“The current controversy surrounding my Assembly colleague Moose Arberry, who only days ago resigned his seat after negotiating to become a paid lobbyist for Clark County judges while still a legislator, is exactly the sort of conflict of interest that causes voters to distrust all elected officials,” Goedhart said.

“So not only have I introduced a bill mandating a cooling off period of at least two years, preferably four, between the time a legislator leaves office and the time he is allowed to become a professional lobbyist, I intend to implement just such a ban voluntarily in my office effective immediately.”

Goedhart said his new policy would not only include Arberry, but also former Republican Nevada State Sen. Warren Hardy, who left office less than two years ago and now lobbies professionally for the Associated Builders and Contractors.

“I’m not saying I won’t meet with people, companies and associations who hire my former colleagues within the two year cooling off period,” Goedhart further explained. “I’m just saying they’re going to have to send a different lobbyist to speak with me, or they can contact me directly themselves.”

Goedhart noted he had already submitted an “anti-revolving door” BDR (bill draft request) for the 2011 session before the Arberry controversy became public last week. In addition, he said he was evaluating whether or not his new policy would also include former legislators who take unpaid positions as citizen lobbyists within a two-year period.

“I think advocating voluntarily for a cause or principle out of a genuine belief in that cause or principle is something different from being a hired gun in which you are benefiting financially,” Goedhart explained. “However, I also know that people who want to find a way to get around something will certainly try. So I’ll discuss this further with my constituents on the campaign trail this fall before making a final decision.”

(Ed Goedhart represents Nevada Assembly District 36, a rural district generally covering southern and middle Nevada.)

But then come this.

“If (Clark) county commissioners approve on Tuesday,” wrote Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Glenn Cook on Sunday, “District Court judges and Las Vegas justices of the peace will have a new face representing their interests in the corridors of Carson City: tax-avoiding, debt-ducking, double-dipping, carpetbagging former Assemblyman Morse ‘Moose’ Arberry.”

Cook goes on to describe Moose as “a cheat who treats the public purse as his personal piggy bank” and “the last person who should represent the valley’s judiciary.”

“Just when you’re sure Southern Nevada’s political establishment can’t stoop any lower,” Cook writes, “our elected officials drop the limbo bar to the dirt. Just when you think the stink from Clark County government can’t get any fouler, the sewer backs up from a fresh load of depravity.”

Don’t hold back, Glenn! Tell us how you really feel.

But back to the underlying premise here: that local government entities, including district court judges and justices of the peace, need representation in Carson City and that taxpayers should foot the bill to outsource such representation.

That’s right: outsource.

Because Clark County, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and all their subsidiary government operations already have an army of taxpayer-funded advocates representing them in Carson City. Here’s the current roster (not including Arberry):

Sen. Shirley Breeden
Sen. Terry Care
Sen. Maggie Carlton
Sen. Barbara Cegavske
Sen. Bob Coffin
Sen. Allison Copening
Sen. Steven Horsford
Sen. John Lee
Sen. Dennis Nolan
Sen. Stan Olsen
Sen. David Parks
Sen. Mike Schneider
Sen. Valerie Weiner
Sen. Joyce Woodhouse
Assemblyman Paul Aizley
Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley
Assemblyman Chad Christensen
Assemblyman Jerry Claborn
Assemblyman Marcus Conklin
Assemblyman Mo Dennis
Assemblywoman Marilyn Dondero-Loop
Assemblyman John Hambrick
Assemblyman Joe Hardy
Assemblyman Joe Hogan
Assemblyman William Horne
Assemblyman Ruben Kiuen
Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto
Assemblyman Mark Manendo
Assemblywoman April Mastroluca
Assemblyman Richard McArthur
Assemblywoman Kathy McClain
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson
Assemblyman Harvey Mumford
Assemblyman John Oceguera
Assemblyman James Ohrenschall
Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce
Assemblyman Tick Segerblom
Assemblywoman Ellen Spiegel
Assemblyman Lynn Stewart
Assemblywoman Melissa Woodbury

If local elected officials don’t like what state elected officials are doing, the local elected officials should call the state elected officials and work it out. Why in the world should the citizens who elected these officials to deal with these problems in government also have to pay for hired guns to do the jobs we elected these officials to do?

