Still No Evolution, Governor?

As we discussed earlier, today's been a big day for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). Another Senate hearing has been scheduled for next week, an actual bill is supposed to be revealed any day now, and many thousands nationwide are now rallying for CIR. So of course, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) tried to make news by giving KINC, the Las Vegas Univision affiliate, an exclusive interview detailing his extensive flip-flopping evolution on the matter.

And Governor Brian Sandoval has indeed made news today... Just not in the way he intended. Instead of highlighting his evolution on one issue, he ended up shining a rather bright light on his refusal to evolve on another major civil rights issue of our time.

(The interview below is in Spanish.)

As the national media continues to regularly chronicle some national politician "evolving" on gay marriage, Nevada's governor is not joining the supposedly Darwinian progression on the issue: Brian Sandoval remains opposed to gay marriage, he told a Spanish-language interviewer in an exchange posted this week on the station's website.

Sandoval twice told Martha Saldaña that he opposes gay martriage, saying when she followed up, "As I said, marriage should be between a man and a woman." [...]

Exit polling last year showed nearly six in 10 Latinos [nationally] back gay marriage.

And not only that, but February's RAN poll commissioned by the conservative/Republican aligned firm Public Opinion Strategies showed Nevadans support marriage equality by a 54-43%. That's much higher than the razor-thin 45-44% result that the progressive/Democratic aligned firm Public Policy Polling showed in August 2011. So Nevadans are clearly evolving in favor of marriage equality along with the rest of America. So why on earth is Governor Sandoval still fighting against equality?

As we noted here before, even other Republicans are leaping at the opportunity to change their image on matters of equality. And it's even been happening quite close to home. In a major surprise late last month, (State) Senator Ben Kieckhefer (R-Reno) appeared at the SJR 13 hearing to testify in favor.





Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) made an appearance at the same hearing, and he later announced his support for SJR 13. And again, several other Republicans across the nation have suddenly announced their evolution on marriage equality. So what is Governor Sandoval waiting for?

Why no evolution, Governor?

The Many FAILs Behind the Patient Dumping Scandal

It's been funny how this has happened. Since the Newtown massacre in December, some opponents of gun safety reform have tried to deflect criticism of lax gun laws by citing deficiencies in mental health care in America. So did this result in a renewed push for improved access to mental health care?

Not really. While Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) and Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) are pushing a bill authorizing Medicaid reimbursement to community health centers for expanded access to mental health care, the estimated $1.4 billion cost may ultimately mean the bill gets lost in the shuffle of austerity madness. So much for that.

In recent days, California and national media have been reporting on the harrowing true tale of James Flavy Coy Brown. He's a former patient at the Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas. Even though he was in need of more treatment and care, he was discharged from Rawson-Neal... And done so with just a 3 day supply of medicine, some peanut butter crackers, and a few bottles of Ensure. And from there, he was packed onto a Greyhound bus bound for Sacramento.

8 News NOW

Ever since Brown's arrival in Sacramento, California state legislators have called for investigations into Nevada's practice of patient dumping to California and elsewhere. Since then, both Nevada and federal officials have responded with their own respective investigations into this patient dumping scandal. And so far, they've found 99 cases of patient dumping between July 2012 and February 2013.

Earlier this week, Think Progress detailed the policy failures behind the story of James Flavy Coy Brown and the other victims of Nevada patient dumping. Basically, there's a whole lot of blame to spread around.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Nevada — which had paltry funding for mental health services to begin with — instituted the fifth largest cut to mental health funding of any state between 2009 and 2012, with over 28 percent in decreased appropriations. The fact that doctors believed Brown would receive better care in California is a particularly sad state of affairs, as the Golden State is seventh on that same list after making a 21.2 percent cut to mental health services. Those cuts have led California’s sprawling private prison system to become de facto asylums, and in Sacramento specifically, “ERs have seen a spike in mentally ill patients since Sacramento County’s mental health facility shuttered its crisis intervention clinic and closed half its beds in 2009 amid budget cuts.”

That’s partly why advocates for the mentally ill have hung their hats on Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, which California and Nevada have both decided to participate in. Between the law’s eligibility expansion, generous federal funding, and parity rules extending minimum levels of mental health benefits to all Americans, some 32 million Americans who previously did not have access to mental health care are expected to gain it in one form or another. That is particularly significant seeing as poor access and excess costs are Americans’ top barriers to receiving treatment.

Unfortunately, even if the Medicaid expansion had occurred years ago, Brown may not have benefited from it due to his housing insecurity. Social exclusion and poverty are significant risk factors for mental illness, and the homeless consequently have sky-high rates of chronic and severe mental health problems. While Medicaid expansion would address the eligibility issue for homeless Americans, lack of identification or a Social Security card presents a nearly insurmountable barrier to enrollment. The Kaiser Family Foundation also finds that literacy and language barriers and a distrust of public institutions makes it difficult to to enroll the homeless in Medicaid or Social Security disability insurance.

And the issue becomes even more complicated considering that certain efforts to improve mental health care can actually undermine efforts to help the homeless. For instance, since the 1960s, states have been cutting down on beds in public psychiatric hospitals in an effort to shift towards more community-oriented, non-institutionalized care. Specialists agree that this is a much more effective form of treatment, since it integrates patients into society rather than sequestering them from it. But in the case of the homeless, who by definition lack a community or support system in which to be integrated, it often leads to untreated ailments and jail time. Brown may have found a happy ending to his story, but millions of Americans don’t — and likely won’t, even under Obamacare.

Think about that. Medicaid is being expanded under the Affordable Care Act, and fortunately Nevada will participate in it. But even with that, it's incredibly difficult to secure the care that the homeless & mentally ill need. And the "TEA" flavored Republicans in Congress even want to cut this. And funny enough, many of these are the same ones who weeks ago said gun safety advocates should be pursuing better mental health care instead of tougher gun safety laws.

