Just when I thought I could tolerate the local "newspaper" down here, it goes for yet another "story" ripped directly from Republican Party talking points! This time, the "newspaper" attacks Steven Horsford for some financial woes he experienced over a decade ago, when he was in his 20s and struggling to raise two siblings. Oh yes, and he had to dig himself out of a deep and ugly financial hole as the result of being injured in a car accident while he was attending UNR!
"Oh, there goes that evil Steven Horsford again! He's so dastardly, he plays by his own rules! He couldn't even pay his bills after he got injured in a car crash in Reno! OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Here's what I have for both the "newspaper" and the G-O-TEA morons in Washington, DC, who fed them this "story":
FAIL!
Seriously, do the "newspaper" and Nevada Republicans really think this will sink Steven Horsford? Here's a news flash for them: He's not the only Nevadan who's gone underwater financially while trying to provide for the family. And he's not the only Nevadan who's gone underwater financially because of a medical emergency.
By the way, this is why we now have the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Act was passed to prevent tragedies like the one Steven Horsford had experienced.
This is why we saw Nevadans pop up on the steps of the federal building in Las Vegas and Reno last Thursday. And this is why Americans across the country want to see the ACA stay in place. We need health care. And we shouldn't be bankrupted in seeking the care we need.
This is the painful tragedy that Steven Horsford had to live first-hand. And for the "newspaper" and Nevada Republicans to attack him on it is downright shameful. And if they get their way in demanding "judicial activism" in the form of overturning the ACA, expect more stories like Horsford's to surface.
But anyway, getting back to the shoddy journalism at the local "newspaper", couldn't they realize that Steven Horsford's health care related financial woes were not all that uncommon here in Nevada? And didn't they think that reposting this NRCC/Nevada GOP attack verbatim would again call into question whether they really want to be a real "newspaper"? What a #FAIL.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Why Shouldn't Nevada Have a Lottery? (Let Me Explain.)
Yesterday, we touched on both the threats and opportunities to Nevada posed by online gaming. Today, we need to look at another form of gambling that's been getting quite a bit of attention lately.
Northern Nevadans and Southern Nevadans are rushing to buy those "Mega Millions" tickets and catch "Lotto Fever". And we have our next door neighbors to thank for this.
So we all have a chance to live like the OC Housewives while schools get plenty of money. What's not to love? And why can't Nevada cash in on California's good fortune?
Bottom line: It's unconstitutional.
Yet despite our constitutional ban on state lotteries, many Nevadans are again talking up the possibility of bringing the "Mega Millions" here. Is it time to finally amend the constitution and start selling lottery tickets here in Nevada?
Not so fast. While forty states, including California, sell lottery tickets on the premise that more money will be going to public education, it's not really as simple as that. Earlier this year, there were questions of what's happening with money that the State of Florida has been netting from its lottery.
Looking back at California, here's what often happens with state lottery funds.
Now I'm sure it helps to have that extra change in school pockets to pay for things like daily planners and projectors. However, we have to realize that we're only talking about pocket change here. Lotteries are no panacea for public education.
In October 2007, The New York Times investigated state lotteries and found that, on average, they only deliver about 30 cents for every dollar spent on tickets and games.
And so far, it doesn't look like that's changed for the better. Rather, as state lotteries have pumped even more money into building up "Mega Millions" style jackpots and promoting them with ever flashier TV, radio, and billboard ads, the overhead costs are quickly gobbling up money that was originally promised to fund K-12 schools and college education.
Let's go back to my old stomping grounds in "The OC" for a moment and see how local schools are looking forward to that huge lottery windfall.
Yes, that's really all California is getting when Nevadans line up in Primm and Verdi to cross the state line and buy their "Mega Millions" tickets. Perhaps a school in Lodi will get to buy a few more boxes of day planners, and perhaps another school in Costa Mesa will get to buy a computer. That's really it.
So before we again hear another round of complaints on why Nevada doesn't have a state lottery, remember this. At least with our state sanctioned gambling, the casinos have to pay for their own advertising and their own upkeep. But when the state becomes the casino, we flip the bill and we don't always win the jackpot we were looking for.
Sure, the likes of MGM Resorts CEO Jim Murren are looking out for their own bottom line. But again, under the current system MGM pays to run its own casinos. And considering that we've already had to learn the hard way that casinos alone won't save our economy or our schools, should we really expect a state lottery to solve our budget problems?
Northern Nevadans and Southern Nevadans are rushing to buy those "Mega Millions" tickets and catch "Lotto Fever". And we have our next door neighbors to thank for this.
"The amount of money we send to schools is a small drop in the bucket, everyone would admit that," Lopez said. "But during an economic downturn when school districts are looking at what they have to cut, every little bit helps."
Officials are projecting the lottery will provide more than $1 billion for public education in California this fiscal year. For the fiscal year 2010-11, California received $3.4 billion in lottery revenue. The state returned about $1.1 billion of that to K-12 schools, community colleges and University of California and California State University systems.
So we all have a chance to live like the OC Housewives while schools get plenty of money. What's not to love? And why can't Nevada cash in on California's good fortune?
Bottom line: It's unconstitutional.
Yet despite our constitutional ban on state lotteries, many Nevadans are again talking up the possibility of bringing the "Mega Millions" here. Is it time to finally amend the constitution and start selling lottery tickets here in Nevada?
Not so fast. While forty states, including California, sell lottery tickets on the premise that more money will be going to public education, it's not really as simple as that. Earlier this year, there were questions of what's happening with money that the State of Florida has been netting from its lottery.
Looking back at California, here's what often happens with state lottery funds.
"That's a question that is frequently asked. A lot of people think [the state lottery] provides more revenues than it does," said Margaret Weston, an expert in K-12 school finance for the Public Policy Institute of California.
The state Lottery and its myriad games got started in 1985 as a way to generate funds for public education without adding another tax. It's one of the only state funds that are doled out equally to everyone. At least 50 percent of tickets sales go back to the public as prizes. Public schools get about 34 percent of revenue from sales.
Each school gets $135 per student, though they pass it out in different ways. The peak of Lottery funding for kindergarten through 12th grade hit during the 2005-06 school year. The average each year hovers between $40 to $45 billion, less than two percent of the state's public school funding. [...]
Students at Millswood Middle School use their daily planners to keep track of homework and assignments. Funds from the California Lottery provided the $4,000 to dole them out at the beginning of the school year.
"We receive a whopping $8,000 from Lottery funds. Half of that is spent on the school planners the students get at the beginning of the school year. The other approximately $4,000 was spent on a teacher computer and projector," wrote Sheree Flemmer, principal.
Now I'm sure it helps to have that extra change in school pockets to pay for things like daily planners and projectors. However, we have to realize that we're only talking about pocket change here. Lotteries are no panacea for public education.
In October 2007, The New York Times investigated state lotteries and found that, on average, they only deliver about 30 cents for every dollar spent on tickets and games.
For years, those states have heard complaints that not enough of their lottery revenue is used for education. Now, a New York Times examination of lottery documents, as well as interviews with lottery administrators and analysts, finds that lotteries accounted for less than 1 percent to 5 percent of the total revenue for K-12 education last year in the states that use this money for schools.
In reality, most of the money raised by lotteries is used simply to sustain the games themselves, including marketing, prizes and vendor commissions. And as lotteries compete for a small number of core players and try to persuade occasional customers to play more, nearly every state has increased, or is considering increasing, the size of its prizes — further shrinking the percentage of each dollar going to education and other programs.
In some states, lottery dollars have merely replaced money for education. Also, states eager for more players are introducing games that emphasize instant gratification and more potentially addictive forms of gambling.
And so far, it doesn't look like that's changed for the better. Rather, as state lotteries have pumped even more money into building up "Mega Millions" style jackpots and promoting them with ever flashier TV, radio, and billboard ads, the overhead costs are quickly gobbling up money that was originally promised to fund K-12 schools and college education.
Let's go back to my old stomping grounds in "The OC" for a moment and see how local schools are looking forward to that huge lottery windfall.
In Orange County, the lottery provided an additional $135 per student for K-12 schools last school year. The county received a total of $88.6 million from lottery revenue last year, or about 1.2 percent of the $4.2 billion local schools spend annually. Local schools are expecting to cut more than $250 million combined from their budgets for next year alone, on top of the more than $1 billion cut since 2008.
"I want the whole $540 million jackpot all for Orange County. That would really solve all our funding problems," county Superintendent William Habermehl said. "The lottery has never really provided as much money to schools as what was sold to the public when it was implemented. If you look at all 6 million students in California, an extra $100 million will only give you a few extra dollars per student."
Yes, that's really all California is getting when Nevadans line up in Primm and Verdi to cross the state line and buy their "Mega Millions" tickets. Perhaps a school in Lodi will get to buy a few more boxes of day planners, and perhaps another school in Costa Mesa will get to buy a computer. That's really it.
So before we again hear another round of complaints on why Nevada doesn't have a state lottery, remember this. At least with our state sanctioned gambling, the casinos have to pay for their own advertising and their own upkeep. But when the state becomes the casino, we flip the bill and we don't always win the jackpot we were looking for.
Sure, the likes of MGM Resorts CEO Jim Murren are looking out for their own bottom line. But again, under the current system MGM pays to run its own casinos. And considering that we've already had to learn the hard way that casinos alone won't save our economy or our schools, should we really expect a state lottery to solve our budget problems?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
It's Back! House Passes "RyanCare" with Joe Heck's Help.
The House today passed Paul Ryan's "Roadmap to Austerity Fueled Poverty" budget plan yet again. And yet again, Joe Heck voted for it. Here are two of Heck's favorite BFFs, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, discussing what happened today.
Now that sounds all fine and dandy. What's wrong with what Paul and Willard said? Here's what's wrong: They're lying.
Paul Ryan's budget dumps another $187,000 tax cut on the lap of every multi-millionaire and billionaire. Yet while the ultra-wealthy are getting another "bailout", the working poor suffer as 62% of Ryan's proposed budget cuts hit programs like Medicaid and Pell Grants that are meant to lift Americans out of poverty. Oh, and let's not forget the centerpiece of Paul Ryan's budget, which is his "RyanCare" plan to end Medicare as we know it and force seniors to pay up to $5,900 more for health care. Even retired military officers have come out against Paul Ryan's budget because of his proposed cuts to international programs meant to keep America safe.
Even Mitt Romney backer and professional "reality TV" attention seeker Donald Trump admitted that this is a losing issue for Republicans.
So why is Joe Heck yet again tying himself to Paul Ryan's nonsense? Oh, that's right. He thinks he can lie his way out of this!
If even Paul Ryan's own constituents can't stand what he's trying to do to our country, what makes Joe Heck think he can get away with this here in Nevada? Between his own "Destroying America's Trust in Our Economy Act" and his constant votes for Paul Ryan's dangerous austerity agenda, Heck is sending us the message that he cares more about pleasing Paul Ryan and the rest of the House G-O-TEA leadership than doing what's right for Nevada's working families. All Heck is doing is proving Mr. Gleaner's point that he's nothing more than a G-O-TEA tool.
The blueprint by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan is similar to his controversial Medicare plan last year, in that it ends the health insurance guarantee for seniors and replaces the program with a subsidized insurance-exchange system. Unlike last year’s plan, seniors can buy into traditional Medicare as a sort-of public option, and the vouchers it provides are more generous.
Conservative Republicans see the vote as an opportunity to lay down their marker for the sort of sweeping reforms they hope to enact if they win the presidency. Ryan has urged his party’s presidential candidates to cast the election not as a referendum on President Obama but a choice between two competing visions for the nation’s future.
“Today we will pass our budget that proposes real, honest solutions to create a stronger economy and a more certain future for our country,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said on the floor. “Our budget takes bold steps that will get the fiscal house in order and will manage down the debt and deficit.”
As it turns out, Democrats would love to fight the battle on those terms. They’re expected to make Medicare a focal point of their election message, portraying Republicans as seeking to “break the Medicare guarantee” in order to fund large tax cuts for the rich.
“Our main focus will be on Medicare,” the Democratic aide said. “There’s clear evidence that seniors are very worried about what Republicans are doing with Medicare. And we want people to know that this is who they are in a nutshell. There’s no wiggle room for them.”
Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, praised the Ryan plan. “Owing in no small part to the leadership of Paul Ryan, [the House] has put conservative fiscal principles into action and passed a bold budget that directly addresses the drivers of our nation’s spending crisis,” he said in a statement. “The House budget and my own plan share the same path forward: pro-growth tax cuts, getting federal spending under control, and strengthening entitlement programs for future generations.”
Now that sounds all fine and dandy. What's wrong with what Paul and Willard said? Here's what's wrong: They're lying.
