Time for Us to "Face the Budget"

OK, so you've already been hearing plenty from me on the state of our state. So today, I won't preach at you again. Instead, listen to these fine Nevadans...









Then join Nevada Values Coalition in making their voices and our voices heard in Carson City! And remember to Click to Tweet so that all your friends on Twitter see this as well. Oh, and it may also be a good idea to send these videos to your legislators. Just saying...

Where Has the Dream Gone?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream. All too often, we don't talk about the entire dream. And all too often, we don't want to talk about our failures over the last four decades to get anywhere close to that dream.





So where are we? And what has happened to King's dream? When did the dream become this nightmare?









Not that long ago, it was easy to just laugh off "tea party" extremism as silly... But look at what's happened. And for far too long, questions of inequality have been placed aside. And as we wonder when our occupation of Iraq will end, when our occupation of Afghanistan will come to a close, and when another military invasion and occupation might ensue, we must wonder if we've become far too much of a culture of violence.

When did we forget this...



And embrace this?





What happened? What happened to Dr. King's dream? Where have we gone wrong in the last 43 years? Why are so many of our people still treated as "second class citizens"? Why do we never have the resources to help our people help themselves, but we somehow always have more money to wage more wars? Why have we become so violent toward each other?

These are the questions I have today. As six people have been buried in Tucson, our country is still mired in two wars abroad, Congress is set to debate (again) why we should or shouldn't have access to affordable health care, and federal courts consider whether queer folk actually have Constitutional rights, we need to ask ourselves what happened to Dr. King's dream... And how we can finally turn the dream deferred into the dream fulfilled.

(Failed) State of Cheap

Surprise! Nevada's "tax burden" is among the tiniest in the nation!

Nevada’s state and local tax burden ranks 50th out of 51, according to one study that includes Washington, D.C. A family of three living in Las Vegas with a $75,000 annual income had the 47th lowest tax burden compared with a similar family in each state’s largest city, another study found. More, we reportedly have near-bottom levels of taxpayer funding for welfare, education and parks.

Yet the political and policy debate in Nevada is all about who can most convincingly promise not to raise taxes. Both candidates for governor say they can improve education by better spending existing revenue (we supposedly rank 49th nationally on spending per pupil). All but a few liberal legislators deny that they will consider raising taxes to close the state’s $3 billion budget deficit. [...]

The Taxpayers Network said our welfare spending ranks 50th. We have the fourth fewest state employees. We rank 40th on parks and natural resources. And from 1998 through 2007, state spending per capita was among the slowest to grow.

Republican legislators such as state Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio of Reno declare that we have one of the leanest state governments in the country. But he’s still met by accusations that he’s a Republican in name only.

He said voters are the angriest he’s ever seen.

“People keep on being fed misinformation,” he said. “I don’t think they understand the true situation of what the tax burden is in Nevada.”

Of course. It's easy to listen to Sharrontology Obtuse Angle and "Where's Brian?" Sandoval and conclude we're being taxed out of our living daylights... But then these facts arrive, and we're forced yet again to face reality. Let me again dig up that something we've done nothing about for far too long.

1. Nevada is already the cheapest state in the nation -- for the size of the state's economy, Nevada spends less on state government than any other state.

2. Nevada's tax structure is already one of the most regressive in the nation.

3. Nevada is one of only three states without a corporate income tax or a gross receipts tax on business (the other two being the mostly uninhabited pseudo states of Wyoming and South Dakota).

4. Probably in no small part because of 2 and 3, Nevada's budget shortfall was already the largest in the nation even before release of the latest numbers revealing that the state is more broke than earlier projected.

5. Taken all in all then, proportionally, Nevada will now be cutting more money than any other state from services that are already funded less than in any other state.

Remember, Mr. Gleaner said this over a year ago. And now, this problem is even worse since we've had two more budgets slashing even more on essential services. So now the DMV is regularly running four day work weeks, other state agencies are following suit, local libraries and community centers and after school programs are being forced to cut hours even more, schools are facing dilemmas over laying off even more teachers and/or cutting days in the school year...