And of course, what makes matters worse is that the State of Nevada has a history of stinginess when it comes to any & all kind of health care funding, including mental health care. Over the years, there have been stories of the state administering "Greyhound Therapy". But now, it's finally out in the open. And Governor Brian Sandoval (R) suddenly somehow found another $25 million for mental health care.

So why was James Flavy Coy Brown thrown onto a Greyhound and dumped into California? Nevada didn't want to pay for his treatment any more. The federal government doesn't provide enough funding for treatment. And even though California ultimately accepted him, it's not as if that state funds mental health care all that much more than Nevada (so there are many problems in The Golden State as well). And lost in the shuffle are the people desperately in need of help.

Many in Congress continue to use this gravely serious issue as an excuse to avoid tackling gun safety reform. And both Congress and the Nevada Legislature continue to fight over how little to fund health care. And lost in the shuffle are the people desperately in need of help.

¿Reforma Ahora?

This week has been shaping up to be a critical one in Congress. Several important hot-button issues finally seem to be getting bills and getting action. And soon, we may be getting a big announcement on another major bill.

Apparently within a week, the long awaited "Gang of 8" comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill will finally be unveiled completely. Apparently, it will include a 10 year border security plan that must be completed before the estimated 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants currently in America will be allowed to apply for permanent legal residency (and ultimately citizenship). So does this mean a deal?

For many, yes. However, the "tea party" lockstep opposition to CIR continues. They're even trying to fudge numbers to make it seem like CIR is "too expensive". They're pulling out all stops (literally!) to try to stop CIR.

And funny enough, "Gang of 8" Senate Republicans are now rising up to try to knock down the new "tea party" obstruction campaign for CIR.

A group of Republican senators has called on the Judiciary Committee to take its time in reviewing the bill, with some members going so far as to suggest scheduling several months of hearings. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has expressed some sympathy for their concerns and has called for multiple hearings on his legislation once it’s released — much to the chagrin of immigration activists.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Tuesday he was “optimistic” an immigration deal would be reached soon. And he didn’t sound very interested in the prospect of a drawn out set of hearings to review it before moving on to the amendment process and utimately a vote.

“We did [one hearing] in 2006,” Graham said, referring to past efforts at passing a bill. “It was good enough for us in 2006.”

McCain also sounded skeptical of additional hearings in an appearance on CBS’ Face The Nation over the weekend.

“Some are saying, wow, we’re not having enough hearings,” McCain said. “First of all, we know the issue. But second of all, the Judiciary Committee will act. There will be amendments. There will be debate. Then it will go to the floor of the Senate. There will be plenty of time for discussion and debate so I reject this notion that something is being railroaded through.”

What's complicated this has been another "Gang of 8" Republican, Marco Rubio (R-Florida), expressing sympathy for "tea party" efforts to slow down his own bill (with the clear intent to kill it!). Clearly, Rubio has other things in mind. (Hint: 2016.)

Yet despite Rubio's willingness to drink some "TEA", McCain & Graham don't want any (more) of it. They just want their bill to move. And they want to exorcise the political ghosts of Mitt Romney, Sharron Angle, Kris Kobach, and Joe Arpaio from the Republican Party.

So who's with them? That will be the key to CIR's success going forward. As we've discussed before, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) likely has at least 50 Senate Democrats on board for CIR. There seems to be more than enough Senate Republicans open to CIR to create a plausible path to a filibuster-proof 60 vote supermajority. Senator Dean Heller (R) has been one of those winnable Republicans. Will he remain open, even in the face of mounting "tea party" opposition?

Going forward, the challenges for CIR quite clearly lie within the Republican Party. Will there be enough Republicans in Congress willing to do the right thing policy wise? Will there be enough willing to do what may be politically necessary for the long term? And will there be enough willing to do so even if they must pay an immediate political price in Republican primaries next year and/or in 2016?

Stay tuned. This show is about to get even more interesting.

Let the "Sausage Making" Continue.

The past two days have been very topsy-turvy on gun safety legislation in Congress. On Monday, pundits were wondering if anything and everything was finally dead. But yesterday, hope sprang again as several Republican Senators (including Nevada's Dean Heller) decided to break an expected filibuster on a motion to proceed (which allows for formal Senate debate and consideration of legislation). And today, a deal has been made on background checks.

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., were expected to announce a background check compromise on Wednesday. Subjecting more firearms purchases to federal background checks has been the chief goal of Obama and gun control supporters, who promote the system as a way to prevent criminals and other risky people from getting the weapons.

After weeks of negotiations, Manchin and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters late Tuesday that a gun control agreement was close.

The emerging deal would expand required background checks for sales at gun shows and online but exempt transactions like face-to-face, noncommercial purchases, said Senate staffers and lobbyists, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks. Currently, the checks are required only for sales handled through licensed gun dealers.

Though many details of the emerging agreement were unclear, Manchin and Toomey are among their parties’ most conservative members and a deal could make it easier for some hesitant senators to support the background check measure, at least for now. [...]

The gun legislation Reid wants the Senate to debate would extend the background check requirement to nearly all gun sales. Assuming the deal between Manchin and Toomey is completed, Reid would try to replace that language with their agreement once debate begins, a move that would require a vote.

The Manchin-Toomey deal still leaves in place a loophole for "face-to-face, noncommercial purchases" (however that will be allowed to be defined) and possibly other types of private sales, but it looks like this deal will allow for expanded background checks for other gun purchases that are currently exempted from such. But whether they, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York), and Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) introduce this as an amendment to the bill or Senator Reid replaces the language himself, it looks like the bill's advocates are ready to accept this deal.

However, there are still some Senators who think even Reid's bill as is doesn't go far enough. We've talked before about Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and her determination to pass a new Assault Weapons Ban to replace and improve upon the one that expired in 2004. Last night, she discussed with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC why she still refuses to give up.

