Phoebe Sweet’s first set of comments on Harry Reid’s likely GOP opponents went something like: When you put Senator Reid up against (1) a two-time loser (Tarkanian) or a (2) woman whose husband collected $200K in bonuses while laying off employees (Lowden)…

When Ralston asked Comfort if he is obsessed with Reid and beating Reid, Chris joked: “Constantly. I have a difficult time sleeping at night…”

Ralston joked back re: whether or not Dr. Comfort’s dental patients should be concerned (presumably about his lack of sleep) and Comfort replied: “It’s interesting because the dental patients are giving me ideas. It’s interesting… Because where I work, there are a lot of miners, a lot of self-educated people, and these people understand there is something wrong with this state and with this country, and how disconnected the Democrats are from any known parameter.”

Comfort went on to say that the GOP has “very well known candidates” running for governor and then named them: Montandon, Sandoval, Gibbons. When asked if Gibbons is doing a good job, Comfort said: “The governor is doing a decent job as a conservative in office, and he is holding the line on taxes the best he can, given the hostility of the Democrats…”

Sweet chimed in: “Well, if that’s the only benchmark, I geuss so. But if you take into account his flip-flops…”

Ralston interrupted and said perhaps the Dems should be praying for Gibbons to win the primary because that is the only hope they (Rory) have. He went on to say that based on recent polling, Montandan is known by “no one” and is still beating Rory Reid.

At which point Sweet whipped out that famous old standard: “The only poll that counts is the poll on election day.”

Ralston also read an excerpt from one of Comfort’s recent news release about the voter registration gap which was put out in response to the news that Democrats now have “only” a 63,000-voter lead over the GOP (due to a purging of inactive voters from the rolls):

Looking for proof that our message of common-sense, responsible conservatism is resonating with Nevada voters?

…more and more voters are rejecting the failed policies of the Democrats and are instead embracing the kinds of real, common-sense solutions Republicans are offering. Voters are tired of the reckless spending and unaccountable government that threatens the future of our great state. They are saying: Enough is enough!”

Ralston asked Comfort: “Were you inhaling some of your own laughing gas? The Republican party is hemorrhaging voters…”

Comfort acknowledged the numbers but then said the Dems are losing voters at a 3-to-1 ratio. (They are?) He added that voters “are not flocking to the Republicans…yet…” and then thanked Jon, tongue in cheek, for “getting the message out…that we see so many people being disaffected by the government, people are fed up, and we see a resurgence of common sense values…”

Ralston turned the subject to the Tea Party candidate (Ashjian) and asked Comfort if he wasn’t “terrified” of the votes that could be pulled and that it might throw the November race to Reid.

Comfort said, “No, we’re not petrified at all” and then said he/we (who you calling we?) are calling him “the Tim Geithner candidate…with his tax problems and so forth.” (It was revealed on Ralston’s show last week that Ashjian has a tax lien issue of some sort.)

Shortly after, Ralston asked Sweet if independent voters don’t seem to be turning more to Republican candidates right now. Sweet said, “There’s a move away from both parties” and then said the reduction in Dem voter rolls are “indicative of a change of address, not a way of thinking.” She then pointed out that the GOP doesn’t have much going for it if “all they have to crow about is a 66,000 voter registration gap.”

(Ouch!)

There were a few more parting comments about Senator Reid, on whom Comfort’s last word was:

“There is technology park on 215 and Durango, near my house, that has sat empty for years. That’s a testament to Harry Reid’s failed leadership…” and then, re: Rory, he added: “The apple does not fall far from the tree.”

(Ms. Crum is editor of the Nevada News Bureau)

Voters in CD 3 are starting to ask themselves the same question as well.

Dina Titus claims to be “committed to fighting for the people of Southern Nevada during this difficult time,” but with her help, the situation has only worsened over the past 15 months. The job-killing polices that Dina Titus has fought for, and continues to fight for, are not what is best for the families of Southern Nevada.

Families and business alike need to feel confident with both the fiscal outlook as well as the regulatory outlook of our country, and Dina’s performance thus far doesn’t give them a lot of confidence.

