He also will ask the Nevada Legislature to begin charging Medicaid patients a co-payment for health care visits.
“It’s a co-pay. It’s going to be a small one,” he said. “But I believe that is the appropriate way to go on this.”
Really? Really?
There's a reason why people need Medicaid. They're poor. And yes, some Nevadans are so poor that they can't afford any kind of health care after paying the bills for everything else (housing, food, utilities, etc.). Medicaid is supposed to provide a way for the poor to access health care they otherwise can't afford. There's a reason why it's not like a HMO.
Bob Fulkerson, executive director of the Progressive Leadership of Alliance, praised Sandoval’s decision as “humane.”
“It’s the right direction that we need to go in Nevada, and we commend him for pointing us in that direction,” he said.
But he had strong words for a co-pay.
“The reason they’re on Medicaid is because they’re broke. They have no money,” said Fulkerson, who supports higher taxes on Nevada’s mining and casino industries.
“We can’t ask the poor in this state to pay any more,” he said. “That’s what this state does. We soak the poor.”
I can sense why Sandoval is trying this. He wants to "split the difference" with conservatives and make it seem like he's "finding the right balance" on Medicaid. But again, the problem here is that it's inherently unfair to keep demanding more from the working poor while continually defending bailouts for multinational corporations and the super-wealthy in our tax code.
As we've discussed before, expanding Medicaid won't really cost Nevada as much as rejecting this program would have. In the long run, expanding access to health care like this will save the state money. So why screw it up just to "soak the poor"?
What's so grotesquely funny about this is that Sandoval continues to say he wants "lower taxes". Yet in seeking this, Sandoval essentially wants to raise taxes on the working poor. If he's really seeking new revenue, why not just go about it the right way by asking those who can pay to start paying their fair share for a change?
“Though I have never liked the Affordable Care Act because of the individual mandate it places on citizens, the increased burden on businesses and concerns about access to health care, the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court,” Sandoval said in a written statement. “As such, I am forced to accept it as today’s reality and I have decided to expand Nevada’s Medicaid coverage.”
The federal government will pay 100 percent of the medical costs for the expansion for the first three years —resulting in $712 million in federal funding coming to Nevada. The state, however, must share in the cost to administer the program. And in four years, Nevada will begin footing the bill for a portion of the medical costs as well.
“That’s a massive leverage of federal dollars,” Sandoval’s budget director Jeff Mohlenkamp said. “Considering how much federal dollars we are leveraging, the cost (of expansion) is fairly small.”
The decision to opt into the Medicaid expansion will actually cost the state’s struggling general fund less than if Sandoval had rejected the expansion.
Because the Affordable Care Act mandates individuals to carry health insurance, officials expect nearly 70,000 low-income Nevadans who are already eligible for Medicaid to enroll in the program. That will cost the state $84 million.
By expanding Medicaid — to cover another 78,000 Nevadans — the state will be able to move some indigent mental health and substance abuse patients off state-funded programs and into the federally funded Medicaid, saving close to $17 million. That means the total expansion will cost the state $67 million.
Again, remember that the federal government pays all the medical costs for the first three years. And after that, Nevada will gradually be eased into paying for only 10% of the medical costs. So essentially, Nevada will only be footing a dime for a dollar's worth of health care!
And as we discussed before, by expanding Medicaid and fully implementing the Affordable Care Act, health care costs will fall for nearly all consumers. And economic activity will rise as a result of more investment in health care. So this truly is a win-win for everyone in Nevada.
And Governor Sandoval truly made the right choice this week.
Around this time last year, we reflected on "The Rise & Fall of the 'New' Nevada GOP". Early on in 2011, everything seemed to be going so well for Nevada Republicans. They had finally ridden themselves of "top of the ticket troublemakers", and they seemed to be turning a corner with fresh faces in leadership.
Well, that grand old elephant honeymoon didn't last long. And as 2012 began, that became crystal clear. What was supposed to be Nevada Republicans' special moment in the spotlight instead became a total train wreck. And what was supposed to be "Mitt Romney's big night" instead became #CaucusFracas2012.
Funny enough, he unintentionally pointed out the greatest weakness of Nevada Republicans. Ever since 2008, they've been obsessing over ideological purity instead of even attempting to show any real interest in governing. We saw it in 2010, when they embraced extremism and tried to shove the most radical US Senate candidate we've ever seen down our throats. And we saw it again last year, when they were more interested in playing political games than solving our state's problems. It's really all about their radical "tea party" ideology for them. And by making Mitt Romney embrace it, they're only sowing the seeds of their own defeat this fall.
Oh, and by the way, NBC News now officially projects Mitt Romney to win the G-O-TEA Caucus tonight. Wow. What a surprise! ;-)
But again, this "victory" is looking increasingly pyrrhic. As we talked about yesterday, President Obama is proving that his vision of economic recovery and rebuilding is one that really works. So what does Mitt Romney have to compete with this? Lies? Radical right extremism? Donald Trump?
My prediction actually did come true. For one, Rick Santorum managed to upstage Romney by turning a trio of supposedly "meaningless beauty contests" into a "game change" moment that forced Romney to actually compete for the Republican nomination. And while that ultimately wasn't enough to keep Romney from claiming the nomination, what happened in February forced Romney to run so far to the radical right that he made himself unelectable in the general election.
And if that didn't add enough insult to injury, this most certainly did.
The caucus process itself melted into pure chaos as voters were being turned away, counting turned into controversy, and out-of-state media looked in horror as the Nevada Republican Party began to unravel. But perhaps above all else, this was a major turning point for Nevada Republicans... As we saw the beginnings of "The Second Ron Paul Revolution.
So they succeeded in hijacking the Nevada Republican Party. They then failed at actually leading it somewhere (other than abject failure). We saw the writing on the wall back in May.
[... W]inning elections doesn't happen by just demanding "purity" and throwing a temper tantrum when that doesn't happen. Believe it or not, temper tantrums don't win elections.
