Friday, October 29, 2010

Our comtemptible, oath-breaking Congress

This is a great article in the Review Journal. It is about how our Congressmen are breaking their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I could not find a link to the Review Journal article so I am using this link to the same article.

The first line in the article states,
Most people whom we elect to Congress are either ignorant of, have contempt for or are just plain stupid about the United States Constitution.

The article then shows the ignorance and contempt that our congressmen have for the Constitution. It ends with this.
If congressmen, judges, the president and other government officials were merely ignorant of our Constitution, there'd be hope -- ignorance is curable through education. These people in Washington see themselves as our betters and rulers. They have contempt for the limits our Constitution places on the federal government envisioned by James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who explained in the Federalist Paper 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

We cannot elect and allow people to break their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Schools budget cuts, maintenance, and salaries

On October 26, the Review Journal ran an article on school spending and the Sun ran an article on school spending. The Sun's article was about how budget cuts are taking a toll on school maintenance.
So it is with the 356 schools — more than a third over two decades old — that are cleaned, cooled and repaired by the Clark County School District.

Spread over an area the size of Delaware and Connecticut combined, the schools are at risk because of current and imminent budget cuts, depleted funds from a big construction bond and relentless Father Time amid brutal summers.

The immediate future is worrisome, said Paul Gerner, chief of school construction and maintenance. “You’ll have more roofs that leak, you’ll have more days without air conditioning and you can’t operate schools,” he said. “It’s mission critical.”
The Review Journal's article was about how the school district approved a #270,000 salary and $89,000 in various miscellaneous bonuses. He was making $225,000 in Colorado and the old superintendent made $245,000.
Critics want to know who is paying for the house Dwight Jones will soon be living in.

The Colorado education commissioner has signed a four-year contract -- worth $358,000 in total, annual compensation -- to become the next superintendent of the Clark County School District.
How can the school district spend more money when it doesn't have enough to maintain the schools? This is just another example of the waste and careless spending in the school district and the state's budget in general.

These people just think that they can spend and we the taxpayers will continue to pay more and more.

It has got to stop.

Payroll Tax increase protested

This article in the Review Journal is about the 50% hike in unemployment taxes which will take effect January 1, 2011. The article states that,
The tax is being increased because the state unemployment trust fund was exhausted in October 2009 and the state so far has been forced to borrow more than $500 million from the U.S. Department of Labor to keep paying benefits. The heavy borrowing occurred largely because Nevada's unemployment rate has tripled in three years and now stands at 14.4 percent, the highest in the nation.

With no signs of recovery looming, the state borrowing is expected to reach $830 million by Oct. 1, 2011. Just three years ago, the state trust fund was more than $800 million in the black.

This tax will reduce jobs and increase unemployment instead of increasing jobs.

I suggest that instead of raising the unemployment tax, the state should stop illegal aliens from receiving health care and education by passing laws similar to Arizona's SB 1070.

The millions of dollars that are saved by stopping illegal immigration could be used to offset the unemployment insurance deficit.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Immigrant veterans facing deportation

This Review Journal article shows an example of how inept our government is in almost anything that it does. The article states,
Up to 8,000 non-citizens enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces every year and serve alongside American troops. As of May 2010, there were 16,966 non-citizens on active duty. The military does not allow illegal immigrants to enlist.

If non-citizens die while serving, they are given citizenship and a military funeral. If they live and get in trouble with the law, as Coombs did, they can get caught in the net of a 1996 immigration law that greatly expanded the list of crimes for which non-citizens can be deported.

The first mistake is letting non citizens enlist in the military. Then, we compound the mistake by deporting them after they have served our country.

If they die while serving, they are given citizenship, but, if they live, they can be deported. To me, this is criminal. If they serve our country even if it is a mistake, they deserve citizenship.

In the Coombs case, he was court-martialed for possession of cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute, and was given 18 months of confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

This is not what I would consider completing your obligation to serve in the military. We could eliminate this problem by not allowing an non-citizen to serve in the military or, if they fulfill their obligation completely, give them citizenship.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The painfull, costly results of slashing state programs

This Sun article demonstrates how the liberals try to justify spending. It uses the disabled as an example of the hardships that cutting spending will include.

If you look at the last 50 years, you will see that our economy is worse than beforre, that people are losing their homes, that our schools are lacking, that we are not any safer, and that more people are living in poverty than ever before. Government is spending more than ever before and we are in worse shape.

50 years ago, one person working could support a family. Now it takes two people working. To look at it another way, it takes 2 jobs instead of one job to support a family. Why? The answer is increased taxes. We pay 50% to 60% of our salary in various federal, state, and local taxes.

Everyone has to cut back. However, we can decide where to cut back and it is not necessary to cut back on the disabled. If we stop illegal immigration with a bill like Arizona's SB 1070, we would save millions, if not billions, of dollars on education and health costs.