The record of Dina Titus is one of job-killing, not job-creating policies – policies that only increase the national debt, tax hardworking Nevada families, and create undue burden on small businesses – which are the life-line of a prosperous economy. Titus’ trillions of dollars worth of deficit spending will continue to weigh down potential economic growth for generations to come.

“Southern Nevada needs a new direction away from the job-killing policies of Nancy Pelosi and Dina Titus,” said Joe Heck, Republican candidate for the 3rd congressional district. “We must work to create a stable economic outlook so that companies can be confident about hiring again.

“Washington and Dina Titus cannot continue to change the rules during this economic crisis,” Heck continued. “During the past 15 months, Washington has become the largest automaker, banker, insurance provider, and is now trying to become the largest healthcare provider – all on the backs of hard working families and small business owners. These job-killing policies must stop, and stop now.”

“It’s exciting to officially get this campaign underway. I’ve been working hard since the first of the year to lay the foundation for my race and I’m pleased with the strong support that I’ve received so far,” said Gust. “Nevada voters realize our state is going through challenging times and my experience as a small business owner and operator has resonated in the district.”

Gust decided to enter the race the end of 2009 and began his campaign in earnest after the first of the year with volunteer walks getting underway and grassroots activity continuing to ramp up as the weeks have progressed.

“I plan on bringing my commonsense business background to Carson City. I know what employers are facing right now…I’ve dealt with licensing, fees, taxes, bureaucrats and government regulations. I’ve been forced to meet tight budgets in tough times; and I have managed growing costs from healthcare, taxes and employment expenses.

“I will be a strong voice for Nevada’s small businesses, workers, and taxpayers,” Gust concluded.

Those that are interested in meeting Josh are welcome to stop by Agave Mexican Restaurant from 5:30 to 7:30pm, Tuesday March 9th. Agave is located at 10820 Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, 89135.

Some bio info from his campaign team:

– Orrin put himself through college at the University of Minnesota on a Navy ROTC scholarship, making ends meet by working for his school’s police department.

– After graduating, he served in the U.S. Navy for six years as a Surface Warfare officer, “driving” Destroyers around the world and deploying overseas three times in support of missions such as Operation Southern Watch and the post-9/11 Operation Enduring Freedom.

– After leaving the Navy, Orrin attended law school at the University of Washington in Seattle where he met his wife, Alicia. Orrin and Alicia were married at Alicia’s parents’ home in Reno – the same home she had grown up in as a little girl. After graduation, the Johnsons settled in Reno to raise their own family. Baby Lillian was born last year.

– Since moving to Reno, Orrin has engaged in the community, working as a public defender for Washoe County. He’s volunteered to coach a high school mock trial team, assisted with speech and debate programs at various schools and taught 5th Graders about the justice system. He’s participated in various charity events, and has been active for years in promoting Republican events, ideas, causes and candidates.

I talked with Johnson briefly this morning. Here’s what he said when I asked him what he thinks differentiates him from other candidates:

“Well, the fact that I’ve been a conservative blogger for years sets me apart.

The ideas and principles that underlie good government should be studied and pondered and put out to survive the forge of debate. I recently finished reading a book called, “Ronald Reagan: In His Own Hand.” It was a reproduction of his notes and drafts of his many radio spots but if you didn’t know any better, you’re swear you were reading a blog that was written in the late ‘70s.

He wasn’t afraid to put his ideas out there firmly and positively, and I wish we saw more of that today. Without that foundational consideration of our core principles to build on, it’s harder to view individual policy decisions in terms of a long term vision. And a lack of long term vision – marked most notably by spending like there’s no tomorrow when times are temporarily flush – is exactly why we face Nevada’s ongoing fiscal and economic crisis.”

Here’s his new site: http://orrinjohnson.com

Gansert’s seat is sure to attract more wishfuls. Who’s next…?

(Ms. Crum is editor of the Nevada News Bureau and writes NNB’s “The Blog”)

Dear General McKinley:

We have noted with interest a recent NGB memorandum that provides implementation guidance for the establishment of Counter Improvised Explosive Device-Defeat (C-IED) Training Lanes at several sites around the country. We request that you add Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada to that list of sites.

