Las Vegas Gleaner

Wildly unpopular politician picked to win in a landslide

If the RJ's pollster had called the Gleaner, there would have been yet one more person reporting an "unfavorable" opinion of Harry Reid -- can't forgive all those years of caving to Republicans. For starters.

But for the moment let's put aside the many, many, many people, on both left and right, who disapprove of Reid on policy and political grounds. Reid is also arguably one of the least personally likable politicians on the contemporary American landscape.

So it's little surprise to see polling indicate -- again -- that if Republicans ever rustle up a candidate other than extreme performance artist Sharron Angle, the Senate Majority Leader could be beat.

The new numbers don't really tell us much that is, well, new, so I see no reason not to lazily dust off my original take:

Unless it's 2004 redux and nobody runs against Reid but a full-on bozo with no chance of winning (a possibility that can't be ruled out), the Republican Party's nominee will have lots and lots of money from extra-Nevada sources, and it's easy to envision the campaign being as nasty, brutal but not short as any Nevada has ever seen.

But no matter how effectively a well-funded GOP challenger might exploit a contempt bred of familiarity and pound away at Reid's already flimsy approval ratings, or how concrete the Democratic gains in Nevada, or how superior Reid's campaign machine is, Reid's political future is going to have almost nothing to do with any of that stuff.

A fifth term in the Senate won't depend on Reid assembling a flawless political juggernaut in Nevada and destroying any and all challengers. It will depend on the success of Barack Obama's presidency.

If the economy appears to stabilize and improve, if progress is being made in foreign policy and if voters determine that the nation is on the "right track" by 2010, Reid will win. If not, Reid will lose.

And yes if things aren't turning around by election day 2010 then the political fate of Harry Reid will be the least significant thing in the whole of space and time anyway.

GOP unveils plan to label America back to prosperity

Teabaggers are getting together again this week, though this time instead of calling their gathering a "protest" they're calling it a "meeting of the Republican National Committee." And in addition to angrily shaking their fists at the sky, they will be mulling a resolution to start calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party," because boy that will show that darned Barack Obama AND fix the economy.

The proposed resolution has sparked outrage in some quarters. "They're giving socialism a bad name," objected Frank Llewellyn of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Meantime, as retaliation Democrats were planning to mock and belittle Republicans by referring to them as "Republicans."

Gibbons tries to repair damage with his hard right base...

...either that or this clumsy attack on Obama is merely the product of a deluded neurotic with nothing better to do.

Not that the two scenarios are mutually exclusive, mind.

Anyway, a representative excerpt from a release farcically  headlined "PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSES MEETING WITH GOVERNOR GIBBONS TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO TOURISM CAUSED BY PRESIDENT":

“President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid, apparently our money is good enough for the President, but our tourism, jobs, and economic future are not.” Gibbons added, “This is politics, pure and simple, President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada.”

When the governor, in close and thoughtful coordination with crack communications director Dan Burns, issues a carefully crafted news release of such importance to the people of the state of Nevada, it deserves a response of equal seriousness. That's why now seemed like as good a time as any to take a cue from Mr. Layne and Co. and make the Blingee.

Parties, pundits heighten calls for relocating combatant to sparsely populated spot in American West

Did Dick Cheney ask that people be tortured into saying Iraq had something to do with 9-11? It sure would be surprising to learn that he didn't. But he'll probably get around to denying the allegation -- especially since his increasingly creepy daughter wouldn't.

Meantime, Cheney's charm offensive has prompted elements of both major political parties and assorted pundits to openly wish that Cheney would "go back to Wyoming."

Having spent most of the first 35 years of my life as a resident of that state, I must protest.

When Cheney conducted his extensive search for George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidate, only to discover that he himself was the only man on earth qualified for the job, Cheney was a Texan. He had to change his residency to Wyoming because the U.S. Constitution prohibits a president and vice president from the same state. (I observed at the time that the Constitution should be amended to prohibit a president and vice president from the same industry, inasmuch as both Cheney and Bush were petroscum).

Cheney's Wyoming "residence" back then was his idea of a fishing cabin in the back country -- a condo amidst the resort-corridor strip mall sprawl outside of Jackson Hole in Teton County. (Fun fact: Teton County, Cheney's "home," was the only county in Wyoming to go for Kerry in 2004.)