I hope someone again puts forward a bill next year to ban the use of tax dollars – or “fees” or “fines” – for the purpose of hiring lobbyists for public institutions or local governments. So let it be written; so let it be done.

Probably a little of both.

Rory constantly whinnied that Sandoval’s voucher plan would only benefit the 4 percent of parents who currently pay to send their kids to a private school. He claims those parents are the only ones who would benefit from $6,000 school vouchers while costing the public school system $100 million in vouchers that it presently doesn’t have to pay.

1.) This is total bullsh*t.

2.) Why should parents who are paying taxes to fund a public education system pay twice to send their kids to a private school to educate their children?

3.) Depending on the details of Sandoval’s plan, if it’s structured along the lines of Assemblyman Ed Goedhart’s EIEIO voucher bill, parents who are already paying to send their kids to private schools would be phased into the voucher system gradually and wouldn’t get immediate relief.

4.) Which means if adopted today, the 4 percent of parents who currently send their kids to private schools would NOT be eligible for the vouchers; only the 96 percent of students currently trapped in the “public option” schools would benefit.

As it is right now, only wealthy families can afford to both pay their taxes to fund the Mansions of Mediocrity otherwise known as our public schools, as well as the tuition to send their kids to private schools where students learn more than how to roll a joint and load a handgun.

Middle-class families and most of the minority community, while possessing the “right” to send their kids to private schools, lack the financial ability to do so. School vouchers will provide the 96 percent of families who do not currently possess the means to obtain an equal opportunity to send their kids to better schools.

Which reminds me, Rory also falsely claimed it costs $15,000 a year to send your kids to a private school. While that might, indeed, be the tuition for some elite schools, many private option schools today cost well under the $6,000 voucher limit proposed by Sandoval.

And once vouchers are approved, a ton of new private schools will open – along with a ton of new classrooms in existing private schools – which will drive the cost of a private education DOWN, not up. That’s just the way the free market works, which is exactly the way the free market is supposed to work.

Look, Rory opposes vouchers because he thinks the government’s prime directive is to operate public schools rather than to provide an equal opportunity for a quality education. Rory’s wrong. And if Nevadans elect him, our kids will continue to suffer because of it.

And by the way, what was with the constant references in the debate to his wife Cindy – who DESPISES school choice and was the leading advocate for banning charter schools in Nevada while on the state Board of Education a couple years ago – helping him write his education plan? Is this another Bill & Hillary deal where if Nevadans buy one, we get one free?

Perish the thought.

Reid’s plan — a statewide, five-year expansion of Nevada’s Empowerment School program that Reid has rechristened his “Edge” plan — would, if implemented, be a distinct improvement over the status quo. Cutting out middle managers in the central-office bureaucracy, the Edge plan would give greater control of resources to principals and give teachers greater control over their classrooms.

Importantly, its open-enrollment dimension would also empower parents — allowing them to send their children to any public school they believe would best meet their children’s needs.

Brian Sandoval agrees with all of the above, but would empower parents even more — issuing them vouchers that can be used to attend private schools as well. Like a scholarship — such as the Pell Grant for low-income students or the G.I. Bill for military veterans — a voucher helps parents and students afford tuition.

During the debate, Reid harshly attacked Sandoval’s voucher plan. Taking his comments at face value, Reid appears to misunderstand the concept entirely.

Reid first argued that the vouchers would only benefit the 4 percent of Nevada’s students currently enrolled in private schools. This assumes that no parents with students in public schools would choose to send them to a private school, given the chance.