Hawthorne Army Depot (HWAD) is situated in Nevada’s central high desert, an ideal location for preparing our service members for the terrain, altitude, climate and logistical challenges they currently face in Afghanistan. In fact, last year Hawthorne served as a training site for 10,484 Service Members who were able to take full advantage of Hawthorne’s high desert and mountainous terrain.

HWAD offers a unique set of training opportunities across its 146,000 acres to include:

· A driving obstacle course
· A pistol/rifle training range
· Cottonwood Canyon light infantry and mountain warfare training area
· Old Bomb/Carter test range and live fire area
· POW, Urban, and Logistics training
· Ryan Canyon tactical driver’s course to NAS Fallon
· Walker Lake water training area

Other site services include:

· Housing for trainers and observers
· Barracks and billeting
· Utilities/facilities for equipment maintenance
· Procurement support, including purchasing and sub-contracting
· Utilities, telephone, and internet
· Environmental support
· Receipt, shipping and storage facilities

As you can see the basic requirements for the IED training lanes are already available at HWAD. Further, the Adjutant General of Nevada, Brigadier General William Burks fully supports the expanded use of HWAD for C-IED training. We all feel that existing roads and trails at HWAD, because they closely approximate those found in Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush, would be perfect for this vital training.

Please consider adding HWAD as a site for the new C-IED training lanes and let us know what we can do for our part to make sure our troops are able to take full advantage of the incredible training environment at Hawthorne Army Depot.

(Hat Tip: Lahontan Valley News)

Mike is a graduate of Arizona State University and has also completed the Harvard University Program for Senior Executives at the JFK School of Government. He is married to Antoinette and they have five children.

You served as a local city official. You have not had any State legislative experience. Why did you determine to run for Governor and not for a legislative seat?

I served in an executive capacity over one of the fastest growing large cities in America. During that time, I proved myself as a leader and a visionary who brought growth and opportunity to my constituents. I plan on achieving the same goals from Nevada’s chief executive office.

What would you consider your major accomplishments as Mayor?

I created a new process for land entitlement that eliminated the “contract” zoning that is referred to as “Resolutions of Intent.” I created the 5th Street corridor, including the Transit Supportive Land Use Plan. I helped establish the process and regulations for the SNPLMA law that allowed us to create Aliante. I used SNPLMA to acquire Craig Ranch, the largest green asset in NLV for a city park. Most importantly, I helped eliminate much of the stigma associated with NLV.

What personal attributes do you feel best qualify you for the position of Governor?

I am, first and foremost, a leader who is willing to make the hard decisions and to advocate for my constituents. I understand the role of government, and do what I can to make sure it works for the people it serves. I have the ability to listen to and communicate with my fellow Nevadans. Above all else, I have the capacity and desire to serve in public office to help Nevada achieve the greatness it deserves.

In serving others as their elected representative, I am honored with the responsibility of their trust. I have knowledge of our history and of how our government works, and a desire to continuously expand that knowledge. I have made the study of the U.S. Constitution and the understanding the proper role of government a daily practice. I would rather be considered a statesman than a politician. By holding public office, I have gained/grown/learned more as an individual than I have given as a public servant.

You appear to have a well-organized campaign team in place. What is your basic ‘game plan’ to reach out to the voters in the state? What do you estimate the Governor’s race will cost? Are you investing your own money in the campaign? To what degree?

My campaign team is well organized, and they are all dedicated to winning on Election Day.

Our “game plan,” so to speak, has many different aspects. Our primary objective is to work to identify and connect with the 60,000 voters I will need to win the primary election. In order to do this effectively, we estimate the cost will be somewhere in the range of $1.5 million. Once we have won the primary, we will need to spend an additional $4 million to win.

Spending years in public service has not left me with a fortune of my own to spend. However, as I did in my three successful bids for the office of Mayor in North Las Vegas, I will devote all of my time and attention on winning this gubernatorial race for the benefit of all Nevadans.

You have two announced Republican opponents in the race for governor. Why should the voters of Nevada select you over them?