Paul Ryan's budget dumps another $187,000 tax cut on the lap of every multi-millionaire and billionaire. Yet while the ultra-wealthy are getting another "bailout", the working poor suffer as 62% of Ryan's proposed budget cuts hit programs like Medicaid and Pell Grants that are meant to lift Americans out of poverty. Oh, and let's not forget the centerpiece of Paul Ryan's budget, which is his "RyanCare" plan to end Medicare as we know it and force seniors to pay up to $5,900 more for health care. Even retired military officers have come out against Paul Ryan's budget because of his proposed cuts to international programs meant to keep America safe.
Even Mitt Romney backer and professional "reality TV" attention seeker Donald Trump admitted that this is a losing issue for Republicans.
So why is Joe Heck yet again tying himself to Paul Ryan's nonsense? Oh, that's right. He thinks he can lie his way out of this!
If even Paul Ryan's own constituents can't stand what he's trying to do to our country, what makes Joe Heck think he can get away with this here in Nevada? Between his own "Destroying America's Trust in Our Economy Act" and his constant votes for Paul Ryan's dangerous austerity agenda, Heck is sending us the message that he cares more about pleasing Paul Ryan and the rest of the House G-O-TEA leadership than doing what's right for Nevada's working families. All Heck is doing is proving Mr. Gleaner's point that he's nothing more than a G-O-TEA tool.
Laughlin: "The Little City That Could"?
RT @SandraChereb: Laughlin residents will vote on incorporation. #laughlin /The Little City That Could......
That's what Jon Ralston tweeted when Nevada AP reporter Sandra Chereb broke the news that Laughlin will get a referendum on cityhood, after all.
Residents of Laughlin will be allowed to vote on incorporation under a compromise reached with state lawmakers that allows them to pull the plug on the new city if it can't support itself.
The Legislative Commission approved the proposal Thursday. The action allows residents to vote on incorporation in June, but requires proponents to instruct residents that if passed, becoming a city could mean higher taxes or reduced services.
The commission agreed that a bill draft will be requested for the 2013 session, giving legislators the option to either delay the July 1, 2013 effective date of Laughlin's cityhood, or revoke it altogether if there's insufficient revenue to fund it.
This is turning out to be quite the surprise. Just a month ago, it looked like Laughlin cityhood was dead as the state had originally punted the decision to the Clark County Commission, which wasn't interested in granting it.
The major point of conflict was (of course) over the financials. Clark County insisted that a City of Laughlin would immediately start in the red and could never really support itself. However a group of pro-city locals disagreed, and they even hired their own consultants to do feasibility analysis to show how a City of Laughlin could work. While most Nevadans probably haven't been paying too much attention to this fight over 7,323 residents and who should serve as their primary local government, this has been a fierce battle in the very southern tip of the state that some thought was over casino revenue and/or future development plans.
But now, it looks like there will be a vote this year for a proposed city that excludes the casino corridor while including plenty of land that's been eyed for development for some time. We'll have to see how it goes.
And apparently, so will the state. Under this proposed agreement, the state will leave open the possibility of the Legislature delaying incorporation of the city next year, or even repeal the city charter altogether, if future evidence shows that a City of Laughlin would not be financially feasible. This is why this fight isn't completely over yet. We'll have to watch Laughlin tax revenue and tourism numbers more closely in the coming months to see what kind of data state legislators in Carson City will be looking at next year.
Last year, the issue of Laughlin incorporation became a bit of a political football as state budget negotiations were underway. But perhaps now that Laughlin cityhood appears to have broad bipartisan support, this tale may finally deliver a long awaited happy ending for those Nevadans at the very southern tip of the state looking to chart their own future.
Wither Gambling? Wither Casinos? Wither Nevada? (Maybe Not.)
For the first time in nearly three decades, the Gaming Policy Committee met yesterday. Why? Need I tell you why?
As we had discussed last month, online gaming is looking increasingly like reality. So the State of Nevada is trying to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible... And perhaps turn this threat into an opportunity.
After all, "The Las Vegas Recovery" has already been factored into Governor Brian Sandoval's budget plan. If something like online gaming (authorized somewhere else) eats into big casinos' revenue, then his budget is further thrown into doubt.
Yet, the big casinos are fearing what happens if/when online wagering becomes reality. How will the gaming experience change? How can they continue making money? When they figure out how to profit off online gaming, they will jump on it.
And a growing chorus demands that the state jump on this... Or else face the severe economic consequences of being left in the dust.
And that's perhaps the silver lining here. If we take the lead on this, we may just realize opportunity. As we discussed almost two weeks ago, Nevada can take the lead on this by taking the role of "Silicon Valley of Gaming". If we play our cards right, that means Nevada can become the I/T hub of the global gaming industry, foster innovation in online wagering, and provide critical infrastructure support for casinos around the world. But alas, that would require us to actually invest in public education so we have a workforce ready to take advantage of this opportunity.
Still, there's really no reason why we shouldn't embrace the future. After all, Nevada faced a difficult crossroads thirty years ago, when New Jersey was staring us down as Atlantic City rose to the top. Yet what ended up happening? Atlantic City is now faltering, and it's betting on everything from going down-market to opening a dazzling new upscale behemoth to change the game. Meanwhile here at home, Las Vegas casinos have actually managed to recover with less gaming activity by turning to night clubs/day clubs and other new "cash cows" to lure tourists.
If neither Atlantic City nor tribal casinos could kill Las Vegas (even if the latter have caused problems for Reno), then how can online poker? Only if we let it. Remember that. Nevada just needs to figure out how to take advantage of the next gaming trend. And if we actually bother to invest in our future by educating the next generation of innovators and leaders, we really can drop our fear and learn to love Facebook blackjack and Twitter roulette (if we can ever figure out how to compress a spin of the wheel into 140 characters or less). ;-)
As we had discussed last month, online gaming is looking increasingly like reality. So the State of Nevada is trying to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible... And perhaps turn this threat into an opportunity.
After all, "The Las Vegas Recovery" has already been factored into Governor Brian Sandoval's budget plan. If something like online gaming (authorized somewhere else) eats into big casinos' revenue, then his budget is further thrown into doubt.
Yet, the big casinos are fearing what happens if/when online wagering becomes reality. How will the gaming experience change? How can they continue making money? When they figure out how to profit off online gaming, they will jump on it.
And a growing chorus demands that the state jump on this... Or else face the severe economic consequences of being left in the dust.
The Internet gambling policy debate could be one of the most complex issues the committee has undertaken. The result of the committee’s work could yield either some of the most important polices ever produced for the state’s economic future or much ado about nothing if lawmakers fail to address the issue.
Most believe that the need for government entities to generate revenue will pressure lawmakers to act on Internet gambling eventually, but how it would be made allowable is an open question. Sandoval says he wants the state to be ready for any eventuality, including the prospect of Nevada offering intrastate wagering if federal lawmakers fail to act. [...]
Paul Matthews Jr., of Las Vegas-based IncuBET, a game designer, said the Internet gambling issue was critical to Nevada. It offers an economic opportunity if Nevada were to become a host jurisdiction or a regulatory hub for online gaming.
And that's perhaps the silver lining here. If we take the lead on this, we may just realize opportunity. As we discussed almost two weeks ago, Nevada can take the lead on this by taking the role of "Silicon Valley of Gaming". If we play our cards right, that means Nevada can become the I/T hub of the global gaming industry, foster innovation in online wagering, and provide critical infrastructure support for casinos around the world. But alas, that would require us to actually invest in public education so we have a workforce ready to take advantage of this opportunity.
Still, there's really no reason why we shouldn't embrace the future. After all, Nevada faced a difficult crossroads thirty years ago, when New Jersey was staring us down as Atlantic City rose to the top. Yet what ended up happening? Atlantic City is now faltering, and it's betting on everything from going down-market to opening a dazzling new upscale behemoth to change the game. Meanwhile here at home, Las Vegas casinos have actually managed to recover with less gaming activity by turning to night clubs/day clubs and other new "cash cows" to lure tourists.
If neither Atlantic City nor tribal casinos could kill Las Vegas (even if the latter have caused problems for Reno), then how can online poker? Only if we let it. Remember that. Nevada just needs to figure out how to take advantage of the next gaming trend. And if we actually bother to invest in our future by educating the next generation of innovators and leaders, we really can drop our fear and learn to love Facebook blackjack and Twitter roulette (if we can ever figure out how to compress a spin of the wheel into 140 characters or less). ;-)
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wherein Nevada Is Positioned to Remain a "Blue State" in 2012, Part VII
This week, Republicans have been pinning their hopes of a "Great Red Tide" this year on health care being challenged in court and high gas prices driving voters batty. I guess the former explains Joe Heck's recent showboating on his bill to repeal health care reform, and I guess the latter explains Dean Heller's latest stunt on energy.
So how bad is it? I'll let Desert Beacon explain.
Long story short, Heller's mad that Democrats appear to be gaining traction with the "Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act", so he's trying to shoot that down with his own "Gas Price Relief Act". However, all Heller's bill does is push more "Drill, Baby, Drill!!!" nonsense that would do nothing to lower gas prices for consumers. Since we only have a small amount of the world's oil reserves, all the drilling we do offshore and on would do very little to affect gas prices. And despite all the G-O-TEA efforts to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, gas prices keep fluctuating. Seriously, Big Oil isn't hurting here.
And yet again, Dean Heller refuses to do anything to acknowledge the real problem here, which is our over-reliance on oil and other fossil fuels. As we discussed last week, Nevada gains good jobs, America gains energy independence, and the world gains a healthier climate when we invest in renewable energy. Clean energy investment is really a "win-win" for everyone, yet Heller refuses to support further investment. So Dean Heller whines about the problem of high gas prices, yet he refuses to work on any real solutions to wean us off fossil fuels while creating more jobs in this state. Who does he think he is, Mitt Romney?
FAIL.
And in case that wasn't ridiculous enough, Joe Heck continues to ignore reality and push his bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He claims the ACA is some abominable "attack on FREEDOM!!!", yet he fails to mention where the individual mandate that holds together the ACA originally came from.
Yes, that's right. Joe Heck has his BFF Willard "Mr. 1%" Romney to thank for that! MIT Professor Jon Gruber, who advised both Mitt Romney and President Obama on health care reform, has this to say on the commonality of "Romneycare" and "Obamacare".
So there you have it. A mandate is absolutely necessary to any kind of health care reform that actually works and is actually universal. And the only realistic options are the kind of individual mandate that's present in both the Massachusetts health care plan and the Affordable Care Act, or a direct government mandate to provide care that's present in our Medicare and in single-payer health care programs like Canada's and Britain's.
So do Republicans actually want real life "socialized medicine"? Or do they prefer we do absolutely nothing on health care? Which is it, Joe Heck?
FAIL.
While we've already discussed why media pundits are wrong to make assumptions about how The Supreme Court will rule on ACA, conservative pundit David Frum actually points out why Republicans should NOT get too giddy about any ruling that strikes down ACA.
So what's the G-O-TEA alternative to "ObamaCare" that would pass constitutional muster if the court strikes it down? Again, remember that the individual mandate was originally a CONSERVATIVE idea for health care reform. The only options left would be implementing single-payer health care or doing nothing. And since I don't envision the likes of Mitt Romney, Dean Heller, and Joe Heck embracing single-payer any time soon, they seem to prefer that we do nothing and let sick Americans die for lack of health care.
So really, Heck, Heller, and Romney should be careful what they wish for.
Perhaps they just need to do something to change the trajectory? Perhaps the latest CNN poll is what's scaring them to pull these stunts?
And apparently, the new ABC-Washington Post poll is also set to show Romney's favorability numbers cratering. I guess Americans aren't all that into "Etch-A-Sketch". And I guess this is what has Nevada Republicans running scared and deciding to pull all sorts of crazy stunts.
So how bad is it? I'll let Desert Beacon explain.
What was that definition of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? There is nothing new in Heller’s proposal. It’s the same Drill Now, Drill Everywhere scheme the oil companies have been promoting for the last several years, always being careful to avoid telling us that the oil is sold on the GLOBAL MARKET, and no matter how much we pump into the market if the Saudi’s cut production, or the Iranians and Israelis get into a fight, or there’s increased demand in India, or whatever moves the speculators — the price of oil won’t necessarily get any cheaper in the United States of America. Oil is a global game.
And about the losses to the Highway Trust Fund created by the reduction in the gasoline and fuel taxes? Senator Heller assures us that these will be replenished from the proceeds of the closure of the tax loopholes. The CBO doesn’t seem to have scored the bill in this regard.
In short, Heller’s “Gas Price Relief Act” seems to be about everything BUT gas price relief. It’s more like the American Petroleum Institute Relief Act of 2012.
Long story short, Heller's mad that Democrats appear to be gaining traction with the "Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act", so he's trying to shoot that down with his own "Gas Price Relief Act". However, all Heller's bill does is push more "Drill, Baby, Drill!!!" nonsense that would do nothing to lower gas prices for consumers. Since we only have a small amount of the world's oil reserves, all the drilling we do offshore and on would do very little to affect gas prices. And despite all the G-O-TEA efforts to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, gas prices keep fluctuating. Seriously, Big Oil isn't hurting here.
