(We Must Return) Back to Basics.

(In light of recent events, we felt it necessary to revisit this. We dug through the cavernous Nevada Progressive archives to find this gem from May 2013. How is it we can afford corporate welfare for Tesla, but not taking care of our own people? And now, we risk losing federal SNAP funds because we can't get our act together.

Maybe we should consider taking care of our own people's needs before we cater to every whim & fancy of any multinational corporation that whispers sweet nothings into our politicians' ears?)

So Former Assembly Member Steven Brooks is back in the news today. Brooks was supposed to be at a court hearing in Las Vegas today. He couldn't make it... Because he was at a court hearing in San Bernardino County, California.

Here's what's happened so far.

The lawyer for a former Nevada lawmaker charged in a car chase and a police confrontation is asking that his client go through a mental health court program.

Ex-Assemblyman Steven Brooks appeared in a San Bernardino County, Calif., court Tuesday after pleading not guilty to charges stemming from his arrest March 28. Prosecutors say there could be a decision Friday on whether he's eligible for mental health court.

Mental health courts divert people into treatment programs and hold them accountable along the way.

Late in March, Steven Brooks was arrested in Victorville following a dispute with a tow truck driver in Barstow and a dramatic car chase with police. His attorney is now requesting for the California case to be transferred to mental health court. This way, he can finally obtain the treatment he needs.

At least there's a chance of Brooks obtaining the treatment he needs in California. Just before his latest arrest, Brooks sounded eerily prophetic in his final interview with Jon Ralston.

In four brief, surreal conversations, alternately heart-wrenching and frightening, shortly after he was expelled from the Assembly, Steven Brooks said he is "the assemblyman of sorrow," wondered why his colleagues "hate me so much" and declared he was going to "break the state" with a lawsuit worth at least $10 million.

Brooks was alternately angry, with expletive-filled rants directed at Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Majority Leader William Horne, despondent, weeping and saying he was checking himself into Seven Hills, a Southern Nevada treatment facility, and suicidal, saying he had no other recourse. [...]

"I'm the assemblyman of sorrow," he declared. "Why do they hate me so much? Fill in the blank: I'm so angry I could (blank) myself."

Brooks told me he was "on my way to Seven Hills to check myself into the hospital. He began weeping when I asked why, adding, "I have no other resort. I'm going to kill myself if they keep this up. I have nowhere to go. I'm the assemblyman of sorrow." [...]

"You know why they hate me? You know why want to kill me because I know all of their secrets."

No one expected what was coming next, probably not even Steven Brooks himself. Yet in an incredibly bizarre way, he warned us. Just days after Brooks was sent to jail in San Bernardino County, another former Nevadan emerged in California.

After The Sacramento Bee began investigating the mysterious Greyhound bus trip that landed James Flavy Coy Brown in Sacramento, the Nevada patient dumping scandal steadily grew. Now, there's a strong chance of Nevada facing law suits soon over improper discharge of mental health patients and transport of them out of state.

And now, outrage is spreading to a new state. Last weekend, ABC 15 Phoenix looked into the 100 cases of Rawson-Neal mental health patients bussed into Arizona. And while investigating, they may have uncovered yet another horrifying scandal in the making.

Mark Holleran, CEO of Central Arizona Shelter Services, says it's hard to track those patients down. He says "patient dumping" happens more than you might think. "It just shows you how it's very easy to do this, and it's sort of under the radar. It's hard to detect," he said. Holleran says a few years ago, former prisoners from Nevada got dumped at the shelter. "They had been provided a bus ticket, a small amount of cash, a print out of a Mapquest that showed them how to get to CASS. And written on it was, 'ask for Howie,'" he said. Holleran says these cases often end in chronic homelessness. He says that stretches resources in other states, like Arizona. And it passes along the problem, instead of fixing it. "That might be something we might want to take a look at. Because if we can solve it for one place, I think we solve it for all the places," Holleran said.

So now, Arizona officials are reporting cases of Nevada patient dumping. And not only that, but we may have also dumped former prisoners on them as well! How about that for being a "good neighbor"? One would think this would light a fire under the behinds of the Governor and legislators to fix this glaring crisis. Come on, we're now facing law suits and loss of federal funding! But no, they were too busy kissing the behind of Nicholas Cage. No, I'm not even making this up. And Ralston was downright revolted by today's lurid display of misplaced priorities.

James Flavy Brown can be shipped out of Las Vegas, leaving with barely his wits about him, some meds and peanut butter crackers. But the star of “Leaving Las Vegas” can be treated like royalty, with the mayor of Las Vegas as his sidekick, and an offer pending of enough taxpayer money to buy a peanut butter cracker factory. These are the Legislature’s priorities – cut mental health funding, ignore English Language Learner money but give tax breaks to those who need them least. Brown gets a bus ticket to anywhere while Cage gets a national treasure trove worth of goodies and Apple gets a 90 percent tax break negotiated by the governor. That is tax policy in Nevada. This is the state we are in. I wonder if anyone stops to think: We may get Cage ghost-riding on the Strip, with his production company soaring and a Vegas backdrop for movies. But what does it say if that fake scene is juxtaposed a few miles off-camera in either direction with real tableaus of packed emergency rooms, overcrowded classrooms and jammed thoroughfares. If this is part of a master plan, I’d like to see the drawing because it seems like a blueprint for disaster to me. What exactly is the policy articulated by this approach that allows $80 million to be cut from mental health services in five years but in one bill lawmakers are willing to give half of that amount [$35 million] to prospective Nevada-based filmmakers? Lest you think my heart’s bleeding cuts off circulation to my brain, I get the job-creating argument, the economic diversification argument, the image-changing argument. But why is it a good idea for government to give incentives to anyone – movie producers, renewable energy companies – if offcials don’t provide incentives for people to really want to live here by supporting the quality of life, a culture that values higher and lower education, a political class that leads rather than follows?