I am the candidate with the proven ability to bring jobs and growth. I have the executive experience necessary to lead and I understand the key elements needed for Nevada’s economic recovery. I am the candidate who has a strong voice to attract businesses and jobs back to our state; the candidate who understands that we need to fix our educational system; the candidate who knows that, as Nevadans, all of our rights must be protected, including the right to life.

With my experience, Nevadans will not have to gamble with their votes in 2010. They will know what they are getting: a Governor who will bring success back to Nevada.

In addition to what I have written above, I offer the voters experience. I offer them an opportunity to change an educational system that isn’t working. I cannot and do not expect to be everything to everyone. I plan on making some hard decisions that may not sit well with some citizens.

However, the voters can expect more than just common sense from me. I will make the decisions that are consistent with the plan that has kept us well since statehood. I recognize that Nevada’s recovery starts with a firm understanding of key elements to economic recovery.

One key element is a listening ear to the voice of the people. It is the common voice of the people today which centers on attracting businesses to Nevada, job creation and driving critical improvements in our educational system. My candidacy does not ask the people of Nevada to gamble on their vote for me as Governor. My candidacy brings both executive experience and a clear and transparent public service record.

Clark County encompasses over three-quarters of the state’s population. You were the Mayor of North Las Vegas, a rapidly growing city and a large part of the Clark County population base. Do you feel you can adequately relate to the problems and concerns unique to northern and rural Nevada? Elaborate on a few of these issues.

It does sometimes appear as if there are issues unique to the northern and southern parts of Nevada, respectively. I am able to recognize how the issues of water and funding to each individual county are having an impact on local governments and populations. As Governor, I will be able to more accurately address the individual needs of each county in Nevada, and press forward with action that will not only assist each county individually but will empower all of Nevada to work together towards a brighter future.

Nevada has issues that impact everyone in the state, regardless of geography. The difference lies in how we address the issue. Education reforms will have varied appearances in different counties, but the goal will be the same: a well-educated Nevada. Tax reform will mean an array of actions, but again, the goal will be the same: a growing economy. The objective in all of this is to create a “New Nevada,” a rising/growing economy, and a promising tomorrow/brighter tomorrow.

Could you cite some concerns you see as specific to rural/northern Nevada?

The most specific concern is that rural NV does not want Southern NV to take their water. Also, lack of job creating industry is a serious issue in the rural areas. Incentive to add just one major employer to a rural area can make a huge difference. Along I-80, their top three concerns are mining, mining, and mining. In Churchill County, they have a big issue with the BLM taking away some of the revenue they were receiving from geothermal steam royalties. Douglas, Lyon, and Churchill county residents are concerned about any legislation or regulation that affects the beef, dairy, or alfalfa production.

As Governor, you will be dealing with the State Legislature, which in reality will probably still be dominated by the Democrats in 2011. How do you intend to address and succeed with your agenda under these circumstances?

It comes down to leadership. Leadership is not partisan. I will be able to go to work, every day, leading the legislature to work for the good of all Nevadans. They’ll have their approach and I’ll have mine. Both the Democrats and Republicans will be dealing with issues out in the open in front of the public, and every election both the Democrats and the Republicans will be held accountable for their actions. We will all be accountable to Nevada, and I will lead the legislature so that by the end of our terms, we will have worked together to improve the state.

Regardless the party, ideas have to be put out on the public table and debated. If ideas are going to be killed because of party politics, it will have to be done on the public stage. While it is common knowledge that the minority party will rarely win a deal negotiated in the back rooms, the real issue is that the public loses when deals come from back rooms. Nevada needs a governor who will walk across the street and tirelessly work with the legislature. For North Las Vegas, this meant attendance, deep study and review of issues, and a strong leadership voice in critical meetings. In my 12 years of public service I was absent only 3 times from those important city council meetings.

So, you will be regular visitor during session? Any other specific strategies?

Strategies will have to be created around the personalities present. I can’t say what they will be as we don’t know yet what the results will be of the next election.

What will be your primary legislative agenda?