And yet again, Dean Heller refuses to do anything to acknowledge the real problem here, which is our over-reliance on oil and other fossil fuels. As we discussed last week, Nevada gains good jobs, America gains energy independence, and the world gains a healthier climate when we invest in renewable energy. Clean energy investment is really a "win-win" for everyone, yet Heller refuses to support further investment. So Dean Heller whines about the problem of high gas prices, yet he refuses to work on any real solutions to wean us off fossil fuels while creating more jobs in this state. Who does he think he is, Mitt Romney?
FAIL.
And in case that wasn't ridiculous enough, Joe Heck continues to ignore reality and push his bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He claims the ACA is some abominable "attack on FREEDOM!!!", yet he fails to mention where the individual mandate that holds together the ACA originally came from.
Yes, that's right. Joe Heck has his BFF Willard "Mr. 1%" Romney to thank for that! MIT Professor Jon Gruber, who advised both Mitt Romney and President Obama on health care reform, has this to say on the commonality of "Romneycare" and "Obamacare".
"The problem is there is no way to say that [the programs are radically different]," Gruber said. "Because they're the same fucking bill. He just can't have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it's the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he's just lying. The only big difference is he didn't have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes."
To Gruber, the stakes for the court's decision couldn't be higher.
"Basically, this is the last hope for a free-market solution for covering the uninsured. If this fails, then you either give up on the uninsured or you go to single-payer. Those are the only two options left. And the Republicans, if they're willing to stand up and say, 'We give up on the uninsured,' then great, let them say that and let the voters come to the polls and decide, but they won't say that.
So there you have it. A mandate is absolutely necessary to any kind of health care reform that actually works and is actually universal. And the only realistic options are the kind of individual mandate that's present in both the Massachusetts health care plan and the Affordable Care Act, or a direct government mandate to provide care that's present in our Medicare and in single-payer health care programs like Canada's and Britain's.
So do Republicans actually want real life "socialized medicine"? Or do they prefer we do absolutely nothing on health care? Which is it, Joe Heck?
FAIL.
While we've already discussed why media pundits are wrong to make assumptions about how The Supreme Court will rule on ACA, conservative pundit David Frum actually points out why Republicans should NOT get too giddy about any ruling that strikes down ACA.
"Repeal" may excite a Republican primary electorate that doesn't need to worry about health insurance because it's overwhelmingly over 65 and happily enjoying its government-mandated and taxpayer-subsidized single-payer Medicare system. But the general-election electorate doesn't have the benefit of government medicine. It relies on the collapsing system of employer-directed care. It's frightened, and it wants answers. [...]
In that case, Republicans will need a Plan B. Unfortunately, they wasted the past three years that might have developed one. If the Supreme Court doesn't rescue them from themselves, they'll be heading into this election season arguing, in effect, Our plan is to take away the government-mandated insurance of millions of people under age 65, and replace it with nothing. And we're doing this so as to better protect the government-mandated insurance of people over 65—until we begin to phase out that insurance, too, for everybody now under 55.
So what's the G-O-TEA alternative to "ObamaCare" that would pass constitutional muster if the court strikes it down? Again, remember that the individual mandate was originally a CONSERVATIVE idea for health care reform. The only options left would be implementing single-payer health care or doing nothing. And since I don't envision the likes of Mitt Romney, Dean Heller, and Joe Heck embracing single-payer any time soon, they seem to prefer that we do nothing and let sick Americans die for lack of health care.
So really, Heck, Heller, and Romney should be careful what they wish for.
Perhaps they just need to do something to change the trajectory? Perhaps the latest CNN poll is what's scaring them to pull these stunts?
A new national poll from CNN shows President Obama with an eleven point lead on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 54 - 43. The lead seems to based in the fact that the candidates' favorability ratings are going in the opposite direction, Obama with a positive 56 - 42 split while Romney is down twelve at 37 - 49.
"President Obama currently wins majority support among groups that have been problematic for him in the past, including men, older voters, and suburbanites," says CNN Poling Director Keating Holland told their website. "He has a solid lead among independents as well."
And apparently, the new ABC-Washington Post poll is also set to show Romney's favorability numbers cratering. I guess Americans aren't all that into "Etch-A-Sketch". And I guess this is what has Nevada Republicans running scared and deciding to pull all sorts of crazy stunts.
#NVLeg & The Taxing Conversation
I guess The R-J tried to redeem itself today (after posting its FAIL-o-rific Legislature "election analysis" on Monday) by posting this much more thoughtful and insightful piece on SD 11. Aaron Ford ran as the Democratic nominee in SD 12 (against Doc Hardy) in 2010, but this time he's in much safer waters in the race to replace Mike Schneider in the new SD 11 that runs from Spring Valley to Southwest Vegas. He's the Senate Democratic Caucus pick, so one would think he'd have a much easier ride this time...
But alas, this time he has trouble in the Democratic Primary. Harry Mortenson may be 81 years old, but that isn't stopping him from dreaming big, thinking aloud, and running for the Senate seat that covers much of the turf he represented in the Assembly for 14 years. But funny enough, the biggest wedge between Mortenson and Ford (who, by the way, is 39) probably won't be age. Instead, it looks to be taxes. Yes, you heard me right. Ford seems to be willing to wait and see how Brian Sandoval's tax extension plan works out in the next year, while Mortenson believes we just need to implement a corporate income tax already so we can have more fairness and reliable income streams in our budget.
But wait, there's more.
On Monday, Senator Greg Brower (R-Reno) ran into huge trouble when Jon Ralston called him to the mat for his flip-flop on the sunset taxes (that Brian Sandoval now wants to extend indefinitely) on "Face to Face".
This morning, Ralston ripped him a new one on his inconsistent and insincere "change of heart".
Good point, Mr. Ralston. Good point.
And this is what we've been talking about all along. Is Brian Sandoval's newfound embrace of the sunset taxes just a political stunt meant to blunt Democratic candidates' talking points on education funding and outside grassroots campaigns for tax initiatives on the ballot? And even if Sandoval is sincere about providing a more robust and reliable stream of public education funding, will Chuck Muth, NPRI, and their army of "tea party" culture warriors ever really allow for enough moderation in the Republican Caucus to allow for a grown-up conversation on taxes and responsible budgeting?
Greg Brower managed on Monday to expose several "dirty little secrets" that Sandoval's inner circle would rather bot discuss. And unfortunately for them, Ralston is taking pleasure in raising a stink about it.
But oddly enough, this and Mortenson's candor are renewing my hope. Why? Let me explain.
Governor Sandoval and his PR team had expected to destroy all honest debate on tax reform with their "surprise sunrise of the sunset taxes". But if Republican candidates like Brower suggest they're not really meaning what Pete Ernaut wants them to say, and if Democratic candidates like Harry Mortenson and Pat Spearman keep raising hell on the left over real tax reform, and if tax initiative backers refuse to stand down on their efforts to pull some "ballot box budgeting" that goes against Carson City conventional wisdom, then can Brian Sandoval keep acting like there's nothing for us to see or discuss?
Maybe it was premature to declare tax reform "dead" after all. Greg Brower's constant flip-flopping should serve as a reminder to Team Sandoval that "Tea Party, Inc." won't go down on "Sunrise to Sunsets" without a fight. And Brower's flip-flopping should serve as a reminder to us that we won't ever realize a stable budget and sound governance until we have an honest conversation on bringing Nevada's tax code into the 21st century once and for all. Brian Sandoval may be trying to bring back the era of "bipartisan" budgetary gimmicks, but perhaps those on the left, right, and center can still ultimately conspire to declare that era of Nevada history over.
But alas, this time he has trouble in the Democratic Primary. Harry Mortenson may be 81 years old, but that isn't stopping him from dreaming big, thinking aloud, and running for the Senate seat that covers much of the turf he represented in the Assembly for 14 years. But funny enough, the biggest wedge between Mortenson and Ford (who, by the way, is 39) probably won't be age. Instead, it looks to be taxes. Yes, you heard me right. Ford seems to be willing to wait and see how Brian Sandoval's tax extension plan works out in the next year, while Mortenson believes we just need to implement a corporate income tax already so we can have more fairness and reliable income streams in our budget.
But wait, there's more.
On Monday, Senator Greg Brower (R-Reno) ran into huge trouble when Jon Ralston called him to the mat for his flip-flop on the sunset taxes (that Brian Sandoval now wants to extend indefinitely) on "Face to Face".
This morning, Ralston ripped him a new one on his inconsistent and insincere "change of heart".
First, Brower told me Sandoval wanted to “take advantage of the revenue sunset taxes would bring, and I support him in that.” Solidly, it seemed.
But just a few moments later, his feet of clay on the issue became evident when pressed: “This is just at the planning phase. We haven’t voted on anything yet. Nothing is final.” And then the coup de lack of grace: “This takes the issue off the table in terms of politics.”
Governor, about those troops behind you: Ever heard of friendly fire?
Brower’s rhetorical peregrinations then took him to reaffirm his support for the governor and promise not to cut education. But he also said this is just “for planning purposes,” and when asked about committing to extend the taxes, replied, “No one has committed to that. What we’ve supported is the governor’s idea to plan to have the revenues.”
Really?
The governor’s office’s reaction was unequivocal: “In order to avoid cuts to education and other essential services, revenues from the sunset taxes will need to be continued.” Sandoval seems ... committed.
During the interview, Brower told me about the clear contrast he will have with Leslie. But if they both support extending taxes and both oppose education cuts, where’s the big difference? And while we know where Leslie will vote on almost any tax increase, how do we know which Greg Brower will cast a vote?
Good point, Mr. Ralston. Good point.
And this is what we've been talking about all along. Is Brian Sandoval's newfound embrace of the sunset taxes just a political stunt meant to blunt Democratic candidates' talking points on education funding and outside grassroots campaigns for tax initiatives on the ballot? And even if Sandoval is sincere about providing a more robust and reliable stream of public education funding, will Chuck Muth, NPRI, and their army of "tea party" culture warriors ever really allow for enough moderation in the Republican Caucus to allow for a grown-up conversation on taxes and responsible budgeting?
Greg Brower managed on Monday to expose several "dirty little secrets" that Sandoval's inner circle would rather bot discuss. And unfortunately for them, Ralston is taking pleasure in raising a stink about it.
But oddly enough, this and Mortenson's candor are renewing my hope. Why? Let me explain.
Governor Sandoval and his PR team had expected to destroy all honest debate on tax reform with their "surprise sunrise of the sunset taxes". But if Republican candidates like Brower suggest they're not really meaning what Pete Ernaut wants them to say, and if Democratic candidates like Harry Mortenson and Pat Spearman keep raising hell on the left over real tax reform, and if tax initiative backers refuse to stand down on their efforts to pull some "ballot box budgeting" that goes against Carson City conventional wisdom, then can Brian Sandoval keep acting like there's nothing for us to see or discuss?
Maybe it was premature to declare tax reform "dead" after all. Greg Brower's constant flip-flopping should serve as a reminder to Team Sandoval that "Tea Party, Inc." won't go down on "Sunrise to Sunsets" without a fight. And Brower's flip-flopping should serve as a reminder to us that we won't ever realize a stable budget and sound governance until we have an honest conversation on bringing Nevada's tax code into the 21st century once and for all. Brian Sandoval may be trying to bring back the era of "bipartisan" budgetary gimmicks, but perhaps those on the left, right, and center can still ultimately conspire to declare that era of Nevada history over.
Calling BS on "Newspaper" #NVLeg Prediction, Part II
Yesterday, we took a fresh look at what's going on in a handful of critical Senate races this fall while also calling out a ridiculous election prediction from the local "newspaper". Today, our attention turns to the Assembly as we notice what's been happening since October. And yes, we'll again be noting why the "newspaper" got #NVLeg totally wrong.
So far all of the safe seats identified in October remain safe, so we'll save some time and only look at seats in play and/or likely to change hands. Here we go!
Clark County
AD 2
Las Vegas- Summerlin
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 52%
McCain (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 49%
Sharron Angle (R) 46%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 56%
Rory Reid (D) 41%
Race Rating: Safe Republican
This will be the last time AD 2 is featured on this list, as Democrats failed to recruit anyone to run against John Hambrick. He gets a free ride back to Carson City, and Nevada Democrats blow a potential pick-up opportunity.
AD 4
Las Vegas- Northwest
Estimated US-Pres 2008
50% Obama (D)
48% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
48% Sharron Angle (R)
47% Harry Reid (D)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
58% Brian Sandoval (R)
39% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
Originally, it looked like Republicans would have a significant advantage in retaining this seat. However, plenty has changed since we last checked in October. For one, local "tea party" icon Michelle Fiore is the assured Republican nominee here.
So why am I upgrading this race to "Tossup" status? Simple. Local "tea party" icon Michelle Fiore is the assured Republican nominee here!
Thankfully for Nevada Democrats, they actually have a candidate running here. We'll have to see how serious Ken Evans' campaign is. But really, can any campaign involving Michelle Fiore be all that serious? If it weren't for the more conservative nature and slight GOP registration edge in this district, this would be an easy flip for Democrats. But even as is, Democrats have a better shot than ever before here.