This is something we often have to grapple with on the left, but now we're seeing this unfold on the right at a level that I've never seen before. As much as some grassroots folks on the left and the right love to see epic ideological battles unfold at party conventions and purge all "unsavory moderates" out of their respective parties, the fact of the matter is that doing that gets us no closer to winning elections. (If anything, that HURTS efforts to win elections.) While it's always important to promote the values we believe in and hold fast to them, we can't punish political parties for focus[ing] on party building while perhaps shirking "ideology enforcement" duties. After all, the first responsibility of a political party is to build the infrastructure necessary to win elections.
At times, we on the left have not seen eye to eye with Nevada State Democratic Party leaders. And yes, we sometimes get irritated when they seem to favor moderate candidates over "BOLD PROGRESSIVES!!!" However, most of us also realize that getting 70-90% of what we want is far better than getting nothing, so we leave Fantasy-land behind and return to the real world & return to working the field to win elections.
And this is why Orrin Johnson is panicking. Ron Paul's supporters care deeply for their libertarian beliefs, and they're set to accept nothing less than full fealty to those beliefs. But in pursuing complete ideological purity, they're also set to lose a whole lot of elections because they simply don't care about that stuff. This is why Nevada Republicans are in such dire straits. And it should serve as an important lesson to all the rest of us trying to balance ideological wishes with political reality.
Again, we could see what was coming. So while "The 'New New' Nevada GOP" focused on such important matters as worshipping at the altar of Ron Paul, the top money people, the "consultant class", and even the entire Washoe County Republican Party proceeded to obtain a "divorce" from "The Real Nevada Republican Party" in order for the RNC to "make it rain" on them. And while the Ron Paul Party succeeded in revering their "dear leader" in their own special way, Dean Heller and other top Nevada Republican politicians just ran away from the entire party.
That's why they could not stop this from happening. And that's ultimately why they could not stop this from happening. And that's why Nevada Republicans may be resigned to this for a while (longer).
Back in September, we noticed Nevada Republicans' glaring lack of field. The "power player" consultants ultimately opted to spend more on media advertising while "the real Nevada Republican Party" continued its increasingly time-honored tradition of extraordinary infighting. The few victories Republicans enjoyed on November 6 were more despite the party, not because of it.
So what will Nevada Republicans do to move forward? The above mentioned consultants are floating around the idea of some sort of "permanent Team Nevada" to circumvent the real state party. Others want to continue plotting a plan to finally wrest control from the Ron Paul acolytes who have been spinning the party out of control (perhaps because they're ideologically opposed to any kind of central control?). Meanwhile, the Ron Paul acolytes and their teabagger allies are already threatening primary challenges to Brian Sandoval and all other Republicans they deem "impure". So basically, get ready for another cycle full of G-O-TEA mayhem. [...]
But can Republicans ultimately remain relevant with this level of chaos continuing indefinitely? I have my doubts. It's just not sustainable to set up a "shadow party" to get out the vote, outsource other party functions (like sending mailers and producing yard signs) out of state, and allow "top of the ticket" candidates to continue running their own operations completely separated from the party while avoiding the actual party like the plague. Something's got to give. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the coming months as the Nevada Republican Party nears its final implosion (and first chance of actual rebuilding).
And this, my dears, is the sad and sordid tale of the Nevada Republican Party in the 2012 Presidential Cycle. We can only sit back, grab some popcorn, and see what kind of spectacular drama unfolds in G-O-TEA Land in 2013.
So we're already about 1/3 of the way through December. I'm sure you know what this means.
Don't worry. We'll keep an eye on breaking news and continually developing stories. We just may need to step back occasionally as Holiday Season ramps up.
Oh, and since it's pretty much become a tradition here, our "10 of..." series will return this week as we remember the 10 most riveting, "game changing", groundbreaking, and even surprising stories of 2012. If you have any suggestions,let me know.
So Happy Holidays, enjoy the season with your loved ones, and stay tuned to see what makes the "10 of 12" final cut.
This is the moment we've all been waiting for. It's finally here.
The Supreme Court has just announced in an order that it will take up the Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act cases for further review. The next step in the review process for both cases is a scheduling order, which should come soon, laying out the date for oral arguments at the Supreme Court, although the case will likely not be heard until the spring of 2013. The Court’s term lasts until June, so we should have final news by then on the fate of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in California. This decision means that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional continues to be stayed, and couples cannot wed in California.
In the cases involving DOMA, which prohibits same-sex couples’ legal marriages from being recognized by the federal government and therefore denies 1,138 federal rights and benefits due to those couples, the Court specifically chose to hear the CASE challenge, and will likely make no public announcement regarding the other cases until after it rules on DOMA’s constitutionality.
Oral arguments are expected during the week of March 25 (2013), and a final ruling is expected during the week of June 24. And I'm the mean time, we can expect plenty of speculation as to what the Supreme Court will do. While the Court tends to have a conservative majority, some court watchers think most Justices won't ignore growing public support for marriage equality, as well as the long and painful history of the struggle for LGBTQ civil rights.
“I don’t think justices get in this position very often because everybody knows what the judgement of history is going to be,” Lucas Powe, a Supreme Court historian at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law, told TPM before the court’s announcement. “I don’t think think anybody doubts that gay marriage is coming — it’s only the issue of time. This is one of those times where no matter what you think you know you’re going to be wrong if you oppose it.”
The Supreme Court has not weighed in on gay marriage, leaving the outcome uncertain, but earlier rulings in favor of gay rights give hope to proponents of marriage equality. The four Democratic-appointed justices are widely expected to strike down DOMA. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a presumable swing vote, has written passionately against laws persecuting gays.
“I think Kennedy’s vote is very secure,” Powe said. “I think there are comfortably five votes to overturn DOMA. … Kennedy has a libertarian streak — he has written the key gay rights opinions and I think he will continue to do so.”
Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, told TPM ahead of the announcement that “conservatives are probably afraid they will lose Justice Kennedy.”