My agenda begins with fixing our educational system. It is egregious to know that we rank the highest in high school dropouts. If we can all agree that children are the future, then we will collectively want to improve their standing in the future through a better education. Giving our youth the leg-up they need in life will also assure Nevada’s reputation as a pro-business, pro-economic growth state. With the proper intellectual capital put into place, Nevada will be able to attract more high value jobs than any other state in the Union. It will be my primary issue to bring choice, competition, and excellence to our system. The public will no longer buy the system we have, at any price.

You noted education. Any other specific priorities?

Support of a nationwide energy policy to include both renewable and nuclear power.

If the 2011 legislature votes to suspend the ‘sunset’ and continue the tax increases passed by the 2009 legislature, would you veto this action? How do you intend to address what is now projected to be approximately a $2.5 billion deficit for the upcoming fiscal year?

I look at states like Arizona, also in a budget crisis, and I see an opportunity for Nevada to be a leader in how it addresses the deficit. While a veto might have to be put in place, we can still take action during the down side of this economic cycle to fix the inefficiencies which are plaguing our state’s budget. Cuts will be made, but a healthier budget will be the result. Reducing and eliminating the deficit now will be an important step towards guaranteeing a better economic outlook for all of Nevada in the near future.

I would veto suspension of the “sunset.” The best way to not have to do that is to provide a plan for reducing the deficit before it has to come to a veto. Yes, that means cuts. Most of the current budget crises come from not accurately defining nor understanding the proper role of government.

In citing Arizona, what specifically are you referring to? What specific efforts would you make to reduce budget deficits?

Arizona has a line item veto, and school choice, including vouchers. Vouchers also leave behind more $ per student in the public schools. Other efforts will be set forth after we see the results of the special session.

You endorse education reform, including broader state support of home, charter and empowerment schools. To what degree should the state financially support education efforts outside of the traditional public school system?

Parents know that the state system of education is no substitute for what they are capable of teaching their children in the home. The school system is there to help efforts made by parents to educate their children, and not the other way around. The reforms I speak of will work because they allow parents, not government, to decide which method of education is best for their children. For some, it will be charter schools; for others, it will be traditional public schooling. Some parents will feel it best to educate their children in the home. The bottom line is to make sure our children are getting the education they need to compete in the world.

I believe “traditional” education to be home or private schooling, not public schooling. But since we are into the business of educating our public, I believe in vouchers. I believe that parents should be taught that they are still the best source of education for their kids, and the school system is there to help. I am disgusted with the concept that so many parents I talk with comment on how public education sends a “parents are failures” message and that the only way their kids can succeed is to “get them out of the house and into the hands of the professionals.” I wonder why the parents aren’t involved.

To what degree should the state support these programs?

Vouchers should be approximately 80-85% of the per student funding.

You advocate spending 65-percent of every dollar dedicated to elementary school education in the elementary classroom. This would definitely disturb the teacher’s union and affect other elementary education expenditures. Without raising taxes, how would you address this issue?

Without a goal, we will never achieve anything. If I don’t say 65%, what is to keep it from going to 40%? Unions do not have the best interest of the teachers in this issue. Teacher pay is considered in the classroom spending, and this would be a positive benefit for the teachers themselves. It doesn’t require more taxes or spending. It requires a fundamental change.

The Governor just released his education reform proposals. The Democrats and teacher’s union are uttering the usual words of criticism. What is your position in regards to the following issues: (Elaborate)

An opponent is generally expected to criticize everything. I will not. My only criticism of this plan is why now? Why not when he first started?

The current public school funding formula

The formula will have to change, primarily with the introduction of vouchers. Several of the issues you list are not mutually exclusive. A solution to one changes the dynamics of the others. For example, a voucher for say, 90% of the cost of educating a child, when exercised, reduces the class size by one, and leaves behind 10% of the money for the public classroom. This allows us to have increased funding with smaller class sizes, which can improve the attention a teacher gives to each student.

Nevada’s current classroom reduction law

What applies to one school does not always apply to all schools. Teachers and principals should have more control over how their classrooms are structured, as they will best know how to serve their student populations. Blanket legislation like this can hinder some schools’ progress.