We cannot afford more taxes. It would be disastrous for the economy and Nevada.

No good choice for Attorney General

In this Review Journal editorial about the attorney general race which is
the most high-profile -- and, arguably, important -- state constitutional officer.
it stated that,
While we initially had high hopes for Ms. Masto, she's proved a disappointment. Mr. Barrick is marginally qualified. Joel Hansen, with perhaps the best ideas, is an Independent American with little chance of being elected.

Voters don't have a good choice for attorney general this election cycle. More's the pity.
After reading the article, it seemed that you felt that Mr. Hansen was the best candidate. One of these three will get elected. Do you base your endorsements on who is the best candidate or do you just endorse the candidate who you think will win?

Thursday, October 14, 2010

For State Senate

In the Review Journal’s article on the State Senate Races, the only candidates mentioned were the Democratic candidates and the Republican candidates. Why? I am sure that there are many very qualified third party candidates or independent candidates.

In fact, I am a candidate in the State Senator District 9 race and feel that I am more qualified that the other two candidates mentioned by the RJ. Did the RJ visit my web site, listen to my interviews on the radio, come to any events, or read the interview that I gave to the RJ before the decided who to support in this race?

If they did research my platform, they should have at least mentioned my candidacy and commented on why they didn’t feel they could support me.

Several weeks ago, an RJ editorial said that the 2 party system had failed and we needed more political parties, but then the RJ doesn’t even mention all the candidates in a race It could at least list the other candidates running.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

An education in spending

This Review Journal article states,
The last thing our education system needs is more money.

Of all the things the Newark, N.J., school system needs, the last of them is more money. Newark spends more per pupil than any other city in the country, and gets dismayingly little for it. For $22,000 per pupil — more than twice the national average — it graduates half its students.

Later in the article, it states,
We have tripled per-pupil spending during the past four decades, while results have largely stayed flat.

I believe that, if we used the testing standards of the past four decades, we would find that the results are terrible and getting worse. The drop out rate is higher than ever.

When we pass students in the K to 5 without requiring that they have learning the curriculum, we cannot expect them to be able to learn the curriculum when they get to high school. Therefore, they give up and drop out.

We do not need more money for education. We need more education for our money.

State council votes to increase unemployment tax

This article in the Review Journal states,
Happy New Year, Nevada employers.

Starting Jan. 1, you will be hit with a 50 percent increase in the taxes you pay to provide unemployment benefits to workers, the state Employment Security Council decided Tuesday.

But that won't be the last of your increases.

As early as September, your unemployment taxes are expected to be boosted again to help the state pay back another $300 million it will borrow from the federal government.

With Nevada already leading the nation in unemployment, the State has to raise taxes on employers because of the deficit in the unemployment insurance fund. It can only lead to more unemployment or, at best, no new jobs.

It seems to be a vicious circle. Raise unemployment taxes on businesses. Unemployment increases. Raise taxes again to pay for the increased unemployment.

Increased taxes will not stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Congress can't repeal laws of economics

This article was in the Review Journal, but I had to use this link. It is about the unintended consequences of passing laws without considering the laws of economics.

It states,
It's raining! I don't like it! Why hasn't Congress passed the Good Weather Act and the Everybody Happy Act?

Sound dumb?

Why is it any dumber than a law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which promised to cover more for less money?

It than points out the effects of ObamaCare and how you cannot expect businesses to do things that will cost them money and lose them money.

It states,
In other words: "We have repealed the basic laws of economics. Insurance companies must now give people more but not charge them for it. If you do charge more, you must not tell your customers why. Shut up, obey, and don't complain. We are your rulers."

Vegas a hot spot for welfasre recipients from California

This article was in the Sun, but I could only find this link. It is about how California welfare recipients are spending their welfare money on trips to Las Vegas and cruises to other places.

It states,
More than $69 million in California welfare money, meant to help the needy pay their rent and clothe their children, has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami.

How much of Nevada's welfare is also being spent unnecessarily? This is just one example of the wasteful spending in government.

We need to control spending and stop raising taxes.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Likely voters find state spending decisions difficult

This front page article in the Review Journal states,

The more Nevadans think about the state's projected $3 billion revenue shortfall, the more they want to cut spending and increase taxes.

At least that's what the Impact Nevada survey found when 600 likely voters around the state were polled from Sept. 6-16

The problem with this poll is that is assumes that the state will have a $3 billion deficit. This is not true. The actual deficit if the state doesn't increase spending will be $1.5 billion which Steven Horsford, the Senate Majority Leader, says can be cut from the budget.

The question that should be asked is,
if the people want to spend more money when it will mean more taxes

Food Stamp Nation

This article was in the Review Journal, but I could not find it on the RJ site so I used another site.
'The lessons of history ... show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.'

