsored A.B. 425, which would have required specific forms of voter identification.  Again, while their official bio’s do not reference membership in ALEC, they were more than willing to support ALEC’s voter suppression agenda.

The assault on voting rights didn’t stop with Hambrick, Stewart, and Woodbury, because Assemblyman Ira Hansen (R-32 ) sponsored his own vote identification legislation, A.B. 431.   Assemblyman Cresent Hardy (R-20) placed yet another voter ID bill in the hopper, A.B. 434.  For those keeping score, no less than four members of the 76th Session of the Nevada legislature were ready and more than willing to place their imprimatur on bills to suppress the vote in Nevada elections, as per the ALEC agenda.

4. Bills to restrict the application or implementation of federal statutes in the states and territories.   This is the realm of the 10th Amendment campaign, launched by ALEC in 1995. There is, once more, a handy bit of model legislation from ALEC to be used to draft a “10th Amendment” resolution by a state legislature.  We should not be surprised then that AJR 4, introduced in the 76th Nevada legislative session sounds almost exactly like the ALEC model.   The sponsors of AJR 4 were Assembly representatives Goedhart, Goicoechea, Hansen, Grady, Hambrick, Hammond, Hardy, Kirner, Kite, Livermore, Stewart, Woodbury, and Halseth.

5. Bills to promote the NRA’s campaign to remove restrictions on firearms.   Perhaps the most topical item on ALEC’s agenda is the organization’s promotion of the NRA agenda on guns.   Senator Gustavson’s S.B. 176 would have removed any restrictions on concealed firearms, and section 2 of A.B. 231 would have accomplished the same end. A.B. 231 was sponsored by  Assembly members Goedhart, Hardy, Ellison, Goicoechea, Grady, Hambrick, Hickey, Kirner, Kite, Sherwood, and Stewart, along with Senators  Gustavson, McGinness, and Rhoads.

While not the blanket permission sought in ALEC/NRA “carry on campus” [MMA] model legislation, S.B. 231 would have allowed guns on campuses with approval. At the risk of repetition, the bill was sponsored by Assembly members Goedhart, Hardy, Ellison, Goicoechea, Grady, Hambrick, Hickey, Kirner, Kite, Sherwood, and Stewart.

Even more to the contemporary point, NRS 200.120 was amended in 2011 to incorporate a “stand your ground provision” as sought by ALEC and the NRA.   Assembly Bill 231 (NRS 200.120) is summarized as follows:

“Under existing case law, there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the person using deadly force is not the original aggressor and reasonably believes that he or she is about to be killed or seriously injured. (Culverson v. State, 106 Nev. 484 (1990)) This bill provides that under the defense of justifiable homicide there is no duty to retreat if the person using deadly force: (1) is not the original aggressor; (2) has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and (3) is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used. [NVLeg]

Now, find the names in the list of sponsors of A.B. 231 we’ve seen before: Assemblymen Oceguera, Anderson, Kirkpatrick, Atkinson, Hambrick; Aizley, Benitez-Thompson, Bobzien, Bustamante Adams, Carrillo, Conklin, Daly, Diaz, Dondero Loop, Ellison, Flores, Frierson, Goedhart, Goicoechea, Grady, Hammond, Hansen, Hardy, Hickey, Hogan, Horne, Kirner, Kite, Livermore, McArthur, Munford, Neal, Ohrenschall, Segerblom, Sherwood, Smith, Stewart and Woodbury.”

If past practice is any guide at all, the members of ALEC in the Nevada Legislature in 2013, and those who are not ALEC members but who promote ALEC’s corporate sponsored agenda, will be relying yet again on the “model legislation” offered by those corporations which feel they should be subject to less oversight and regulation, lower taxes, and more influence in our elections.

The health of a representative democracy requires citizen participation.  What ALEC and its allies are offering are auctions instead of elections, and corporatism and financialism instead of free market capitalism.  This perspective is all the more reason for citizens to be vigilant in regard to who is promoting what legislation in our state legislatures — and Nevada is no exception.

Coffee and the Papers – Schools, Rules, Polls, Quants

** Hmm, surprise? Surprise? The headline starts: “Top Rated Schools Found in Wealthier Areas…” [LVSun] Is the median income in your neighborhood $128,000 or above? If “yes” give yourself Three Stars.  If the median income is over $132,250 have Four or Five Stars!  If your neighborhood’s median income hovers around $68,106 not so many stars are shining.   As if we couldn’t see this coming?

“Children’s initial reading competence is correlated with the home literacy environment, number of books owned, and parent distress (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). However, parents from low-SES communities may be unable to afford resources such as books, computers, or tutors to create this positive literacy environment (Orr, 2003).”   Or, “Children from low-SES environments acquire language skills more slowly, exhibit delayed letter recognition and phonological awareness, and are at risk for reading difficulties (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008).”  [APA.org]

Watch for a possible problem with this recommendation: “The new rankings will not be used as a punitive measure or a “sorting hat” but a “support system” for low-performing schools, Turner said. Two- and one-star schools will be given priority for new teacher hires and receive additional professional development to help teachers engage better with students, he said.”  [LVSun] (emphasis added)  The “additional professional development” assistance is a fine idea, but what is new or different about a policy which puts new hires into some of the more challenging school settings?