And we wonder why Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the nation? Why Las Vegas is woefully overdependent on the casinos? Why so many roads around town look like crap (and feel like crap when driving on them)? Why many neighborhoods around town have experienced "crime waves"? And why despite having the second smallest tax burden in the nation, businesses still aren't rushing to relocate in Nevada?

Come on, haven't we talked about this before? As long as we refuse to invest what's needed in our schools, our parks, our roads, and all in all our basic infrastructure, we will never succeed as a state. And as long as our state offers a not-so-well-educated workforce and limited community services, those new businesses won't come and we will continue to be stuck, overdependent upon casinos that aren't investing as much in our state as the global gaming sector expands and new opportunities in Macau, Singapore, Eastern Europe, Mexico, and elsewhere outshine what we once had to offer.

Jeez, what will it take to get our state to wake up and smell the napalm (of "failed state of cheap")?

The Facts on Sharrontology & Social Security

(Btw, as always, Desert Beacon gets even wonkier with more facts on Social Security and Sharrontology's factless drivel.)



So now, Sharrontology Obtuse Angle claims she isn't really for abolishing Social Security... Even though she is. And the media are chattering away about why we're not seeing more "open dialogue on reforming Social Security". Sound familiar? It should. George Bush tried this exact same tactic in 2005, and the corporate media were cheerleading it on until the waves of protests all over the country killed the proposal...

Or did it? It seems Sharrontology wants to revive it. And like Bush in 2005, she's using the same ol' "It's going broke!!!!" scare tactics to goad us into letting her throw starving seniors onto the streets to "fend for themselves" like they should in a "free market".

So here's the problem. Obtuse Angle isn't giving us the full story. Social Security is NOT "going broke".



I know, I know. It's not as dramatic as the "Oh noezzz, Social Security is BROKE!!!!" storyline you hear in the corporate media and you see parroted by radical right GOoPers like Sharrontology. But let's face it, there's no real "CRISIS!!!!" here.

And looking at the long-term funding issues, there are simple solutions that can be used, such as changing the cap on the Social Security tax (currently no income over $97,000 per year is taxed), simply stopping the constant raids into the Social Security Trust Fund (to pay for things like the Bush Tax Cuts and the Iraq War), and rethinking our budget priorities (hint: our military budget is over three times the amount of our Social Security budget). Again, I know this isn't dramatic enough for the media to salivate over like the discredited "Social Security MUST be reformed (read privatized)!!!!" storyline. But hey, isn't it better to look at real solutions to the real problems rather than get all dramatic over nothing?

And in Sharrontology's case, her favored "solution" would cause far more problems if implemented. You know how she and her teabagger army whine and scream and complain about "bailouts", even if they're nonexistent? Well, how do you think state governments would cope if Social Security were privatized, millions of seniors didn't rack up the savings Sharrontology promised they would, and the State of Nevada was left holding the bag for the feds' failure in ruining Social Security? Guess what we'd need: A BAILOUT!! Nevada would need at least $3.4 billion to fix the privatization hot mess, and the overall federal bailout to states would cost at least $601 billion!

Talk about Sharrontology's folly! And this is just the start...



You really want her directing your future retirement?

Thoughts on President Obama Signing Health Care Reform into Law

And just like that, we see a much needed overhaul of our broken health care system become law.

With the stroke of President Obama’s pen, his health care overhaul — the most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades — became law on Tuesday.

Mr. Obama affixed his curlicue signature, almost letter by letter, to the measure, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, surrounded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and a raft of other lawmakers who spent the past year on a legislative roller-coaster ride trying to pass it. Aides said he would pass out the 20 pens he used as mementoes.

The ceremony included two special guests: Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who had been a driving force for health care legislation before his death last year, and Connie Anderson, the sister of Natoma Canfield, the Ohio cancer survivor whose struggle to pay skyrocketing health insurance premiums became a touchstone of Mr. Obama’s campaign to overhaul the system.

Yes, yes, we know the work isn't over yet. Rather, it's just beginning.