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address. FDR feared this self-reliant people might come to depend permanently upon government for the necessities of their daily lives. Like narcotics, such a dependency would destroy the fiber and spirit of the nation.

What brings his words to mind is news that 41.8 million Americans are on food stamps, and the White House estimates 43 million will soon be getting food stamps every month.

A seventh of the nation cannot even feed itself.

The government just released figures that show that more people are living below the poverty level than ever before.

Welfare isn't working. Before food stamps and welfare, this article points out that,
No one was starving. There had been no starvation since Jamestown, with such exceptions as the Donner Party caught in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846-47, who took to eating their dead.

Sure there was poverty, but people and charities helped to prevent starvation and helped people through their tough times.

I just don't think that increasing taxes to pay for more services will help. In fact, I believe that more taxes will cause more poverty and problems.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Consider all sides before casting a vote

This letter to the editor in the Sun, states,
The Tea Party/Republicans encourage voters to focus on the deficit, the deficit, the deficit. Yes, the deficit is a major problem. But it is only part of the problem. Other major challenges that are rarely mentioned are Wall Street, big business, the whole military/industrial complex, insurance companies and Big Pharma. Abuses by all of the above are undermining our economic system and have wiped out many a retirement fund. As laws that were instituted to curb these abuses have been watered down or eliminated, we the people have been saddled with rapidly increasing premiums and fewer safeguards, while the profits of the institutions have become exorbitant.

The problem is the deficits. The tax and spend Republicans and Democrats have been in control for over 100 years. Look back 30 or 40 years. Is the economy any better? Is education any better? Are you any safer? Do you have as many freedoms?

We have more people living below the poverty level than ever before. We pay 50% to 60% of what we earn in taxes. We are facing 2 historic tax increases.

The government cannot and should not spend more than it takes in. It cannot keep raising taxes and continue spending. It has to stop.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

The $3 billion deficit doesn't exist.

This article in the Sun is about Steven Horsford discussing the Nevada 2011 budget.
Senate Majority Leader Horsford states,
With the state facing an estimated $3 billion shortfall, Horsford, D-Las Vegas, proposed in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun that the state should cut programs or shift them along with their costs to local governments.

These spending reductions would total about $1.5 billion.

First, Nevada is not facing a $3 billion deficit. According the Nevada Budget Direct Andrew Clinger, the projected revenue is $5 billion and, according to Sean Whaley, Capital Bureau Chief of the Nevada News Bureau, the budget is about $6.5 billion. Therefore, the deficit is $1.5 billion. The $3 billion deficit is based on a wish list for the next 2 years. They are asking for an increase in spending of $1.5 billion.

Second, since the deficit should be $1.5 billion and Horsford said that we can cut $1.5 billion in costs, we can balance the budget without the need to raise taxes.

By passing illegal immigration laws similar to Arizona's SB 1070, we could save millions of dollars on illegal alien healthcare and educational costs and maybe even reduce taxes.

We cannot afford another tax increase. Do not be brainwashed into thinking that a tax increase is necessary. It isn't.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Reveiw Journal Impact Opinion Poll Articles

This is the letter that I wrote to the Review Journal about their series of articles using the impact opinion polls.

In your series of articles about the impact opinion polls on taxes, you have neglected to ask some of the most important questions of all.

Would you be willing to cut services to avoid tax increases?

Would you favor an amendment like the Tax and Spending Control amendment which would limit budget increases to inflation and population growth?

The questions that are being asked all assume that a tax increase is necessary. This 2011 tax increase will be the third record tax increase in less than 10 years. With people struggling to survive due to inflation, people losing their businesses, people losing their homes, and people losing their jobs, we cannot afford any more tax increases.

In the latest figures by the government, more people are living in poverty than ever before. Higher taxes will create even more people living in poverty.

The rich begin to move away

This article was in the Review Journal on October 1, but I cannot find the link so I used a link to the same article on another site. it states,
As I've said before, a tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some — by force — and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated.

That's the moral side of the matter. There's a practical side, too. Taxes discourage wealth creation. That hurts everyone, the lower end of the income scale most of all. An economy that, through freedom, encourages the production of wealth raises the living standards of lower-income people as well as everyone else.

Then the author gives a couple of real life examples.
"The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.

But the wolf is here. Maryland created a special tax on rich people that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million.

New York billionaire Tom Golisano isn't stupid, either. With $3,000 and one employee, he started a business that processes paychecks for companies. He created 13,000 jobs.

Then New York state hiked the income tax on millionaires.

"It was the straw that broke the camel's back," he says. "Not that I like to throw the number around, but my personal income tax last year would've been $13,800 a day. Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state where there's no state income tax or very low state income tax?

He established residence in Florida, which has no personal income tax.

Legislatures pass laws without considering the unintended consequences. The greatest motivational principle is that people do what is best for them. This applies to legislators, rich people, middle class people, and poor people.