NVision in Flux

This has been one incredibly wild ride in Carson City. Early in the legislative session, SB 123. It was originally supposed to be a companion bill alongside SB 252 calling for a stronger renewable energy standard in Nevada. But then, NV Energy stepped in and turned everything on its head.

Early last month, NV Energy stunned everyone with its brand new NVision plan. NVision calls for an end to the Reid-Gardner coal fired power plant near Moapa along with more home grown renewable energy. And it ultimately supplanted the original language of SB 123. Still, we are talking about more clean energy here. So what's the problem?

Perhaps it's the uncertainty over the cost of NVision... And who will ultimately pay for it. NV Energy has promised consumers' electric bills won't be affected too much by NVision/SB 123. Yet despite the promises, opponents are now mounting a campaign to kill the bill. And they're even now receiving some very high-profile help.

“I see this as a consumer protection issue,” [Former Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue] Del Papa [D] said. “Never before has a bill been introduced that has such guarantees to shareholders.”

She said the bill’s provisions guarantee the utility a rate of return on the construction schedule detailed in the bill, which would be a boon to investors and a cost ratepayers bear.

Echoing concerns of the Public Utilities Commission, she said she worries that the bill would strip the regulatory agency of anything but cursory oversight of NV Energy, the regulated monopoly that provides power to most businesses and residences in the state.

What makes this even more fascinating is that this new coalition to defeat SB 123, the Nevada Consumer Protection Alliance, is a "strange bedfellows" coalition that includes Del Papa, the progressive Nevada Women's Lobby, the conservative Retail Association of Nevada, and others. Normally, these groups and individuals oppose each other. But on this, they all have a common cause.

And yesterday, they received even more high-profile assistance. Keep in mind (NV Energy's possessed version of) SB 123 pares back the role of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in overseeing and regulating NV Energy in the wake of the new NVision regime. So of course, Nevada PUC members don't like it one bit.

The commission voted unanimously to support the accelerated decommissioning of the plant — the target of complaints about air pollution — but object to other portions of Senate Bill 123, which would permit the utility to build other facilities without oversight of the state.

Commissioner Rebecca Wagner called the bill, now before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy, “more smoke and mirrors.”

Commissioner David Noble said the bill failed to “provide real protection for ratepayers.” Commission Chairwoman Alaina Burtenshaw called it a “huge gamble for ratepayers and shareholders.” [...]

Staff member Anne-Marie Cuneo told the commission there would be a “devastating balloon” payment in 2021. The bill, she said would have a significant impact on ratepayers.

Noble agreed, saying there would be a “huge impact” on ratepayers in 10 to 20 years.

Wagner said she supported the closure of Reid-Gardner and has been an advocate of renewable energy such as solar, wind and geothermal. But sections of the bill, she said, would give NV Energy a competitive edge over smaller companies in developing solar energy.

Ouch. This is getting awfully ugly awfully quickly. Key R&R power player Pete Ernaut has been working furiously to unite the entire gaming mining lobbying industrial complex behind the new SB 123. And while he did succeed in securing the backing of (key R&R political allies) Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), we've yet to hear from the gaming industry power players. Yet while they sit on the sidelines, these new strange bedfellows are filling the void to muck things up.

But wait, this story has taken yet another interesting turn. SB 123 has just been amended again. Many environmentalists had been concerned about the amount of natural gas fired power plant construction that NV Energy initially included in NVision. Wasn't this supposed to be about turning away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy? And does this mean NV Energy supports efforts to bring dangerous and dirty fracking to Nevada?

While the matter of fracking isn't directly mentioned in the amended language, it does pare back the amount of natural gas plants NV Energy originally called for while further beefing up renewable energy investment. As a result, Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) has added her name as a co-sponsor while more environmentalists are stepping off the sidelines to join the Nevada Conservation League in supporting the new SB 123.

So we're seeing even more fascinating twists and turns with this bill. The usual left-right ideological divide in Carson City & DC has been scrambled here as the Nevada Conservation League & Nevada AFL-CIO join with R&R Partners and NV Energy to urge SB 123's passage. We also see this on the other side as Frankie Sue Del Papa and the Nevada Women's Lobby are now joining the Retail Association of Nevada to urge SB 123's defeat. The "new new SB 123" now has even less fossil fuel and more new renewable energy generation in its NVision, but consumer advocates are still fretting over the costs.

So what now? That's a good question.

Unacceptable

Is this NEAT or what? Earlier this week, we caught a whiff of Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick's (D-North Las Vegas) latest tax bill. And now, we have NEAT... Which is also referred to as AB 498.

Last night, Speaker Kirkpatrick appeared on "Ralston Reports" to discuss her proposal for the Nevada Entertainment Admissions Tax (NEAT). It replaces the current Live Entertainment Tax that levies 5% on some venues, 10% on others, and 0% (no, really) on others, with an across-the-board 8% rate that applies for everything from Strip shows to movie theaters to golf courses. And it's rumored to bring in at least $50 million this session.



Apparently, this is the beginning of #NVLeg Democratic leadership's rollout of their official tax plan. Ralston wrote earlier today about the full tax package that's being cooked up as we speak. Apparently, it will raise roughly $350 million in the coming biennium (with AB 498 included).

Yet before it can raise any money, it has to pass. How can it pass? Ralston envisions a scenario where Democratic leaders enter into a pact with "The Senate GOP Mod Squad" and various corporate lobbyists to force the unions to give up The Education Initiative in exchange for yet another "Frankenstein Budget".

This is the dream scenario – and not just for Democrats. As the business community – or at least some – and the gaming folks – or at least some –realize that the the margins tax on the ballot could pass unless the teachers are willing to euthanize it, many here in the capital are starting to talk about such an endgame scenario.

But is this the stuff of Grimm, or a grim reminder that some sort of ugly mishmash of taxes, cobbled together to reach a number and without regard to policy, likely will pass this session, as so often happens? Or is this unlikely to become even a fractured fairy tale, with the denouement being that partisanship will trump cooperation and the teachers will whistle a merry tune on their way to the ballot in 2014, with gobs of money spent against the margins tax and a chance – a chance – it passes anyhow.

Perhaps this is just a reminder that we can no longer band-aid and "quick fix" our way out of a long brewing systemic disease. For far too long, Nevada "leaders" have patched together budgets that looked "reasonable" on the surface, but ultimately did little or nothing to truly fix our long-term problems. Case(s) in point: 2003... And 2009... And 2011.

As the 76th session of the Nevada Legislature came to a close in June 2011, I asked why We the People should not finally go to the ballot box to fix what couldn't be fixed in Carson City. And frankly, I'm still asking that today. Why not just do it already?

Let's face it: The two main tax plans being discussed up there now are shit sandwiches. One is likely illegal and definitely political(ly toxic). And while the other one has some decent elements, it's just another hodge-podge of patchwork that doesn't really fix the root problem or cure the systemic diseases of regressive taxation & chronic underfunding of our public infrastructure. Both may be better than what we have now, but neither offers a true cure.

Something must change. The status quo in Carson City is no longer just unpalatable. It's now simply unacceptable. And if the Governor and (many) legislators still can't see that, then it's time for We the People to change it.

The Rude Awakening for #NVLeg

Last Monday, we were warning everyone not to get too caught up in all the pomp & circumstance of the latest rumors of sweeping tax reform to hit Carson City. After all, the bulk of the tax plans floating around the Nevada Legislature don't even come close to fixing the major holes in our public infrastructure and social safety net. Nevada now faces potential law suits for mental health patient dumping.