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

“If they don’t help me invoke cloture on this bill, we’re going to vote on these things anyway. It might take a little time,” said Reid. “As I’ve said for months now, the American people deserve a vote: on background checks, on federal trafficking, on safety in schools, on the size of clips and yes, assault weapons.”

The Obama administration continues to fight to gain bipartisan support for new gun measures to expand background checks for people buying guns and ban assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is leading the charge to revive a ban on military-style assault weapons, told MSNBC that she plans to offer assault weapons bill as an amendment and remains optimistic.

“I have a commitment from the majority leader that I will have a vote and I take him at his word,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Tuesday. “What’s important to me is to dry up the supply of these weapons so that over time they are less apt to fall in the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, people who are mentally disabled and criminals.”

Last month, Reid dropped the controversial restriction on military-style weapons from the bill in order, he said, to save the larger piece of gun reform legislation.

Feinstein said lawmakers must press on: “It’s important to the nation to know where people stand on a matter that’s as important as this.”

As we discussed yesterday, this will be a process. It will take a while. And there will clearly be many amendments. Some amendments will be introduced to weaken the bill, while others will be introduced to strengthen the bill.

But finally, there is a bill. The bill is S 649. And it will likely get its day(s) on the Senate floor.


This has been a long time coming. But now, finally, the "sausage making" on gun safety legislation has begun... And progressed for a change.

Another Big (Municipal) Election Reform Bill

Last week, there was plenty of angst over the low turnout in this year's Southern Nevada municipal elections (for Henderson, Las Vegas, Mesquite, and North Las Vegas). That's why we're now seeing renewed calls to move municipal elections to even numbered years (when they'd coincide with county, state, and federal level elections).

However, that's not all. There's another bill pending in the Nevada Legislature that promises to deliver another major change to municipal elections up north and down south if passed into law. Currently, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas essentially have district elections for City Council. However, Henderson City Council elections are citywide. When John Marz ran for a full term this year, he didn't just have to campaign in Ward 3 (where he lives, and where he's supposed to represent). Marz had to run citywide, which meant Anthem and MacDonald Ranch residents may have had at least as much say in the representation of Green Valley North and Whitney Ranch on the City Council as Green Valley North & Whitney Ranch residents.

And this isn't just happening in Henderson. Up north, Reno, Sparks, and Carson City have the same system. Even though they technically have wards (or Supervisorial Districts in Carson City), elections are all citywide. So again, there's the risk of one region and/or faction determining the fate of all city offices.

Am I the only one seeing something disturbing here? Apparently not, since Senator Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas) introduced SB 457. And today, it advanced in committee.

The vote was 3-2, with the two Republicans on the committee, Sens. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, and Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, opposing it.

Currently, all voters in the cities of Reno and Sparks vote for every single member of the city council regardless of geographic ward. The bill would change the elections so voters only vote for the council member that represents their ward. (Reno would also be required to get rid of its at-large council member and create a sixth ward in 2016.)

Sen. Pat Spearman, D-North Las Vegas, who sponsored the legislation, said that change is needed so the voters in just one or two wards are not determining the outcome of elections.

"Those more affluent wards are the ones that are really electing people," Spearman said Tuesday morning. The bill would also affect elections in Henderson and Carson City.

So now, the bill moves to the full Senate. We'll have to wait and see what happens on the Senate floor.

In the mean time, legislators should consider this. They have to run in their own districts, win support in their own districts, and earn the trust of constituents in their own districts. And City Council Members in Las Vegas & North Las Vegas essentially do the same. So why must it be so different in the other major Nevada cities?

Far from Over

Just this morning, prospects for gun safety reform in Congress were looking fairly grim. After all, several Senate Republicans were threatening a filibuster. So yet again, another big legislative idea bites the dust on Capitol Hill...

Or perhaps not.

Shortly after our first story was posted, Senator Dean Heller's (R) office confirmed rumors that he would not back the G-O-TEA filibuster of fellow Nevada Senator Harry Reid's (D) gun safety bill. And now that Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) are floating some sort of compromise amendment to Reid's bill, even more Republicans have been dropping their filibuster threats today. Greg Sargent has more.

Right now, if you total up the 55 Dem Senators, plus the [10] Republicans who support moving to a debate, that makes [65] Senators. Dems can [...] afford to lose [5] red state Dems if they are going to break the GOP’s front end filibuster on moving to debate (or more, if more Republicans, such as Toomey, come out for the motion to proceed).

But if red state Dems can work up the courage to at least allow a debate on these proposals, then we are moving forward and the far right bloc’s front-end obstructionism will have been broken. And in truth, I believe they will support debate. After all, they have all the cover they could possibly have, with at least seven Republicans supporting this, too.

Now, all of this doesn’t mean there still isn’t trouble ahead. Republicans will obviously filibuster the bill later, meaning it will require 60 votes to end debate, too. But the current state of play suggests a potential endgame in this battle. If Harry Reid allows amendments — depriving Republicans of procedural objections — you could see a handful of Republican Senators deciding to support a vote to end debate, even if they vote No on the final proposal. This would be a good way of giving the Newtown families something — as Obama said, “they deserve a vote” — while maintaining opposition to the final proposal. Or, if the Manchin-Toomey compromise comes together, you could see a few Republicans actually support the final proposal.

With Heller included, there are now 10 Senate Republicans on record promising to approve a motion to proceed. That means a filibuster of even debating gun safety reform legislation will likely be defeated, as there are probably at least 50 Senate Democrats willing to approve that very motion to proceed. So there will at least be formal debate and consideration of Senator Reid's bill... And some possible Manchin-Toomey amendment(s) to it, along with other amendments (such as the new Assault Weapons Ban).