He's right about this. It simply doesn't make sense. Honestly, there may be some merit to encouraging more film production here in Nevada. But when we can't even take care of our own, who wants to risk shooting a movie here? Think about it. Why is it that we always hear that "we can't afford" proper mental health care, decent schools, and repaired roads, yet our Governor and Legislature always seem to be able to afford corporate welfare to shower upon multinational corporations like Apple that neither need the help nor deserve it? Think about that as well. How on earth does this lead to a stable economy for our state? And how on earth does neglecting the most vulnerable in our society lead to a healthy economy? It doesn't. That's precisely the problem. Our "leaders" in Carson City keep chasing after mythical economic unicorns while failing to provide the most fundamental building blocks of a sound economy. Sure, luring Hollywood to Las Vegas sounds sexy. But ultimately, that won't mean shit for economic development if our schools keep bursting at the seams, our hospitals keep stuffing patients onto Greyhound buses heading out of state, and our roads are clogged with commuters while paved with just as many potholes. We seriously need to pay attention to the rude awakening we're now receiving. We must get back to basics, and we must do so before it's too late.

Still Makes No $

Earlier this morning, we were reminded of the latest and greatest manufactured crisis to hit Capitol Hill. Never mind we still have over a month until Halloween, politicians and media pundits are already spooked. Even the high and mighty at the Federal Reserve and Wall Street are feeling the fright.

Even as we're seeing real crises develop around the world, The Beltway Pundit Class continues to obsess over the manufactured crisis that's ripping the Republican Party apart while causing jitters among economists. As we've discussed here many times before, it doesn't have to be this way. Yet for some reason, Congressional Republicans keep pushing us to the brink.

Last night, Desert Beacon had to debunk the spin coming from Rep. Mark Amodei's (R-Drama) office regarding his vote for fiscal insani-TEA. Of course, he claims he just helped the House "do its job". If he defines "do its job" as cause unnecessary drama, then he may be right. Funny enough, Rep. Amodei was the one claiming he was "tired of the drama" earlier this year.

This actually isn't the only fit of drama coming from Nevada Republicans. Over the weekend, Rep. Joe Heck's (R-TEA Curious) office sent a letter to constituents who asked about his vote to force millions of Americans to starve. Since July, he and other House Republicans have been on a mission to slash and burn the SNAP program that provides a critical lifeline to millions of food insecure Americans and our nation's economy. And once again, Rep. Heck is claiming his vote was to "reform" SNAP. He even claimed the bill provides $333 million more for soup kitchens!

OK, so what's so bad about that? Can't those pesky poor people go to soup kitchens? Nope, since soup kitchens and other private charities are already stretched beyond capacity due to post-Great Recession poverty and unemployment. An extra $333 million over ten years, or less than $670,000 per state per year, won't nearly be enough to take care of this. After all, House Republicans voted to slash $40 billion (!!!) from SNAP and throw them to already overextended private charities.

Rep. Heck also cited "fraud" as a reason to vote to gut SNAP, but the "fraud" claims he and other House Republicans cite have already been debunked. So why do they keep threatening the lives of so many Americans? Maybe Paul Krugman can explain.

[... L]ast year, average food stamp benefits were $4.45 a day. Also, about those “able-bodied people”: almost two-thirds of SNAP beneficiaries are children, the elderly or the disabled, and most of the rest are adults with children.

Beyond that, however, you might think that ensuring adequate nutrition for children, which is a large part of what SNAP does, actually makes it less, not more likely that those children will be poor and need public assistance when they grow up. And that’s what the evidence shows. The economists Hilary Hoynes and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach have studied the impact of the food stamp program in the 1960s and 1970s, when it was gradually rolled out across the country. They found that children who received early assistance grew up, on average, to be healthier and more productive adults than those who didn’t — and they were also, it turns out, less likely to turn to the safety net for help.

SNAP, in short, is public policy at its best. It not only helps those in need; it helps them help themselves. And it has done yeoman work in the economic crisis, mitigating suffering and protecting jobs at a time when all too many policy makers seem determined to do the opposite. So it tells you something that conservatives have singled out this of all programs for special ire.

Even some conservative pundits worry that the war on food stamps, especially combined with the vote to increase farm subsidies, is bad for the G.O.P., because it makes Republicans look like meanspirited class warriors. Indeed it does. And that’s because they are.