AD 5
Las Vegas/Spring Valley- Peccole Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 55%
McCain (R) 43%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 52%
Sharron Angle (R) 43%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 52%
Rory Reid (D) 44%
Race Rating: Tossup
Incumbent Democratic Assembly Member Marilyn Dondero Loop remains one of the most endangered incumbents of this cycle simply because of the huge changes made to her district in redistricting. What had been a pretty safe Democratic West Side seat is now a thorny, swingy suburban district that Dondero Loop will most certainly have to work for to win again.
Now, it's just a question of how hard Bill Harrington and Nevada Republicans are willing to work to take this seat away from her.
AD 9
Summerlin South/Enterprise- Summerlin, Rhodes Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 59%
McCain (R) 39%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 55%
Sharron Angle (R) 40%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 49%
Rory Reid (D) 47%
Race Rating: Leans Democratic
Democrat Andrew Martin ran as an outsider for Assembly in 2008 in a more GOP leaning AD 13. However, he managed to shock most pundits by coming out of nowhere to get 49% against then incumbent Assembly Member Chad Christensen (R-Las Vegas). This time, he has the Assembly Democratic Caucus endorsement in a new Democratic leaning AD 9 comprising the once fast growing and now fast changing Southwest Vegas suburbs. And this time, the odds are much better for Martin to win.
Still, Andrew Martin must first clear the Democratic Primary. (Actually that shouldn't be too hard, since his primary opponent doesn't even have a web site.) Then, he'll be facing either Clayton Hurst or Victoria DeLaGuerra-Seaman in the general election. But again, considering the leftward shift of this district's politics in recent cycles, this shouldn't be too tough of a seat for Democrats to hold this year.
AD 12
Sunrise Manor/East Las Vegas/Henderson- Lake Las Vegas
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 58%
McCain (R) 40%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 54%
Sharron Angle (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 49%
Rory Reid (D) 47%
Race Rating: Likely Democratic
Early on, it looked like James Ohrenschall might get a tough fight on his hands in the reconfigured AD 12. And while I still think it's a possibility, it's increasingly looking like a dwindling one. And with even the Assembly Republican Caucus ready to concede this race, this race may soon fall off the radar. Still, we'll keep a close eye on this one for now.
AD 13
Las Vegas- Northwest, Centennial Hills
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 50%
McCain (R) 48%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Sharron Angle (R) 48%
Harry Reid (D) 47%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 57%
Rory Reid (D) 39%
Race Rating: Leans Republican
The bad news for Nevada Democrats: This district shifted a bit to the right in redistricting.
The good news for Nevada Democrats: This district is still within reach.
Oh, and here's some more good news for @NVDems: GOP establishment favorite Paul Anderson is being challenged in the Republican Primary by "tea party" darling Leonard Foster. As we discussed earlier this month, the growing "Muth Caucus" led furor over Governor Sandoval's flip-flop on the sunset taxes may have the biggest impact here.
However, Democrats aren't without their own primary drama here. 2010 nominee Lou DeSalvio is running again, but this time he's being challenged in the primary by local activist and small business owner Leisa Moseley. So far it doesn't look to be as acrimonious as the primary situation on the other side, but we'll still have to see how bad their primary gets before determining if this becomes a top Democratic pick-up opportunity.
AD 19
Mesquite/Sunrise Manor/Henderson- Old Henderson
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 54%
McCain (R) 44%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 50%
Sharron Angle (R) 45%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 52%
Rory Reid (D) 43%
Race Rating: Tossup
In 2010, Crescent Hardy was fortunate enough to run in a super safe AD 20 that Republicans never had to think about defending. However in 2012, that's all about to change. The new AD 19 may still contain Hardy's hometown of Mesquite along with Republican friendly turf in Old Henderson, but it also picks up more Democratic friendly precincts around Nellis Air Force Base, resulting in a district with only about a 3% Republican registration edge, as well as a district that both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid won. Incumbent Steven Brooks (D-East Las Vegas) was also originally placed in this district, but he jumped to AD 17 to run in a safer district.
So we'll have to keep an eye on Felipe Rodriguez to see if he can do what no Democrat has done before.
AD 20
Paradise/Henderson: Sunset Park, Green Valley, Whitney Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 62%
McCain (R) 36%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 59%
John McCain (R) 36%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Rory Reid (D) 51%
Brian Sandoval (R) 45%
Race Rating: Safe Democratic (Pick-up)
So whatever happened to AD 20? It got moved in redistricting from rural Clark County to the urban core of Paradise (aka "The East Side") and the older Green Valley North neighborhoods of Henderson. Without a doubt, this is the Assembly seat most likely to change hands this year. And without a doubt, the most action we'll see here will be in the Democratic Primary.
Nevada State Board of Education member Gloria Bonaventura, Former Assembly Member Ellen Spiegel, and local attorney and community activist Kent Ivey are all running in the Democratic Primary here. And again, whoever wins that primary is virtually assured of winning in the general.
AD 21
Paradise/Henderson- Silverado Ranch, Green Valley
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 57%
McCain (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 55%
Sharron Angle (R) 40%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 50%
Rory Reid (D) 46%
Race Rating: Leans Democratic (Pick-up)
With current Assembly Member Mark Sherwood (R-Henderson) stepping down and redistricting radically reshaping this district, AD 21 is also poised to deliver big changes this year. For one, it's dropped Green Valley Ranch to pick up Silverado Ranch. And in doing that, it's shifted from a typically Republican friendly district to a more Democratic leaning district and prime Democratic pick-up opportunity.
Perhaps that's why three Democrats are all vying for this seat: retired Carpenters Union official Rick Wilkening, Touro University dean Dr. Andy Eisen, and attorney, community activist, & "soccer dad" Steve Parke (disclaimer: he's also my neighbor). In addition, we'll likely see a battle royale in the Republican Primary here as Mark Sherwood endorsed attorney & "PTA mom" Becky Harris goes against Clark County Republican Party e-board representative and early "tea party" favorite Swadeep Nigam.
The general election should also be pretty competitive, but the recent political trends in Green Valley South and Silverado Ranch give Democrats the early advantage and the chance for another valuable pick-up. Becky Harris may not make it easy, but the resumes of both Andy Eisen and Steve Parke suggest they're up for the challenge.
AD 22
Henderson- Green Valley Ranch, MacDonald Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 50%
McCain (R) 48%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Sharron Angle (R) 48%
Harry Reid (D) 47%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 57%
Rory Reid (D) 39%
Race Rating: Likely Republican
Current Assembly Member Lynn Stewart (R-Henderson) is getting a radically downsized district in redistricting, but that so far doesn't seem to hurt his reelection prospects. Stewart now has a Democratic opponent in local entrepreneur Randy Spoor, but we'll have to see if the Nevada Democratic Party ever gets serious about playing in this Henderson district before upgrading this race any time soon.
AD 29
Henderson- Green Valley, Old Henderson
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 54%
McCain (R) 44%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 52%
Sharron Angle (R) 43%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 52%
Rory Reid (D) 43%
Race Rating: Tossup
Now this should be fun. Local "Gun Store" and "tea party" celebrity Bob Irwin is back (he ran against John Oceguera in the old AD 16 in 2010), but this time he's moving to Henderson to challenge incumbent Assembly Member April Mastroluca (D-Henderson). Irwin has definitely gained plenty of media attention with his "Gun Store", but Mastroluca also earned her own reputation over the years as an involved parent and education activist. This may very well be a "battle of the heavyweights" that keeps us at the edge of our seats all year.
Certainly, AD 29 tipped to the right in redistricting as it shed some Democratic turf to the new AD 20 while picking up some Republican leaning neighborhoods from the old AD 21. Still, April Mastroluca has earned respect as a good campaigner. And considering her past victories over the more moderate Sean Fellows (2008) and Dan Hill (2010), it won't be easy for known "tea party" flame thrower Bob Irwin to unseat April Mastroluca in a Green Valley based district that both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid still carried.
AD 35
Enterprise- Mountain's Edge, Southern Highlands
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 58%
McCain (R) 40%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 54%
Sharron Angle (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 50%
Rory Reid (D) 46%
Race Rating: Leans Democratic (Pick-up)
Here's another prime pick-up opportunity for Nevada Democrats. Assembly Minority Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka) has been representing this district, but he's moving onto the Senate... While his old Assembly District moves from rural Northern Nevada to Clark County and settles in some Southwest Vegas neighborhoods that may ultimately be more interested in sending a Democrat to Carson City.
Still, this isn't stopping Republican Adam Cegavske (yes, Barbara Cegavske's son!) from running here. However, his campaign isn't stopping real estate agent and "tea party" hopeful Tom Blanchard from running here as well. Meanwhile on the Democratic side, local attorney & community activist Nathan Sosa and MGM manager (he runs housekeeping at New York New York) & HRC Las Vegas Steering Committee Co-chair James Healey are running here.
Yet again, we have a wide open seat in "The Wild (South)West" attracting plenty of candidates. But ultimately, I suspect Democrats have the early edge here.
AD 37
Las Vegas- Summerlin, Northwest
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 51%
McCain (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 48%
Sharron Angle (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 55%
Rory Reid (D) 41%
Race Rating: Tossup
This may yet prove to be the most painful Legislature race for Nevada Democrats. Marcus Conklin (D-Las Vegas) had expected to become the next Nevada Assembly Speaker. Now, he'll be lucky if he just makes it back to Carson City next year.
Wesley Duncan is an Iraq War veteran and JAG reservist, and already THE top Republican recruit. And now that AD 37 has shifted from a safe Democratic seat to a tossup seat with a slight GOP registration edge that takes in some "Blood Red" territory in Sun City Summerlin, this may well be Nevada Republicans' top pick-up opportunity. And without a doubt, knocking out the Assembly's top Democrat would be an additional badge of honor for Duncan and top Republicans.
Still, Marcus Conklin won't make this easy for Wesley Duncan. While his ties to mining lobbyists and gaming insiders may provide Duncan with prime "dirt" to use against Conklin on the campaign trail, they nonetheless provide Conklin with plenty of needed cash to pummel Duncan and respond to those attacks. Don't be surprised if this ends up as one of the ugliest #NVLeg races on record.
AD 41
Enterprise/Paradise/Henderson- Silverado Ranch, Seven Hills
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 57%
McCain (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 54%
Sharron Angle (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 50%
Rory Reid (D) 46%
Race Rating: Leans Democratic
Paul Aizley (D-Paradise) is yet another Democratic incumbent faced with the misfortune of a more competitive Assembly District to run in. But unlike most of the other races, the dynamics of AD 41 and the likely Republican nominee give Aizley some hope. Phil Regeski doesn't have any primary competition, but that isn't stopping him from running hard to the "tea party" right and wholly embracing Chuck Muth & his "no tax" pledge.
While the addition of tony, GOP dominant Seven Hills will likely cause Aizley some heartburn while giving Regeski some hope, there may still be enough Democratic votes in Silverado Ranch to offset that. And if Regeski keeps toeing the Muth "tea party" line, nonpartisans may ultimately give long-time district resident and UNLV professor Aizley another look.
Washoe County
AD 25
Reno- West Reno
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 49%
McCain (R) 48%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Sharron Angle (R) 48%
Harry Reid (D) 46%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 63%
Rory Reid (D) 31%
Race Rating: Safe Republican
No one even bothered to challenge Pat Hickey, so this is the last time you'll see this district on this list.
AD 26
Reno/Mount Rose/Incline Village
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 51%
McCain (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 47%
Sharron Angle (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 62%
Rory Reid (D) 32%
Race Rating: Likely Republican
At least Democrats managed to field a candidate here, "some dude" named Rodney Petzak. Now, we just have to ask if that's enough to really scare Randy Kirner. Since Petzak doesn't even have a web site yet, I have serious doubts. Maybe this is the last time you'll see this district on this list?
AD 31
Sparks- Shadow Mountain, Lemmon Valley
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 53%
McCain (R) 45%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 49%
Sharron Angle (R) 46%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 59%
Rory Reid (D) 35%
Race Rating: Tossup
This is likely the other Assembly race that Nevada Democrats are worrying about the most. Incumbent Richard "Skip" Daly (D-Sparks) had been used to running in a safe district. But now, he has to run in a seat where Republicans have a slight registration edge! And even worse, Nevada Republicans landed a top notch recruit in David Espinosa. Not only does he have a snazzy web site, thanks to his own background in IT, but he's also bringing forward policy proposals (like having e-readers replace traditional textbooks, and "incentive awards" for new technology) that one typically doesn't find on a campaign web site.
But then again, Skip Daly isn't your typical incumbent. He has a long history in Sparks, and he's known as a relentless campaigner. He'll really need those relentless campaign skills now, since the new AD 31 has a slight GOP registration advantage (just over 4%). However if both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid could win this district, perhaps Skip Daly can as well?