Just yesterday, The Sacramento Bee released interviews with former Rawson-Neal who opened up on the origins of "Greyhound Therapy".

Though the employees offered different perspectives on the wisdom of sending psychiatric patients alone on bus trips across state lines, most described increased pressure in recent years to move patients out. And budget cuts, they said, were a driving factor.

"There is so much pressure now to get people out as soon as possible," said one longtime Rawson-Neal nurse, who requested anonymity for fear of losing her job.

"The administration has a meeting every week to talk about length of stay," she said. "Doctors are told, 'You need to get these patients out of the hospital.' " [...]

Nevada cut mental health spending 28 percent between 2009 and 2012, cuts that brought furlough days, staffing shortages and widespread reductions in outpatient services and housing for the mentally ill, according to employees and area social services workers. [...]

Bryan Peralta worked as a mental health technician at Rawson-Neal for eight months, ending in November of last year. One of the reasons he left the hospital was its discharge of patients "who were not ready" to be released, he said.

Peralta recalled one young woman who was sent to the Greyhound station while "she was still foaming" at the mouth and talking to herself. She had a ticket to California, but was sent back to Rawson-Neal by a bus driver before she crossed the state border, he said.

Yep, that's really been the state of mental health care here in Nevada. And no, sweeping this under the rug won't make it go away. And neither will dumping it onto a Greyhound bus.

But wait, there's more. Nevada is also facing potential law suits over K-12 public education. Here too, schools are being shortchanged. And the shortchanging is especially horrific in Clark County, where 72% of the population resides and the student body is far more diverse. For years, the Clark County School District (CCSD) has suffered overcrowded classroom and lack of programs students need. Now, CCSD and the Clark County Education Association (CCEA) have released a $1.2 billion plan to address overcrowding.

In total, the district and union's plan calls for hiring 4,115 new teachers, for a total of $271.7 million. The average teacher's salary with benefits is $66,000.

The additional teachers would be on top of an estimated 2,000 new educators being hired for next school year as a result of the School District's arbitration win against the Clark County Education Association in February. If all goes according to plan, the School District could have upward of 23,000 teachers by 2017.

That would lower average class sizes significantly in kindergarten, and fourth and fifth grades. Average class sizes in kindergarten would drop to 16 students. Fourth and fifth grades would see a drop to 26 students.

To accommodate the 6,000 new teachers and a growing student enrollment, the district also would have to build 37 new schools at a cost of $931.7 million. The average elementary school costs $25 million to construct.

In total, the new teachers and schools would cost the district $1.2 billion.

OK, that sounds nice. But wait, where will the funding come from? Right now, that's the key $1.2 billion question.

We know Governor Brian Sandoval's (R-Denial) oh so "sunny" budget fails to shine enough resources for public schools or mental health care. And while Senator Michael Roberson's (R-Lone Wolf) proposed IP 1 mining tax alternative initiative raises half of what CCSD is now requesting, it's still unclear whether "The Senate GOP Mod Squad" gambit is actually legally and/or politically viable.

So where does that leave us? Take it away, (Assembly) Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-Seriously?).

Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick this morning informed folks that her long-awaited admissions tax is finally drafted, setting a rate of 8 percent for all major venues.

The current Live Entertainment Tax has a two-tiered rate, with some venues taxed at 10 percent and others at 5 percent, depending on capacity. I'm told the bill draft exempts only small venues under 50 seats, nonprofits and some government sites.

The Live Entertainment Tax would go away and be replaced by the Nevada Entertainment and Admissions Tax.

Well, I guess something is better than nothing. And this does look preferable to the revenue-neutral regressive sales tax clusterf**k she and Republican leaders were considering earlier this session. But ultimately, this only offers a few drops in the bucket when we need that bucket as full as possible to take care of our own people.

It often seems like many politicians and pundits in Carson City don't understand why We the People decided to take tax reform into our own hands with The Education Initiative. Well, this is why! Nevadans are looking for solutions. And if the Governor and Legislature can't agree on a real solution by June, then We the People will have to provide it for them next year.

We can't take any more of the status quo. It's already costing us dearly. Something must change. And if we don't see that change coming out of Carson City soon, then it will be facing a very rude awakening come November 2014.

All That Truly Matters

Over the course of this month, we've seen even more tossing & turning in Carson City over matters of tax reform. Some proposals have died gruesome deaths up there, while others received a sudden and unexpected burst of new life. So far this session, we've seen plenty of fascinating twists & turns.

And now, another one is coming... Or maybe not. We just know Senate Democrats will be releasing their own tax reform plan later this week.

Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis says Democrats are putting the final touches on their plan to tweak Nevada’s tax structure to bring in more money for education and other services.

But the Las Vegas lawmaker says they will await final revenues projections due Wednesday from the Economic Forum before introducing their plan in bill form.

The Economic Forum is an independent panel charged with forecasting Nevada revenues for the next two years.

Democrats also have not closed in on how much additional revenue they want to generate. Among things being considered are revamping the state’s live entertainment tax.

Well, at least we can say the Senate Democrats are moving away from Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick's (D-North Las Vegas) revenue-neutral sales tax clusterfuck proposal. I guess that's a start. So what's actually in their plan? We'll have to wait & see, but I wouldn't suggest getting your hopes too high (for this).

And you know what? It's OK. Regardless of what Democratic leaders settle for in Carson City this session, We the People will ultimately decide next year. And that's what has some Republicans in Carson City nervous.

So far, The Education Initiative (IP 1) has strong support among voters despite the "Tea Party, Inc." smear campaign against this initiative aimed at making the largest corporations doing business in Nevada pay something closer to their fair share. (They currently pay a rate just barely above nothing.) Perhaps this is why Senator Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) decided that the best way to beat IP 1 is to join it on the ballot box. At first, it seemed like Roberson hatched up the perfect strategy to triangulate Nevada Republicans into the political sweet spot while tearing Democrats & progressives apart. There's just been one problem with his plan: his fellow Nevada Republicans!



Oh, and there's another problem with this: the law! Despite the constant spin from certain Republican Senators and their media pundit cheerleaders, the fact remains that Governor Brian Sandoval (R), Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D), Secretary of State Ross Miller (D), and several more lawyers who have studied this issue have all determined that Senator Roberson's IP 1 mining tax alternative is unconstitutional. They really can't blame Democrats or their fellow Republicans if/when the courts strike down any further attempts to pursue this.

Yet despite the political and legal controversies surrounding Senator Roberson's IP 1 mining tax alternative, SJR 15 remains. And there are no political hijinks here. It just removes mining industry bailouts from the Nevada Constitution. And all legislators have to do is approve it a second time this year so We the People can vote on it next year. And once voters approve SJR 15 next year, the Legislature will finally have the power to change mining tax rates.

Really, that's all the Legislature needs to do this spring to make real change possible. The Senate has already passed SJR 15 overwhelmingly this session. Now, it's the Assembly's turn.

There will be plenty of gossip in the next few weeks over supposedly grand tax reform plans. But really, it all comes down to just two initiatives. One is already guaranteed a spot on next year's (general election) ballot, while the other just needs one more vote of approval from the Assembly. And regardless of what certain media pundits hyperventilate about any further political positioning in Carson City this year, all that truly matters now is what We the People will be voting on next year.