So what happens next? There will be debate. And there will be amendments. And there will be a motion to close debate on some sort of final bill. We'll just have to wait and see if a final bill can finally emerge. But at least today, it's far from over. In fact, it may only be just beginning.

Just make sure to tune in Thursday.

Behind the (Coal Fired) Smoke & Mirrors

Last week, many were shocked by NV Energy's sudden commitment to shutting down the last of Nevada's coal fired power plants and transition to renewable energy & natural gas. However, this move actually wasn't all that sudden. NV Energy was plotting this behind the scenes. And perhaps NV Energy executives were hoping that the "surprise" announcement would catch the Nevada Legislature by surprise.

At least Jon Ralston wasn't caught completely by surprise. He asked NV Energy CEO Michael Yackira about his big new energy plan last Thursday. And of course, Yackira said it was all good for everyone.

(The fun starts at 19:23.)



However, not everyone is convinced. On KNPR's "State of Nevada" this morning, Dan Jacobsen begged to differ.

Dan Jacobsen of the Bureau of Consumer Protection did the math, and realized that NV Energy wants to replace 1,000 Megawatts of coal power with 2,700 Megawatts of natural gas and coal. So in the process of winding down its coal plants, the company will nearly triple its generating capacity -- despite a decline in energy demand, Jacobsen said. [...]

“If the legislature were to approve it as they’ve proposed it, this would guarantee the company that, in a period of time when there isn’t much growth, they get to build and add more investment to their rate base, which will result in larger profits over about a ten to twelve year period,” Jacobsen said.

But how will it work out for consumers? Although the investment in new energy may pay off in 30 to 40 years, in the next decade or so, customers will pay more for NV Energy’s investment in new sources of cleaner power.

“It’s about a 9 percent price increase, and that’s above inflation,” Jacobsen said. “A 9 percent price increase is pretty significant on customers, particularly, you know, Nevada has the highest of any Mountain West electricity rates, so adding 9 percent to that is a burden that we think ought to be wrestled with at the Public Utility Commission.” [...]

“I’m very hopeful that the company will come to the negotiating table and come up with a more reasonable approach —one that just focuses on closing down the coal plants and replacing that capacity and leaving the rest of this to the Public Utilities Commission [PUC],” Jacobsen said.

NV Energy actually doesn't need the Legislature's approval to shut down its remaining coal fired power plants. So what is Nevada's electric monopoly waiting for?

That's a good question. What is NV Energy waiting for? An open door to natural gas fracking? New ways to sidestep the PUC? Or just new excuses to raise consumers' electric rates?

Or have NV Energy executives just made this decision to ditch coal out of the goodness of their hearts? If that's the case, then why not simply do what Dan Jacobsen suggested and just shut down the coal plants already while taking the rest of the proposal to the negotiating table? That's what they need to consider. And that's what the Nevada Legislature should demand.

The Disconnect

This can be very confusing. Sometimes, it seems like a deal is near on gun safety reform. Even former REPUBLICAN National Committee Chair Michael Steele said this morning on MSNBC that he doesn't understand why a few gun owners (prodded by the NRA) fear background checks and registration.



And on the US Senate floor yesterday, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) vowed to press on for floor votes on a wide array of gun safety measures. And not only did Reid demand a floor vote on his own bill, but he even went as far to suggest that the Assault Weapons Ban deserves a floor vote as well (as an amendment). Perhaps all the G-O-TEA filibuster threats truly are getting to him. And unfortunately for Senate Republicans, it's happening the opposite effect of what they had desired. (No really, think about it.)



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) had been planning to effectively give the NRA veto authority over any and all gun safety legislation. And he's willing to do so because he's currying the gun lobby's favor just in time for his own reelection campaign in 2014.

“Sen. McConnell opposes the Reid bill,” the minority leader’s spokesman, Don Stewart, told TPM. “While nobody knows yet what Sen. Reid’s plan is for the gun bill, if he chooses to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid bill, Sen. McConnell will oppose cloture on proceeding to that bill.”

In other words, if a bipartisan deal is struck, McConnell may very well forgo the filibuster and possibly even vote for the final version. But his threat is weighty because he’s an extraordinarily clever strategist and has a proven track record of unifying Senate Republicans behind his will. And so his filibuster threat will likely force Democrats to win his approval for any passable bill.

Crucially, McConnell is up for reelection next year in bright-red Kentucky, and is carefully watching his right flank. That means he won’t dare get on the NRA’s bad side, but he could also be on the hook if any wayward Republicans decide to buck the party line and join Democrats on a bill the powerful gun industry lobby dislikes. In other words, McConnell seems to have taken it upon himself to make sure any new gun legislation will be NRA-compliant.

On that score, lawmakers have an escape hatch to say they support background checks without actually doing anything doing anything to make it harder for people to avoid them when buying a firearm at gun shows or in private sales. The NRA supports enhancing mental health reporting in existing background check systems, a policy that some pro-gun senators back and point to as evidence that they support background checks

And here's the most depressing story from yesterday. While the Senate was debating whether to even allow for votes on gun violence prevention bills, a 4 year old child shot a 6 year old child in New Jersey. No really, that happened.

Authorities are deciding whether to charge anyone after police say a 6-year-old was shot in the head by a 4-year-old in New Jersey.

The older boy is in serious condition.

Authorities are still investigating how the younger child obtained the .22-caliber rifle from his family’s Toms River home Monday night.

Police Chief Michael Mastronardy says the children were outside the 4-year-old’s home when the boy went inside, got the rifle and shot the 6-year-old about 15 yards away. It’s not clear if the 4-year-old pulled the trigger or if the rifle accidentally discharged.

The parents of the 4-year-old were home at the time.

Yes, this actually happened while Congress was wrestling over gun violence yesterday. What also happened yesterday was this.

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

In context, [President Obama] was noting the overwhelming public support for support universal background checks -- "How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything?" Obama said to laughter -- and the fact that public opinion on the issue crosses partisan boundaries. Even large majorities of gun owners and NRA households agree with the American mainstream. [...]