This may be another race that goes down to the wire.
---
All in all, it looks like we'll be seeing a whole lot of change in the Assembly next year. For all we know, the Assembly may even get an unexpected new Speaker next year, along with a whole lot of surprising seat flips in both directions. Like yesterday's Senate forecast, I'll rate the ten hottest Assembly races on the basis of most likely to change parties.
1. AD 20 (R to D)
2. AD 21 (R to D)
3. AD 35 (R to D)
4. AD 19 (D to R)
5. AD 37 (D to R)
6. AD 31 (D to R)
7. AD 4 (R to D)
8. AD 29 (D to R)
9. AD 5 (D to R)
10. AD 13 (R to D)
If the election were today, I'd stop the flipping at #6. This would mean Espinosa unseats Daly, Duncan unseats Conklin, and Hardy wins reelection, giving Republicans three pick-ups. However, this would also mean the Democrats win the trio of open seats previously held by Republicans, giving Democrats three pick-ups. So funny enough, in the end we get the same 26-16 split we had last session... Just in an odd way that includes interesting pick-ups and painful losses for both parties.
So far all of the safe seats identified in October remain safe, so we'll save some time and only look at seats in play and/or likely to change hands. Here we go!
Clark County
AD 2
Las Vegas- Summerlin
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 52%
McCain (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 49%
Sharron Angle (R) 46%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 56%
Rory Reid (D) 41%
Race Rating: Safe Republican
This will be the last time AD 2 is featured on this list, as Democrats failed to recruit anyone to run against John Hambrick. He gets a free ride back to Carson City, and Nevada Democrats blow a potential pick-up opportunity.
AD 4
Las Vegas- Northwest
Estimated US-Pres 2008
50% Obama (D)
48% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
48% Sharron Angle (R)
47% Harry Reid (D)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
58% Brian Sandoval (R)
39% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
Originally, it looked like Republicans would have a significant advantage in retaining this seat. However, plenty has changed since we last checked in October. For one, local "tea party" icon Michelle Fiore is the assured Republican nominee here.
So why am I upgrading this race to "Tossup" status? Simple. Local "tea party" icon Michelle Fiore is the assured Republican nominee here!
Thankfully for Nevada Democrats, they actually have a candidate running here. We'll have to see how serious Ken Evans' campaign is. But really, can any campaign involving Michelle Fiore be all that serious? If it weren't for the more conservative nature and slight GOP registration edge in this district, this would be an easy flip for Democrats. But even as is, Democrats have a better shot than ever before here.
AD 5
Las Vegas/Spring Valley- Peccole Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 55%
McCain (R) 43%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 52%
Sharron Angle (R) 43%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 52%
Rory Reid (D) 44%
Race Rating: Tossup
Incumbent Democratic Assembly Member Marilyn Dondero Loop remains one of the most endangered incumbents of this cycle simply because of the huge changes made to her district in redistricting. What had been a pretty safe Democratic West Side seat is now a thorny, swingy suburban district that Dondero Loop will most certainly have to work for to win again.
Now, it's just a question of how hard Bill Harrington and Nevada Republicans are willing to work to take this seat away from her.
AD 9
Summerlin South/Enterprise- Summerlin, Rhodes Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 59%
McCain (R) 39%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 55%
Sharron Angle (R) 40%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 49%
Rory Reid (D) 47%
Race Rating: Leans Democratic
Democrat Andrew Martin ran as an outsider for Assembly in 2008 in a more GOP leaning AD 13. However, he managed to shock most pundits by coming out of nowhere to get 49% against then incumbent Assembly Member Chad Christensen (R-Las Vegas). This time, he has the Assembly Democratic Caucus endorsement in a new Democratic leaning AD 9 comprising the once fast growing and now fast changing Southwest Vegas suburbs. And this time, the odds are much better for Martin to win.
Still, Andrew Martin must first clear the Democratic Primary. (Actually that shouldn't be too hard, since his primary opponent doesn't even have a web site.) Then, he'll be facing either Clayton Hurst or Victoria DeLaGuerra-Seaman in the general election. But again, considering the leftward shift of this district's politics in recent cycles, this shouldn't be too tough of a seat for Democrats to hold this year.
AD 12
Sunrise Manor/East Las Vegas/Henderson- Lake Las Vegas
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 58%
McCain (R) 40%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 54%
Sharron Angle (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 49%
Rory Reid (D) 47%
Race Rating: Likely Democratic
Early on, it looked like James Ohrenschall might get a tough fight on his hands in the reconfigured AD 12. And while I still think it's a possibility, it's increasingly looking like a dwindling one. And with even the Assembly Republican Caucus ready to concede this race, this race may soon fall off the radar. Still, we'll keep a close eye on this one for now.
AD 13
Las Vegas- Northwest, Centennial Hills
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 50%
McCain (R) 48%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Sharron Angle (R) 48%
Harry Reid (D) 47%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 57%
Rory Reid (D) 39%
Race Rating: Leans Republican
The bad news for Nevada Democrats: This district shifted a bit to the right in redistricting.
The good news for Nevada Democrats: This district is still within reach.
Oh, and here's some more good news for @NVDems: GOP establishment favorite Paul Anderson is being challenged in the Republican Primary by "tea party" darling Leonard Foster. As we discussed earlier this month, the growing "Muth Caucus" led furor over Governor Sandoval's flip-flop on the sunset taxes may have the biggest impact here.
However, Democrats aren't without their own primary drama here. 2010 nominee Lou DeSalvio is running again, but this time he's being challenged in the primary by local activist and small business owner Leisa Moseley. So far it doesn't look to be as acrimonious as the primary situation on the other side, but we'll still have to see how bad their primary gets before determining if this becomes a top Democratic pick-up opportunity.
AD 19
Mesquite/Sunrise Manor/Henderson- Old Henderson
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 54%
McCain (R) 44%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 50%
Sharron Angle (R) 45%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 52%
Rory Reid (D) 43%
Race Rating: Tossup
In 2010, Crescent Hardy was fortunate enough to run in a super safe AD 20 that Republicans never had to think about defending. However in 2012, that's all about to change. The new AD 19 may still contain Hardy's hometown of Mesquite along with Republican friendly turf in Old Henderson, but it also picks up more Democratic friendly precincts around Nellis Air Force Base, resulting in a district with only about a 3% Republican registration edge, as well as a district that both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid won. Incumbent Steven Brooks (D-East Las Vegas) was also originally placed in this district, but he jumped to AD 17 to run in a safer district.
So we'll have to keep an eye on Felipe Rodriguez to see if he can do what no Democrat has done before.
AD 20
Paradise/Henderson: Sunset Park, Green Valley, Whitney Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 62%
McCain (R) 36%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 59%
John McCain (R) 36%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Rory Reid (D) 51%
Brian Sandoval (R) 45%
Race Rating: Safe Democratic (Pick-up)
So whatever happened to AD 20? It got moved in redistricting from rural Clark County to the urban core of Paradise (aka "The East Side") and the older Green Valley North neighborhoods of Henderson. Without a doubt, this is the Assembly seat most likely to change hands this year. And without a doubt, the most action we'll see here will be in the Democratic Primary.
Nevada State Board of Education member Gloria Bonaventura, Former Assembly Member Ellen Spiegel, and local attorney and community activist Kent Ivey are all running in the Democratic Primary here. And again, whoever wins that primary is virtually assured of winning in the general.
AD 21
Paradise/Henderson- Silverado Ranch, Green Valley
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 57%
McCain (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 55%
Sharron Angle (R) 40%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 50%
Rory Reid (D) 46%
Race Rating: Leans Democratic (Pick-up)
With current Assembly Member Mark Sherwood (R-Henderson) stepping down and redistricting radically reshaping this district, AD 21 is also poised to deliver big changes this year. For one, it's dropped Green Valley Ranch to pick up Silverado Ranch. And in doing that, it's shifted from a typically Republican friendly district to a more Democratic leaning district and prime Democratic pick-up opportunity.
Perhaps that's why three Democrats are all vying for this seat: retired Carpenters Union official Rick Wilkening, Touro University dean Dr. Andy Eisen, and attorney, community activist, & "soccer dad" Steve Parke (disclaimer: he's also my neighbor). In addition, we'll likely see a battle royale in the Republican Primary here as Mark Sherwood endorsed attorney & "PTA mom" Becky Harris goes against Clark County Republican Party e-board representative and early "tea party" favorite Swadeep Nigam.
The general election should also be pretty competitive, but the recent political trends in Green Valley South and Silverado Ranch give Democrats the early advantage and the chance for another valuable pick-up. Becky Harris may not make it easy, but the resumes of both Andy Eisen and Steve Parke suggest they're up for the challenge.
AD 22
Henderson- Green Valley Ranch, MacDonald Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 50%
McCain (R) 48%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Sharron Angle (R) 48%
Harry Reid (D) 47%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 57%
Rory Reid (D) 39%
Race Rating: Likely Republican
Current Assembly Member Lynn Stewart (R-Henderson) is getting a radically downsized district in redistricting, but that so far doesn't seem to hurt his reelection prospects. Stewart now has a Democratic opponent in local entrepreneur Randy Spoor, but we'll have to see if the Nevada Democratic Party ever gets serious about playing in this Henderson district before upgrading this race any time soon.
AD 29
Henderson- Green Valley, Old Henderson
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 54%
McCain (R) 44%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 52%
Sharron Angle (R) 43%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 52%
Rory Reid (D) 43%
Race Rating: Tossup
Now this should be fun. Local "Gun Store" and "tea party" celebrity Bob Irwin is back (he ran against John Oceguera in the old AD 16 in 2010), but this time he's moving to Henderson to challenge incumbent Assembly Member April Mastroluca (D-Henderson). Irwin has definitely gained plenty of media attention with his "Gun Store", but Mastroluca also earned her own reputation over the years as an involved parent and education activist. This may very well be a "battle of the heavyweights" that keeps us at the edge of our seats all year.
Certainly, AD 29 tipped to the right in redistricting as it shed some Democratic turf to the new AD 20 while picking up some Republican leaning neighborhoods from the old AD 21. Still, April Mastroluca has earned respect as a good campaigner. And considering her past victories over the more moderate Sean Fellows (2008) and Dan Hill (2010), it won't be easy for known "tea party" flame thrower Bob Irwin to unseat April Mastroluca in a Green Valley based district that both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid still carried.
AD 35
Enterprise- Mountain's Edge, Southern Highlands
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 58%
McCain (R) 40%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 54%
Sharron Angle (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 50%
Rory Reid (D) 46%
Race Rating: Leans Democratic (Pick-up)
Here's another prime pick-up opportunity for Nevada Democrats. Assembly Minority Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka) has been representing this district, but he's moving onto the Senate... While his old Assembly District moves from rural Northern Nevada to Clark County and settles in some Southwest Vegas neighborhoods that may ultimately be more interested in sending a Democrat to Carson City.
Still, this isn't stopping Republican Adam Cegavske (yes, Barbara Cegavske's son!) from running here. However, his campaign isn't stopping real estate agent and "tea party" hopeful Tom Blanchard from running here as well. Meanwhile on the Democratic side, local attorney & community activist Nathan Sosa and MGM manager (he runs housekeeping at New York New York) & HRC Las Vegas Steering Committee Co-chair James Healey are running here.
Yet again, we have a wide open seat in "The Wild (South)West" attracting plenty of candidates. But ultimately, I suspect Democrats have the early edge here.
AD 37
Las Vegas- Summerlin, Northwest
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 51%
McCain (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 48%
Sharron Angle (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 55%
Rory Reid (D) 41%
Race Rating: Tossup
This may yet prove to be the most painful Legislature race for Nevada Democrats. Marcus Conklin (D-Las Vegas) had expected to become the next Nevada Assembly Speaker. Now, he'll be lucky if he just makes it back to Carson City next year.
Wesley Duncan is an Iraq War veteran and JAG reservist, and already THE top Republican recruit. And now that AD 37 has shifted from a safe Democratic seat to a tossup seat with a slight GOP registration edge that takes in some "Blood Red" territory in Sun City Summerlin, this may well be Nevada Republicans' top pick-up opportunity. And without a doubt, knocking out the Assembly's top Democrat would be an additional badge of honor for Duncan and top Republicans.
Still, Marcus Conklin won't make this easy for Wesley Duncan. While his ties to mining lobbyists and gaming insiders may provide Duncan with prime "dirt" to use against Conklin on the campaign trail, they nonetheless provide Conklin with plenty of needed cash to pummel Duncan and respond to those attacks. Don't be surprised if this ends up as one of the ugliest #NVLeg races on record.
AD 41
Enterprise/Paradise/Henderson- Silverado Ranch, Seven Hills
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 57%
McCain (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 54%
Sharron Angle (R) 41%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 50%
Rory Reid (D) 46%
Race Rating: Leans Democratic
Paul Aizley (D-Paradise) is yet another Democratic incumbent faced with the misfortune of a more competitive Assembly District to run in. But unlike most of the other races, the dynamics of AD 41 and the likely Republican nominee give Aizley some hope. Phil Regeski doesn't have any primary competition, but that isn't stopping him from running hard to the "tea party" right and wholly embracing Chuck Muth & his "no tax" pledge.