To the Ballot Box We Go

So it's over. It's finally over. Today was the deadline, and The Education Initiative couldn't even get a vote.

So it's... Actually only just begun.

The Nevada Legislature took no action within the 40-day limit it had to pass or reject the measure, meaning Nevada voters now get to play policymaker and vote the margins tax up or down.

“I don’t believe the votes are there,” said Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, about the initiative measure.

Legislators of both parties never warmed to the tax on businesses that make $1 million or more per year in revenue. The Legislature gave the tax a show hearing in which its sponsor, the state teachers’ union, trotted out supporters who cheered for the tax. Business groups booed, and at least one legislator verbally ripped into a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce lobbyist who opposed the tax.

But the margins tax initiative petition never made it out of committee, and nobody brought any emergency measures to the Senate or Assembly floor to pass or reject it at the last minute because Democrats would not bring it to a vote.

“It’s going to the people either way,” said Sen. Debbie Smith, D-Sparks. “I’m focused on solving our problems so that we have education funding for the coming school year, not down the road.”

Remember what we discussed when the 76th session was coming to a close in June 2011? This was bound to happen. And now, it's finally happening.

Funny enough, a tax plan considered during that session is now manifest in The Education Initiative. Yet now, #NVLeg leadership on both sides agreed to punt because they didn't want the optics of turning down public education funding. Wow.

Oh, and whatever. If the Nevada Legislature can't do its job, then we the people must act. Since The Education Initiative couldn't even get a floor vote, it's time for this people's initiative petition to return to the people on next year's ballot. We can't afford to wait any longer to start solving our problems.

But wait, there's another twist. Yesterday, we discussed the fascinating turn of events regarding the emergence of Senate Republican Leader Michael Roberson's IP 1 alternative mining tax. Once Roberson and the rest of "The Dirty Half-dozen" saw the polling and shat their pants, they decided the only way to beat IP 1 is by creating competition. That's why they decided to ditch their own party's base and pick a fight with the mining industry.

But now, "The Dirty Half-dozen" IP 1 mining tax alternative is in deep legal jeopardy. Precisely because the Legislature failed to even vote on the actual IP 1, it's at best (for Roberson) unclear whether the Legislature can actually place an alternative to compete against it on next year's ballot. Local legal eagle Sean McDonald doesn't think an alternative can legally be presented as of now, and Jon Ralston is mourning over this.

Lawmakers, even those whispering a good game, have all but short-circuited the serious tax discussion for the next 80 days unless they propose some new package themselves and get two-thirds to back it (that would include a handful of Republicans, who would have to vote for it twice over a certain gubernatorial veto). That’s because a plain reading of Article 19, Section 2 indicates that unless the Legislature formally rejects a petition – not simply pretends it does not exist – it loses the ability to propose an alternative.

The language says “the statute or amendment to a statute proposed thereby shall be enacted or rejected by the Legislature without change or amendment within 40 days.” Pretty simple, right?

Put aside the argument that tax policy should not be made at the ballot, which of course it shouldn’t be. But the teachers were frustrated by the Legislature’s serial inaction, so they circumvented lawmakers and went to the ballot process, qualified the margins tax and forced lawmakers to take action within 40 days, as the article mandates. And now, because of lawmakers’ inert behavior once again, tax policy will be decided at the ballot next year, with no alternative to tax mining or business or anything else likely to survive a legal challenge if it were to happen.

This is where I can't help but roll my eyes. Yes, "ballot box budgeting" can be messy. I know from personal experience. Ralston seems to buy into Pete Ernaut's spin... Even though he's had to admit that what just happened was a complete clusterf**k!

For all the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth over the fears of California style direct democracy coming to Nevada, we must ask this: Is it really a bad thing? California now has a budget surplus and additional education funding thanks to Prop 30. And Prop 30 was pursued because an extreme obstructionist minority refused to cooperate on realistic budget solutions.

Well, look at where we are now here in Nevada. Because the Governor and certain legislators refuse to consider realistic budget solutions, we have this impasse. How can we break that? That's why The Education Initiative will be going to voters next year.

Sure, in an ideal world, this wouldn't have to happen. However, we're not in an ideal world. We're in Nevada. In order to make this state a better place, we must build a more stable and diversified economy. And in order to do that, we must better invest in our public infrastructure. And if the Governor and Legislature can't act to make that happen, then we the people must.

So it's off to the ballot box we go.

Taxing Times

What a year this has been... And we're only in March! Just as the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature was about to begin, tax reform looked dead as a door nail. And then, Marilyn Kirkpatrick emerged with her "Revenue Neutral Sales Tax Extravaganza!" If that was to be the great tax reform plan of 2013, then we really would have been in for a rough session. Never mind that The Education Initiative (aka IP 1) has been sitting right there, ready for legislators to act upon.

Last month, even SJR 15 seemed to be in deep trouble. After their surprise setback in 2011, the mining industry has been juicing up to shut this down. Then on what was thought to be a mundane Tuesday, Michael Roberson unleashed what's become March Madness in Carson City with his proposed mining tax alternative to IP 1.

Now, all of a sudden, we're seeing a frenzy of talk and action on what was once "The Dirty T Word". Of course, the "tea party" radical right still sees it as a dirty word. And it's escalating what was already an ugly civil war in the Nevada Republican Party over it. Yet now, despite that, there's a growing desire to take some sort of action on tax reform in Carson City.

But funny enough, the initiative that sparked the new tax talk presents a curveball for #NVLeg. Nevada law is clear that the Legislature can approve the Governor's recommended alternative should they not approve the actual initiative. Yet as we've discussed before, Roberson doesn't have Brian Sandoval's support for his mining tax alternative. And now, Legislature leaders don't even want to vote on The Education Initiative. So what happens next?

Amicus Nevada didn't mince words earlier today in giving #NVLeg leaders a stern warning.

Whereas Ralston sees one problem with that part of Article 19, Section 2, (namely, what does “approved by the Governor” mean?), I see other problems: (1) may the Legislature propose an alternate measure after the 40-day consideration period on the petition has expired without expressly rejecting it; (2) must the Governor recommend an alternate before the Legislature may enact one; (3) would the Governor have an absolute (or even a qualified) veto over an alternate; and (4) what constitutes “a different measure on the same subject”?

In my view, if the Legislature does not affirmatively reject the petition within 40 days of its submission, the Legislature loses power to propose an alternate measure. Remember, the Constitution requires that the petition “shall be enacted or rejected by the Legislature . . . within 40 days.” Nev. Const. art. 19, § 2(3). If the Legislature does not enact the petition, the Constitution instructs “If [the petition] is rejected by the Legislature, or if no action is taken thereon within 40 days, the Secretary of State shall submit the [petition]” to the voters at the next general election. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, there is an operational distinction between rejection and rejection by default. In both cases, the petition goes to the voters. But in the case of rejection by default (i.e. the Legislature failing to act within 40 days), the Legislature loses power to propose an alternate. [...]