That assumption is false: Almost half of Nevadans would choose private schooling for their children if financial assistance were available. That was one of the findings of a scientific poll of 1,000 likely voters in 2008 conducted by the Nevada Policy Research Institute and the Foundation for Educational Choice.

Specifically, 48 percent of Nevadans would choose a private school, given the option, while another 23 percent would choose a charter school. Just 11 percent of Nevadans would consider the traditional public school their first choice. Clearly, Nevadans want what Sandoval is now offering.

Reid also asserted that vouchers would remove $100 million from the public school system. At best, this is a red herring. After all, the purpose of public education isn’t to fund public schools, it is to educate students. So shouldn’t we be funding schools that work, regardless of whether they are public or private?

Finally, Reid tried to argue that a voucher would only benefit wealthy students because it wouldn’t cover the full tuition of certain elite private schools. The argument is hypocritical; Reid doesn’t oppose food stamps — which are vouchers — simply because the food stamps don’t cover the full cost of food.

Many uninformed individuals mistakenly believe that all private schools are expensive boarding schools like the $38,000-a-year Philips Exeter Academy or elite day schools like the $30,000-a-year Sidwell Friends. But, according to U.S. Department of Education statistics, 79 percent of all private school students attend schools charging tuitions less than $10,000 a year.

In fact, the U.S. Department of Education found the average private school tuition was just $8,549 — cheaper than the average public school, which exceeds $10,700 a year, not including debt repayment, capital expenditures and teacher pensions.

In Nevada, several private schools charge tuitions under $6,000, and only a handful exceed $10,000 a year. Furthermore, many of Nevada’s private schools offer discounts for each additional child enrolled, need-based scholarships and fee waivers for parents who volunteer at the school.

Though Reid did not claim vouchers would not help students, an academic consensus exists that should be recognized: Vouchers do improve student achievement.

Today, nine out of 11 random-assignment studies — the gold standard of scientific research — show that students achieve more when using vouchers to attend private schools. And one of those two studies that did not identify an achievement increase found a massive 21-point improvement in graduation rates.

Furthermore, 18 out of 19 studies found that public schools improve when faced with the competition from private schools. To date, no credible research shows that public schools are harmed by vouchers.

Reid is right to advocate open enrollment — it simply isn’t fair to zone kids to schools based on how much housing their parents can afford. But Reid is wrong to oppose vouchers.

Public education is about the public’s desire that their children receive the best education possible. Where that best education occurs — at a charter school, a virtual school, a home school, a traditional public school or a private school — should not matter.

What matters is whether Nevada parents can finally be confident that their children are truly learning.

(Patrick R. Gibbons is an education policy analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute. For more information visit http://npri.org)

• You are a relative unknown in Nevada politics, and apparently politically inexperienced. Why did you decide to ‘cut your teeth’ politically by entering the Attorney General’s race? What campaign training/experience have you had?

I am running because maybe I have more courage than sense. Apparently, none of the “substantial” Republican lawyers in Nevada were willing to go up against Masto, certainly in part because of her connections, even high up in the GOP. Maybe Brad Coker of the Mason Dixon poll was right when he suggested that the GOP was giving Masto “a pass.” I filed at the last minute of the last day because no other conservatives had filed. Somebody had to challenge Masto.

The fact that I am relatively unknown is also a positive because it also means that I do not owe political favors to anyone. I have the expertise, training and temperament to enforce Nevada’s laws, as they are written, equally, fairly and without bias.

As for political experience, I have been a campaign volunteer in races too numerous to list, but which include Paul Laxalt, Bob Dole, Bush 1 and 2, state and local offices while I lived in California.

I have also served as parliamentarian to state and county central committees in California and Nevada.

• What are your qualifications for this position?

First and foremost, I am a regular guy, with an excellent education. When folks hear that I was a carpenter for 26 years and then went to law school at age 45, they know implicitly that I understand the pressures, needs and desires of all the rest of the regular people.

I have an excellent education: Bachelor’s in Legal Studies, Masters in Public Administration and a law degree from the University of San Francisco. Not bad for a working stiff.