The Senate still needs to approve the reconciliation fixes passed in the House on Sunday. We still need to fight the ridiculous lies and distortions coming from the radical right. And yes, we still need to make more fixes to this legislation, such as removing the unfair anti-choice provision hindering many women's abilities to make their own reproductive health care decisions, and adding a public option that will provide another better choice for consumers looking for quality, affordable coverage.

Still, this is quite the momentous occasion. Finally, FINALLY, the framework has been set for universal health care here in America.

And ultimately, The Sun hit the nail on the head in its editorial this morning.

This is a moral issue. Is it right that millions of Americans can’t get proper health care because they lost a job or were denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition like asthma or hypertension? Not that insurance is a cure-all. The number of bankruptcies due to medical bills is up, even for those with insurance.

The current system is broken. It costs Americans more than $2 trillion a year with costs growing at a rate of 7 percent. With the number of uninsured growing, the costs are increasing as well. When the uninsured go to the hospital, the cost of care is passed on to people with insurance through higher premiums and the taxpayers through payments for public hospitals.

The Republicans don’t seem to care. Instead, they have stirred people up and obscured the real issues in the hope they can win an election.

Contrary to what Republicans have said, the proposal in Washington ultimately would provide access to health care to nearly all Americans, including those who have been denied because of pre-existing conditions. The plan would give people who have lost their jobs the ability to buy affordable health insurance and it is expected to reduce many premiums. The legislation also provides relief for people on Medicare from the gap in their prescription coverage referred to as the “doughnut hole.”

And they're right about this.

Still, Republicans say they’ll work to overturn the legislation, and if this isn’t really about politics, shouldn’t they be consistent and work to overturn Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Affairs, which all provide government-supported health care or insurance? Of course they wouldn’t dare do that. It would affect too many voters.

The times call for political courage. Republicans would be wise to recall the words of Sen. Everett Dirksen, who led the party in the Senate during the 1960s and rallied his party to deliver the needed votes for key civil rights legislation.

“We are confronted with a moral issue,” Dirksen said in a speech to break a filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Today let us not be found wanting in whatever it takes by way of moral and spiritual substance to face up to the issue.”

Indeed. It is time to step up and do the right thing by passing health care reform.

I'd just add that I also want to see more Democrats show more courage in the future by working to make the improvements that I mentioned above. President Obama, Senator Reid, and Representatives Berkley and Titus should all be applauded for their hard work on health care reform and their success in seeing it to the end and passing this historic legislation. I hope they keep up the great work.

And the Republicans? Well, to quote Dina Titus, unless they change course and offer meaningful solutions on health care (and other issues, for that matter), they're f*cked.

So Health Care Reform Is Here: What's in It for Us?

So most of the health care reform package has passed, and we're just waiting for the Senate to pass the reconciliation fixes this week. So what's in it for us? Quite a bit, in fact. Here's a rundown from Crooks & Liars on which reforms take place starting this year.

Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday

Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions

No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage

Free preventative care for all

Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online.

While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.

Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.

The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.

Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.

Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.

AND no more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick.

All of these are quite important, and some will really come into use this year as they come online. I'm especially excited about the community health clinics.

Now all the other big changes, including the creation of the insurance exchange, the individual mandate, the employer mandate, and the affordability tax credits, will come online starting in 2014.

But what happens in the mean time? And what if Republicans are serious about their threats to repeal health care reform? No matter how serious they are, it's not very likely.

Conservatives have been hinting at a campaign to repeal the newly-passed bill for weeks. But actually having to run one is their worst nightmare. They never wanted to get to this point. They know that repealing the legislation will be far more difficult than passing it was, and by now, Americans fully realize how arduous the journey to last night was. At this point, repeal is fantasy.

For starters, Republicans simply don’t have the numbers in either chamber. It’s doubtful that even Democrats who voted with them last night, would support a repeal of their President’s signature achievement. Pelosi may have allowed a few members in difficult districts to sit this one out, but she certainly wouldn’t allow them to actively undermine her. Moreover, Republicans are far short of the requisite 60 votes in the Senate. And besides, its become abundantly clear over the past year that having the votes in the Senate is a very different proposition than having the party unity to exercise them.

