We weren't trying to be mean. No really, we weren't. It's just that Jon Ralston's fantasy of tax reform is just that: a fantasy.
And yesterday, the Washoe County Commission reminded us why it's a fantasy... And why we must come to grips with reality.
Commissioner Kitty Jung began to cry when she explained why she was for Assembly Bill 46.
“We just have to work on continuing to build on the momentum generated from this,” Jung said.
The proposed bill would have applied a sales tax increase of a quarter of a percent and 5 cents per $100 assessed in property values.
The Nevada Legislature passed AB 46 along with the "GovRec Budget" this past spring. And of course, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) signed both. The budget locked in most of the past two sessions' worth of cuts to an already underfunded public education system, while AB 46 passed the buck on raising taxes to better fund Reno area K-12 schools to the Washoe County Commission.
And now, most Washoe Commissioners seem to be content with dropping the buck. Is anyone actually surprised by this? Governor Sandoval did not want to be seen as a "tax raiser" (despite evidence to the contrary)... And neither do 3 of the 5 Washoe County Commissioners.
So where does that leave Washoe County Schools? Now, they're having to consider extra budget cuts. How lively (not).
It doesn't have to be this way. No really, it doesn't. It just confirms what we were saying yesterday. If we want change, we will have to do it ourselves by passing The Education Initiative (TEI) next year.
We've been hearing quite a lot on gun safety lately. However, we haven't often heard from those who have the most first-hand experience in the matter. That changed last night when Washoe County Sheriff Mike Haley (D) went on "Ralston Reports" to talk about the subject.
(Jump to 9:00 for Haley.)
I can't overstate how critical this is. This shows just how broad and wide support for gun safety reform truly is. And it always helps to have those on the front line, like Mike Haley, speak up and remind us of what's at stake here.
Harry Reid may very well be paying attention. After all, he's finally got the ball rolling in the US Senate. And as we discussed yesterday, it does include most of President Obama's gun safety agenda.
However, there is one thing missing. And it's pretty big. And some gun safety advocates are upset over this glaring omission.
President Obama asked yesterday why police officers should be outgunned on the streets. And he asked why weapons of war must be allowed into civilian environments. Believe it or not, this argument doesn't fall entirely onto deaf ears, especially beyond Capitol Hill.
So far, it looks like President Obama wants to fight for his entire gun safety plan. And that's music to progressives' ears. Salon's Joan Walsh likely isn't alone in demanding more courage from Congress on gun safety.
I’m tired of red- and purple-state Democrats getting a pass on gun issues because hunting, say, is popular in their states. Who could be more valuable than a red-state Democrat in telling hunters that Obama’s agenda won’t take away their hunting rifles? So I’m glad Obama’s demanding that Congress vote on an assault-weapons ban rather than letting leaders table it, as he did with other first-term priorities,even if that means conservative Democrats must take some tough votes. Of course, letting conservative Democrats crush an assault ban may also serve to protect them from the NRA. That’s allegedly why Reid is open to a vote on the issue. But it could have the unintended consequence of letting those newly motivated by Newtown single out Democrats who deserve criticism, or even a primary challenge, on the issue of guns.
Dianne Feinstein insists that she will push for her assault weapons ban bill, and Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who used to represent Newtown as a congressman, derided those who’ve declared that push futile. “Too many people in Washington want to eulogize specific pieces of gun reform legislation before the debate has even started,” Murphy told “The Rachel Maddow Show.” The time to act is now.
Let me be clear: I think compromise is crucial to getting new policy crafted, and if it turns out legislators can find common ground on a limited package of reforms, chief among them universal criminal background checks, I’d support that. Greg Sargent featured a fascinating interview with crucial GOP House Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia, who represents a purple district that went for Obama in 2012. Rigell is teaming up with another Republican, Rep. Scott Meehan, along with Democrats Elijah Cummings and Carolyn McCarthy, to push legislation to crack down on gun trafficking designed to evade background checks. Rigell also says he is open to universal background checks, though he is undecided. “I certainly see the merits of that,” he told Sargent.
Still, being open to compromise is different from suggesting that Democrats should stick to supporting only measures that they know have broad support. The point of leadership is to lead, and as we saw with gay marriage, when the president stakes out a forward-looking stance on a divisive issue, he can help bring people along with him. I’m glad he’s continuing to push for the assault weapon and large magazine ban, even as the serious sensible people of the Beltway insist it will never pass. Maybe he’ll surprise them.
Because of Newtown, we’re in a new era for gun control legislation, which doesn’t mean we’ll get everything we want. But it requires a new approach to political leadership and negotiation, and the president is providing it.
Certainly, it's a good start that Harry Reid is finally being proactive on gun safety reform. And definitely in this case, something is better than nothing. Taking action on expanding background checks, curbing illegal gun trafficking, and limiting magazine capacity can save many lives.
But let's not forget the source of the tragedies in Newtown and Aurora. The most common ingredient in these mass slaughters is a military grade assault weapon. And it doesn't stop there. In inner city neighborhoods, street gangs can outgun law enforcement with their assault weapons. This is a real problem.