And while Chief Justice John Roberts has a mostly conservative record and is thought to be a social conservative, some court watchers think his vote may even be in play because he will have his Court's legacy in mind. Will he want his Supreme Court to be known as the Court that stood in the way of a historic civil rights achievement?
Without a doubt, the next session of the US Supreme Court will be quite historic. What happens there in the coming months will determine how much longer we will have to wait before marriage equality spreads nationwide. And while it doesn't look like the Court will takeNevada's own marriage suit just yet, what happens in the Prop 8 & DOMA cases may very well determine the final ruling of our case.
It's not very often when I open the morning Las Vegas Sun and discover something truly shocking. Today is an exception. I nearly leaped out of bed when I saw this.
State regulators typically issue three or four permits each year for oil and gas drilling, but this year, they issued 13 by late September. With fracking growing more popular throughout the country, some companies have started to turn their attention to Nevada, said Alan Coyner, administrator of the state’s Division of Minerals.
No company has used hydraulic fracturing in Nevada, but some now want that option in their permits, he said.
Oil and gas producer Noble Energy plans to explore for crude oil on 350,000 acres it is leasing in northeast Nevada. The company, which gave the project a 55 percent chance of success, aims to start production in 2014.
Noble has not received a drilling permit but likely will seek permission for hydraulic fracturing, Coyner said.
So the fossil fuel industry is now looking to bring fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) to Nevada. So what is fracking? And why should we care?
Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing. It’s an extremely water-intensive process where millions of gallons of fluid – typically a mix of water, sand, and chemicals, including ones known to cause cancer – are injected underground at high pressure to fracture the rock surrounding an oil or gas well. This fracking releases extra oil and/or gas from the rock, so it can flow into the well.
But the process of fracking introduces additional industrial activity into communities beyond the well. Clearing land to build new access roads and new well sites, drilling and encasing the well, fracking the well and generating the waste, trucking in heavy equipment and materials and trucking out the vast amounts of toxic waste — all of these steps contribute to air and water pollution risks and devaluation of land that is turning our communities into sacrifice zones. Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we love and the climate on which we all depend. That’s why over 250 communities in the U.S. have passed resolutions to stop fracking, and why Vermont, France and Bulgaria have stopped it.
Still wondering why fracking is so "controversial"? Watch this and cringe.
Believe it or not, this is the reality of fracking. It really isn't pretty. And it definitely isn't safe. So why are Nevada officials even considering allowing this frightening practice to take root here?
Do we really want this here?
Contrary to the spin you hear from the fossil fuel industry, remember that fracking is extremely dangerous. And because then President George W. Bush exempted fracking from federal environmental regulations in 2005, there's no turning back if Nevada allows for fracking as there's no federal protection from the kind of devastation it brings.
What makes this even more insane is that fracking is a very water intensive practice. And remember that especially Northern Nevada has been hit quite hard by extended drought. Do we really have the water to waste on this?
Why is anyone even talking about doing this? There's just no good reason for Nevada to even consider allowing fracking within our borders.
On top of everything else, fracking means more fossil fuels extracted. And that means more greenhouse gas emissions exactly when we can least afford them. With climate change already starting to wreak havoc on our planet, we just can't afford to continue our gruesome addiction to fossil fuels.
Just this week, a deal was announced for the City of Los Angeles to purchase 460 megawatts of solar energy from solar power plants slated to be built in the Moapa Valley and Boulder City. Nevada has the potential to truly shine with the development of a mean, green, clean economy. So why lose sight of this? And especially why forget this and look at allowing something as dangerous and devastating as fracking?
In case you were wondering if I totally missed this story, rest assured that I didn't. It's just taken me a while to have the time to finally get to it. But thankfully, Desert Beacon has already been on it.
A treaty needs a 2/3rds majority to be ratified by the Senate and Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) donned his tin foil chapeau to join fellow conspiracy theorists in the failure of the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Disabled. What could possibly have gone wrong with a Treaty based on U.S. statutes, negotiated by the Bush Administration, and supported by 300 disability advocacy organizations, 21 veterans organizations including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and the Wounded Warriors Project? What might be controversial about a convention signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126? Paranoia? [...]
Merciful Heavens, we (according to the Chamber of Commerce) must do nothing to facilitate access to business and commerce, or to enhance the prospects of persons with disabilities — if it might in any way encroach on the corporate bottom line!
So, with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) a disabled veteran of the Viet Nam War, and with former Senator and GOP standard bearer Robert Dole (KS) a disabled veteran from World War II looking on… Senator Dean Heller joined the Tin Foil Hat Crowd, while genuflecting to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and voted against ratification of the convention. Shame.
So for all the talk of a "kinder, gentler, moderate" Dean Heller, it didn't take him long to revert to his "tea party" ways.
What made that whole embarrassing display even more eye-popping is that it happened right in the thick of "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations. And Congressional Republicans seem to be toying with even more extremism. For goodness sake, US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) even filibustered his own bill to raise the debt ceiling!
Here's what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Badass) had to say about this.
“The Senate should pass Senator McConnell’s proposal to give the President the authority to avoid the knock-down, drag-out fight we had over the debt ceiling last year – a fight that caused the first-ever downgrade of this country’s credit, and cost our economy billions. Senator McConnell’s filibuster prevented us from having this vote today, but I will continue to seek an agreement to hold an up-or-down vote on his proposal to avoid another debt ceiling debacle.
“After leading three hundred and eighty five filibusters in recent years, Senator McConnell took obstruction to new heights by filibustering his own bill. Republicans’ obstruction and intransigence turned the last debt ceiling fight into a disaster for the middle-class. We should give American families the security of knowing we will never go through such a harmful ordeal again.”
Ouch.
But you know what? He has a point. Our country was perilously close to catastrophe last year. And why? Well, the teabaggers wanted to essentially force feed America extreme austerity and wreck the economy (even more).
So now, we may be back to this? Maybe not. And President Obama may have some new allies in preventing another debt debacle.