While the addition of tony, GOP dominant Seven Hills will likely cause Aizley some heartburn while giving Regeski some hope, there may still be enough Democratic votes in Silverado Ranch to offset that. And if Regeski keeps toeing the Muth "tea party" line, nonpartisans may ultimately give long-time district resident and UNLV professor Aizley another look.
Washoe County
AD 25
Reno- West Reno
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 49%
McCain (R) 48%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Sharron Angle (R) 48%
Harry Reid (D) 46%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 63%
Rory Reid (D) 31%
Race Rating: Safe Republican
No one even bothered to challenge Pat Hickey, so this is the last time you'll see this district on this list.
AD 26
Reno/Mount Rose/Incline Village
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 51%
McCain (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 47%
Sharron Angle (R) 47%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 62%
Rory Reid (D) 32%
Race Rating: Likely Republican
At least Democrats managed to field a candidate here, "some dude" named Rodney Petzak. Now, we just have to ask if that's enough to really scare Randy Kirner. Since Petzak doesn't even have a web site yet, I have serious doubts. Maybe this is the last time you'll see this district on this list?
AD 31
Sparks- Shadow Mountain, Lemmon Valley
Estimated US-Pres 2008
Obama (D) 53%
McCain (R) 45%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
Harry Reid (D) 49%
Sharron Angle (R) 46%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
Brian Sandoval (R) 59%
Rory Reid (D) 35%
Race Rating: Tossup
This is likely the other Assembly race that Nevada Democrats are worrying about the most. Incumbent Richard "Skip" Daly (D-Sparks) had been used to running in a safe district. But now, he has to run in a seat where Republicans have a slight registration edge! And even worse, Nevada Republicans landed a top notch recruit in David Espinosa. Not only does he have a snazzy web site, thanks to his own background in IT, but he's also bringing forward policy proposals (like having e-readers replace traditional textbooks, and "incentive awards" for new technology) that one typically doesn't find on a campaign web site.
But then again, Skip Daly isn't your typical incumbent. He has a long history in Sparks, and he's known as a relentless campaigner. He'll really need those relentless campaign skills now, since the new AD 31 has a slight GOP registration advantage (just over 4%). However if both President Obama and Senator Harry Reid could win this district, perhaps Skip Daly can as well?
This may be another race that goes down to the wire.
---
All in all, it looks like we'll be seeing a whole lot of change in the Assembly next year. For all we know, the Assembly may even get an unexpected new Speaker next year, along with a whole lot of surprising seat flips in both directions. Like yesterday's Senate forecast, I'll rate the ten hottest Assembly races on the basis of most likely to change parties.
1. AD 20 (R to D)
2. AD 21 (R to D)
3. AD 35 (R to D)
4. AD 19 (D to R)
5. AD 37 (D to R)
6. AD 31 (D to R)
7. AD 4 (R to D)
8. AD 29 (D to R)
9. AD 5 (D to R)
10. AD 13 (R to D)
If the election were today, I'd stop the flipping at #6. This would mean Espinosa unseats Daly, Duncan unseats Conklin, and Hardy wins reelection, giving Republicans three pick-ups. However, this would also mean the Democrats win the trio of open seats previously held by Republicans, giving Democrats three pick-ups. So funny enough, in the end we get the same 26-16 split we had last session... Just in an odd way that includes interesting pick-ups and painful losses for both parties.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Is "ObamaCare" Dead? Hardly.
So far, we've been hearing plenty of hyperventilating in the media over today's Supreme Court oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act and the legality of the individual mandate. However, most pundits didn't even bother to step back and look at what really happened today. Fortunately, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick did.
And so did Lyle Denniston of the venerable SCOTUS Blog.
And thankfully, so did Sahil Kapur at TPM.
So is it smooth sailing from here? Hardly. We have one more session of oral arguments coming tomorrow on the issue of "severability", or whether the entire Affordable Care Act must be thrown out if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional. The mandate is really the "glue" that holds the Affordable Care Act together and makes the "Affordable" part of it a real possibility, although some legal scholars think the rest of the bill can somehow be reworked without a mandate. It would just be a matter of what on earth can be passed in this Congress.
And of course, it really comes back to that. How much power does Congress have to mandate health insurance and regulate the health insurance market? In looking at what Kennedy and Roberts said today, it seems like they're open to discuss this some more.
As we discussed yesterday, this whole fight that's supposedly about the law has been clouded immensely by partisan politics. We'll just have to see what happens later this week. And we'll have to keep hoping that at least five Supreme Court Justices care more about the letter of the law than raw campaign politics. And yes, I do believe that hope is still quite alive today. Just don't expect the typical media pundits to report on that.
And so did Lyle Denniston of the venerable SCOTUS Blog.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the most vigorous defender of Congress’s power to select the mandate as the key piece in the new health care law’s regulation of the insurance industry, but almost equally in its favor were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. But those four, of course, cannot control the outcome on their own. But, in the end, if Kennedy were to wind up accepting the mandate’s validity — however reluctantly — those four could then be in the majority. Such a majority, it appeared, would probably form only behind the theory that the mandate was within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, not under its taxing authority in the General Welfare Clause. The tax argument seemed to lack force, and, anyway, Verrilli used it primarily as just a backup.
If that coalition were to form, it would be likely that Justice Kennedy, the senior among those five, almost certainly would assign the opinion to himself — unless, of course, the Chief Justice ultimately were persuaded to go along so that this historic case did not turn out to be decided by a possibly embarrassing 5-4 vote. Roberts was among the more combative adversaries of the mandate, during Verrilli’s argument, but he made considerable efforts to remind the challengers’ lawyers of the government’s key points, perhaps to test how solid their answers to those points would be. His vote in favor of the mandate did seem like a long shot, unless he found institutional imperatives for going along if a majority were to uphold it.
And thankfully, so did Sahil Kapur at TPM.
Despite their tough questions, both Kennedy and Roberts indicated sympathy with the view that health insurance is a unique market that may require a unique approach to regulate — and that’s central to the constitutional question at hand.
“I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree,” Kennedy said, “in the insurance and health care world, both markets — stipulate two markets — the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.”
Despite his initial skepticism, Roberts later seemed persuaded of the uniqueness of health care market.
“Everybody is in this market,” Roberts told the lawyer for the Republican opponents. “So that makes it very different than the market for cars or the other hypotheticals that you came up with, and all they’re regulating is how you pay for it.”
So is it smooth sailing from here? Hardly. We have one more session of oral arguments coming tomorrow on the issue of "severability", or whether the entire Affordable Care Act must be thrown out if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional. The mandate is really the "glue" that holds the Affordable Care Act together and makes the "Affordable" part of it a real possibility, although some legal scholars think the rest of the bill can somehow be reworked without a mandate. It would just be a matter of what on earth can be passed in this Congress.
And of course, it really comes back to that. How much power does Congress have to mandate health insurance and regulate the health insurance market? In looking at what Kennedy and Roberts said today, it seems like they're open to discuss this some more.
As we discussed yesterday, this whole fight that's supposedly about the law has been clouded immensely by partisan politics. We'll just have to see what happens later this week. And we'll have to keep hoping that at least five Supreme Court Justices care more about the letter of the law than raw campaign politics. And yes, I do believe that hope is still quite alive today. Just don't expect the typical media pundits to report on that.
Calling BS on "Newspaper" #NVLeg Prediction
Yesterday, a certain "newspaper" posted this article on the race for the Legislature this year... And the Carson City reporter at the "newspaper" actually managed to repost an entire Senate Republican Caucus press release predict a 12-9 Republican majority in the State Senate next year, as well as expanded Republican numbers in the Assembly. And how, one might ask, did Ed Vogel reach this conclusion? Basically, he gave every marginal seat to the Republicans!
I mean, come on, how ridiculous is that? The only way that happens is if somehow 2012 is another huge "Republican wave election". And as we've been chronicling here for some time, that just isn't likely to happen. If even Rasmussen's latest poll shows President Obama winning Nevada over Mitt Romney by a comfortable margin, then we won't be seeing another "Republican wave election" this fall. And if Nevada Republicans continue to spend more time infighting than organizing, then I have a hard time seeing how some magic "momentum" successfully counteracts the actual organizing that Nevada Democrats are doing on the ground this year.
Not even Ralston was buying that "newspaper analysis" last night.
So what does the real picture look like? Let me help. Since the last time we did race ratings was in October, we were probably overdue for an update anyway. But considering the crazy @ss spin we saw in a certain "newspaper" yesterday, it's definitely time to update the state of the race. And unlike that certain "newspaper", we're not just copying a press release.
Today, we're covering the Senate. (And I'm just listing the competitive races below because the safe seats are all the same as October's initial analysis.) Tomorrow, we'll be looking at competitive Assembly races.
Clark County
SD 5
Henderson- Green Valley/Silverado Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
56% Obama (D)
42% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
54% Harry Reid (D)
41% Sharron Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
50% Brian Sandoval (R)
45% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
I still live in this district, so I at least like to think that I know more about what's actually happening in this district than what most media pundits think they know. Basically, SD 5 was reworked in redistricting to become mostly a Green Valley/Silverado Ranch district with just some of Old Henderson remaining. Overall, it transforms the district from what had been considered Republican leaning turf into a more Democratic friendly district.
Still, Nevada Democrats can't take anything for granted here. Former Henderson City Council Member Steve Kirk has been endorsed by the Senate Republican Caucus, and he still has a base of support here. However, he can't take anything for granted here either, as local doctor Annette Teijero is also running in the Republican primary and seems to be emerging as the "tea party" favorite here. While Kirk seems to be leading in the "money race", Teijero and Democratic candidate (and former State Senator) Joyce Woodhouse are getting a head start in the always important field game.
This seat may again come down to the wire, and this seat may again be "bombed" with intense campaign spending, but this time strong Democratic performance at the "top of the ticket" is almost certain to be the key that sends Joyce Woodhouse back to Carson City. While Kirk's early fundraising advantage has me placing this seat in "Tossup" territory for now, I honestly don't think this will be as easy of a Republican pickup as Michael Roberson and most media pundits had originally expected this district to be. (In fact, I won't be surprised if they don't pick up this seat at all.)
SD 6
Las Vegas- Summerlin/Northwest
Estimated US-Pres 2008
55% Obama (D)
43% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
53% Harry Reid (D)
43% Sharron Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
52% Brian Sandoval (R)
44% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
If any seat is the ideal example of the high stakes of this year's Legislature elections, it's probably this one. Democrats were already starting to get nervous about this seat when incumbent Senator Allison Copening (D-Las Vegas) faced heat over HOA related legislation she introduced last session. But when Copening announced her retirement in January, the race really opened up. Republicans had already recruited Mark Hutchison, the lawyer who accepted Jim Gibbons' offer to represent Nevada in the anti-health care reform law suit now being argued in the US Supreme Court. However, Democrats had the good fortune of finding 2010 SD 9 candidate Benny Yerushalmi (who only lost to Elizabeth Halseth by about 5%) willing to run in the new SD 6. Thomas Welsh is also running in the Democratic Primary, but so far Yerushalmi looks favored to win that primary.
Most likely, the general election will be the big fight here. And already, Yerushalmi vs. Hutchison vies to be the among the key marquee fights for #NVLeg this year. While the new SD 6 is more Democratic than its previous incarnation, it's still a close enough district to leave Benny Yerushlami and Nevada Democrats hardly any room for error. And considering the big money likely heading Hutchison's way, Yerushalmi will definitely need a stronger field presence this time than he did in 2010 to actually seal the deal this year.
SD 9
Enterprise- Rhodes Ranch, Mountain's Edge, Southern Highlands
Estimated US-Pres 2008
58% Obama (D)
40% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
54% Harry Reid (D)
41% Sharron Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
50% Brian Sandoval (R)
46% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Leans Democratic
Of all the critical Senate seats up this year, this one looks to deliver the biggest change. For one, it wasn't even supposed to be up this year... But a surprise resignation by Elizabeth Halseth (R-Enterprise) changed that assumption, and that really changed the whole dynamic of the race for the Legislature. What had been a tough hill for Democrats to climb to hold onto the Senate is now becoming a tough hill for Republicans to climb (yes, really, Ed Vogel & R-J pundits) to flip it.
What really made Halseth's resignation a huge blow for Michael Roberson's hopes of becoming Majority Leader was that SD 9 changed radically in redistricting. What had been a more GOP friendly exurban Western Clark County district is now an ethnically diverse and increasingly Democratic leaning Southwest Vegas Valley district. And like SD 5, all it takes is strong Democratic turnout and good "top of the ticket" Democratic performance to flip this seat.