Prison, hell (if there was one) and Texas (is that list redundant?) are among the places that Cheney can and should rightly be asked to go.

Wyoming bears some measure of responsibility for electing Cheney to Congress after he left the Ford administration, thus allowing him to continue living where he has preferred to spend nearly the entirety of his adult life -- on the public payroll inside the Washington beltway. But Cheney long ago all but abandoned the state, and it's not fair to keep wishing him on Wyoming's population, such as it is.

Tax and spend, Nevada says

Given the manner in which Nevada Democratic leaders have made the case for fundamental and sweeping tax reform, new polling conducted for the local newspaper must be considered something of a surprise: You'd think support for raising taxes would be much lower.

But then, those who relied on the article accompanying the poll instead of looking at the poll results may have come away with the impression that support for raising taxes is, in fact, thinner than it is, inasmuch as one of the the poll's most important findings was buried deep, deep in the story and given short shrift. Fortunately, it was at the top of the poll results, presenting itself for convenient cutting and pasting:

QUESTION: In general, which of the following approaches to dealing with Nevada’s budget situation do you most support: (ORDER ROTATED)

• Increasing state taxes to avoid cuts in current government services and programs
• Cutting current government programs and services to avoid increasing state taxes

	STATE	MEN	WOMEN	DEM	REP	IND	CLARK	WASHOE	RURAL
INCREASE TAXES	43%	37%	49%	64%	21%	36%	45%	38%	38%
CUT PROGRAMS	41%	48%	34%	18%	65%	48%	38%	50%	47%
COMBO/DK	16%	15%	17%	18%	14%	16%	17%	12%	15%

Popular support for raising taxes to maintain teachers' salaries (57 percent support to 27 percent opposed in the poll) is impressive -- though everyone is "for" education. But more support for raising taxes than cutting services "in general," well, it warms a Gleaner's heart. 

While looking at the responses for raising specific taxes, I couldn't help but wonder what the level of public support for reform might be if it was accompanied with something that has mostly been in short supply from political leaders, i.e., a little framing. For instance, 37 percent support a corporate income tax, while 44 percent oppose it. But if it became common knowledge among voters that Nevada is one of only three states without either a corporate income tax or gross receipts tax, those numbers would assuredly shift. Lots to work with there, IMO, though admittedly I'm an innocent optimist who believes that if some politician cared to lead them, voters could be led.

*  *  *

Meantime, the level of support for Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons -- in particular the pathetically small number of his fellow Republicans who are willing to reelect him -- is cause for concern. As I've suggested before, it would be far too easy and too convenient for Republicans to get rid of Gibbons in a primary. He is their guy. They should be forced to ride him all the way to a general election. And the satisfaction of removing him from public life should be an opportunity afforded all Nevadans, not just the Republicans who insisted that he simply had to be governor in the first place. Hopefully, the would-be challengers to Gibbons won't catch on with the party's teabagging base, and Gibbons will manage to skulk his way through the GOP primary.

Hey everyone, Bob would like to make a suggestion

A memo that made the news:

May 14, 2009

TO: PLAN Board of Directors and Allies

FR: Bob Fulkerson, State Director

RE: Potential Mining Tax Ballot Initiative

As you are probably aware, there are some ominous signs that
legislators will refrain from closing mining tax loopholes in any
significant way, and perhaps not at all.

I am writing to gauge your support for going directly to the people
with a constitutional amendment in 2010, if mining indeed escapes
taxation this session.

We could consider an amendment to strike the word 'net' and change 5%
to a higher number. Another, even simpler solution might be to just
eliminate the mining tax section from the state constitution altogether.

If we work for a constitutional amendment, we can be sure of two
things: a) The majority of the people of Nevada live in the South, and
they are not at all sympathetic to the mining industry; and b) The
cost to the mining industry will be far, far higher in the long and
short run than the removal of some of the existing deductions.

As we've been pointing out for the past year, the mining industry has
manipulated a sweetheart deal tax system of deductions and loopholes
so well that sometimes mines can produce hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of gold yet completely eliminate their tax burden on
that production. And when the gold is gone, it's gone, along with the
mining companies and Nevada's tax revenue. Maybe constitutional
protection of this industry made sense during the gold rush, but it
cannot be justified any longer.