Full day kindergarten

We need to have data on what works and what doesn’t. First and foremost, if full-day kindergarten students do not have an advantage in the first grade, and the state cannot afford it, then it needs to be re-evaluated. However, I would be willing to look and see if full day kindergarten is a true benefit for the students whose parents choose to have them participate in it.

You would make it optional?

Yes.

Collective bargaining for public school educators

Teachers deserve better than what the unions are offering them. Our teachers should have every opportunity to excel and do great things, not to mention be rewarded for their efforts. Collective bargaining is bad for the state and, more importantly, bad for the teachers who work so hard to stand out.

You would support eliminating collective bargaining for teachers?

Yes.

You support greater economic diversity, broadening Nevada’s economic tax base. What specific steps would you promote to accomplish this goal?

A low tax environment will bring businesses into the state and provide better jobs for all Nevadans. We can attract the best businesses here by making it easier on them to operate. Lower taxes create a bigger bottom line, and a bigger bottom line can create more jobs that we need.

What we do know about our economy is that it cycles, and that it will go back up. The question is whether Nevada wants to be on the front or back part of the next up cycle? A low tax environment will bring the widget makers here first when they start making widgets again. I believe in the Laffer curve. I believe that we can attract the best and brightest business minds to Nevada by making business creation/profit gain easier on them. Part of this can be answered in question 14.

Specifically, what legislation would you propose/support to create a ‘low tax environment’?

We have one, and I used it often to attract businesses, even when we were competing with incentives from other states. We need to keep it. Over-regulation can also be the equivalent of raising taxes, and must be avoided.

Would you veto any legislation allowing for state employee collective bargaining? Explain.

Yes, I would veto this, because collective bargaining agreements do not benefit either side. Over the long run, they only prove to benefit those managing the pension funds or doing the negotiating.

What affordable energy producing programs would you promote? Do you support bringing nuclear power to Nevada?

The most affordable and efficient energy program is nuclear power. I support bringing it and the technology that new nuclear power could advance to Nevada. I know that energy policy decisions can take years to affect our daily lives, which is why I will act quickly to bring cleaner, safer energy to Nevada. This not only benefits Nevada’s ability to power itself, but it can also create a cleaner environment and thousands of jobs for Nevadans.

Our not making energy policy decisions now will have serious negative consequences that cannot be quickly remedied.

I am not a fan of storing anybody’s garbage in our backyard forever, but I am a fan of the jobs that could be generated in the 10-20 years it would take to develop great new reprocessing methods for spent nuclear fuel. I hold a strong vision of Nevada leading the nation in this arena with the brightest of scientists and high paying jobs in support of an efficient energy program focused on nuclear power.

Some strides have been made in creating greater transparency in Nevada government, particularly in regards to fiscal actions. What measures would you promote to further increase public access/visibility?

We have the technology to make every transaction visible. We should also make the true cost of all expenditures known, including unfunded liabilities. Most of the cities have personnel overhead in the range of 65%, plus potential unfunded pension liability. Citizens should know this to help them make informed voting decisions.

Health care reform is the hot topic of the day. What measures would you promote in addressing Nevada’s heath care concerns?

Unlike the Federal Government, I am prepared to have a public discourse about the true cost of health care reform, both in Nevada and on the national stage. Nevadans need to understand the ramifications of mandates and the future outlook of our government’s ability to pay. A well funded health care system can be something that pursues the greater good. However, we, as Nevadans, need to make sure we understand where our priorities lie so that we do not bankrupt the state or national economies in our zeal to move the system one way or another.

Any specific proposals?

No.

We need to address EMTALA laws as they relate to illegals who are not paying into our systems and have a very public discussion on the costs of mandates. Most of the legislation around this matter is federal; however, the effects of passing this legislation brings the cost of federally mandated health care reform right back home to the governor’s office and makes it a huge concern for our state legislature and for our residents. Currently, we cannot debate the federal health care proposals when they are buried in 2,000 page bills. Transparency is key. Health care issues tie directly to educational issues, as every dollar the state expends on health care takes from dollars for education.

Is there a subject/topic I did not address that you would like to expound upon?