The last issue I want to briefly (ha!) discuss is whether a mining tax measure could be an alternate to IP 1. Steve Sebelius is of the opinion that yes, a mining tax could be the legislative alternate to the margin tax in IP 1. The Senate Republicans who proposed a mining tax measure as an alternate seem to agree. I don’t think that’s correct, at least not without some creative drafting. Senate Joint Resolution 15 of the 75th Session proposes to repeal the constitutional limitations on mining taxation. That measure, should it pass this legislative session, will go on the ballot in 2014. It cannot be the alternate to IP 1 primarily because they are separate measures, one proposing a change to law, the other a change to the Constitution. Both could be enacted as they are not mutually exclusive options, unlike a true alternate under Article 19, Section 2. The only way I see a new mining tax (or a higher tax rate) being a proper alternate to IP 1 is it must be conditioned on S. J. Res. 15′s ratification by the voters, or it must propose changes to law that do not implicate S. J. Res. 15 or the underlying provisions in the Constitution.

Assuming the Legislature timely rejects IP 1 this session, it will preserve its power to propose an alternate measure. Should the Legislature propose an alternate relating to mining, I’d expect nothing less of a full on legal onslaught to prevent the alternate from appearing on the ballot, whether it be through a gubernatorial assist (with a veto) or through legal challenges, on constitutional and procedural grounds, should the Legislature find itself caught up in a dispute with the executive branch over the scope of the veto power in the case of initiative measures. And with most of these tax issues decided in the 11th hour of a session as part of the endgame, I agree with Ralston: 2013 could be 2003 all over again.

¡Dondé los yikes! Indeed, this is increasingly feeling deja vu. Just as it was in 2003, this 2013 tax fight may head to the courts very soon if Roberson's IP 1 alternative catches enough fire to pass. Yet despite this striking similarity, there may be one major difference now. We'll get to that in a moment.

There are certainly many challenges ahead in Carson City. There are definitely plenty of legal questions. And there are many political hurdles to overcome. But now, finally, "The T Word" has become THE WORD in the Nevada Legislature. Mining industry lobbyists are finally shaking in their boots... Along with other big "bid'ness" lobbyists. And progressive activists have an unprecedented opportunity to change the game in Carson City for good on the entire subject.

Just eight weeks ago, this all looked like the ultimate taboo in the Nevada Legislature. Why rock the boat, especially when "Captain Sandoval" won't accept any of the sort? But now, a unique combination of "budget cut fatigue", uncertainty in federal funding, pent up frustration over certain corporate special interests getting away with paying next to nothing, and the changing political landscape of Nevada has created this historic opening. Regardless of the fate of Roberson's IP 1 alternative, "The T Word" is no longer taboo.

The opening is here. So who will take it? And what will ultimately pass?

It just remains to be seen what can be taxed, what will be taxed, and what the courts will allow the people to decide to be taxed next year.

Get Serious.

This is the second week of the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature. And after promises of this time being different, the powers that be in Carson City are working hard to keep the status quo in place. Just try reading this without spewing out your morning coffee.

Hanging over the tax discussion is a margins-tax ballot initiative that the state teachers union hopes to pass either in the Legislature or on the ballot in 2014.

That uncertainty could be enough to persuade legislators to defer major tax structure changes until the 2015 session, said Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey, R-Reno.

“Going forward, frankly, the teachers' tax initiative is casting a shadow over any serious discussion of taxes because it could trump next session anything that is done this session,” Hickey said.

Repealing the sunset taxes and replacing them with solid revenue sources would make the state less reliant on budget gimmicks and provide predictability for businesses and state policymakers.

There he goes again. Pat Hickey is actually claiming that The Education Initiative is hindering "serious discussion of taxes". So what exactly is his definition of serious?

Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) wants to swap the "regressive" vehicle license fee for a regressive sales tax on services. Both Roberson and Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) like the concept of enacting a regressive sales tax on services. And Kirkpatrick & Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas) want to cement in place the politically convenient 2009/2011 "Sunset Taxes". Seriously, how is this "serious"?

Nevada workers, including the teachers who know firsthand the challenges faced in our schools, have brought forward a real proposal for tax reform. They're proposing restoring $800,000,000 for Nevada schools by charging a 2% margins tax on businesses that earn more than $1,000,000 a year. And now that many Nevada voters have submitted their petitions to the Legislature, the Legislature can act on this.

The Education Initiative offers serious and real tax reform. If legislators were actually serious about tax reform, they could try listening to their constitutents.

The Inconvenient Truth (of the C-Tax Saga)

It may have only been the first week, but it's been quite an action packed week for the Nevada Legislature. Even "The T Word" has reemerged as a major issue, despite some legislators' desire to sweep that under a "revenue-neutral" rug. Included in the big tax talk is the often confusing C-Tax.

The latter has particularly become a hot flash point this week as North Las Vegas protested its sharply shortchanged position thanks to the C-Tax formula. Nor'town officials, including Mayor Shari Buck, traveled to Carson City to personally make their case to legislators. Did it work? Well...

“I was not speaker when I was passionate about this, and I am just as passionate as I was back then,” [Assembly Speaker Marilyn] Kirkpatrick [D-North Las Vegas] told Buck and other North Las Vegas officials at a legislative committee meeting Thursday.

At stake is $25.8 million in additional local government tax allocations from the state to which Buck believes North Las Vegas is entitled. Buck, facing an ailing city budget, argues the additional money would bring the city up to par with other Clark County municipalities.

She said other cities get more money for their residents under a complicated formula to distribute the consolidated tax — a pot of six different levies including sales, liquor and tobacco taxes.

“That is very understandable to me. I hope it is to you also, why this formula needs to be changed,” Buck said.

Kirkpatrick, raising her voice, said she was “not going to lie to North Las Vegas residents today.”

“This formula was never based on population, and I have freakin’ said that for two years,” she said. “I never told anybody anything different.”

The tax revenue routes from the state to local governments through a labyrinthine formula are so complex it took an entire committee meeting to explain it to new legislators earlier this week. Population is one factor in that arcane equation.

The problem here is that population is just one factor in C-Tax revenue distribution. And it's outweighed by other factors, perhaps most notably property values. That's why North Las Vegas received less than half the C-Tax funding of Henderson, and much less C-Tax funding than Las Vegas.

North Las Vegas officials continue crying for help. But at this point, their cries may be falling on deaf ears in Carson City. That may be due to the array of scandals that have plagued Nor'town City Hall. But really, does that merit the state deliberately shortchanging the city?

Nor'town may now be the new butt of jokes of choice in Carson City. However, there is a serious and sinister problem lying beneath the surface. I can't help but remember what we discussed in May regarding the sorry state of Nor'town finances.

The state has also had a major role in putting North Las Vegas in this place. Remember that North Las Vegas gets far less C-Tax funding per capita than Las Vegas and Henderson. And remember that Nor'town has to pay out of its own pocket for services (like public libraries) that Las Vegas and Henderson don't.

Again, there's a glaring inequity in Nevada's tax structure, one that even affects our local governments and their finances. And it seems especially cruel that it's hitting many of Southern Nevada's poorest communities the hardest. After all, these are the communities that need things like libraries, after school programs, and crime prevention the most. And now, Nor'town is being asked to cut more.

While the City of North Las Vegas has made many poor decisions in the past on budgeting and setting proper priorities, the people of this city should not be punished simply because of their zip code... And because other municipalities were savvier in snatching away state funds. North Las Vegas, we really have a problem. And it's far deeper than you think.

Perhaps this is the key reason why Legislature leaders would rather just take down and swat away North Las Vegas emissaries as they plea for help. They continue reminding us of the pernicious inconvenient truth that so many politicians in Carson City prefer to ignore. Yet as long as they cry for help, we're reminded of why Nevada's current tax structure is failing so many of our people.