I have an incredibly broad base of experience: working man, businessman, churchman, and sportsman. Specific to the Office of Attorney General, I worked in a large firm in San Francisco for about 5 years which is comparable in size (110 lawyers), so I have practical familiarity with large practice management. I also clerked in the public sector for the Port of San Francisco and the City Attorney’s of San Francisco, so I know a thing or two about the difference between being “busy” and being “productive.” My years in the private sector have ingrained a work ethic based upon value, service and competency.

Ms. Masto certainly has experience, but it is all the wrong kind: she has spent nearly all of her working life in the public sector. And her level of experience when she took the office of AG pales in comparison to my level of life experience on my first day in the same office.

• Explain your disagreement with how the current Attorney General handled:

a. The Brian Krolicki charges – Ms. Masto showed an incredible lack of sophistication in bringing the charges that she did. Either she thought no one would think it was a hack job for Harry Reid, or she had no clue about how to make it not look like a hack job. I am not sure which is worse.

b. The Bob Loux charges – Bob Loux was the lead man in Harry Reid’s crusade against Yucca Mountain. The lack of prosecution of Bob Loux looks like she wasn’t going to go after Reid’s man.

c. The refusal to follow Governor Gibbons’ request to file a lawsuit in regards to the Federal Healthcare bill – I marvel that someone of her young age had the audacity to defy the Governor. Again, it looks like she was not going to challeng her benefactor, Harry Reid.

• What is the role of the Nevada State Attorney General? How has the current AG veered from this definition? Explain.

According to the statutory job description, the AG is the lawyer for the State and the People. Masto has certainly failed to be the lawyer for the People, as is evidenced by the culture in the Office of disdain for the average citizen. The list of examples is too long to go through here.

And Masto hasn’t done a very good of a job being the lawyer for the State. The Office of the AG wastes millions of dollars (unaccounted for) on mindless litigation. She sits on the Board of Prison Commissioners and the prisons are a mess. Masto hasn’t acted against the banks that are not paying the real estate transfer tax and recording fees. Masto stood by (or even helped) when Steve Wynn got away with stealing the tips of the dealers in his casinos. The list goes on and on, but the easy inference to make is that she is protecting the rich and powerful.

• What would be your #1 priority upon being elected? Would this priority differ depending up who is elected Governor?

My #1 priority would be to reform the culture of the Office of Attorney General into being a service-oriented, effective and efficient law firm for the People and the State. I will have to find ways to work with those who share my vision and work around those who will certainly try to undermine me. This priority is not dependent upon who sits in the Governor’s office.

• Are there any circumstances under which the AG would have the legal right to defy a Governor’s request/order?

Not that I am aware of.

• What role, if any, should the AG play in the immigration issue?

As the chief law enforcement officer, the AG can and should exert pressure on local law enforcement to step up enforcement of federal immigration laws, with NO EXCUSES. All government agencies can and should begin requiring valid immigration documentation before providing services. Additionally, the AG can and should exert pressure in ICE to step up deportations of illegals who are in custody. As for legislative action, there is virtually no chance that a Democrat-controlled legislature will ever pass legislation comparable to the Arizona laws.

• Do you believe you have a realistic chance of beating the incumbent, Democrat establishment candidate? Why? How? How much money do you think it will take and do you have those financial resources to do so?

I have a realistic chance of winning because Ms. Masto has such high negatives in the public perception. No doubt, her current lead in the polls would lead her to believe that my candidacy is not a present threat. But the tidal wave of discontent among conservatives raises the possibility of a surge at the polls that can carry me over the top. However, the IAP candidate, Joel Hansen, may pull conservative votes that I will need to be victorious. And just last week, Mr. Hansen called me and asked me to withdraw. Such a move shows just how out-of-touch Mr. Hansen is with political reality.