I’ve just learned that one of the most influential business groups in Washington, the Business Roundtable, is prepared to support a provision designed to dramatically minimize the possibility of another standoff now and in the future —one also supported by the White House. This is a step forward for White House efforts to prevent a 2011-style battle, which led to a credit downgrade for the United States, and widespread fears that the country would go into default.
Obama —who is refusing to negotiate over the debt ceiling again —supports a measure called the “McConnell provision,” a proposal pushed by Mitch McConnell last year to try to defuse the crisis. Under the provision, the president can request a debt limit hike, after which Congress can vote to deny the request by disapproving of it. The president can then veto that request, and unless Congress overrides that veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses, it is honored. The provision transfers most control over the debt ceiling to the President and makes it far harder for the opposing party in Congress to block hikes —meaning the constant threat of default, and the ability to engage in brinksmanship around it, are effectively removed. [...]
This underscores the rising determination among business leaders —many of whom are aligned with the GOP —to avoid a rerun of the 2011 debacle. Obama is aggressively lobbying these business leaders, publicly and privately, to make their opposition to another standoff known. And it appears that they are doing so. As Politico’s Ben White reports today, executives are privately beginning to coalesce around the McConnell provision as a means to that end.
The prospect of another debt ceiling fight puts the House GOP in an interesting spot, pitting its Tea Party wing against more pragmatic GOP-aligned interests in the business community. While the former will be spoiling for another fight, the latter appears far less willing to see the country dragged through another deeply damaging round of debt ceiling brinksmanship —with the full faith and credit of the United States, and the economy, at stake —this time around.
At least some corporate types are not stupid. They know the ramifications of another extended budget brawl, debt debacle, and "Fiscal Cliff" dive. But with other corporate funded "Tea Party, Inc." astroturf outfits demanding ideological purity "or else", Republicans are in a bind.
Perhaps this is best reflected in the recent words and actions of Dean Heller. On one hand, he talks of "coming together" for "bipartisan solutions". But on the other hand, he still votes with teabaggers' craziest wishes in mind.
So what will he ultimately do? And what will his fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill do? Republican leaders know they have to reach a deal soon to save face. But at this point, will any deal be accepted by the "TEA" fueled base?
[State Senator Ben] Kieckhefer [R-Reno] was particularly concerned about the Medicaid data, saying that if Sandoval decides not to propose expanding Medicaid to the new eligible population, then the budget data collected to provide background on this item of special consideration might never be provided to lawmakers or the public. Kieckhefer said he would have a problem if that information was never made public.
Sandoval is not expected to announce his decision on expanding Medicaid until his State of the State address in January.
Legislative Counsel Bureau Director Rick Combs said today he again asked the Sandoval administration for the budget information last week.
In an email, he said in part: “I was told that they were hoping to have a response for me last week. I haven’t heard anything from them about it since. We have not received access to the Items for Special Consideration, so we are unable to review it or provide it to the public.
“The (LCB) Legal Division has looked into it and believes that the law requires the Governor’s Office to provide to us and make available for the public the requests that agencies made for the upcoming biennium,” Combs said. “We believe it was the intent that the Legislature and the public have access to what the agencies requested rather than only a portion of what the agencies requested.”
But again, Sandoval refuses to make this information public. Rather, he's now making excuses for keeping secrets. And he's not handling criticism well.
Sandoval said it would be "irresponsible" to release those requests, called “items for special consideration,” which exceeded the state budget office’s spending cap.
"I won't go so far as saying it's speculative, but I can't answer what will be funded or not until I know exactly what caseloads are going to be or presented," he said. [...]
"Why would I give you a figure that's not accurate?" Sandoval asked reporters after a Board of Examiners meetings in the Capitol. "I'll give you a number and if it's not right you're going to turn around a week later when I get a better number and say I was wrong."
So now what's legal is "irresponsible"? Really, "Governor Sunny"?
We all know budgets can change. As economic data and tax collection figures continue to trickle in, adjustments may have to be made. That's governing.
What isn't good governing is ignoring state law and showing complete & utter disrespect to both the legislative branch and the people. Legislators need to know what state agencies need to properly function, not another Sandoval press release boasting about how "fiscally prudent" he is. And we the people have the right to know what's in those public (!!!) agency requests.
Jon Ralston is livid... And for all the right reasons. What about our right to know?
This is part of an ongoing attempt by a potent executive branch to erode what’s left of legislative authority. As one longtime capital observer reminded me, “Over the past several sessions, governors have been trying to avoid releasing too much information concerning agency requests, and putting limitations on direct communication between those heads and the Legislature or its staff (in the Gov's defense, you want to speak with one voice, and can't have agencies lobbying for their programs contrary to the Gov's decisions concerning the budget). One way to do this is to have agencies submit proposed budgets with strict limitations, then separately request ‘wish list’ items (aka ‘items for special consideration’).”
The net impact of this is to hide –yes, hide – from the Legislature and the public what agencies have requested, only allowing the superior caste, a k a the Executive Branch, to see what the governor has recommended. By using Orwellian redefinitions of what is an agency request, required to be put on public display by that law, and then restricting gubernatorial staff communication with lawmakers, as that one observer put it, “You have no ability on the part of the Legislature or its money committees to evaluate alternatives to the Governor's proposed budget.”
You don’t need a law degree to see that eviscerates the law – and may violate the Open Records Law, too; you don’t need a keen sense of right and wrong to see which side the governor has decided to come down on.
I truly do wonder what [the late Bill] Raggio, a stickler for tradition and keeper of the institution, would do if he were alive. Whatever action the master would have taken to short-circuit this not-so-sunny proposal, I hope the current legislative leadership does it. And if they won’t, the media should consider going to court to force the governor to be transparent.
This truly is frightening. As we were asking yesterday, what's he hiding? And why is hiding it? We the people have the right to know. And state legislators have the duty of obtaining all data necessary to make smart decisions on the next state budget. We don't need any more excuses from Brian Sandoval. We just need the budget requests.