"If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to..." is a phrase that stuck with me, largely because it seems our democracy is not working the way it's supposed to.

Indeed, as of yesterday, 15 Republican senators said they're prepared to prevent the Senate from even debating any bill that changes any gun law in any way. Forget voting for or against efforts to prevent gun deaths, the GOP lawmakers are prepared to ignore the overwhelming will of the American mainstream and kill popular legislation in its infancy.

In fairness, I should note that this is not a universal attitude among congressional Republicans, and just this morning, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said pending legislation "deserves a vote, up-or-down." Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) added that his party's filibuster threats are "wrong."

But the larger trend is hard to miss. As Ezra Klein explained this morning, "Gun control has emerged as an unusually clarifying test case for how Congress really works. On one side of the ledger is most everything that we think moves Congress: Public opinion, a national tragedy, the president's bully pulpit, elite opinion. On the other side is everything we wish didn't move Congress: a powerful but increasingly controversial interest group and, arguably, the minority's natural incentive to foil the majority's agenda. Guess which side is winning?"

I suspect many Americans have a rudimentary Schoolhouse-Rock-style understanding of how a bill becomes a law, and may expect something like background checks to pass, given the larger circumstances. But, once again, our democracy isn't working the way it's supposed to.

That's what's perhaps most frustrating about what's happening in Congress now. While there's broad consensus among the American people on gun safety reform, a rigid minority refuses to even allow votes on it. And while calls for action continue from constituents, some Senators are clearly ignoring their constituents. (Does Senator Dean Heller [R] really want to go there?)


Something must change.

From Brooks to Brown, a Sordid Tale of a Broken Mental Health Care System

We've known for some time that this is the case. Yet since the Steven Brooks scandal broke, his plight has shed light on the state of mental health care here in Nevada. So what's the state of mental health care here in Nevada? It can easily be described in one word: Awful.

The [Nevada Division of Mental Health & Developmental Services] suffered a 12.5 percent cut in its budget over the past two years and a 13.9 percent decrease in general fund revenue, resulting in a loss of 150 positions. The lost jobs included those in inpatient and outpatient treatment centers. Like other state agencies, those employees who kept their jobs also endured 2.5 percent salary reductions and mandatory unpaid furloughs.

From fiscal 2009 through fiscal 2012, Nevada saw its mental health budget decline by 28.1 percent, the nation's fifth highest drop during that time.

"The cuts have raised concerns regarding meeting client needs," the report stated. "Budget cuts and elimination of positions and services has been a trend since the last comprehensive Needs Assessment in 2008."

One hurdle facing the division is that Nevada already ranks poorly in mental health spending per resident in comparison to most other states. Nevada also was dead last in Medicaid spending per resident from fiscal 2004 through fiscal 2009 and was 49th in 2010. That year, Medicaid spending averaged $1,224 per U.S. resident but only $505 per Nevadan.

Any wonder why Governor Brian Sandoval (R) suddenly found an extra $25 million for mental health services?

Well, here's another reason. The Sacramento Bee has been investigating the story of James Flavy Coy Brown since March. And the Northern California paper has since uncovered the terrifying truth of the mental health system here in Nevada.

It was 6:30 a.m., 15 hours and 11 stops after a taxi had scooped him up in front of Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas, where he had spent the previous 72 hours, and deposited him at a bus station.

During the long ride to Northern California, Brown had rationed the peanut butter crackers and Ensure nutritional supplements that a staff member at the mental hospital had given him, along with his discharge papers and a bus ticket to Sacramento. His food was gone, and he was nearly out of the medication to treat his array of mood disorders, including schizophrenia, depression and anxiety.

As the bus door opened in Sacramento, Brown, 48, stepped out into the pre-dawn gloom. It was 30 degrees, and his windbreaker was no match for the chill.

Brown, a native of the American South with a distinct accent and a healthy head of salt-and-pepper hair, had arrived in the capital city with no concrete plan for survival. He had no friends or relatives in Sacramento. He had lost his ID, Social Security and insurance cards somewhere in Las Vegas. He had no idea how to fill the prescriptions that helped tame the voices and anxiety that clouded his mind.

Brown was discharged from Rawson-Neal... And thrown onto a Greyhound bus. And 15 hours later, he was in California. And he was clearly still suffering from severe mental illness. James Flavy Coy Brown needed more treatment, yet Nevada just decided to dump him into California.

Obviously, several officials in California are furious. And the Nevada Division of Mental Health & Developmental Services is now facing state and federal investigations. So far, it's already been discovered that Brown was not the only dumped out of state. Far from it, there were many more cases of patient dumping to California and other states.

In February alone, at least three other mental patients were discharged from Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas to far-flung destinations, including California, with a small supply of medications and a few cans of Ensure for nourishment, according to a report issued Monday by the Nevada State Health Division.

Those four represent just more than 10 percent of the 30 sample files reviewed by state investigators in response to concerns about Brown's care. [...]

Nevada recently has made a practice of busing mental patients out of state. The state sent 99 psychiatric patients to California between July 1, 2012, and the end of February, Nevada health officer Tracey Green told state lawmakers during last month's hearing. She said 81 percent were California residents who wanted to go home.

By contrast, an official with Arizona State Hospital told The Bee that facility has not sent a patient out of state by bus in recent memory. Oregon State Hospital discharged one patient to family in California between July 2012 and January, according to a hospital spokeswoman.

The federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is working with Nevada authorities to investigate the state's treatment of mental health patients.

Some patients have been sent as far away as Oklahoma and Massachusetts (??!!). And of course, many were simply packed into Greyhounds and dumped into California. And they were done so despite needed further treatment. And they were only given a few cans of Ensure and a tiny supply of medicine.