Please explore the interest of your organization in broadening the tax
base to include mining in the event our legislature fails to act.

Thank you!

Oh no, Bob, thank you.

As I indicated the other day while trying to help the mining lobby understand some of these complicated issues (perhaps I should send the mining association an invoice?), aesthetically I prefer the option of just ripping the mining tax stuff out of the constitution and putting it into state statutes with all the other taxes that everybody else pays. However, I could be persuaded, s'pose, that it would be more practical to leave it in the constitution but change it so that the solar system's largest gold mining corporations end up paying, oh, eight or twelve or fifteen times more to the state general fund than the measly $30 million they're paying now. See? Let no one say that your Gleaner does not have an open mind about these things.

Why us?

The sundry goings-on of assorted local/regional wingnuts is often disregarded in this little corner of the cyberwasteland. Life is just too short to pay attention to the outraged squeals of bitter irrelevant Muthtards (unless of course they do something that's just so cute it can't be passed up).

But the Sun had some fun with a local right-wing spin group's whimsical "Freedom Budget" -- goes good with "Freedom Fries," presumably -- and it jogged a notion that has been occasionally puzzling your lowly Gleaner for a while now:

• The wingers hate taxes. Nevada is one of only seven states without a personal income tax and one of only three states without either a corporate income tax or a gross receipts tax on business.

• The wingers hate government spending. Nevada spends less on state government relative to the size of the state's economy than any other state in the nation.

If these people are so dedicated to hating and attacking taxes and spending, wouldn't their efforts -- and their careers for that matter -- be better spent somewhere that has some taxes and spending that they could hate and attack?

'Forget it, Jake...'

"Trying to figure out Nevada politics is like trying to figure out the end of the movie 'Chinatown,'" a local member of the political-industrial complex says.

Let's see, greedy and lecherous pigs conspire to enrich themselves at the expense of an unknowing public and there's a drought. And incest. What's not to figure out?

Johnny Casino rubbing up to the rubes

From the Post:

Nevada Sen. John Ensign has added two stops to a scheduled trip to Iowa early next month, a move that will further stoke speculation that he has an eye on running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

And with that, the buzz surrounding Ensign's presidential ambitions has peaked.

Fainthearted opposition may pass up opportunity to weaken tinpot regime

A constitutionally weak legislative body in the failed state of Nevada has until May 21 to agree on some form of tax package which will then be vetoed by the state's tinpot chief executive. If lawmakers miss the deadline, the despised ruler can run out the clock and effectively preclude the Legislature from meeting to override his veto, in which case he may simply gets his way and legislators might as well not have bothered to meet at all.

As someone somewhere once said in another context, that'll put the banana in your republic.

Musing on some of these matters in his column in the Sun Wednesday, Jon Ralston writes that "if the tax plan has 40 out of 40 Democratic votes and two out of 23 Republican votes, can it rightly be called a Democratic package? I think so. Neither (Assembly Speaker Barbara) Buckley nor (Senate Majority Leader Steven) Horsford wants that."

Why not?

The aforementioned tinpot chief executive is also the face of the Nevada Republican Party and not surprisingly is the early frontrunner to yet again win his party's gubernatorial nomination. He proposes to  inflict irreversible harm on Nevada by hollowing out the education system, health programs and social services in a state that pound for pound already has the cheapest government in the United States. His thorough thrashing of the state budget would not only stall economic recovery and dash any hope of economic diversification, but ultimately threaten the public health and safety of residents and visitors alike.

If by some stretch of the imagination there is still a possibility that Democrats can pick off two -- any two -- Republican senators that they need to override vetoes and pass a tax package that is more aggressive than the timid and tired spoon-in-a-flood proposals that are reportedly in the works, they should seize the chance.

Buckley (who hasn't done her own gubernatorial aspirations any favors lately) and Horsford shouldn't be afraid of crushing the governor's dark vision and replacing it with a "Democratic package." They should relish the opportunity. Good policy is good politics -- especially if the politicians who support the policy have the sense to celebrate it instead of apologizing for it.

If 21 out of 23 Republicans vote against a tax plan, can Republicans up and down the ballot in 2010 rightly get Jim Gibbons wrapped around their necks? I think so. Both Buckely and Horsford should want that.