There's certainly been plenty of speculation regarding "the t word" and just how seriously it will be considered in Carson City next spring. But while we wait for that, the Nevada Supreme Court will decide the fate of The Education Initiative. Earlier today, the court heard oral arguments. And believe it or not, progressives wanting real tax reform may (again) have reason to hope.
Justice James Hardesty, however, showed little patience for the game of hypotheticals, questioning how many possible scenarios need to be included in the 200-word description of what the initiative petition would do if enacted.
He questioned whether [anti-Education Initiative lawyer Josh] Hicks’ argument relied on “a hypothetical that the Legislature will or won’t do something with that extra billion bucks.”
“Where does this end,” Hardesty said. “I think these hypotheticals just go on forever.”
The lawyer for the education initiative, Frank Flaherty, also argued Hicks was relying on simple “speculation.”
I've always found the anti's argument as a silly Catch 22. So by obeying the law and abiding by the single subject rule, The Education Initiative is deceptive and violates the law? Seriously, is this their entire case? I'm glad I'm not the only one finding this ludicrous.
The latest credible estimates have shown the initiative capable of raising an additional $800 million if passed. It may ultimately raise as much as $1 billion for Nevada schools. And since it's asking the largest corporations doing business here in Nevada to pay something closer to their fair share, it's polled quite well. As I've suggested before, this may be the real reason why it's being challenged in court.
But at least now, the Nevada Supreme Court has actually heard both sides of this case. And a ruling will likely be issued well before the Legislature wraps up next year. And if the Court decides to overturn Judge James Wilson's ruling that invalidated the initiative, then the Legislature will have to consider it in the 77th session. And if the Legislature fails to approve the proposal within 40 days, the initiative will go directly to voters in 2014.
Much has been said about a Japanese martial art known as Jiu-jitsu. It helps to know what one is speaking of.
Jujutsu is a Japanese martial art and a method of close combat for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon or only a short weapon. [1][2] The word jujutsu is often spelled as jujitsu, ju-jitsu, jiu-jutsu or jiu-jitsu.
"Jū" can be translated to mean "gentle, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding." "Jutsu" can be translated to mean "art" or "technique" and represents manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force. [1] Jujutsu developed among the samurai of feudal Japan as a method for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon, or only a short weapon. [3] Because striking against an armored opponent proved ineffective, practitioners learned that the most efficient methods for neutralizing an enemy took the form of pins, joint locks, and throws. These techniques were developed around the principle of using an attacker's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it.
And it most certainly helps to know how to practice it. We know Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) has incredible MMA skills. So is it possible that he's now putting those to use in pursuing election reform? Doug Chapin from the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs seems to think so. In fact, he's now calling Ross Miller's proposal "Election Geek Jiu-jitsu"!
I'm not sure that the issues of cost and lack of fraud are enough to kill the proposal, however. Indeed, it looks to me like Miller's goal in making this proposal (and spending the money) is not to prevent fraud but rather to end the voter ID debate in a way that simultaneously improves the state's election process.
By itself, ending the voter ID debate is a huge boon for states. I can't even begin to imagine how much time and money was spent legislating, litigating and fighting about voter ID in the last election cycle alone; this bill essentially settles the argument at what might end up being a fraction of the cost. Moreover, the electronic poll books the state is proposing are popular with local election officials like Clark's Lomax, who are looking to upgrade from the traditional printed poll books, and activists like Ramirez, who are tired of their voters becoming Election Day pawns in the voter ID battle.
Viewed from this angle, Miller's proposal could be described as an effort to use the momentum on voter ID to enact other desirable changes in Nevada's election system. Indeed, you could call it a kind of jujitsu, the martial art that "uses an attacker's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it."
I know this is something we already explored here earlier this week, but I think it's worth exploring some more due to the ongoing confusion over Miller's idea. And since Doug Chapin is from Minnesota, where this idea originated and where progressives are still battling radical right demands for voter suppression, he has some good insight on what this is really about.
This may indeed be a brilliant strategy to secure progressive election reforms that otherwise would never be considered. Elections officials have wanted to replace those printed poll books with something more 21st century for some time. But because of the ongoing budget brawl and more pressing funding demands, they've been left in the dust. This may indeed be the best, and perhaps the only, way for Ross Miller to deliver the goods and upgrade our antiquated system.
And as we've discussed before, this may very well solve logistical problems that have stood in the way of expanding voter participation. How can extreme "tea party" outfits keep challenging and intimidating legal voters if poll workers can instantly verify those voters? And how can those same outfits continue arguing against reforms like same-day voter registration if the equipment is available to register and verify those new registrants right on the spot?
What may be tricky is execution. Can poll workers be transformed into IT professionals? Will poll workers be able to handle voters whose looks may have changed since the last time they checked in with the DMV? And will the technology ultimately work? These are questions that may be worth exploring some more.
And of course, there's another matter hampering this, a matter that Doug Chapin should have perhaps took into stronger consideration. Remember that our state government is notoriously cheap. And because Carson City is gearing up for yet another extended budget brawl, who really has an appetite to "spend money on a nonexistent problem", as both Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Mo Denis have put it?
And it's still unclear as to Pat Hickey's true motives in talking up Miller's bill. Is he really considering supporting it? Or is he just (mis)using it to drive a wedge between Ross Miller and Democratic Legislature leaders? May he also be (mis)using this bill to simply muddy the waters on the issue of granting some sort of driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants? This is certainly something to consider.
But without a doubt, there's a method to what has seemed to be Ross Miller's "madness". And as I've found out the hard way, there's more than initially meets the eye here. Perhaps Ross Miller can even turn all this angst and confusion over his proposal to his advantage by appealing to Brian Sandoval's and Michael Roberson's desires to score some "moderate" looking "bipartisan" achievement. And perhaps while he's doing that, he can figure out a way to ease Democratic concerns regarding his proposal.
So maybe this dude from Minnesota is onto something. Perhaps this is "misunderestimated" brilliance in political martial arts. We just have to see if and how it becomes practical good politics, as well as actual good policy, here in Nevada.