Gone With the C-Tax

Remember the C-Tax? Wait, what?

Come on, you must remember the C-Tax. The City of Fernley sued over it last year. The Nevada Supreme Court has since dismissed part of the suit while sending the rest back to district court.

But that's just the start of it. Last April, we examined how North Las Vegas also got the short end of the C-Tax stick. Long story short, Henderson received double the C-Tax revenue of North Las Vegas despite having only about 50,000 more residents (North Las Vegas has 217,482 residents compared to Henderson's 267,270 residents). And on top of that indignity, North Las Vegas must fund its own libraries while the state directly funds Las Vegas-Clark County and Henderson Libraries. Because Henderson and Las Vegas have higher property values than North Las Vegas, they receive far more state funding.

Apparently, North Las Vegas has finally had enough. During the interim, some legislators were contemplating changes to the C-Tax. Now, Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) is championing AB 68. However, North Las Vegas officials don't think it goes far enough. So they proposed an amendment... An amendment that may blow up the entire AB 68 accord.

Attached is our proposed amendment to AB68 and an additional sheet that outlines the reasoning behind the amount of base adjustment listed in the amendment. I will tell you that we have not gotten any sign-off from the City of Henderson either on this language, the amount requested, or even if they support the amendment.

Our reasoning for including them is that all of the modeling done by the CTax Interim Committee working group reflected that both Henderson and North Las Vegas are deserving of a base adjustment. To not include them would defeat the purpose of having this one time base adjustment truly make all the cities in Clark County have an equitable starting point for the new formula reflected in AB68. It is very important to realize that by using the excess distribution this year as the source of this base adjustment - no entity in Clark County will receive less money than they received the previous year. Because AB68 will roll excess into the base going forward, if a base adjustment is determined to be prudent in a later year - entities may in fact receive less. That would not be the intent of North Las Vegas.

We simply ask for the opportunity to present our information, facts and reasoning behind this proposed amendment and that the committee give it due consideration. We in no way intend for our actions to do anything to jeopardize the passage of AB68. This amendment will start everyone on a fair and equitable base going forward under AB68.

Respectfully submitted,
Dan Musgrove
On Behalf of the City of North Las Vegas

Apparently, Nor'town thought inclusion of Henderson could help secure the amendment requesting more C-Tax funding. But instead, Henderson officials are keeping their distance from this amendment. After all, Henderson is already getting a pretty good deal from the current setup. And city officials don't want to upset Speaker Kirkpatrick, the one who seems to be calling the shots on C-Tax reform in Carson City.

What we have here is a strange mix of terrible tax policy, a possibly sincere attempt to fix it, a clash of personalities, and perhaps some brutal electoral politics as well. As we've discussed before, the current C-Tax structure may very well be a civil rights violation. Poor minority heavy communities in North Las Vegas have been chronically underfunded as wealthier and whiter communities in the state have enjoyed more state funding. There's something inherently wrong in this.

And North Las Vegas is now feeling the pressure to change this. It just so happens that municipal elections happen this spring, and Mayor Shari Buck (R) is running for reelection. Yet Henderson Mayor Andy Hafen (D) is also running for reelection in his city. And I doubt Henderson City Hall has any kind of appetite for ruining its relationship with #NVLeg leadership as both AB 68 and the broader budget are being negotiated.

So we now have another hot mess. And yet again, it revolves around Nor'town. And state legislators are reminded again of how faulty Nevada's tax structure truly is. Such is the story of our fine state.

Let's Get Real.

Yep, that didn't last long. In the first moments of the new session of the Nevada Legislature, there was hope. There was talk of reform. There seemed to be opportunity.

But now, there's just the same old pile of nothing. Oh yes, that's right. "Revenue-neutral" is the new talk of the town in Carson City. And it has education advocates and other progressives wondering what's the point.

[Assembly Speaker Marilyn] Kirkpatrick [D-North Las Vegas], who so far has shied away from detailing what she wants to do on taxes this session, said she would favor eliminating the payroll tax and ending the “sunsets” on what was supposed to be a temporary tax increase.

“I want to get rid of the sunsets altogether,” she said of the 2009 tax increase that was originally supposed to expire in 2011. The Legislature extended those taxes two years ago and Gov. Brian Sandoval has proposed another two-year extension.

“We can’t be on a seesaw,” she said. “I want the sunsets off.”

Kirkpatrick did not detail a specific proposal for broadening the tax base. But she said expanding the sales tax to include services — such as hairdressing, accounting and legal advice —would be a realistic approach. To make it “revenue-neutral,” the sales tax rate would be lowered.

So that's the big idea? Charge sales tax at the hair stylist and the lawyer's office? Seriously? And Legislature leaders wonder why both some individual legislators and many grassroots activists are so underwhelmed by this "reform"?

Sorry, but charging sales tax at the accountant's office doesn't address the core of Nevada's chronic revenue shortage. There are far deeper problems in Nevada's tax and budget structure that must be addressed. Taxes here are incredibly regressive, hitting the working poor & middle class the hardest. And as long as schools and other parts of Nevada's public infrastructure are chronically underfunded, we'll never attract the businesses we need for a stable and healthy economy.

Solutions are available. And in fact, the solutions are likely right on top of legislators' desks. SJR 15 addresses the serious shortfall that is the enshrinement of mining industry tax loopholes in the Nevada Constitution. (It's a key reason why multinational mining conglomerates pay almost no taxes in this state.) And of course, The Education Initiative offers a corporate margin tax modeled after the system in that socialist utopia that is TEXAS. (No, really.) At least these policies will actually provide real progress on tax reform if passed.

And it's not just hardened lefties saying this. Jim Rogers also chimed in (very) early this morning.

Nevada will never free itself from the influence of the horse and buggy structure and capabilities of its governance system unless it totally restructures and redefines government’s role to support the vast interests of the many faceted Nevada population.

We must face the facts. The Nevada of today is far different from the Nevada of the late 19th century. We're mostly an urban state now. We require public schools, freeways, and hospitals. And it makes no sense to continue legalized corporate tax evasion while tinkering with incredibly regressive and narrow tax policies that hit the middle class, the working poor, and small businesses the hardest.

So why continue this ridiculous "revenue-neutral" kabuki theater? OK, so Brian Sandoval and Republican legislators refuse to acknowledge Nevada's 21st century reality. Just solve the problem by sending SJR 15 and The Education Initiative to the voters. If the Legislature can't or won't fix Nevada's serious fiscal problems, then "We the People" must. The time for rearranging deck chairs on this Titanic in Carson City is over.

This Time Will Be Different?

So it's here. Yesterday was the first day of the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature. And at least for a moment yesterday, Jon Ralston put aside his cynicism to praise the opening speech by new Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas).

Kirkpatrick asked her colleagues if they will “apply nickel-sized solutions to dollar-sized problems.” That phrase resonates because of its metaphorical and near-literal meanings – the penurious funding of most services and the small-minded thinking when large solutions are imperative.

Nickel-sized solutions for dollar-sized problems: Thus has been the story of every session I have covered, so Kirkpatrick is asking me to believe the Gang of 63 will actually put its money where its leaders’ (or at least the Democratic ones) mouths have been on Day One of nearly every Legislature.

Yes, some will translate that line to mean: Kirkpatrick wants to raise taxes. And while she might, that is the most simplistic interpretation of the line, which is more a call for real, substantive debate – the kind she has made her signature.