** Nothing like a little confusion?  The Secretary of State would like for home office businesses which operate as corporations or LLC’s earning more than $27,000 per year to obtain business licenses.  The Nevada Republicans, not so much. [NNB] And, no, Senator Roberson, we’re not speaking of the Tupperware ladies, or the Candle, Jewelry, or Whatever Parties.  The license fee would be required of corporations or LLC’s which make OVER $27K, for whom a $200 business license should not be a make or break proposition.

What we are discussing is closing a loophole, as explained during testimony on AB 78 during the last legislative session: “However, we do believe that there is a significant amount of uncaptured revenue that has resulted from the fact that since we took over the business license, we inadvertently allowed for Title 7 in these LLCs and corporations and the like to start claiming an exemption from the business license.” [Minutes AJ, PDF]

One mistake should not be compounded into a second, as Ross Miller, Nevada Secretary of State explained during the Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing:

When the Department of Taxation oversaw the administration of the state business license, it did not allow corporations or LLCs to claim the exemption. It was clear that it in fact codified that through regulation, specifically Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 360.760, which defined at the time that the exemption only applied to natural people.

We conducted an investigation into a limited number of them. Some of them are trophy and gift stores, construction companies, dentistry companies, bus companies, bowling alleys, et cetera. Clearly, those are not home-based businesses. This clarifies under the law that, in order to claim that exemption, you simply have to be a natural person. All it does is revert back to the interpretation that Taxation always had; and that, I believe, is the original interpretation of the law and the legislative intent when they enacted the law in 2003. It does not change anything in that regard. We simply made a mistake, but that fact should not force us to continue to make another mistake. There is about $11 million in revenue that the state is losing out on as a result. [Minutes AJ, PDF]

Those opposed to the correction of the error thought such an amendment might “send the wrong signal” to corporations, etc. that we are not a “business friendly state.”   What’s “unfriendly” about saying that single proprietorship entrepreneurs can get $75 off their state business license fee, while corporations — which are not “people my friends,” — and LLCs pay what they ought for their structuring decisions?  Senator Roberson appears to be playing the standard GOP card/canard that a tax on someone (like corporations) is a tax on everyone (like the Tupperware ladies).

** You have to love polling in the old confederacy… wherein 45% of GOP voters think the President is a Muslim (only 14% got it right with Christian, 41% weren’t sure), 53% have a favorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh, and 60% don’t believe in evolution — which makes animal breeding an exercise in futility? [PPP pdf]

**  Awwww?  Billionaire Citadel hedge fund manager Ken Griffin thinks the 1% (more like the o.1%) don’t have enough influence in the affairs of the nation. [Think Progress]   Memo to Mr. Griffin at Citadel:  Not everyone has forgotten what The Quants did to the economy the last time they were unregulated —

“The bubble eventually burst, of course. By October 2008, Citadel was on the verge of collapse, and Muller’s PDT was in crisis mode at Morgan Stanley (MS), Patterson says. AQR was out billions, he writes, and Asness was out of control, smashing chairs and punching computer screens. Losses were mounting at Weinstein’s Saba group at Deutsche Bank (DB). (He kept the name Saba when he left Deutsche.)”  [BusinessWeek]

** Ray Dalio, whose hedge fund (Bridgewater Pure Alpha) is doing better than Griffin’s says he believes the Obama Administration is doing a much better job of deleveraging than the Europeans, to wit: “As America has gone through the necessary process of reducing its debt-to-income ratio since the financial crash of 2008, he (Dalio) reckons its policymakers have done well in mixing painful stuff like debt restructuring with injections of cash to keep demand growing. Europe’s deleveraging, by contrast, is “ugly”.” [BusinessInsider]

** And, let us not feel too badly for the 0.1% folk — that “jobs” bill enacted by the House of Representatives the other day contained a lovely loophole for private wealth managers who have fewer than 500 employees — they get to skim 20% off their income for tax purposes. [Angry Bear]

“Now, folks, there are some mighty BIG businesses with fewer than 500 employees.  Like just about every hedge fund and leveraged buyout fund. (The latter, of course, like to call themselves “private equity” these days–let’s people overlook the fact that they have destroyed many a stable, profitable business by loading them up with debt and sucking out all the cash while firing employees or making the business focus on paying back the debt and not on doing business).  Why would the GOP want to reward those funds with even more tax breaks than they already grab for themselves–carried interest, pass-through taxation, and the ability to avoid the payroll taxes since they treat their compensation as though it were an investment gain?  Because that is what they are all about–making sure the richest people in the country get all the breaks.

Then there are sports teams.  Liquor stores.  Golf courses. Gambling dens….. Hotels. Restaurants.  Engineering firms. Accounting firms.  Law firms.  Architectural firms.  Big Business that normally make Big Money.
Just goes to show that the corporatist GOP never saw a tax break for the monied class that it didn’t like. “

Almost makes a person think about “saving” those poor corporations in Nevada from having to pay a little more for a state business license?  We do care about “deficits,” don’t we?