As for the actual votes needed to win, any total in the range of 250,000 would clearly be extremely competitive. In 2002, Brian Sandoval won the AG race by a landslide with 296,471 votes. Of the 120,000 votes cast in the GOP primary, I got nearly 70,000, just 600 or so less than Sharron Angle. I also won every county, including Clark County where I spent no funds at all. By virtue of my tireless personal campaigning and the resulting connection with regular working people throughout the state, Democrats and Republican, union and non-union, I am pulling votes away from Masto that she cannot replace.

Fund raising is everyone’s bane this year and the lack of substantial support has clearly hampered my efforts to get my name before the voters. At the present, a mere $10,000 would allow me to get the rudimentary bases covered with signs state-wide. Beyond that, it is my plan to use radio ads in the last month of the campaign to point people to my website where they can learn more about me and my campaign. The cost of a radio campaign starts at about $10,000. I have volunteer consultants working on hardening my website to cyber-attack and guaranteeing the necessary bandwidth to handle the last minute crush of website hits. This was an issue in the primary which has become a lesson learned.

As for television ads, while I have ads ready to produce, the cost of airtime is clearly out of reach at this time.

I spent all of my personal resources on the primary, so I am utterly dependent upon outside support.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows the candidates tied with 45% of the vote each. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate and six percent (6%) more are undecided.

Reid and Angle were tied two weeks ago at 47% a piece.

Earlier this year, Reid was considered to be one of the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents. He picked up just 39% of the vote following Angle’s primary victory but has seen his own numbers improve to 41% in late June, 43% in early July, 45% in late July and 47% in mid-August. This is the first survey since Angle’s victory which failed to show an increase in support for Reid. However, the current numbers match the average of the last three surveys suggesting a level of stability has entered the race.

For Angle, the numbers have been heading in the opposite direction. The GOP nominee attracted 50% of the statewide vote following her primary victory in early June. That fell to 48% later that month, 46% in early July and 43% in late July. The 47% support she received in August represented the first time her support had increased since the primary. As with Reid, her numbers appear to have stabilized.

The race remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Senate Balance of Power rankings.

When leaners are included in the new totals, Reid attracts 50% of the vote, while Angle picks up 47%. Two weeks ago, Angle held a small 50% to 48% edge over Reid among leaners. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate.

Early in any campaign, the numbers without leaners are generally more significant. Later in a campaign, the numbers with leaners matter more. After Labor Day, Rasmussen Reports will report the numbers with leaners as the primary indicators of the campaign.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 750 Likely Voters in Nevada was conducted on September 1, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Ninety-two percent (92%) of Angle’s supporters now say they are certain of their vote this November, up seven points over the past two weeks. Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters who back Reid say they are certain of their vote.

Angle is backed by 83% of Republicans while Reid is supported by 78% of Democrats in the state. The candidates are in a virtual tie among voters not affiliated with either major political party. Platinum Members can review full demographic crosstabs.

Like voters in the rest of the country, Nevada voters put the economy first when it comes to how they vote. Fifty-one percent (51%) say economic issues are the most important in determining how they vote. Fiscal issues come in a distant second with 16% who say they are most important.

Reid holds a 56% to 38% lead over Angle among voters who consider economic issues to be the most important. Angle holds a nearly seven-to-one lead among voters who put fiscal issues at the top of their list.

Reid is viewed Very Favorably by 25%, but Very Unfavorably by 43%.

Angle’s reviews are 18% Very Favorable, 38% Very Unfavorable.

At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Nevada voters are at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, which is only slightly lower than results found nationally. Fifty-seven percent (57%) in Nevada believe neither party’s political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.

Only 30% in Nevada believe their representative in Congress is the best possible person for the job, while 44% disagree. While 37% say their representative deserves to be reelected, a plurality (45%) disagrees.

Though only 19% of Nevada voters have ever attended a town hall meeting with their congressmen or senator, 69% think the politicians at the meetings should listen to the views of their constituents, rather than explain legislation and issues. Sixty-six percent (66%) in Nevada believe most members of Congress don’t care what their constituents think.