More significant though is the political difficulty of arguing against the benefits of the bill, especially the ones that kick in early. Republicans will have to tell people with pre-existing conditions that their new ability to access coverage will be withdrawn. They’ll have to tell young people and their parents that young folks won’t be able to stay on the family plan. They’ll have to tell Americans that they’re fighting to allow insurance companies to drop sick people from their rolls once more. Those aren’t easy fights to have. Health care reform was much easier to dog before it actually becomes law. [Emphasis mine.]

Of course Republicans can argue that they’d repeal the package but reinstate certain popular provisions, but Democrats have two easy rejoinders. First, the country can’t afford to force insurers to keep people on their rolls without also expanding the entire pool of insured people. And without the cost cutting measures, the bill is just a spending bill. Second, after years of controlling Congress and not acting on health care, Republican’s [sic] don’t have a lot of credibility on the issue.

Need I say more? They had their chance to do something, but Republicans preferred to do nothing. So I doubt voters will trust them this time when they make empty promises to "start over" after they "kill the bill" that's now becoming law.

So most likely, the Senate will soon pass the reconciliation fix this week and the whole health care reform package should become law by the end of the month. Some benefits, like the exchange, will have to wait until 2014. Meanwhile, other benefits, like the community health centers, will be seen as early as this fall. And while this final package isn't perfect (we've talked about this extensively), it looks to withstand Republican attacks and start working for those who need help the most.

"No New Taxes"? Another Gibbons Lie.

Remember this next time the GOoPers wax poetically about how "Luv-Guv Gibbons" has "held the line against raising taxes!"

In his State of the State speech Monday, Gibbons said: “In this tough economy, we cannot ask our citizens to pay new taxes. They have nothing left to give. We cannot ask our businesses to pay more taxes. Many of them are struggling just to stay open ... I reaffirm my word to you tonight: As long as I serve as your governor, I will not raise taxes.”

Gibbons was asked by reporters after the speech whether he would consider raising fees to fill the $881 million deficit, as some legislators have suggested. He said he would not, citing his belief that “fees are taxes.”

The governor’s remarks indicate he either has a more nuanced interpretation of the revenue increases in his plan or isn’t aware of everything his administration has proposed.

The proposed increases, which the Legislature will consider during a special session this month, include:

• Higher fees for restaurants to fully cover the cost of health inspections. This would raise $550,000.

• An increase in the health insurance premiums paid by 12,000 poor families whose children are insured through Nevada Check Up. The proposal would increase fees from $25 to $75 per quarter for some families, and $80 to $180 for others, depending on income. This would raise $1 million.

• Raising by 8 percent the rates paid by veterans and their families at the nursing home for veterans in Boulder City. This increase was approved by Gibbons and the other two members of the Board of Examiners on Tuesday. It is expected to raise $350,000.

• Higher fees for birth and death certificates. Health and Human Services Director Mike Willden told a legislative committee this week that the state could raise about $368,000 by increasing the cost per certificate from $13 to $20.

• A one-time charge to prison inmates based on the electronic devices they own.

So much for "no new taxes"? Even Gibbons himself has admitted that fee hikes amount to raising taxes. So why is he only willing to raise taxes on the poor and middle-class?

This parsing over whether a fee is a tax, and what fee increases are acceptable to conservative constituencies misses the larger point, said Eric Herzik, professor of political science at UNR.

Even Gibbons doesn’t think state government is so bloated that you can cut $881 million from its budget, he said.

“This is splitting hairs. No new taxes, but these fees are OK? It shows that his no-new-tax pledge can’t get you there.”

DUH! Of course, Gibbon's "no new taxes" nonsense is just that: NONSENSE! Nevada has the smallest and cheapest state government in the entire country. And with last year's budget, the state has already cut its government to the bone. Must we now let the bone marrow get sucked dry?

Well, at least one Democratic legislator is stepping forward amidst this mayhem and showing some real courage.

“We’ve already cut too much,” [Assembly Member Peggy] Pierce [D-Las Vegas] said. “We have the smallest government in the country and it’s not even close.”