I am the one candidate who is pro-life, pro-freedom, and pro-business. I will bring to the table the executive experience necessary to bring Nevada out of this deficit and into a growing economy, just as I did in North Las Vegas. I am able to understand the issues crucial to all Nevadans, whether they live in Carson City or Bullhead City, Hawthorne or Henderson, Ely or Elko. My plans are to make a “New Nevada,” one in which our education and economy flourish in this young century.

There are and will be more issues to discuss, but I would like to reserve those for our next forum.

At my request, Sgt. Munley took time out of her busy schedule and away from her lovely daughters, to come visit with us for the March edition of First Friday. During her first trip to Vegas, she took the opportunity to spend some time at Stoney’s with Clark County’s finest group of politicos, concerned citizens, and candidates over a few beers.

Sgt. Munley is by all definitions, a true American hero. Not only did she open fire on and take down Maj. Nidal Hissan, thus saving dozens of lives, she also received multiple wounds in the process. And her fans on Friday night in Vegas were very eager to say “thank you” for all that she has dealt with in the last few months.

Just under 400 guests gathered on Friday evening to meet Sgt. Munley- our biggest crowd yet! When she took the stage, she received extended applause. Not only is this gal feisty and brave, she also proved to be quite spunky as well, telling the crowd, “I hear y’all get a little rowdy…I hope to see someone riding that bull before we leave here tonight!”

When she left the stage, she was greeted by a long line of guests waiting to speak with her and pose for pictures. Pictures from the event taken by Citizen Outreach staff may be viewed at our Flickr page under “First Friday Nevada.”

Sgt. Munley’s attendance on Friday was a special treat for all in attendance. Not only did we have the opportunity to say “thank you” to someone who is directly responsible for saving the lives of American soldiers, all of us who had the opportunity to chat with her learned that bravery and boldness can come in a very small, modest package. This young woman is a true patriot. We are grateful that she made it out to Vegas to celebrate with us, First-Friday style!

(Ms. Bragg is Vice President for Citizen Outreach Foundation, sponsors of the Las Vegas First Friday Happy Hour)

One word explains why this upside down situation has come to fruition: unions.

USA Today is reporting that “the number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession.” The paper finds that workers at the high end of the salary scale are well represented in government. I’d say overly represented.

In a follow up to the USA Today report, Mark Hemingway of the Washington Examiner adds that by including benefits, even the mid scale government workers do better than the private sector. “Throw in benefits,” Hemingway says, “and the average federal worker makes $38,000+ more than the average private sector worker…”

For its part, the Las Vegas Review-Journal adds that a “day of reckoning” looms for this situation.

The problem of runaway public-sector compensation is reaching the boiling point, as states and local governments struggle with budget deficits and demand that the private sector contribute more and more to keep the party going. The day of reckoning looms. After all, who’s working for whom?

The LVR-J also has a very good point. One of the reasons that many union supporters say that unions are necessary for government workers is because they usually earn less than the private sector and their benefits and pensions are needed to make up the difference. But this new news makes that argument the lie by proving that government workers make far more than those in the private sector.

And let us recall who actually pays these government workers. It is you and I the taxpayer. The undeserved riches that these union thugs are paid do not come from some magical, bottomless bank account. It comes from the ever shrinking private business sector and the quickly emptying taxpayer’s pocket.

The administration then wanted us to swallow the concept of “saved jobs” when it became apparent that the stimulus bill was not working. Most of us did not swallow the imaginary concept.

In the president’s State of the Union address, he declared job creation to be a top priority. So now the Democrat-controlled House has passed a “jobs bill” that might generate 250,000 jobs according to economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.Com. He also points out that the economy has shed 8.4 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. That’s an average of 310,000 jobs per month.

Oops! All of this legislative hot air to maybe offset less than one month’s worth of job losses since the recession began.

I will caution you that the date when the recession started is not unanimous among analysts, but we will use the December 2007 date for purposes of this discussion to illustrate two additional simple facts:

• The $35 billion House bill is 4 percent the size of the $787 billion stimulus bill
• A decrease of 250,000 in the number of unemployed workers would decrease the unemployment rate from 9.7 percent to 9.5 percent. That would assume that employers did not cut any more jobs between now and year end.