So far this fall, Governor Brian Sandoval (R-Mystery) has been quite elusive. Last month, he missed the Republican Governors' Association conference... In his own state! He still has yet to announce whether he will agree to fully implement the Affordable Care Act by expanding Medicaid. And he has yet to fully weigh in on the brewing brouhaha over election reform and driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants.
Perhaps we should expect this from a Governor who probably has his eyes on the prize of national prominence and an even higher level of political prestige. However, no one should ever expect this. So what's he hiding?
Gov. Brian Sandoval's administration is keeping secret millions of dollars in spending requests submitted by state agencies for the next two years, breaking precedent set by prior administrations and possibly violating state law, legislators suggested.
Indeed, even Sandoval held to the practice two years ago, submitting the so-called “items for special consideration” to lawmakers and the public well before releasing his final recommended budget to the Legislature in January.
This year, however, Sandoval has elected to publicly release only the agency requests that fit within strict caps he issued as part of his budget instructions, and not what agencies said they needed to properly operate. [...]
“I think legislators and the public should know what the requests are from agencies, what the real needs are,” said Sen. Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. “It puts our staff, and ultimately legislators, at a severe disadvantage to not have that information.”
And it's not just Democrats in Carson City asking this. Even some Republicans are wondering what's going on. The details in the Governor's budget proposal are almost certain to answer the question of what he intends to do regarding the ACA & Medicaid expansion. And one Senate Republican is clamoring to see for himself what's in there.
Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno, referred to the possible expansion of Medicaid, the state health insurance for the poor. It’s a provision under the Affordable Care Act which the U.S. Supreme Court said could be optional for states, and a decision Sandoval is still weighing.
“My concern is this: Medicaid expansion has been penciled out, calculated, but if it’s not part of the governor’s budget, (that information) would not be public?” Kieckhefer said. “I have a problem with that.”
And since Ben Kieckhefer tends to be a solid Sandoval ally in the Legislature, that makes his call for more transparency from Sandoval all the more attention grabbing.
Kudos to Elizabeth Crum for reminding everyone of this. What Brian Sandoval is doing is likely illegal. Nevada's public records law (NRS 239) requires disclosure of the executive branch's budget requests. And NRS 353 details what the executive branch is supposed to do when filing budget requests.
1. On or before October 15 of each even-numbered year, the Chief shall provide to the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau:
(a) Computerized budget files containing the actual data regarding revenues and expenditures for the previous year;
(b) The work programs for the current year; and
(c) Each agency’s requested budget for the next 2 fiscal years.
So what's he hiding? The Sun's David McGrath Schwartz speculates that what's hidden may be items as banal as new computers and cars for state agencies in desperate need of them. So if that's the case, why be so secretive about it? And why hide details on even more important matters, like health care to many thousands of Nevadans, aid to military veterans, and funding for public education?
What's he hiding? Why is Brian Sandoval playing fast and loose with state law to keep his budget a secret? Why won't he let legislators or the public see these funding requests? All he's doing is confirming the worst assumptions Nevadans have about their state government, which is that it's thoroughly corrupt and stubbornly unresponsive to the demands of the public. If Sandoval wants to change that perception, then he needs to come clean.
Last night, Jon Ralston had State Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas) and State Senator Ruben Kihuen (D-Las Vegas) on his show to discuss yesterday's startling turn of events. Believe it or not, we've seen even more twists and turns in the past 18 hours.
(Skip to 19:30 to start the Denis/Kihuen segment.)
Just as I had expected earlier, someone else is quickly jumping on this bandwagon. All of a sudden, State Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) also wants "driver's privilege cards" for undocumented immigrants. And he may even introduce his own bill for it!
On Tuesday, Roberson voiced strong support for a Utah-style driver’s privilege card for undocumented immigrants, adding that the Republican caucus may come out with its own proposal soon.
“A lot of immigrants in Nevada are on the roads now, whether it’s to get back and forth to school or get children back and forth to school or to go to work,” Roberson said. “The fact that these immigrants may be driving without a license or card and without insurance, I think we can do better than that as a state.”
So there's now bipartisan consensus here. So is all well? Not for Nevada Republicans. Chuck Muth eviscerated Roberson (again) on his blog last weekend for "Hispandering" (nice one, Chuckie) already, so he probably isn't liking this. And so far, other top Republicans in Carson City may be more inclined to side with Muth.
Sen. Don Gustavson, R-Reno, one of the Legislature’s most conservative Republicans, was dismayed by the idea of granting driving privileges to undocumented immigrants.
“I would not be supportive just letting people come in the country illegally and giving them a driver’s license. No!” he said. “It doesn’t make sense to allow them to come in the country illegally then give permission to drive legally.”
As we had discussed yesterday, the "tea party" base of the Republican Party has no interest in moderation. Hell, Chuck Muth is now vitriolically referring to it as "Hispandering"! And the likes of Don Gustavson and Pat Hickey seem eager to fight Roberson on this.
And speaking of Hickey, he stirred the pot some more yesterday by continuing his false equivalency argument for voter ID. As Mo Denis said above, there is a huge difference between utilizing resources to solve a serious problem (uninsured and unlicensed drivers on the road) and spending money to "solve" a nonexistent problem (as in the great "VOTER FRAUD!!!" hoax). But shortly after saying this, Denis announced something that probably won't sound like music to Ross Miller's ears. So now, both incoming Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) and incoming State Senate Majority Mo Denis have announced opposition to Ross Miller's election reform bill!
While Republicans are split over tackling legal status for immigrant drivers, Democrats are now split over election reform. And thanks to Pat Hickey stirring the pit, both issues are starting to look like a tangled mess. At least Denis and Roberson won't need Assembly Republican votes to pass some sort of legislation clearing the way for some sort of driver's licenses for immigrant drivers. However, Ross Miller will definitely need more Democratic support to pass his election reform legislation. And so far, top Democrats just don't see the need for it... And Republican meddling may very well be harming Miller's chances of coalescing Democratic support for it.
So far, the Nevada Legislature is looking increasingly "all shook up"... And it isn't even in session yet!