“Will we be a state that answers the wake-up call to the problems in our education system, or will we, once again, put off taking action and leave the toughest problems for future generations to solve?” Kirkpatrick asked. The tendency is to snarkily reply: “Well, of course you will.”

But Kirkpatrick’s fire ignites embers of hope that have been all but burned out by sessions of inaction and postponement. You could tell that these were not just words to Kirkpatrick, that she does not want them to fade into the expected hurly burly of the next 119 days.

For a moment, even I was tempted to believe. But then, reality intervened. And I started wondering just what we can expect this session.

Of course, I'd like to believe. It's just that I'm reminded of the 900 pound gorilla in Carson City. If the Legislature can truly handle tax reform and common-sense budgeting, then why is The Education Initiative likely heading to the ballot box instead of the negotiating table?

So what's actually possible in Carson City this session? And perhaps more importantly, what's probable?

We know what Governor Sandoval has said. And we know what Republican legislators have said. Does Speaker Kirkpatrick have some sort of magical "secret sauce" in her possession that can break the G-O-TEA logjam on meaningful tax reform?

I'd like to think so. I'd like to believe. And honestly, I'd like to think that there are future Kenny Guinn like figures waiting in the wings and ready to pursue meaningful changes to bring both Nevada's tax code & Nevada's economy into the 21st century.

It's just that all too often when legislators speak of "bipartisan consensus", they mean politicians in both parties giving into the whims & fancies of "the gaming-mining-lobbying industrial complex". Why should we believe that this session will be different? Can legislators actually muster the courage necessary to stand up to well "juiced" corporate lobbyists and work out the kind of tax reform needed to fully fund our schools, our transportation, our health care, and the rest of our public infrastructure?

Trust me, I want to believe this session will be different. I just need to see the evidence proving such is possible. Until then, I'll probably keep looking ahead to efforts for organizing a "ballot royale" next year. At least we now know that if legislators don't act, "We the People" finally can.

Hey, do you think the thought of that might just scare the Legislature into action?

Rethinking Gun Safety & "Freedom"

While we were busy enjoying a lazy, rainy Saturday, this happened in Washington. Yep, that's right. People showed up for a rally for gun safety.



About 1,000 people showed up in the nation's capital, and there were even more "satellite events" across the country. One of the groups that organized yesterday's event was One Million Moms for Gun Control. They've grown from one simple Facebook page to a nationwide movement.

And yes, they're now here in Southern Nevada as well. Yes, even here we're seeing growing support for gun safety reform.

Nationally, there's broad national support for what's essentially President Obama's gun safety plan. Yes, that even includes the Assault Weapon Ban. Yet even after so many polls have been showing so much support for gun safety reform, we're still supposed to believe it's "impossible". Why?

That's what Rachel Maddow asked on Thursday. Both of the US Senators who represent Newtown, Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) & Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), responded with hope for meaningful action.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yet even while most Americans demand comprehensive gun safety reform, the conversation in Washington has mostly revolved around how "impossible" this is. Why?

Even worse has been the conversation in Carson City. While Nevada legislators may be justifiably upset over the media circus that the Steven Brooks affair has become, they can't use that as an excuse for ignoring the real public policy questions behind it. Coolican wondered this morning if the Brooks affair will finally force the Nevada Legislature to better fund mental health care. I'm wondering the same, but I'm also wondering if this will force the Legislature to ask why it's easier in this state to access firearms than mental health care.

On one hand, I get it. I see the "reality" in Carson City and DC where politicians fear the wrath of the gun lobby. Harry Reid doesn't want to jeopardize the reelection of vulnerable US Senate Democrats in 2014, and he doesn't want to hurt his own likely reelection campaign in 2016. Meanwhile, a bunch of freshmen in the Nevada Legislature want to curry good favor with the NRA. Some Democrats don't want to be seen as "anti-gun", and most Republicans don't want to be seen as "betraying their base".

Yet while these politicians live their "reality", we live ours. Children are terrorized in their own schools. Shopping malls become armed battlefields. Inner cities have already felt like war zones for some time. Not even houses of worship seem safe.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again today. This level of armed violence is not conducive to a functioning democracy. Keep that in mind when gun lobbyists cry about "Obama's attacks on FREEDOM!!!" Are we really free when we don't feel free to share ideas at the college campus, buy a gift for the best friend's birthday party, send the kids to school, and/or even visit the Legislature? Think about it.

What Have They Learned?

Ever since the Steven Brooks story first broke, we've been trying to examine the important public policy questions behind the lurid scandal. Fortunately, we're finally seeing more of this discussion break into the "mainstream media". The RGJ's Ray Hagar pointed out what should be obvious yesterday.

Some lawmakers said Brooks' demeanor changed in the last few months. He got real loud and overbearing during an Assembly Democratic caucus meeting after the election, some Democrats said. He was suddenly an expert about stuff he knew little about. He was arrogant in the first place.

THIS THREAT about gun violence within the Nevada Legislature comes in the middle of an American hysteria over mass shootings.

We can't forget Newtown. Columbine, also unforgettable, seems like Pearl Harbor ancient history. We had another shooting incident last Tuesday at a Texas college, the very day this Brooks story was beginning to boil.

The Nevada Legislature has traditionally been very cheap about mental-health funding. It's not a top priority for a group that talks a good game about funding education but makes sure taxes remain low.

Now, concern over mental health and gun violence is at it's front door. One of their own, one of the Legislature's 63 esteemed elected officials, is knocking.

A new federal report on mental illness estimates that 45.6 million Americans suffered some sort of mental illness in 2011. Yet only 38.6% of those Americans received treatment. A full 25% of of those Americans suffering mental illness couldn't access treatment because they couldn't afford it.

We've lamented before how it's often easier to access firearms than mental health care. But my goodness, this is appalling. Nevada's mental health patients who've been involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals are rarely being added to the federal database that would restrict them from buying firearms.

“Individuals suffering from mental illness who pose a threat to themselves or others should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm,” [State Senator Ben] Kieckhefer [R-Reno] said in a statement. “Federal and state laws have been in effect for years to enforce this restriction. Unfortunately, here in Nevada, they are almost entirely unused.”

Kieckhefer, who formerly worked as a spokesman at the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, said he is working with courts, law enforcement and mental health professions to draft a new law for the 2013 Legislative session which begins Feb. 4.

He said in an email that the intent of the law is to prevent not only those involuntarily committed to an institution from buying gun, but also those who, in the opinion of a psychiatrist, pose a danger to themselves or others.

"Many of these people are held for more than a week, treated and released before they ever get to their scheduled hearing," he said. "They were never formally committed by the judge, but have basically the same situation."

In 2011, just 178 of the 1,619 individuals psychiatrists filed petitions with the court to commit into the state's public mental hospital in Las Vegas were added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That system, known as NICS, is used in firearm sales to check whether someone is allowed to purchase a weapon.

And none of the petitions for the Dini-Townsend Hospital in Reno made it onto the federal database in Fiscal Year 2012. What happened?

Even current gun safety laws are not being fully enforced. Add to that the overall light load of gun safety standards, along with the gun lobby's resistance to reform.



Something has to change. Nevada legislators must realize this.

(What About) The Real Issues Behind the Steven Brooks Scandal?

Surprise, surprise... Or not.