So is this what Nevada considers to be "proper mental health treatment"? No wonder why Steven Brooks was allowed to wither on the vine for so long. And no wonder why Governor Sandoval suddenly found another $25 million for mental health care. (Yet that still doesn't completely erase the previous 4 years worth of budget cut, let alone help the state catch up with 2 decades worth of growing case loads.)

So what will it take for Nevada to fully fund the kind of mental health care that our state needs? How many more embarrassing scandals must emerge before the state fully funds mental health care?

Ready for Change?

Wasn't this supposed to be solved already? Back in January, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) secured a "gentlemen's agreement" with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to make some minor tweaks to the Senate's filibuster policy. Supposedly, it was about to improve the Senate's ability to pass legislation.

Yet since then, we've only seen more filibusters and even more Congressional gridlock. And with gun safety legislation, along with comprehensive immigration reform, judicial nominations, and more federal budget debate, coming very soon, even more filibusters are being threatened. Oh, yikes.

So now, Senator Reid is threatening to blow up the January "gentlemen's agreement". After all, is this kind of behavior really "gentleman like"?

“All within the sound of my voice — including my Democratic senators and the Republican senators who I serve with — should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority,” Reid told Nevada Public Radio in a little-noticed interview Friday. “And I will do that if necessary.”

Reid said he had recently spoken with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and President Obama to review their options, and then issued his ultimatum to Republicans: stop your relentless filibusters or the Democratic majority will strip away your power to do so.

“I’m a very patient man,” he said. “We made changes but the time will tell whether they’re big enough. I’m going to wait and build a case. If the Republicans in the Senate don’t start approving some judges, and don’t start helping get some of these nominations done, then we’re going to have to take more action.”

The remarks — which come ahead of a confirmation hearing for Obama’s latest nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sri Srinivasan — represent Reid’s most pointed threat to revisit filibuster reform after the modest rules change enacted in January that preserved the 60-vote threshold. Contrary to a popular misconception, Senate leadership has the power to change the rules in the middle of a congressional session with a bare majority of votes.

On Friday, Senator Reid called into KNPR's "State of Nevada" and made his case. He especially seemed exasperated over recent economic troubles. So he finally declared his interest in real filibuster reform.

So will it finally happen? Steve Benen and Greg Sargent expressed doubt earlier this morning.

As we talked about a few weeks ago, what have we seen from the Senate since the deal? The first-ever filibuster of a cabinet nominee, a filibuster of a CIA nominee, and multiple threats of a filibuster against the Labor Secretary nominee. Republicans have filibustered judicial nominees they don't like and judicial nominees they do like. GOP senators have promised to use filibusters to stop the Obama administration from enforcing the law as it relates to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to stop the president's nominee to lead the ATF and the EPA. All of this is represents a level of abuse without precedent.

And so, as he's done before, Reid is suggesting he's open to more ambitious reforms, and on Friday, was a little more explicit on this point than he's been since January. [...]

I have no idea what Reid has in mind. His use of the phrase "build a case," struck me as interesting -- perhaps the Majority Leader is creating a lengthy indictment, and is racking up examples for later use -- but I can't say with confidence that it will lead to anything specific.

But Greg's absolutely right about the importance of follow-through -- if Reid's threats amount to warnings, urging Republicans to reconsider their abusive tactics before they force Democrats' hands, then the Majority Leader's recent rhetoric makes sense. But if he's not prepared to give the "nuclear option" a serious look, Reid really needs to stop suggesting it's on the table.

Personally, I think it's more complicated than what Greg Sargent thinks. As we've discussed before, Senator Reid is very much an institutionalist. He believes in the institution of the US Senate. And he doesn't want to do anything to undermine the reputation and the collegiality of the Senate.

It's been taking Senator Reid some time to realize that the collegiality is long gone, especially now that the "tea party" has strengthened its grip of the Republican Party. He's had to learn the long and hard way, but I suspect he has indeed been learning this lesson. Senator Reid perhaps hoped for one more chance to fix the gridlock "the easy way" in January, but that's clearly not working. So maybe he's finally ready for real change.

Whatever the case, the nation is ready for real change. Even though the American people long ago reached broad consensus on matters like infrastructure investment, social safety net preservation, immigration reform, and even gun safety reform, hardly anything can move in the US Senate because of the filibuster. It may finally be time for a change. Is Harry Reid finally ready to make it?

New Center... & New Beginnings

On Saturday, The Center (for Southern Nevada's LGBTQ community) celebrated the grand opening of the Bob Forbuss Building in Downtown Las Vegas. Not only is it the new headquarters for The Center, but it also injects some new life into another Downtown Las Vegas neighborhood. That's why the courtyard filled up with people from throughout the community to witness the star-studded ribbon cutting.

Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman and City Council Member Bob Coffin (whose district includes The Center) attended. And they gave some fairly brief remarks before the ribbon cutting. In Coffin's speech, he gave a very full-throated endorsement of LGBTQ equality. He's even hoping there will one day be weddings at The Center!









Also attending on Saturday were Rep. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) and Former Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Las Vegas). Both have long records of supporting Nevada's LGBTQ families. And The Center is now just around the corner from Dina Titus' new district office. Titus talked for a few minutes about her history HERstory with the local LGBTQ community, and about the fabulous new addition to Downtown Las Vegas. Oh, and she also sounded hopeful about SJR 13's passage and marriage equality coming to Nevada.







Even several state lawmakers headed down from Carson City for the grand opening. State Senator (and Center board member) David Parks (D-Paradise), Senator Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), and Assembly Member James Healey (D-Enterprise) all pitched in for the ribbon cutting. And James Healey now has a meeting room named after him!

As mentioned above, there was a healthy crowd outside. Yet when they moved inside, they were stunned by the interior. Thanks to the support of many corporate, foundation, and other community sponsors, The Center now has a cafe inside, along with several meeting rooms (big and small!), a recreation center, staff work space, and even a new area designated just for testing and treatment for HIV/AIDS and other STDs.