The administration will argue that not all of the stimulus money has been spent yet. Good! Then stop spending! The $787 billion stimulus bill is notworking , so why should we expect the $35 billion House bill to work? We shouldn’t, because if you don’t invest $787 billion the right way to create jobs, throwing another $35 billion at the problem almost the same way will not work, either.

To add insult to this delusional jobs-creation legislation, the Senate is working on a $15 billion jobs bill that would have to be reconciled with the House version. It would be a debate over which thimble of Washington water they are going to pour into the Potomac River while looking for a ripple.

Unemployment is very real to the 14.9 million people who would like a job but can’t find one. Businesses are in real danger of having to let even more workers go because of no real signs that the administration and Congress are going to do anything substantive to stimulate jobs and economic growth. Worse yet – many businesses are in real danger of having to shut down completely.

Exempting businesses from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax through the end of the year for new workers, and offering an additional $1,000 tax credit if they stay on the job for a full year, are not real tempting to businesses to start hiring again. Nor is it really tempting to businesses to continue the write-off of equipment purchases that they are already allowed to take.

Now here’s some real jobs stimulus substance!

Exempt businesses from paying both the employer and employee portion of the Social Security payroll tax for one year. Additionally, make the tax credit a tax cut up front for hiring an unemployed person, and make the current tax rates permanent before they expire at the end of the year.

Now add to that list the permanent suspension of repatriated profits and you create not only millions of new jobs, but some certainty in this economy that would cause businesses to invest again, and the recession would soon be in our rear view mirror.

That would be a real jobs bill to help real people, who are having real economic difficulties. Imagine that!

(Mr. Cain is currently a radio talk-show host. He is a former corporate executive and CEO)

We send them far from us … to conduct our business. There was no other way in the 18th and 19th centuries and most of the 20th. In the 21st century, of course, this is absurd.

As things now stand, it is too easy for lobbyists and party leadership to get at our elected legislators. And too hard — impossible, on a concentrated basis — for voters to spend “face time” with their representatives.

We plain folks, and our representatives, would be well served by changing the rule requiring our legislators to vote from the floor of Congress. And this could be done by a simple rule change — no legislation or constitutional amendment required.

The Constitution simply provides that “a majority of each [chamber] shall constitute a quorum to do business” and does not even specify what it means to be “present,” much less what that would mean in the 21st century of Web cams, Skype, videoconferencing, broadband Internet or other technologies. The rules of both the House and Senate provide that a quorum is assumed unless a quorum call shows that it is not.

Sheer proximity is a very powerful thing. Lobbyists consider face time the crown jewel of their pursuit. Proximity is a soft force but a powerful one. Our legislators could give themselves permission to vote from their district offices. Not require it; simply permit it. From there, they could tele-speak by Web and tele-listen by Web.

Now, they listen by closed circuit TV and speak rarely enough. They could speak more conveniently, and thus more often, by Web cam than they do now, and from home.

In fact, they could invite their constituents to form a “studio audience,” changing the chemistry rather drastically. They could make a district office the home base for most of their staff, instead of housing most in Washington, as they do now.

Travel is such a hassle, and the cost of maintaining two homes is beyond the reach of many legislators. Under such a rule, it is highly likely that a lot of members would vote, more and more often, from their district offices. (Many of their wives, or husbands, would see to it!)

More time in the home district means less in the District of Columbia, and it would be a lot harder and more expensive for the lobbyists to smooth-talk them and for party leadership to twist their arms.

At home, they would be much more in touch with the people who they represent. With much less wear and tear.

Of course, they would still come in to “the office” to confer with one another whenever useful, attend major ceremonial occasions and committee meetings when important issues are genuinely at stake, hear out the lobbyists, raise money, get on TV, even play poker or attend prayer breakfasts with their colleagues. This would tip a balance. Right now, it’s easy for the lobbyists to get at them in concentrated doses and hard for constituents to get heard.

Legislators: Give yourselves permission to vote from your district offices: Amend Rule XX. Only the (unfairly maligned) lobbyists and the (fairly maligned) party leadership lose.

For them, our pillows will be soaked with tears. For the people — and for you — it’s win-win.