As expected, tensions rose in Carson City as scandal plagued Assembly Member Steven Brooks (D-North Las Vegas) returned to the Legislature. Interestingly, it didn't last long. Nonetheless, he made a grand exit!



All of a sudden, this serious case of a potentially dangerous situation erupting in the Nevada Legislature seems to be turning into Nevada Government's own sordid "reality TV" affair. No really, this happened.

Brooks, carrying a cane, wearing dark sunglasses and covering his head with a beige hood, was whisked by police into the Legislative Building and ushered into a closed conference room on the first floor of the building. As legislative staff attempted to divert reporters, Brooks was escorted out of the building after his meeting with police.

Brooks uttered a muffled "No comment," before flashing the peace sign to pursuing reporters.

At least he and Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) were not in the same room today. He ultimately declined to participate in the Assembly Ways & Means hearing that he had originally planned to attend. Instead, he found another way to snub Kirkpatrick.

In another twist to the emerging story, the Clark County Constable's Office sent a deputy with Brooks to provide him personal protection while in Carson City. Constable John Bonaventura has a political rivalry with Kirkpatrick, who is sponsoring legislation to change how the constable's office governed. Bonaventura has been a controversial figure who proposed a reality television show based on his office.

Brooks' lawyer Mitchell Posin confirmed the constable's office offered Brooks personal protection.

"I haven't heard of it either, but this is apparently something they do," Posin said. "It was offered."

Brooks had earlier sought protection from legislative police, worried that a fugitive gang member was after him. Posin said the constable was there to protect him from both gang members and Kirkpatrick.

"Very likely both," Posin said when asked from whom Brooks needed protection.

Now this is really starting to resemble a circus... Albeit a fairly scary circus. I'll become even more frightened if Bravo, TLC, and/or VH1 camera crews are soon seen in Carson City. No wonder why some legislators have become increasingly irritated by the media fixation on the Steven Brooks scandal.

So what are we to do? And what should the "mainstream media" do? There's a reason why I've been trying to focus more on the real public policy problems revealed in this scandal.

But the extent of that anger wasn’t clear until Saturday afternoon, when Atkinson answered his phone and received a warning from “a person close to Brooks” that the assemblyman was looking to hurt Kirkpatrick.

The call so alarmed Atkinson that he called Kirkpatrick, who immediately dialed the police.

According to the police report, Kirkpatrick said Atkinson sent her a text message indicating that "no one else should feel safe around Brooks" and that if Brooks were to show up to the first legislative session, he "would find a way to keep him out of the building." [...]

Brooks’ wife, Ada Brooks, told police the handgun belonged to “one of Steven’s friends who owned a security company.”

Ada Brooks also said that during the past few months, her husband's mental health “has been getting worse and she is worried about him.” Kirkpatrick told police Brooks had been released from Seven Hills Behavioral Center the night before.

As I've been saying here since yesterday, this should make both our legislators and our members of Congress think more about the state of mental health care and the many cracks in current gun laws. (Desert Beacon reported earlier today on some G-O-TEA legislators' latest proposal to crack Nevada's already flimsy gun laws even more.) Again, there are real public policy issues that should come to the forefront now.

But will they? Or will it all be overshadowed by bizarre theatrics and media speculation over personal rivalries?

Now, It Really Hits Home.

For some time now, we've been looking at gun violence and ways to curb the bloodshed we've seen throughout the country. Today, we saw even more of it at a college campus in Houston. Yet today, we also saw this issue hit home. Assembly Member Steven Brooks (D-North Las Vegas) was arrested last weekend for allegedly making a death threat against Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas).



And now, we have some more details on why North Las Vegas police arrested Brooks. Here's Ralston.

----Kirkpatrick contacted police after getting a call from [Senator Kelvin] Atkinson [D-North Las Vegas]. She told officers that Brooks repeatedly had said she ruined his life by becoming speaker. Atkinson had received a call from [Las Vegas City Council Member Rikki] Barlow that Brooks was looking to harm others. Kirkpatrick told police Atkinson was seeking a Temporary Protective Order against Brooks and no one should feel safe. Kirkpatrick also said she had been told by Atkinson that Brooks was at a behavioral treatment center the previous evening.

----Atkinson told police that Brooks told him he was looking to "do in" the speaker and was driving around with a loaded gun in his car. Brooks also contacted law enforcement, saying he was concerned about his own safety.

-----Relatives told police Brooks had a gun and told Barlow he had a loaded gun, that he may harm the speaker and was not afraid to die and willing to have a shootout with police. [...]

----His wife, Ada Brooks, told the police that during the last few months her husband's mental health had been getting worse and she was worried about him. (A distraught speaker Kirkpatrick also told police she fears for his mental health.) Steven Brooks yelled at officers for illegally searching his vehicle. They explained they were doing an inventory of personal property. He yelled he's an assemblyman and they were violating his rights.

----Brooks ultimately directed the cops to a .357 Smith and Wesson with 41 live rounds of ammo, one used, in a shoebox in his trunk. He told police he had the gun because he was at the NRA shooting event that day. (He was not, as the police later discovered.)

Ralston has also been tweeting from the North Las Vegas Police press conference. And so far, police have been confirming all these details and more. And because of Brooks' elected position, this case has been referred to the Nevada Attorney General's office.

If all of this is indeed true, then Carson City truly (and literally) dodged a bullet. Nonetheless, it's still frightening to think of how close we could have been to enduring a homegrown massacre here in Nevada.

Last week, a pair of Virginia legislators demonstrated how people can obtain firearms without submitting to any background checks. Believe it or not, this regularly happens. "Private sales" currently have no requirement for background checks in most states.



We still don't exactly know how Steven Brooks obtained his .357. But if he indeed has endured a mental health breakdown and he indeed was planning to use it to assassinate his fellow legislators, it's frightening to think of how easy it is for virtually anyone to obtain firearms. Is this smart? And is this sustainable?

Earlier this month, Retired General Stanley McChrystal explained why he thinks America must rethink gun safety.



And perhaps Nevada can learn some important lessons on gun safety from this Steven Brooks scandal. Again, this simply is not conducive to our democracy. Our democratic system can not survive if people are too afraid to participate in the marketplace of ideas & public policy. Nevada legislators should keep this in mind this session... Along with Harry Reid and Nevada's other Members of Congress.

First Thoughts on Steven Brooks Affair

With only two weeks to go until the Nevada Legislature returns to session, there's been plenty of talk about the coming agenda in Carson City. Was anyone expecting this? Really, what happened here?

Steven Brooks, the Democratic assemblyman arrested for threatening the Democratic leader, said he plans to come to Carson City this week, setting up a potentially tense situation as the Legislature prepares to review the state’s budget Tuesday night.

“I’m innocent,” Brooks told Las Vegas journalist Jon Ralston. [...]

Brooks, 40, told Sen. Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas, that Kirkpatrick’s “first day as speaker would be her last,” according to a source speaking on the condition of anonymity. Police arrested Brooks without incident Saturday one count of intimidating a public officer by threat of physical violence. A source said he was found with a loaded gun. Atkinson did not respond to requests for comment. [...]

Caucus members and staff declined to comment on Monday, describing the situation as tense and fluid. Brooks had been unhappy he was not named chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. One lawmaker confirmed that Brooks had been trying to gather votes about two to three weeks ago to replace Kirkpatrick.

I'm shocked. I perhaps shouldn't be, yet I still am. Either Steven Brooks actually threatened the life of Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick, or this is the most bizarre misunderstanding we've ever witnessed.