It was amazing to see the outpouring of support for The Center and Southern Nevada's LGBTQ community on Saturday. Not too long ago, something like this would have been considered unimaginable. Yet it happened on Saturday.

And now, The Center has a new home to serve the larger community. And Downtown Las Vegas has a new landmark. Hopefully, this will be the start of something amazing.

A Memorable Visit to Reid's & Heller's Offices

Well, someone isn't backing down. On KNPR's "State of Nevada" this morning, Senator Harry Reid (D) reiterated his commitment to the comprehensive gun safety reform bill he is introducing into Congress. Even in the wake of Senator Dean Heller's (R) waffling on the matter, Reid is sticking to his bill.

We know gun violence is a serious problem here in Nevada. We've seen it first hand in many instances. Yet now, Congress has a chance to act. Will Congress act?



This is why the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Demand Action campaign, ProgressNow Nevada, OFA Nevada, and more local citizens paid a visit to Senator Harry Reid's (D) and Senator Dean Heller's (R) respective offices at the Lloyd George Federal Courthouse in Downtown Las Vegas. They wanted the Senators to know Nevadans demand action. Yet in arriving there, protesters encountered a surprising twist.

But before we get to that, let's hear from ProgressNow's Brian Fadie on why action is needed.



We also heard from ProgressNow's Teresa Crawford. She also works as a nurse, so she's seen first hand the damage of gun violence.



Also speaking at the PLAN/ProgressNow office before the march to Lloyd George was Esther Sass. She's very much experienced the pain of gun violence first hand. And she powerfully made the case for action.





The group then made the trek to Lloyd George. Then upon arrival, they found out... They wouldn't be allowed in. Everyone then had to move out.

A representative from Senator Reid's office soon came out. He thanked the crowd for coming. And he reiterated Senator Reid'a support for expanded background checks.





He was soon followed by representatives from Senator Heller's office.



And that's all I can show you because Senator Heller's staff refused to allow cameras (but somehow KTNV's video camera was allowed to keep rolling, so at least there was that). The staff took the binder full of supporters of gun safety reform, but refused to state Senator Heller's position on gun safety. Again, they did not even want any recorded evidence of this occurring! Talk about a "profile in courage". (/snark)



Senator Heller is more than willing to pin all the blame on Hollywood for gun violence, yet Heller refuses to take any personal responsibility to fix the holes in current federal law. Again, 86% of Nevadans and about 90% of Americans support expanded background checks. So why won't Senator Heller commit to voting for that?

Surely, he doesn't agree with Sharron Angle and her "Second Amendment Remedies"? Surely, he thinks dangerous criminals should not have easy access to dangerous ammunition? So what's he afraid of?

¿Sí Se Puede?

So far, there's already been plenty of progress on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). Negotiations have been underway for several weeks, and an actual bill may emerge as soon as next week. And public support for CIR only continues to grow. Yet despite all the positive developments, challenges remain. Now, it's just a matter of whether sustained "tea party" opposition to CIR is enough to kill the bill.

CIR supporters in Las Vegas didn't want to take any chances. So they took to Las Vegas Blvd. and demanded action. OFA Nevada took part, along with AFSCME, Dream Big Vegas, PLAN, and other CIR activists.





Former community organizer Mike Litt spoke. He organized for CIR in 2006, so he remembers the heated political atmosphere of that time. He also spoke of his own family's experience with immigration.



Rozita Lee also spoke. She's advocated civil rights both here in Nevada and nationally for some time. And her family also has experience on matters of immigration.



We've always been a nation of immigrants. And unless you are a Native American, your ancestors were immigrants. This is the story of America.

Yet for the past decade, it's been an epic struggle to do anything to fix the broken immigration system and address the plight of the approximately 12,000,000 undocumented immigrants in America today. The status quo is unsustainable. Many large employers just see undocumented immigrants as cheap labor to exploit. And our economy is hampered by the constant backlog, arduous process, and other needless delays that plague the current immigration system.

That's why Congress seems to be getting serious about doing something on comprehensive immigration reform... But can Congress finally deliver this time? Nevada's own Senator Dean Heller (R) has hinted at it, along with Reps. Mark Amodei (R-Carson City) and Joe Heck (R-Henderson). So will their fellow Republicans finally agree to a deal? That remains to be seen.

And that's why OFA, Dream Big Vegas, and other activists took to the street this week.

Austerity Madness

Don't say we didn't warn you. We've been warning about the effects of Congress' latest & greatest manufactured crisis for some time. And now, we're starting to see those effects.

The 88,000 net jobs added in March, if that or a similar figure holds up through revisions, is a tragedy: Nearly four years into the economic recovery, with the unemployment rate still close to 8 percent, the nation recorded a month in which too few jobs were added to keep up with the growing American workforce (that number is more like 125,000). The headline read that the unemployment rate fell to 7.6 percent from 7.7 percent, but it was almost entirely for bad reasons. A whopping 496,000 people dropped out of the labor force, and 206,000 fewer people reported having a job, meaning that the proportion of Americans currently working actually ticked down, not up. [...]

So, what is the culprit? March was the month that the policy of sequestration, across-the-board government spending cuts went into effect. But the patterns of what sectors added and lost jobs doesn't match what you would expect if this was the major driver of the weakness. The professional and business services sector, which includes many contractors, actually added 51,000 jobs, consistent with its recent results. The federal government excluding the U.S. Postal Service shed 2,200 jobs, which amounts to a rounding error across the whole of the American labor market. It's not that the sequester won't have some negative effects on the economy eventually, but you have to squint awfully hard to see them in this report.