And even worse, Reps. Heck & Amodei have been voting to continue subsidies for several of their House Republican colleagues. So "welfare" is good for Republicans with "family farms", but not for poor people in actual need?

To make matters even worse, the House G-O-TEA budget plan offers even more painful austerity. It denies chemotherapy to cancer patients, preschool to children, housing to families, and help to domestic violence victims. Oh, and did I mention it (further) threatens economic recovery?

So now, we must ask this: Why are Joe Heck, Mark Amodei, and other House Republicans threatening the lives of so many Americans? And why do they persist in pursuing the same old economy busting austerity policies? Their prescription for economic ruin makes no sense.

SNAP Out of It

Yesterday, we looked at what seems to be the start of the gruesome death of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) legislation in Congress. Even though it's crystal clear that House Republicans are going out of their way to kill reform, they're nonetheless looking for someone else to blame (for their own inaction).

Unfortunately for Congressional Republicans, most Americans are not believing them. According to the latest Quinnipiac national poll, 51% blame Republicans in Congress for obstructing President Obama's agenda while only 35% blame President Obama for not cooperating with Congress. And on top of this, 54% support the kind of CIR that House Republicans are now blocking while only 28% (!!!) support the Mitt Romney/House G-O-TEA extreme deportation agenda.

Even conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks is horrified by this.

It’s beginning to look as though we’re not going to get an immigration reform law this year. House Republicans are moving in a direction that will probably be unacceptable to the Senate majority and the White House. Conservative commentators like my friends Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry are arguing that the status quo is better than the comprehensive approach passed by the Senate. The whole effort is in peril.

This could be a tragedy for the country and political suicide for Republicans, especially because the conservative arguments against the comprehensive approach are not compelling.

After all, the Senate bill fulfills the four biggest conservative objectives. Conservatives say they want economic growth. The Senate immigration bill is the biggest pro-growth item on the agenda today. Based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate bill would increase the gross domestic product by 3.3 percent by 2023 and by 5.4 percent by 2033. A separate study by the American Action Forum found that it would increase per capita income by $1,700 after 10 years.

And speaking of The Times, the editorial board penned a column putting into perspective the House CIR fiasco and the House's passage of an egregious "farm bill" that's all about pampering the super-rich with corporate welfare while soaking the poor

The House will refuse to consider a comprehensive immigration bill that could lead to citizenship for millions of immigrants, Republican leaders said on Wednesday, and will slowly and casually consider a few border-security measures that have no chance of passing on their own.

And, on Thursday, the House passed a farm bill that stripped out the food stamp program, breaking a pact that for decades has protected the nutrition needs of low-income Americans. It was the first time since 1973 that food stamps haven’t been part of a farm bill, and it reflected the contempt of the far right for anyone desperate enough to rely on the government for help to buy groceries.

These actions show how far the House has retreated from the national mainstream into a cave of indifference and ignorance. House members don’t want to know that millions of Americans remain hungry (in an economy held back by their own austerity ideology), and they don’t want to deal with the desperation of immigrant families who want nothing more than a chance to work and feed themselves without fear of deportation.

On both issues, in fact, many House Republicans are proudly asserting that they will stand in the way of any attempts to conduct a conference with the Senate. That might, after all, lead to a compromise.

So House Republicans refuse to even consider CIR, but they're willing to sock it to the working poor? What exactly are their priorities? Fortunately, Desert Beacon is here to point out what they just voted to do.

Representatives Heck (R-NV3) and Amodei (R-NV2) voted in favor of H.R. 2642, the Food Stamp Free Farm Bill, which passed the House on a 216-208 vote on July 11, 2013. Lovely. However, might I be excused for asking about the “Pro-Life” bona fides of the two conservative representatives from the Silver State when it’s laudable to decry a woman’s right to choose the medical procedures necessary to terminate a problematic pregnancy, or even to deplore the use of contraceptives  — BUT once the child is born it is equally laudable to criticize the profligacy of women who have “too many children” and therefore require public assistance to feed them?

That said, two of Nevada’s Congressional representatives have voted to cut food assistance to approximately 156,319 households in this state. [...]

What benefit has been slashed?  The average individual benefit in NV as of 2011 was $124 per month.   Who are the people assisted by this meager benefit?  71% of all SNAP participants are families with children. 26% of all Nevada SNAP participants are families with elderly or disabled individuals. 42% of all Nevada participants are WORKING.

The GOP’s stereotypical imagery of the food stamp recipient as a loafer consuming brew on the porch steps while “hard working” Americans underwrite his existence is just that — an marketable image for ideological consumption, a stereotype suitable for assuaging the I Got Mine You Try To Get Yours Sucker self-serving philosophy of selfishness.

Especially since the start of The Great Recession, many Nevadans of various backgrounds have been struggling to regain their financial footing. Programs like SNAP exist as a safety net to prevent these people from starving to death. And not only that, but SNAP also serves as a critical lifeline for the economy.

So why did Reps. Heck & Amodei vote to make over 150,000 Nevada households suffer? And will they demand that House Republican leaders allow a vote on real immigration reform? Both SNAP & CIR stand to benefit our economy. Is extreme ideological rigidity really more important to them than helping the economy?