And by landing a top notch candidate in Justin Jones, Nevada Democrats are serious about picking up this seat this time. "Angry Professor" Fred Conquest is also running on the Democratic side, but it (again) doesn't look like he's running a serious campaign (seriously, his web site still features his failed 2010 Gubernatorial run). I honestly don't think Justin Jones should have a problem getting through the Democratic Primary. And with former Joe Heck & Dean Heller spokesperson Mari St. Martin and "tea party" favorite Brent Jones running on the Republican side, I'm liking Justin Jones' chances in the general election. While Democrats still can't take this seat for granted, I am thinking this is the Senate seat most likely to change hands this year.
SD 18 (Open)
Las Vegas- Northwest/Centennial Hills
Estimated US-Pres 2008
50% Obama (D)
48% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
50% Sharron Angle (R)
45% Harry Reid (D)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
57% Brian Sandoval (R)
38% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
Early on, it looked like the most competition we'd see here would be in the Republican Primary... But that all changed when Kelli Ross announced her candidacy here. Not only does she look like a formidable candidate in her own right, but her husband (Las Vegas City Council Member Steve Ross) will probably help her connect with folks in ways that many Democrats typically can't in this Northwest Las Vegas district.
However, Democrats shouldn't get too giddy about picking up this new seat (created mostly from remains of the old SD 9 and SD 12, and moved here from rural Nevada) just yet. Assembly Member Scott Hammond (R-Las Vegas) doesn't quite have the same "fire breathing" reputation as the guy he replaced, so running against him may not be a cake walk. However Hammond isn't getting a cake walk in the Republican Primary, since fellow Assembly Member Richard MacArthur (R-Las Vegas) is also running, and MacArthur DOES have a "fire breathing" reputation that's endearing to the local "tea party" set here. Meanwhile in the Democratic Primary, Kelli Ross is being challenged from the left by former PTA President Donna Schlemmer.
This may very well be one of those races that's competitive from beginning to end. And perhaps more so than any of the other marginal Senate seats, this one may really hinge on what happens in the primary. Hammond seems to be the less doctrinaire conservative Republican, while Ross looks to be the more moderate Democrat. So of course, their general election asset may turn out to be the key primary liability.
Washoe County
SD 15
Reno- Northwest
Estimated US-Pres 2008
57% Obama (D)
40% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
54% Harry Reid (D)
40% Sharron Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
57% Brian Sandoval (R)
37% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
This most definitely promises to be the big #NVLeg marquee race of the north. And the stakes here are incredibly high. Two seasoned legislators are running against each other, and the winner of this race may very well be "the majority maker". This explains why the competition is already turning fierce up north.
As we can see in the above video, Senator Greg Brower (R-Reno) is trying to flip-flop his way to the middle of the road after pivoting quite far to the "tea party" right in last year's NV-02 special election. Meanwhile, Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) had to make a big move of her own, albeit a physical one to a smaller house after her kids moved out of the old house, to run in the new SD 15. And unlike the old Washoe Senate 3 district where Bill Raggio served for nearly four decades, the new SD 15 has only a tiny (about 2%) GOP registration advantage... Yet recent election results show the district to be trending Democratic, which is why Greg Brower and Michael Roberson haven't been resting easily ever since Sheila Leslie's big move.
This may very well be the most expensive #NVLeg race in history once all is said and done. Republicans must win this seat again to have a chance at getting any kind of Senate majority. But if Sheila Leslie wins SD 15 for Democrats, then Democrats are virtually assured of keeping the Senate as well as keeping alive hopes of a possible 2/3 veto-proof supermajority.
---
So this is what's at stake with Senate elections this year. If Republicans win at least four out of the five marginal seats listed above, Roberson becomes Majority Leader. On the other hand, all Democrats have to do is win at least two out of these five races to keep the majority (and I think Dems already have a head start here with SD 9 now on the table). Yet if 2012 turns out to be a great year for Nevada Democrats, President Obama manages to win the state handily again, and Democrats manage to pull a spectacular feat of winning all five competitive Senate races, then Democrats finally achieve that 2/3 veto-proof supermajority that's been enticing them for quite some time.
So what's really possible? Let me conclude by ranking the seats in order of likelihood of changing parties:
1. SD 9 (R to D)
2. SD 15 (R to D)
3. SD 6 (D to R)
4. SD 5 (D to R)
5. SD 18 (R to D)
Right now, I'd stop the flipping somewhere between #2 and #3. Yes, I know, I should be more decisive here! OK, so let's be generous and keep the flipping going all the way to #3. This means Hutchison turns SD 6 from Blue to Red while Leslie turns SD 15 from Red to Blue and (Justin) Jones turns SD 9 from Red to Blue. And this means Woodhouse keeps SD 5 Blue while Hammond or MacArthur keeps SD 18 Red. So in the end, I guess the "newspaper" actually did get the final Senate numbers correct... They just got the parties mixed up. (They say Republicans get a 12-9 majority. I say the current state of play suggests a 12-9 Democratic majority.)
Got to love that "newspaper". ;-)
I mean, come on, how ridiculous is that? The only way that happens is if somehow 2012 is another huge "Republican wave election". And as we've been chronicling here for some time, that just isn't likely to happen. If even Rasmussen's latest poll shows President Obama winning Nevada over Mitt Romney by a comfortable margin, then we won't be seeing another "Republican wave election" this fall. And if Nevada Republicans continue to spend more time infighting than organizing, then I have a hard time seeing how some magic "momentum" successfully counteracts the actual organizing that Nevada Democrats are doing on the ground this year.
Not even Ralston was buying that "newspaper analysis" last night.
So what does the real picture look like? Let me help. Since the last time we did race ratings was in October, we were probably overdue for an update anyway. But considering the crazy @ss spin we saw in a certain "newspaper" yesterday, it's definitely time to update the state of the race. And unlike that certain "newspaper", we're not just copying a press release.
Today, we're covering the Senate. (And I'm just listing the competitive races below because the safe seats are all the same as October's initial analysis.) Tomorrow, we'll be looking at competitive Assembly races.
Clark County
SD 5
Henderson- Green Valley/Silverado Ranch
Estimated US-Pres 2008
56% Obama (D)
42% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
54% Harry Reid (D)
41% Sharron Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
50% Brian Sandoval (R)
45% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
I still live in this district, so I at least like to think that I know more about what's actually happening in this district than what most media pundits think they know. Basically, SD 5 was reworked in redistricting to become mostly a Green Valley/Silverado Ranch district with just some of Old Henderson remaining. Overall, it transforms the district from what had been considered Republican leaning turf into a more Democratic friendly district.
Still, Nevada Democrats can't take anything for granted here. Former Henderson City Council Member Steve Kirk has been endorsed by the Senate Republican Caucus, and he still has a base of support here. However, he can't take anything for granted here either, as local doctor Annette Teijero is also running in the Republican primary and seems to be emerging as the "tea party" favorite here. While Kirk seems to be leading in the "money race", Teijero and Democratic candidate (and former State Senator) Joyce Woodhouse are getting a head start in the always important field game.
This seat may again come down to the wire, and this seat may again be "bombed" with intense campaign spending, but this time strong Democratic performance at the "top of the ticket" is almost certain to be the key that sends Joyce Woodhouse back to Carson City. While Kirk's early fundraising advantage has me placing this seat in "Tossup" territory for now, I honestly don't think this will be as easy of a Republican pickup as Michael Roberson and most media pundits had originally expected this district to be. (In fact, I won't be surprised if they don't pick up this seat at all.)
SD 6
Las Vegas- Summerlin/Northwest
Estimated US-Pres 2008
55% Obama (D)
43% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
53% Harry Reid (D)
43% Sharron Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
52% Brian Sandoval (R)
44% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
If any seat is the ideal example of the high stakes of this year's Legislature elections, it's probably this one. Democrats were already starting to get nervous about this seat when incumbent Senator Allison Copening (D-Las Vegas) faced heat over HOA related legislation she introduced last session. But when Copening announced her retirement in January, the race really opened up. Republicans had already recruited Mark Hutchison, the lawyer who accepted Jim Gibbons' offer to represent Nevada in the anti-health care reform law suit now being argued in the US Supreme Court. However, Democrats had the good fortune of finding 2010 SD 9 candidate Benny Yerushalmi (who only lost to Elizabeth Halseth by about 5%) willing to run in the new SD 6. Thomas Welsh is also running in the Democratic Primary, but so far Yerushalmi looks favored to win that primary.
Most likely, the general election will be the big fight here. And already, Yerushalmi vs. Hutchison vies to be the among the key marquee fights for #NVLeg this year. While the new SD 6 is more Democratic than its previous incarnation, it's still a close enough district to leave Benny Yerushlami and Nevada Democrats hardly any room for error. And considering the big money likely heading Hutchison's way, Yerushalmi will definitely need a stronger field presence this time than he did in 2010 to actually seal the deal this year.
SD 9
Enterprise- Rhodes Ranch, Mountain's Edge, Southern Highlands
Estimated US-Pres 2008
58% Obama (D)
40% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
54% Harry Reid (D)
41% Sharron Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
50% Brian Sandoval (R)
46% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Leans Democratic
Of all the critical Senate seats up this year, this one looks to deliver the biggest change. For one, it wasn't even supposed to be up this year... But a surprise resignation by Elizabeth Halseth (R-Enterprise) changed that assumption, and that really changed the whole dynamic of the race for the Legislature. What had been a tough hill for Democrats to climb to hold onto the Senate is now becoming a tough hill for Republicans to climb (yes, really, Ed Vogel & R-J pundits) to flip it.
What really made Halseth's resignation a huge blow for Michael Roberson's hopes of becoming Majority Leader was that SD 9 changed radically in redistricting. What had been a more GOP friendly exurban Western Clark County district is now an ethnically diverse and increasingly Democratic leaning Southwest Vegas Valley district. And like SD 5, all it takes is strong Democratic turnout and good "top of the ticket" Democratic performance to flip this seat.
And by landing a top notch candidate in Justin Jones, Nevada Democrats are serious about picking up this seat this time. "Angry Professor" Fred Conquest is also running on the Democratic side, but it (again) doesn't look like he's running a serious campaign (seriously, his web site still features his failed 2010 Gubernatorial run). I honestly don't think Justin Jones should have a problem getting through the Democratic Primary. And with former Joe Heck & Dean Heller spokesperson Mari St. Martin and "tea party" favorite Brent Jones running on the Republican side, I'm liking Justin Jones' chances in the general election. While Democrats still can't take this seat for granted, I am thinking this is the Senate seat most likely to change hands this year.
SD 18 (Open)
Las Vegas- Northwest/Centennial Hills
Estimated US-Pres 2008
50% Obama (D)
48% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
50% Sharron Angle (R)
45% Harry Reid (D)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
57% Brian Sandoval (R)
38% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
Early on, it looked like the most competition we'd see here would be in the Republican Primary... But that all changed when Kelli Ross announced her candidacy here. Not only does she look like a formidable candidate in her own right, but her husband (Las Vegas City Council Member Steve Ross) will probably help her connect with folks in ways that many Democrats typically can't in this Northwest Las Vegas district.
However, Democrats shouldn't get too giddy about picking up this new seat (created mostly from remains of the old SD 9 and SD 12, and moved here from rural Nevada) just yet. Assembly Member Scott Hammond (R-Las Vegas) doesn't quite have the same "fire breathing" reputation as the guy he replaced, so running against him may not be a cake walk. However Hammond isn't getting a cake walk in the Republican Primary, since fellow Assembly Member Richard MacArthur (R-Las Vegas) is also running, and MacArthur DOES have a "fire breathing" reputation that's endearing to the local "tea party" set here. Meanwhile in the Democratic Primary, Kelli Ross is being challenged from the left by former PTA President Donna Schlemmer.
This may very well be one of those races that's competitive from beginning to end. And perhaps more so than any of the other marginal Senate seats, this one may really hinge on what happens in the primary. Hammond seems to be the less doctrinaire conservative Republican, while Ross looks to be the more moderate Democrat. So of course, their general election asset may turn out to be the key primary liability.
Washoe County
SD 15
Reno- Northwest
Estimated US-Pres 2008
57% Obama (D)
40% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010
54% Harry Reid (D)
40% Sharron Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010
57% Brian Sandoval (R)
37% Rory Reid (D)
Race Rating: Tossup
This most definitely promises to be the big #NVLeg marquee race of the north. And the stakes here are incredibly high. Two seasoned legislators are running against each other, and the winner of this race may very well be "the majority maker". This explains why the competition is already turning fierce up north.
As we can see in the above video, Senator Greg Brower (R-Reno) is trying to flip-flop his way to the middle of the road after pivoting quite far to the "tea party" right in last year's NV-02 special election. Meanwhile, Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) had to make a big move of her own, albeit a physical one to a smaller house after her kids moved out of the old house, to run in the new SD 15. And unlike the old Washoe Senate 3 district where Bill Raggio served for nearly four decades, the new SD 15 has only a tiny (about 2%) GOP registration advantage... Yet recent election results show the district to be trending Democratic, which is why Greg Brower and Michael Roberson haven't been resting easily ever since Sheila Leslie's big move.