Eighty-six percent (86%) in Nevada say they know someone out of work and looking for a job, and 56% say the job market is worse today than it was a year ago.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of Nevada voters now approve of the job President Obama is doing, but 50% disapprove. These ratings are slightly higher than Obama’s job approval ratings nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Take the latest example of Nevada Democrat Congresswoman Dina Titus, whose campaign saw fit to pull out of context the quote of her opponent, Nevada State Senator Joe Heck.

Heck said, “”The role of Congress is not to create jobs, it is to set the conditions under which the private sector creates jobs.” So, government should get out of the way, and let the private sector do what it does best.

Heck continued, further confirming this point, “And you do that through a stable, fair, predictable tax base, you do that by not pursuing onerous regulations on small, medium and large businesses. And that is where we need to get back to, that limited government that sets the conditions for the private sector to thrive.”

But the only part of the full quote that survived the ad that the incumbent Congresswoman used was “The role of Congress is not to create jobs”. The clip stops there, and then the narrator says, “Sen. Heck doesn’t get it.”

Actually, he does. Heck wants government to lower taxes and repeal regulations that prevent businesses from expanding and creating more jobs. Congresswoman Titus, on the other hand, voted for the jobs-killing ObamaCare and the Waxman-Markey legislation capping carbon emissions and increasing energy prices.

Titus has doubled down on her quoting out of context, again saying of her opponent, “He says it’s not the responsibility of Congress to create jobs and I believe it’s very important for Congress to create jobs, especially when unemployment rates are so high.”

As if that was not enough, the ad said “Heck signed a pledge to protect tax loopholes giant corporations use to ship our jobs overseas,” citing an Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) pledge. Only, the ATR pledge has nothing to do with jobs being shipped overseas, it’s a pledge against raising taxes at all.

But the malicious campaign does not end there. As reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal, “The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has spent about $700,000 on ads that recycle a dubious claim that says in the legislature Heck voted against a vaccine for cervical cancer and that he wants to privatize Social Security.”

Only, reports the Journal, it’s not true: “In reality Heck voted against a mandate requiring health insurance providers to cover a specific brand of vaccine against HPV, which can be a precursor to cervical cancer. And his Social Security plan involves a proposal to allow new enrollees to choose how their money is invested, while keeping employer contributions in the current system. The new enrollees could also keep their money in the current system if they wished.”

There’s no indication yet if the misleading claims against Heck will have any impact. But it does show the lengths the establishment will go to in order to keep a hold of power.

(Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.)

With another failed attempt at recovery under their belts, Titus and her friends are facing a bruising uphill battle to re-election this November. With unemployment at an unacceptably high 9.6 percent and way above the Democrats’ once promised eight percent, Titus and Washington Democrats have officially run out of excuses. Their trillion-dollar stimulus failed to produce jobs and their runaway spending spree has left the nation in debt, leaving their Democrat majority up for grabs this fall.

“As summer recess comes to an end, it’s time for Dina Titus to face the music and the consequences of her failed economic policies,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “After being buried under mountains of debt and facing crushing unemployment each month, Nevada voters are ready to send Titus and her out-of-touch Washington friends a message this November: They’re tired of this jobless recovery. With time running out and Titus out of excuses, her “recovery summer” is quickly turning into an autumn of discontent.”

Dina Titus is facing the fight of her life as November quickly approaches, and she is not alone:

“’But conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats’ self-proclaimed ‘Recovery Summer’ has become a term of derision, and to most voters—fair or not—it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered.” (Larry J. Sabato, “Sixty Days to Go,” Sabato’s Crystal Ball, 9/02/2010)

“Simply put, Democrats find themselves heading into a midterm election that looks as grisly as any the party has faced in decades. It isn’t hard to find Democratic pollsters who privately concede that the numbers they are looking at now are worse than what they saw in 1994.” (Charlie Cook, “No Help On The Horizon For Dems,” National Journal, 9/01/2010)

With an already struggling economy, uncertainty about the Democrats’ looming tax-hikes is contributing to the nation’s unemployment problem.