She noted Nevada has the second- or third-lowest tax burden and ranks among the worst states in a variety of indicators. “There’s a connection. This chronic underfunding of government, our regressive tax system punishes working people, and does not require many, many businesses to pull their load,” she said.

Finally, FINALLY, someone serving in Carson City has hit the nail on the head! As I said on Tuesday, we won't go anywhere but down in flames if we won't even invest in our basic infrastructure. Our social safety net is already dangerously close to nonexistent, our schools are already badly underfunded, and our roads are already falling apart. Just how much more can we cut before Nevada ceases to be a state?

And how much longer can we let mining get away with paying almost no taxes? How much longer can we let big corporations like WalMart get away with taking advantage of our state while refusing to pay its fair share? The madness must end. Simple as that.

It's inevitable that the legislature will agree to some type of tax increase. And remember, those "fees" that Gibbons wants to slap on working-class families count as tax increases. (Hey, even he admitted it!) So why must the middle-class and working poor always suffer? It's about damned time that the big money special interests that have hardly paid any taxes up to this point start paying their fair share to save our state.

Yay for Health Care Deal? UPDATED!

Original 9:50 AM post:

For me, the jury's still out on this emerging health care deal in the House Energy & Commerce Committee. On one hand, it looks like progressives got some subsidies to working poor families reinstated as a Republican attempt to again attack women's reproductive rights failed. However, the public option still looks weakened and many House progressives are still concerned about the remaining Blue Dog approved reductions in aid to low and middle-income working families.

The liberal lawmakers voiced concern that the agreement would reduce federal subsidies intended to help people with low or moderate incomes buy insurance. In addition, they contended that the deal would weaken the proposed new government health insurance plan, which would compete with private insurers.

Moreover, the liberals also expressed a political concern, saying House leaders had compromised too early. “Under the agreement, private insurers are coming off unscathed,” said Representative Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont.

He added, “They do quite well — too well, frankly.”

Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, said, “The public plan was eviscerated” under the deal announced Wednesday to get the bill moving again in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Engel was less than enthusiastic about the resulting legislation. “It’s not a terrible bill,” he said, “but it’s not what I had hoped for.”

Meanwhile, some freshman Democrats still act like they have to be afraid of something that a strong majority of Americans support. It seems they still don't realize that if they can't support health care reform, then there's no point in running for reelection. Now is the time to get it done, and now is the time to enact a comprehensive solution that will get most everyone covered, ensure that we the consumers get the most out of what we pay, and lower costs across the board.

So hopefully, the final House bill will still be worth supporting. And hopefully, it will be able to push the final conference bill to the left, which means to actual sanity. I guess I'm still encouraged, but I'm also definitely keeping a watchful eye on these negotiations.

UPDATE: More details have emerged on the new House Energy & Commerce deal on health care. And fortunately, it looks like progressives are improving it.

[M]any liberals on Waxman's panel balked at some of the concessions, particularly an agreement that cut subsidies to low- and middle-income families for insurance premiums. This provided potentially more than $50 billion in savings to the overall cost of the legislation, but at the cost of cutting into working-class earners' ability to get affordable insurance.

"That added insult to injury," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who helped negotiate the deal reached Friday morning.

The new deal, expected to be agreed to in an amendment to the 1,000-page package Friday afternoon, would find savings in part by forcing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to pay claims electronically and by allowing the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices under the Medicare program.

Calling this a "unity amendment," the liberal and conservative Democrats hope to steer those savings back into subsidies for lower-income people in a health insurance exchange.

"We don't want to take that out of the hide of middle- and lower-class people," DeGette said.

DeGette said the original deal cut too deeply into the legislation's government-financed public plan, in which liberals had hoped to tie payments for health-care providers to Medicare rates, which are generally lower than what private insurers pay out. That deal forced the public plan to negotiate its payments with doctors and hospitals similar to the way private insurance companies currently do. The conservative Democrats who pushed for the arrangement argued that Medicare's rates traditionally were lower to rural hospitals and doctors as opposed to urban hospitals.

Hopefully, this means progressives are taking control of the health care debate and making Democratic leadership pass a good bill.