A little earlier, we were wondering if Nevada Republicans could really change by dropping the xenophobia that scares away Latin@ and other minority voters. Now, we're starting to get a better sense of the answer. And top Republicans probably won't like it. And they have one of their own to thank for it!
Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey, R-Reno, is considering supporting Nevada's proposed state-issued drivers license for U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Deferred Action program but is confused by State Democrat Leaders who are opposing a similar program to improve the quality of Nevada's election process.
Democrat lawmakers are currently drafting a bill that grants all residents, legal and illegal, a "Drivers Privilege Card," in hopes that it will make Nevada's roads safer for everyone.
"On one hand, Democrats are proposing photo IDs for illegal residents in Nevada in order to makes our roads safer," said Assemblyman Hickey. "If photo IDs are a good idea for illegal residents on our highways-then they should also be a good idea for legal ones in our voting booths," continued Assemblyman Hickey.
As if right on queue, Pat Hickey arrives to rain plenty of strong "TEA" on other Republicans' "No Really, We Like Latinos!" parade. Just as we had feared, the "tea party" base just won't read the memo.
And in case that was not enough, Hickey's enigmatic press release is fueling even more intrigue. Will Ross Miller's proposed election reform legislation provide enough voter ID to Pat Hickey's liking? Or is he still pursuing outright voter suppression?
The only thing that's clear at this point is that Pat Hickey is preparing to blow up the nascent effort led by Brian Sandoval and Michael Roberson to engage in Latino voter outreach... And look more "moderate" & attractive to the overall electorate while they're at it. And since Ralston is correct that Assembly Democrats won't need Republican votes there to pass a bill allowing for undocumented immigrants to access some kind of driver's license, this will probably just sting Republicans exactly when they wanted to start healing.
But again, there's another element to this story that can't be ignored. Just how much of a push will Republicans make for legislation aimed at voter suppression? Will Sandoval and Roberson really have an appetite for another "hot potatoe" issue that will likely drive more of a wedge between Republicans and minority voters? Will Ross Miller's proposed "electronic poll book" really satisfy the likes of Pat Hickey? Or will Sandoval and Roberson see Miller's proposal as a way to simultaneously save face while still seeming to demand some sort of voter ID?
Oh, and what will Democratic legislators think of all this Republican angst? And will this encourage or discourage them from playing ball with Ross Miller? All of a sudden, #NVLeg 2013 is becoming far more interesting.
Earlier today on KNPR's State of Nevada, incoming State Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas) spoke about a bill he and fellow Latin@ Democrats will be introducing next session to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain "driver privilege cards". This is certain to ignite conversation in Carson City next spring. However, what's really surprising about this is that Republican leaders have so far refrained from rejecting this. Governor Brian Sandoval (R) apparently even told Mo Denis he will "consider" this bill!
In fact, Republican leaders have already begun lurching towards this position. Last Thursday, Brian Sandoval made headlines by announcing the DMV will begin issuing drivers' licenses to those undocumented immigrants who qualify for "deferred action" (aka the "DREAMers" who would have been placed on a path to citizenship had the DREAM Act passed Congress). However, what was more shocking was State Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson's (R-Henderson) endorsement of this new directive. What was even more shocking is that other prominent GOP Senators joined Roberson in endorsing Sandoval's policy!
“These young men and women are living, working and attending school here in Nevada, and are doing everything in their power to improve their lives and the lives of their families,” Roberson said. “A driver’s license from the state of Nevada will aid in their ability to commute to and from work and school; will afford a sense of self-sufficiency; and will provide greater opportunities for thousands of Nevada families.”
Deferred Action, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a directive from the secretary of the DHS that grants temporary permission to stay in the U.S. to certain undocumented young people. Individuals who receive deferred action may apply for and obtain employment authorization. It is estimated that more than 20,000 young immigrants could benefit from this program in Nevada.
Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno, also applauded the policy: “This DMV policy allowing young immigrants living in our communities to obtain driver’s licenses will benefit not only the young people and families eligible for deferred action, but will also help strengthen Nevada’s education system and our economy at large.”
Sen. Joe Hardy, R-Boulder City, commented on the safety aspects of the policy: “In order to secure a driver’s license, an individual must obtain the proper knowledge and skill level to pass a test to ensure they can safely drive on the streets. This policy will not only provide greater opportunity for so many young people in Nevada, it will also make our streets safer by ensuring training for those who may otherwise be driving without a license or adequate preparation.”
We have yet to see if these Republicans also embrace Mo Denis' bill addressing those immigrants not covered by "deferred action". But so far, it seems like at least some Nevada Republicans are very publicly changing their tune on immigration reform. So why the sudden change of heart?
Basically, Nevada Republican leaders want to at least look like they're not so stringently anti-immigrant and anti-Latin@. And they're now changing their tune because they don't all want to experience the same fate that fell on Mitt Romney and Sharron Angle. Some Republican leaders are hoping that a "kinder, gentler" approach on immigration will fix their woes.
Are they correct? Not so fast. Matt Yglesias recently reminded us that the GOP's problems with Latin@ voters are not limited to one aspect of public policy.
Pundits are quickly turning to immigration to explain the Republicans’ Latino problem and to offer a possible cure, but the reality is that the rot cuts much deeper. The GOP doesn’t have a problem with Latino voters per se. Rather, it has a problem with a broad spectrum of voters who simply don’t feel that it’s speaking to their economic concerns. The GOP has an economic agenda tilted strongly to the benefit of elites, and it has preserved support for that agenda—even though it disserves the majority of GOP voters—with implicit racial politics.