Yesterday, early voting slowed down in Clark and Washoe Counties. In Clark County, the Democratic turnout advantage ticked down a bit to 16% (49-33). But in Washoe County, Democrats' turnout advantage actually ticked up to 2.5% (42.6-40.1). So far, Democrats have likely extended their raw early vote turnout lead to at least 30,000 statewide.
Here's what Bloomberg had to say about the general early voting trend here.
In two of the most competitive states in the U.S. presidential race -- Iowa and Nevada --Democrats are building a significant advantage in early voting. [...]
Thus far in Nevada, where an even larger proportion of the vote has been cast than in Iowa when compared to the 2008 vote, Democrats have accounted for 45.4 percent, according to the Nevada secretary of state’s office. Republicans have accounted for 37.2 percent and independent voters for 17.4 percent.
Heavily Democratic Clark County, Nevada’s most populous and where Las Vegas is located, has seen people registered with the president’s party cast 121,298 early and absentee ballots, compared to 81,512 for Republicans, through Oct. 27.
And their figures don't include yesterday's early vote totals. And in regards to the early vote totals here in Clark County, I have a theory as to why Democratic turnout was off a bit yesterday... And may remain lower today and tomorrow. Basically, look at where the early voting is happening. Yesterday, early voting started in Sun City Anthem. And for the next two days, there will be temporary early voting sites there and at Sun City Summerlin, Boulder City, and Mesquite. So long story short, Republican turnout is probably strengthening slightly because early voting is happening in Republican strongholds.
However, starting Wednesday we'll see temporary early voting sites shift more to East Las Vegas and North Las Vegas. So as long as Democrats turn out their voters there (in what are the big Democratic strongholds in the Las Vegas Valley), Democrats can still close the week, and early voting, quite well. We'll just have to wait and see exactly what happens this week.
Apple's comment on bringing the data center to Reno is as follows:
"We hope to build Apple's next data center in Reno to support Apple's iTunes Store, App Store and incredibly popular iCloud services. If approved, this project would expand our presence in Nevada and create hundreds of construction jobs over the next year, plus permanent jobs at the data center which will add to our existing total of nearly 400 employees in the state."
Steve Hill of from the Governor’s Office estimates the plant would bring 500 construction jobs in August. 230 direct jobs and 90 indirect jobs coming upon completion. [...]
Washoe County chairman Bob Larkin commented, saying:
"The Washoe County Board of Commissioners recognizes that, as a leader in the global economy, Apple has many choices worldwide for where they can locate and invest hundreds of millions of dollars, and the Board is extremely proud to endorse this project and be in the running to partner with them on such a prestigious economic development project. Having Apple in our community would put us on the global economic development map for other related industries.” Larkin continued, “This proposed high speed data center could bring hundreds of much needed construction jobs to our area in the coming months. In addition, Apple promises the investment of $1 billion dollars in our region over the next 10 years. The agreement to move forward with this project represents a watershed moment for our region's economic future."
Indeed, the fact that it was Apple seeking the tax breaks wasn’t publicly known until 8 a.m. Tuesday, less than three hours before the Washoe County Commission unanimously signed off on a deal worth $89 million in tax abatements over 10 years.
Apple won the county commission’s endorsement in a hearing that lasted a scant 20 minutes, during which no one testified in opposition or even rose to question the tax breaks.
Instead, the developer, Apple executives and lobbyists sung the praises of the project, and commissioners almost giddily endorsed the tax incentives before posing for a photo in the commission chamber with the businessmen who brokered the deal. [...]
[Reno City Council Member Dave] Aiazzi said Apple is striking at the right time, offering a recession-stricken community the prospect of high-paying jobs.
“If everything was good and the economy was great, we may not think this is such a good deal,” Aiazzi said. “But for the people who get the jobs out there, who are saying, ‘I need the money,’ for them it’s worth it.”
Let's be real here. If this were an everyday working class Nevada person getting a sweetheart deal like this, many if these same politicians would be aghast in horror as they'd be taking their queues from teabaggers screaming, "WELFARE!!!! WELFARE!!!!!" Well, where are the teabaggers to call out the corporate welfare that the State of Nevada, Washoe County, and City of Reno are about to bestow upon Apple? So "WELFARE!!!!!" is evil if it's a working poor family trying to survive in this rough economy, but it's A-O-K for a multinational corporation like Apple? Sorry, but this is the most blatant and disgusting double standard I've ever seen!
Let's be honest here. Apple struck while the iron was hot and took advantage of Brian Sandoval's willingness to cut any kind of deal to save face and show Nevada that "he means business". Apple wins in opening a new data storage facility and paying hardly any taxes on it, while California continues to lose in not being able to collect the corporate income tax it's otherwise owed. Nevada, meanwhile, continues to be satisfied with mere economic crumbs.
Now I can't completely blame local electeds in Washoe County for taking this deal. As I said earlier, something is better than nothing. And as long as our state's "leaders" continue to pursue these "quick fix" deals instead of taking the necessary long term action to secure long-term economic health, this may actually be the best we can get for now.
But looking forward, we must demand better. Think about it. While Sandoval's office is gushing over a data storage facility, where is the real tech innovation happening? Where is the real job creation happening? Where are the exciting tech start-ups happening? Oh yeah, that's right. Maybe California isn't that much of a loser, after all? And maybe Nevada will finally consider properly investing in our future?