“Congress’ inability to make a decision about the fate of Bush-era tax cuts is contributing to the unemployment crisis facing the country, according to the Labor Day 2010 report by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

“‘Small businesses are America’s job creators, responsible for 60 percent of the net new jobs created in the last decade,’ the report states. ‘But uncertainty about looming tax hikes has stunted employment growth and until Main Street begins to hire, the unemployment rate will remain unacceptably high.’” (Jay Heflin, “Uncertainty of Bush tax cuts affects hiring, study states,” The Hill, 09/02/10)

Titus’ time is running up as Nevada families continue to ask: Where are the jobs?

The Alliance to Protect Nevada Jobs held a “reverse” job fair to convey concerns that if Congress passes the Employee Free Choice Act now pending in the Senate, the country could lose 600,000 jobs within a year of its passage.

Opponents of the measure, which has passed the House of Representatives, say it would eliminate an existing federal requirement that workers be allowed to vote in secret on any unionization proposal. It would also require disputes between unions and employers to be subjected to binding arbitration.

“With 200,000 people looking for work here in Nevada today, the notion of this legislation even being considered is just ridiculous,” said McKay Daniels, speaking on behalf of the alliance.

He said the measure should be called the Employee “Forced Choice” Act and will result in forced unionization of workers in Nevada and across the country.

A Nevada labor leader said in response that the legislation will not eliminate jobs, but would give workers the right to decide how to form a union.

Daniels was joined by Clara Andriola, president of the Nevada Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Ray Bacon, executive director of the Nevada Manufacturers Association, Randi Thompson, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and Tray Abney, director of government relations with the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, in speaking out against the legislation and other potentially job-killing proposals now being considered in Washington and in Nevada.

Andriola said: “Forced unionization isn’t going to help turn our economy around. Adding burdens, expenses and red tape onto Nevada’s job producers is the fastest way to destroy jobs, not create them.”

McKay Daniels speaks for the Alliance to Protect Nevada Jobs with a giant “pink slip”.

Abney said the reason employers are not investing in jobs in Nevada is because of the high level of uncertainty about the potential for new taxes.

“There is a reason people aren’t investing in Nevada and that’s because of the words of our elected officials, both in Washington and in Carson City,” he said.

Bacon said Nevada employers are already facing the likelihood of big increases in unemployment tax rates next year.

“These increased costs by themselves could force many companies out of business or overseas,” he said. “To even talk about adding additional expenses or regulations onto struggling businesses during a time like this is just insanity.”

But Danny Thompson, executive secretary-treasurer of the Nevada State AFL-CIO, said the act will not eliminate jobs. It would give workers some rights, he said.

“All it does is give the employees the right to chose how they want to form a union,” Thompson said. “The system right now that we have in place with the National Labor Relations Act does not work. It is fraught with delay.”

The act does not eliminate the secret ballot, but would allow employees to use alternatives such as sign-up cards if that is their preference, he said.

U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., opposes the legislation while Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., supports the measure.

In a statement Ensign said: “The right for workers to vote by secret ballot in union elections is a fundamental part of our democratic tradition. The big union push for card check not only leaves employees open to union intimidation but also harms the ability of American businesses to create jobs. The unfortunate reality behind card check is that it actually has little to do with protecting workers. Instead, this disastrous policy would only lead to more job losses and greater burdens on small businesses and would do little to help jump start Nevada’s struggling economy.”

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care tax credit will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The top capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The top dividends tax rate will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The Tanning Tax. This went into effect on July 1st of this year. It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon. There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.

Economic Substance Doctrine. The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.” This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.

Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2. This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year. While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Until this year, a retired person with an IRA could contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

(Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or by email at jkartch@atr.org.)