Consider the GOP’s deeply racialized campaign against Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. What was so surprising about this—and I know I’m not the only fair-skinned English-dominant person with a Spanish surname who was genuinely shocked—was that conservatives could have easily opposed her purely on policy grounds. Sotamayor is a fairly conventional Democrat on constitutional issues, and that would have been ample reason for conservatives to criticize her. Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan was attacked on precisely those grounds. But rather than tempering opposition with at least some recognition that Sotomayor’s life story might be a great example for immigrant parents trying to raise children in difficult circumstances, the country was treated to a mass racial panic in which Anglo America was about to be stomped by the boot of Sotomayor’s ethnic prejudice. The graduate of Princeton and Yale Law, former prosecutor, and longtime federal judge was somehow not just too liberal for conservatives’ taste but a “lightweight” who’d been coasting her whole life on the enormous privilege of growing up poor in the South Bronx.
Polling suggests that the Latino problem for the GOP is deeper than immigration. John McCain got a scant 31 percent of the Latino vote despite a long record of pro-immigration policies. The best evidence available on Hispanic public opinion, a big election even poll from Latino Decisions and ImpreMedia, makes it clear that this is just a fairly liberal voting block. Just 12 percent of Latinos support a cuts-only approach to deficit reduction, and only 25 percent want to repeal Obamacare. Only 31 percent of Hispanics say they’d be more likely to vote for a Republican who supports the DREAM Act. This isn’t to say Latinos aren’t eager to see immigration reform, it’s just that the lion’s share have bigger reasons for rejecting the GOP.
So if Republicans really want to fix their problems with Latinos and other minority voters, then they need to engage in less "political window dressing" and more deep soul searching. However, this runs into what may be an even bigger problem Republicans now face. At this point, most of their base refuse to even consider the "political window dressing"!
Here’s what Iowa Rep. Steve King, who is already rumored to be a Senate candidate in 2014, tweeted out shortly after Boehner’s comments went public:
Obama voters chose dependency over Liberty. Now establishment R’s want citizenship for illegals. You can’t beat Santa Claus with amnesty.
-- Steve King (@SteveKingIA) November 9, 2012
And, while it’s easy to dismiss King’s voice as an isolated one, it’s worth remembering that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney adopted the position of “self deportation” for illegal immigrants during the presidential primary process for fear of being labeled insufficiently conservative by the GOP base. [...]
Six in 10 Republicans aligned with the tea party favor deporting illegal immigrants to their native country. A majority of “old school Republicans” —described in the survey as “more male, white educated and wealthy” in the Post-Kaiser findings —feel the same way. (For more on the various segments within the Republican party, check out this cool graphic.)
What that data suggest is that no matter what the party leadership believes should be done on immigration, there will almost certainly be opposition from within the tea party wing to almost anything that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country. And, in case you haven’t been paying attention to Republican primaries over the last few years, that wing of the party has a huge amount of influence in picking nominees.
So before the likes of Dean Heller, Brian Sandoval, and Michael Roberson can convince Nevada Latin@ voters that Republicans have changed for the better, they first have to actually change the heart of their own party. And so far, the heart of the party is still aligned with the likes of Sharron Angle, Kris Kobach, and Joe Arpaio in opposing any and all kinds of realistic comprehensive immigration reform. And with the likes of Assembly Member Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) still pursuing the very xenophobic anti-Latin@ legislation that doomed the political careers of Angle and Romney, it looks like Nevada Republicans have far more work to do to "fix the Latino Problem".
So Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller has been in the news lately due to his election reform bill. However, that's not all he's been up to lately. He's also pursuing a potentially groundbreaking development in campaign finance.
Remember this story from July? "Tea Party" astroturf outfit AFP Nevada had campaigned in a Democratic (??!!) State Senate primary in North Las Vegas, and the Secretary of State's office noticed that AFP had done so without complying with state disclosure laws. (AFP is notorious for keeping its donor list a secret.) So AFP landed in the hot seat.
Yet despite this, AFP continued campaigning in several State Senate races, though this time AFP campaigned in races where Republicans needed to win to flip control of the State Senate. Perhaps because AFP's campaign was rather clumsy at times, Democrats managed to retain control of the State Senate. But nonetheless, AFP likely violated state law again by campaigning without disclosing any financial reports.
Miller’s court case against Americans for Prosperity, a gigantic national conservative group founded by the Koch Brothers, could pull back the curtain on the organization’s donors. AFP spent a reported $33 million during Campaign 2012, according to Open Secrets. But, by federal law, as a 501C entity AFP does not have to disclose its donors.
To the Federal Election Commission, that is. But Miller’s case against AFP, using its foolish meddling in a Democratic primary, is like a sheriff in the Old West: You come to my town, you play by my rules.
Miller, who acknowledges there is no national case law, basically argues in a lawsuit that AFP cannot expressly advocate for or against a candidate and get away with not disclosing its donors under Nevada law. The local AFP chapter never registered as either a nonprofit or PAC, [thus] exposing the national organization to Miller’s suit. It’s a case surely being monitored by DC experts and one with potentially wide ramifications for campaign disclosure, which Miller has long advocated.
And in case you were wondering, here's the provision in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that AFP landed into trouble with.
NRS 294A.0025 “Advocates expressly” or “expressly advocates” defined. “Advocates expressly” or “expressly advocates” means that a communication, taken as a whole, is susceptible to no other reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate or group or candidates or a question or group of questions on the ballot at a primary election, primary city election, general election, general city election or special election. A communication does not have to include the words “vote for,” “vote against,” “elect,” “support” or other similar language to be considered a communication that expressly advocates the passage or defeat of a candidate or a question.
The spin crew at AFP Nevada still claim they did no wrong. But in examining the doorhangers, mailers, and other material they were sending to voters, it becomes quite crystal clear that AFP literature "advocated expressly" against voting for Democratic Legislature candidates. And since AFP Nevada engaged in this very activity without registering a PAC and disclosing its campaign finances, it's unclear as to exactly how AFP will defend its actions.
If Ross Miller succeeds in this law suit, Ralston is correct that it will have wide ramifications. AFP and other shadowy "Tea Party, Inc." outfits will have to think twice before campaigning. And they may ultimately have to agree to disclose campaign finances and show us the voters their donor lists. And if this happens, it will be a huge win for "small d democracy" as it gives progressives a path forward in challenging secretive big corporate money in a post-Citizens United nation.