Legislature police are now on alert in Carson City. Obviously, they want to prevent any violent incident there this week. And Brooks is set to arrive there today for a press conference... Then attend hearings.

So how did it come to this? Here's what Jon Ralston has so far.

I have confirmed that state Sen. Kelvin Atkinson informed Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick of the threat from Brooks, who had been telling people that Kirkpatrick's "first day as speaker would be her last." [...]

I am also told by several sources that Brooks' behavior had been described as bizarre and irrational by several people who interacted with him during the last few weeks. "The situation has been escalating for the last 30 or 40 days," one of his colleagues told me.

The story gets even more bizarre, too, I am told: After the police were contacted, Brooks himself called the cops and told them gang members were after him. The police did not find him at home but apprehended him at a traffic stop.

As I write below, Brooks had been looking for votes (unsuccessfully) to depose Kirkpatrick on the first day of the session two weeks from Monday and thus get appointed to the chairmanship of Ways and Means he so coveted. But whether that escalated to a physical threat, as Atkinson apparently believed could occur, will be interesting to watch. But having a loaded gun in his possession along with the number of people who knew of his animus toward the speaker will not help Brooks.

One more ironic note: This arrest came several hours after an NRA-training session for lawmakers in Las Vegas. Brooks did not attend.

Indeed, Steven Brooks was not sighted at the NRA lobby day in Las Vegas.

This incident raises many questions. Did Brooks indeed do this? Does he have a history of mental health problems? And what was he doing with a fully loaded gun?

This comes back to what gun safety advocates have been trying to explain all along. While we don't want to jump to conclusions on Brooks' case, what we've heard so far illustrates the danger of both the lack of access to mental health care and the startling access to weapons.

Sadly, this isn't a completely isolated incident. Across the country, we've seen quite a few startling incidents as of late. We've seen guns in schools, loaded guns in shopping malls, and even casually doled out threats of violence against Members of Congress. And we're supposed to believe we don't have a gun safety problem?



To be fair, just new gun safety laws won't solve everything. We need a comprehensive approach. We need better mental health care. And we must rethink the violent nature of our present culture. When did it become OK to make all these death threats? A democracy can't function like this.

Perhaps Speaker Kirkpatrick and other legislators will keep all of this in mind as they return to business in Carson City.

Farewell, Assembly Member Mastroluca.

Last night, everyone was shocked. Hardly anyone was expecting this.

April Mastroluca [D-Henderson], a Democratic assemblywoman poised to play a key role in the 2013 Legislature, will send a letter to Gov. Brian Sandoval on Friday announcing her resignation.

The stunning move comes after the potential Ways and Means chairwoman decided, she says, that she could no longer serve because of what she described as family issues. She declined to elaborate, but she sounded shaken during a phone conversation. [...]

"This has been a difficult decision," Mastroluca told me. "I have struggled with it for weeks. But I have to put my family first."

There was early speculation that this involved a possible conflict of interest with her day job with national PTA, but that's looking increasingly unlikely. Rather, this probably involves some kind of family tragedy. It's very saddening and unfortunate.

Mastroluca tended to be a rare "straight shooter" in the Legislature who said what was on her mind and cut through the BS. She was especially passionate about education, children's, and women's issues. And she was already set to play a huge role in the 77th session as the incoming Assembly Ways and Means Chair.

Clearly, these are some big heels to fill. But already, there's plenty of speculation on who will replace her. Remember that the Clark County Commission will officially do so. Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) was hoping the Commission would take care of this next Tuesday, but the state open meeting law (requiring a three business day advance notice of agenda) won't allow for that. Yet even though the next scheduled meeting will be December 18, the Commission may call a special meeting earlier to appoint a replacement.

Remember that under state law, the Clark County Commission must appoint another Democrat who lives in Assembly District 29 to replace Mastroluca. So now, all political eyes turn to Henderson as discussion ramps up on who will replace April Mastroluca. All I can say right now is that so far discussion is centered around a few women involved with the Henderson Democratic Club and Emerge Nevada (an organization that cultivates Democratic women to run for office). Mastroluca herself, along with Speaker-in-waiting Kirkpatrick, will likely have a hand in choosing her own replacement.

Right now, most everyone is still in shock over the turn of events in the past 24 hours. And many hearts have been going out to April Mastroluca and her family. But of course, politics can't be put aside forever. And this weekend, we'll be hearing more about this new race to fill her vacant Assembly seat. Let the games begin.

Ross Miller's Shocking "November Surprise"

On Tuesday, we had to work through a whole lot of confusion regarding Ross Miller's voter ID proposal. Since then, we've been seeing some surprising reactions in and around Carson City. On one hand, Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey (R-Reno) seemed to like at least the concept of Miller addressing voter ID. Governor Brian Sandoval (R) also seemed to warm up to at least the concept of tackling voter ID next spring.

But on the other hand, at least some Democrats still have serious reservations about even debating the subject in Carson City next spring. Incoming Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) gave Jon Ralston a public statement expressing her doubts of the merit of this proposal.

Speaker-to-be Marilyn Kirkpatrick tells me she is not exactly excited by Miller's idea: "We don’t have that kind of money to solve a problem that doesn’t exist."

Although Kirkpatrick is so far the highest profile Democrat to publicly take a critical eye to Miller's proposal, she's not the only one who's been complaining about it.

Perhaps this is why Ross Miller went on Ralston's show. Even with his thorough explanation on Twitter on Tuesday, he still needed to clear the air. Yet even last night, Ralston still had serious doubts.



And frankly, I'm still trying to sort this out myself. So there's a "perception problem" with the public when it comes to voter fraud. And Ross Miller's proposal aims to properly nip that perception problem in the bud. And not only that, but he wants to do so without disenfranchising any legal voters. So what's wrong with this?

As Marilyn Kirkpatrick suggested, the key problem looks to be this quest to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. We all know "voter fraud" (as in impersonating voters and/or trying to cast multiple ballots) is incredibly rare, and that it's virtually always caught in time. Whenever a report surfaces of someone trying to commit this type of fraud, we know the system works because this person was caught in time. So why is there a rush to spend a whole lot of money on "a solution in search of a problem"? And in implementing this "solution", might it actually create new problems by creating new burdens for many thousands of Nevada voters?

Is it due to the perception of "fraud"? Or is there more to this story? There have been whispers for some time about the "tea party" lobby going all in to push for the kind of voter ID law that actually would suppress legal voters. Is this Ross Miller's way of being proactive in preventing real voter suppression?

That's why Minnesota's Secretary of State introduced his alternative voter ID proposal (which is where Ross Miller is drawing inspiration from). However, it was still not enough to stop the then Republican controlled Legislature from putting their preferred voter suppression/voter ID bill on the November ballot. But in the following months, everyone in St. Paul encountered a huge surprise: voter ID lost at the ballot box. Apparently as progressive organizations were educating voters about the ramifications of this bill, support dropped.

So can the same happen in Nevada? That's probably what's on a lot of people's minds right now. Is it better to address the perception of fraud and simultaneously prevent any real voter suppression? Or would this bill just add unnecessary costs and complications to the election process without really accomplishing anything?

Without a doubt, Ross Miller's bill is turning out to be "The November Surprise" that will be shaking up Carson City in the new year. I can't wait to see what happens when this finally lands in state legislators' hands.