This may very well be the most expensive #NVLeg race in history once all is said and done. Republicans must win this seat again to have a chance at getting any kind of Senate majority. But if Sheila Leslie wins SD 15 for Democrats, then Democrats are virtually assured of keeping the Senate as well as keeping alive hopes of a possible 2/3 veto-proof supermajority.
---
So this is what's at stake with Senate elections this year. If Republicans win at least four out of the five marginal seats listed above, Roberson becomes Majority Leader. On the other hand, all Democrats have to do is win at least two out of these five races to keep the majority (and I think Dems already have a head start here with SD 9 now on the table). Yet if 2012 turns out to be a great year for Nevada Democrats, President Obama manages to win the state handily again, and Democrats manage to pull a spectacular feat of winning all five competitive Senate races, then Democrats finally achieve that 2/3 veto-proof supermajority that's been enticing them for quite some time.
So what's really possible? Let me conclude by ranking the seats in order of likelihood of changing parties:
1. SD 9 (R to D)
2. SD 15 (R to D)
3. SD 6 (D to R)
4. SD 5 (D to R)
5. SD 18 (R to D)
Right now, I'd stop the flipping somewhere between #2 and #3. Yes, I know, I should be more decisive here! OK, so let's be generous and keep the flipping going all the way to #3. This means Hutchison turns SD 6 from Blue to Red while Leslie turns SD 15 from Red to Blue and (Justin) Jones turns SD 9 from Red to Blue. And this means Woodhouse keeps SD 5 Blue while Hammond or MacArthur keeps SD 18 Red. So in the end, I guess the "newspaper" actually did get the final Senate numbers correct... They just got the parties mixed up. (They say Republicans get a 12-9 majority. I say the current state of play suggests a 12-9 Democratic majority.)
Got to love that "newspaper". ;-)
Monday, March 26, 2012
DesertXpress Derailed?
This morning, Richard Velotta had an interesting column in Vegas Inc. on the current state of passenger rail in Southern Nevada. Bottom line: We still have none, and we can't wait forever for DesertXpress to start its engines.
Shortly after I started this blog in mid-2009, I wrote this piece expressing my frustration with the slow pace of progress then.
After federal funding was pulled from Maglev, I honestly thought it was dead. I figured Sig Rogich got DesertXpress all "juiced up", so we'd just have to find a way to make it work.
However after nearly three years of waiting for something, anything really, to actually start construction, it's starting to feel like deja vu and 2009 all over again. As Mr. Velotta so aptly noted, we've given Desert Xpress all this time to basically go nowhere fast.
So how much longer must we wait for some kind of comprehensive transportation solution? DesertXpress backers promised they could finish sooner than Maglev while providing safer and more reliable passenger rail service between Southern California and Southern Nevada. However with continued delays, those promises are sounding increasingly empty.
Now DesertXpress backers are promising that this time will be different, that this time they're closer than ever to securing federal loans to build it. But wait, didn't these same folks promise once upon a time that "this will be privately funded and operated!"? I guess that didn't last long. (And really, it never could, since projects like these need some kind of public funding to be viable.)
However, DesertXpress backers are still claiming people will want to ride a train to and from Victorville. And as it's always been, the key problem here is that Victorville is about 80 miles away from the major population centers in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. What had made the Maglev project so appealing, in addition to its very high speed and clean technology, is that it could be built through the Cajon Pass all the way to a proposed new train station in Anaheim, where travelers could either hop off and head to Disneyland and other top Orange County tourist attractions, or easily connect to trains going to Los Angeles and San Diego. For some reason, Victorville just doesn't carry the same kind of cache among the tourists and commuters looking for a real SoCal-to-Vegas train to ride. (DesertXpress officials claim they're still in talks with the California High Speed Rail Authority for connecting their line to the HSR line in Palmdale, but again it sounds like talks that are going nowhere fast.)
As we discussed yesterday, renewed concerns about high gas prices and climate change are sending more commuters away from cars and to mass transit alternatives. At this time, building a high speed rail line from the population rich Southern California to the tourism hub of Southern Nevada should be a "no brainer". However, this not-so-high-speed rail line that starts in a city 80 miles away from Southern California top population centers, business hubs, and tourist attractions really seems to be complicating matters. Can we really afford to keep going nowhere fast on DesertXpress? Either DesertXpress needs to shape up, or top Nevada elected officials (like Harry Reid) really need to rethink their support for this project.
In the past year, I’ve attended presentations by DesertXpress officials to get updates on progress.
Over the past several months, a handful of federal government agencies have approved routes and rights-of-way, but little information has emerged on the status of the project, and neither the company nor the Federal Railroad Administration returns phone calls. [...]
I also want to know, DesertXpress, if you’re still confident in the Las Vegas-Victorville transportation model after all the scorn you’ve endured in the past four years. Aren’t you tired of hearing people say, “Victorville?” in disbelief when you explain that you’re asking Southern Californians to drive there, park their cars and board a train to take them on what would be the easier leg of the journey to Las Vegas? Let’s not forget, either, that our California visitors would have no car once they arrived in Nevada and would have to rely on public transportation, taxis or a rental. Never mind that there’s virtually no upside to Las Vegans looking to go to Southern California, either.
I’d like to know if you’ve rethought the maglev technology since the commercially operating line in Shanghai is maintaining a more than 99 percent on-time efficiency rating after eight years in service. Isn’t it about time we stop calling maglev “unproven?”
I know, your suppliers are all friends and steel-wheel-on-rail guys, the same ones who dominate policy at the Federal Railroad Administration. There’s virtually no hope that this is going to change with that good ol’ boy network in place, despite President Barack Obama’s urging to get the fastest train in the world deployed in the United States. I don’t think he was talking about a 150 mph system that most don’t consider to be high-speed rail anymore.
Shortly after I started this blog in mid-2009, I wrote this piece expressing my frustration with the slow pace of progress then.
They're saying they're in talks with California High-Speed Rail about building a spur to connect Victorville to the California rail network stop in Palmdale, and maybe even allowing the DesertXpress to use the state rail to go all the way down to LA and Orange County. We'll see.
If something actually materializes out of these "talks", color me pleasantly surprised. But in the mean time, I just don't see very many people either driving all the way to Victorville to take a train to Vegas or riding up on a bus to Victorville and change from the bus to the train. Yes, that's really the interim plan.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm NOT opposed to rail. I just want to see it done right. The Anaheim to Las Vegas Maglev plan just seems to make more business sense, especially over the long term. But even if we want to go forward with conventional rail, put forward a workable plan! I don't like how DesertXpress claims "we may work something out with CA High-Speed Rail" or "we may one day talk with Arizona officials". Either put up or shut up! Come forward with a detailed plan to make DesertXpress work or don't come to us the taxpayers and expect a bailout when we can just go forward with Maglev and their real, sensible plan.
After federal funding was pulled from Maglev, I honestly thought it was dead. I figured Sig Rogich got DesertXpress all "juiced up", so we'd just have to find a way to make it work.
However after nearly three years of waiting for something, anything really, to actually start construction, it's starting to feel like deja vu and 2009 all over again. As Mr. Velotta so aptly noted, we've given Desert Xpress all this time to basically go nowhere fast.
So how much longer must we wait for some kind of comprehensive transportation solution? DesertXpress backers promised they could finish sooner than Maglev while providing safer and more reliable passenger rail service between Southern California and Southern Nevada. However with continued delays, those promises are sounding increasingly empty.
Now DesertXpress backers are promising that this time will be different, that this time they're closer than ever to securing federal loans to build it. But wait, didn't these same folks promise once upon a time that "this will be privately funded and operated!"? I guess that didn't last long. (And really, it never could, since projects like these need some kind of public funding to be viable.)
However, DesertXpress backers are still claiming people will want to ride a train to and from Victorville. And as it's always been, the key problem here is that Victorville is about 80 miles away from the major population centers in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. What had made the Maglev project so appealing, in addition to its very high speed and clean technology, is that it could be built through the Cajon Pass all the way to a proposed new train station in Anaheim, where travelers could either hop off and head to Disneyland and other top Orange County tourist attractions, or easily connect to trains going to Los Angeles and San Diego. For some reason, Victorville just doesn't carry the same kind of cache among the tourists and commuters looking for a real SoCal-to-Vegas train to ride. (DesertXpress officials claim they're still in talks with the California High Speed Rail Authority for connecting their line to the HSR line in Palmdale, but again it sounds like talks that are going nowhere fast.)
As we discussed yesterday, renewed concerns about high gas prices and climate change are sending more commuters away from cars and to mass transit alternatives. At this time, building a high speed rail line from the population rich Southern California to the tourism hub of Southern Nevada should be a "no brainer". However, this not-so-high-speed rail line that starts in a city 80 miles away from Southern California top population centers, business hubs, and tourist attractions really seems to be complicating matters. Can we really afford to keep going nowhere fast on DesertXpress? Either DesertXpress needs to shape up, or top Nevada elected officials (like Harry Reid) really need to rethink their support for this project.
Health Care on Trial (& It's Really More Political Than Legal)
Last week, we celebrated the second anniversary of passage of the Affordable Care Act. We've seen how "Obamacare" benefits the entire country, as well as how the ACA benefits Nevada. But now, health care is on trial. The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this week on the legal merits of ACA.
So far, the most challenged provision of ACA has been the individual mandate. But funny enough, Republicans don't like to talk about how it became a key provision of health care reform in the first place.
Once upon a time, Republicans liked the individual mandate because they thought it promoted "individual responsibility". It was not until President Obama agreed to include an individual mandate in his health care reform package that they all of a sudden embraced the legal argument against federal regulatory authority that had previously only been pushed by fringe libertarian legal thinkers.
And that's what makes this week so odd. Over the weekend, both New York Times Supreme Court expert Linda Greenhouse and Slate Supreme Court watcher Dahlia Lithwick stated the obvious, which is that the legal case for health care reform really is more of a slam dunk than most of the media pundits want us to believe. Despite all the political controversy over "LIBERTY!!!", the "tea party" really has no legitimate legal leg to stand upon when it comes to challenging basic federal regulatory authority.
Here's Greenhouse:
And here's Lithwick:
Even "Fox News" pundit Juan Williams thinks Chief Justice John Roberts wouldn't want to support an overtly political move to overturn the ACA, since the case against health care is really more political than legal. And as we've discussed before, even a number of CONSERVATIVE legal scholars believe the ACA is wholly constitutional and within Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Again, this is why the case against "Obamacare" has always been more about the politics than about the law. The legal case really is open-shut, so all the G-O-TEA can do is spew more venom and hope against hope that "The Supremes" put campaign politics above The Constitution. And while this court has been playing with fire lately in reaching some controversial decisions, there's a good probability that even this court suspects overturning the ACA because of partisan politics is simply crossing a bridge too far.
So far, the most challenged provision of ACA has been the individual mandate. But funny enough, Republicans don't like to talk about how it became a key provision of health care reform in the first place.
Once upon a time, Republicans liked the individual mandate because they thought it promoted "individual responsibility". It was not until President Obama agreed to include an individual mandate in his health care reform package that they all of a sudden embraced the legal argument against federal regulatory authority that had previously only been pushed by fringe libertarian legal thinkers.
And that's what makes this week so odd. Over the weekend, both New York Times Supreme Court expert Linda Greenhouse and Slate Supreme Court watcher Dahlia Lithwick stated the obvious, which is that the legal case for health care reform really is more of a slam dunk than most of the media pundits want us to believe. Despite all the political controversy over "LIBERTY!!!", the "tea party" really has no legitimate legal leg to stand upon when it comes to challenging basic federal regulatory authority.
Here's Greenhouse:
So I want to unpack the challengers’ Commerce Clause argument for what it is: just words.
Basically just one word, in fact: “unprecedented.” ...
The government argues that, to the contrary, the “uncompensated consumption of health care” by those who are willfully or helplessly uninsured is itself an enormous economic activity. The uninsured don’t exist apart from commerce. To the contrary, their medical care results in some $43 billion of uncovered health care costs annually and, through cost-shifting, adds $1,000 a year to the average cost of a family insurance policy. People who don’t want to buy broccoli or a new car can eat brussels sprouts or take the bus, but those without health insurance are in commerce whether they like it or not.
And here's Lithwick:
Even "Fox News" pundit Juan Williams thinks Chief Justice John Roberts wouldn't want to support an overtly political move to overturn the ACA, since the case against health care is really more political than legal. And as we've discussed before, even a number of CONSERVATIVE legal scholars believe the ACA is wholly constitutional and within Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Again, this is why the case against "Obamacare" has always been more about the politics than about the law. The legal case really is open-shut, so all the G-O-TEA can do is spew more venom and hope against hope that "The Supremes" put campaign politics above The Constitution. And while this court has been playing with fire lately in reaching some controversial decisions, there's a good probability that even this court suspects overturning the ACA because of partisan politics is simply crossing a bridge too far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)