The more plausible case is that the increase in payroll taxes that took place in January, lopping 2 percent off of most workers paychecks, is damaging the retail sector. Retailers shed 24,000 jobs, with the steepest losses among sellers of building materials and garden supplies and of clothing and clothing accessories. It makes sense that it would have taken two or three months for less cash in customers’ pockets to translate into retailers keeping fewer cashiers and sales clerks on staff. That said, consumer spending data and reports from retailers themselves has held up reasonably well in 2013 despite the payroll tax, so it's hard to assign too much confidence the idea that the drop in retail jobs is a consequence of fiscal austerity as opposed to a routine statistical blip.

Which leaves us with this overarching conclusion: This economy isn't as strong as we thought it was. What had seemed to be a nice winter acceleration in activity may be, as it has been for the last three years, undermined by a spring-summer swoon.

We've already received warnings about the dangers of austerity. This is yet another one. Can we really afford to continue ignoring these warnings?

Remember, even this jobs report doesn't include anything close to the full effect of the latest manufactured crisis. It just includes effects from the previous one in January. So we probably don't even know yet how much more carnage we'll see in the coming months.

Meanwhile in Washington, we're seeing yet another budget brawl. "TEA" fueled Republicans are demanding more manufactured crises, while Congressional Democrats are offering more reasonable budget plans with a mix of new revenue and budget cuts.

Now, President Obama is offering his own budget plan. Basically, it's yet another attempt at a "Grand Bargain" of more far reaching tax reform... And a "chained CPI" benefit cut to Social Security. Wait, WHAT?! Greg Sargent has more details.

At a certain level, this shouldn’t surprise anybody. On entitlements, Obama is merely reiterating what he’s previously offered John Boehner, and it has long been clear that this offer is still on the table. Many liberals have long suspected that Obama actively wants to cut entitlements. So here is my understanding of White House thinking on why a Grand Bargain is a good outcome.

Obama and his advisers don’t necessarily view Chained CPI as good policy. But they think a Grand Bargain is ultimately a better outcome than continued sequestration, and the only way to the former is to peel off individual Republicans who are open to new revenues. They believe a Grand Bargain is good for Democrats in general, because it essentially would lock in a medium-term agreement over core disputes —about the safety net and about the size of government, and who should pay for it —that have produced a debilitating stalemate in Washington.

Yes, Republicans would continue railing about government spending, the thinking goes, but no one would listen, since they would have already endorsed a deal stabilizing the deficit. This would deprive Republicans of the ability to focus attention on one of their core targets —Big Government —as a way to avoid grappling with other issues, such as jobs and long-term middle class economic security, immigration, guns, and perhaps even climate change. Reaching a deal on the deficit will force Republicans to confront those problems more directly and to choose between real cooperation on them or continue to calcify as a hidebound, reactionary party incapable of addressing major challenges facing the country.

Liberals will point out that it’s folly to offer Republicans so much up front, because they’ll only denounce the offer as “unserious” and demand more, shifting the debate further in their direction. But officials insist the White House has no intention of budging on its demand for new revenues or allowing Republicans to pull Obama further towards them. (This doesn’t mean liberals shouldn’t make it clear that any further concessions on revenues are unacceptable.) The offer in the budget, the thinking goes, will drive home that Obama is the one who occupies the compromise middle ground, and if Republicans refuse to deal, it will be crystal clear in the public mind who is to blame for continued austerity. The White House doesn’t worry about putting its fingerprints on entitlements cuts, because Obama has long proposed them himself.

The President wants to end the ongoing manufactured crises that result in more and more austerity. So again, he's making a "Grand Bargain" offer with proposed entitlement cuts. He's essentially daring Congressional Republicans to oppose this.

And the beat goes on. We're now forced to endure an ongoing debate on who in the working class needs to "endure the pain". Meanwhile, we all continue to suffer from manufactured crises producing more austerity.

Our economy likely can't handle more austerity. Most American families certainly can't. So when will this madness end? What will it take for the G-O-TEA faction in Congress to stop harming our economy? And what will it take for Democrats to try something new to break this cycle of austerity madness?

Food for Thought on AB 440/SDR

So today's been the big day. AB 440 & AB 441 faced a big hearing in the Assembly Legislative Operations & Elections Committee. AB 440 calls for same day voter registration (SDR), and AB 441 establishes election day vote centers.

There's been plenty of testimony today. Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) and Assembly Member James Ohrenschall (D-Sunrise Manor) began by explaining their legislation. And then, Clark County Election Department Chief Larry Lomax spoke. Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey (R-Reno) specifically asked him about the great, nonexistent "voter fraud crisis". Here's Lomax's response.



Following him was PLAN's Howard Watts. He explained the real voter problem here, which is that far too many voters are disenfranchised.






Those sentiments were echoed quite cogently by the Nevada State Education Association's Gary Peck.



And local progressive super-volunteer and voter registration maven Teresa Crawford shared her personal experience. Yes, otherwise legitimate voters couldn't exercise their right to participate in our democracy. Why? They missed the arbitrary deadline.





Earlier in the hearing, Assembly Member Lucy Flores (D-North Las Vegas) stated, "If a single person [who could legally vote] hasn't had a chance to vote, then we haven't done our job." That's the problem right now. People who can otherwise legally vote can't because they just couldn't make an arbitary deadline set up by the government.

And funny enough, another Assembly Member has personal experience with this proposed solution. When Elliot Anderson (D-Winchester) lived in Wisconsin, he personally took advantage of that state's SDR law. Why? He found out about a local election at the last minute. And let's face it, many in this state don't even realize approaching state & federal general elections until the last minute!

And let's face it, most people's lives are hectic. They don't pay as close attention to politics and elections as we do. I've personally run into family & friends who couldn't vote... Just because they missed the registration deadline.

These people are not out to commit fraud. They're not interested in any kind of nefarious electioneering. They just want to cast their legal right to vote. So why are we stopping them with the current arbitrary deadline?

Think about it.