Shifting the burden of smoking

Shifting the Burden of Smoking
Posting Date: 02/06/2012

Michael McGreer

The Mesquite Mayor and the City Council have been asked to pass an ordinance banning smoking in the casinos, bars and smoke shops. Smoking is already banned in all other public buildings.

Those opposing such an ordinance offer a series of arguments from a violation of a person's right to smoke, to the potential loss of business in local casinos and bars. Under scrutiny, these arguments fall apart.

Certainly people can smoke in the privacy of their own home or outdoors. But there is no constitutional right to smoke. In simple terms, one does not have the right to endanger another's health with first, second, or third hand tobacco smoke.

Further advances in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which took effect in 1992 under George W. Bush, protects both employees and customers, with smoke-related diseases, from discrimination in businesses with fifteen or more employees (Title I). In the very near future this will become a significant factor in ending smoking in bars and casinos.

Smoking-related disease is expensive but businesses that allow smoking shift the cost burden to the public in a practice called “Cost-Shifting.”
Cost-shifting exists when smoke-filled establishments shift the actual health costs of smoking related diseases to the public, who are required to pay more for health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, than would be otherwise expected.

According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the cost of caring for people with health problems caused by cigarette smoking, counting all sources of medical payments, was about $96 billion per year.

Dr. Robert M. Shepard, MD, during his recent visit to Mesquite, pointed to studies showing that smoking related heart diseases could be reduced by an average of 20 percent in communities that pass smoke-free ordinances.

Dr. Shepard said it best, “It's such a simple problem to correct. Pass an ordinance and ban smoking."

Mesquite Nevada Online News Source Mesquite Citizen Journal

Fear and Loathing in Mesquite
Posting Date: 01/16/2012

Michael McGreer

Putting serious issues in the hands of elected officials is risky business since one never knows where their loyalties lay.

Nonetheless, that is what the Mesquite community organization for a Smoke-Free Mesquite is doing when they ask the Mayor and City Council to pass an ordinance banning smoking in local casinos and bars.

Mesquite is already smoke-free in part. Nevada's Clean Air Act currently protects customers and workers in all indoor public places except casinos, bars and brothels. Now the majority of citizens, 72.9 percent according to a University of Nevada statistical poll, want the city council to protect public health and safety. That means eliminating all indoor smoking.

All kinds of myths and fears surround this issue. Jobs will be lost, the economy will collapse, businesses will lose revenue, smoking is a right, and non-smokers can go elsewhere, and so on.

Such opposition is based upon false perceptions of economic catastrophes, or the rights of smokers over the rights of non-smokers. Only, a few would disagree with the overwhelming evidence that smoking, and second-hand smoke in particular, is a killer.

The American Lung Association (ALA) has compiled a number of research papers and information over the past 20 years that refute the notion that casinos and bars would lose revenue.

The overwhelming evidence shows that people want clean environments and will increase business in such environments. According to a November poll by the ALA, local casinos could see a 33 percent gain in gaming revenue if Mesquite became smoke-free.

Health is the big issue. Local residents are spending more each year on health, in part, because of smoking-related illnesses. Even if one does not smoke, they still pay the increases in insurance costs to cover the hospital costs of those diseased by smoking.

In Mesquite every hundred people are paying higher insurance costs because 15 smokers from that 100 drive the costs up. If these costs were reduced, savings would be spent in the local economy, not to mention the lives saved.

In previous discussions with the Mayor and City Councilmen, some expressed a desire to have the people vote on the issue. That approach simply kicks the issue down to a smaller section of the population that votes and ignores the opinions of the majority of the local population, visitors, the youth, and casino workers.

But most importantly, it reflects an opinion that elected officials can get away with kicking health and safety issues to the voters every time it becomes controversial. That's not what we elected those individuals to do.

Then there was the expression, from at least one councilman, that elected officials should not be telling a business what to do. Individuals are elected, among other things, to pass ordinances and legislation that protect and serve the people. And they are elected to enforce those laws.

Certainly, over-regulation is an issue that must be avoided. It's hard to image an environment in which local politicians have refused to solve an obvious public health problem out of unfounded economic fear spun by misguided and ill-informed smoking advocates who are often backed by the smoking industry.

Certainly the casinos and bars should have help from local government in marketing Mesquite as a clean, non-smoking environment. Therefore, any ordinance should be backed by a full faith marketing effort by the city.

City officials are thinking about outsourcing economic development when real-life economic development is right in front of them. Imagine if Mesquite were the first city to become smoke-free. Health conscious individuals would flock to the area to maintain their quality of life, while business owners could increase their customer base and home owners could see their property values grow.

All this increases tax revenue for the city to further invest in growth strategies. And this begins with a smoke-free ordinance and a well-planned and executed marketing strategy.

That's what the vast majority of the people want.Mesquite Nevada Online News Source Mesquite Citizen Journal:

'via Blog this'

Nevada politicians vie for reapportioned, redistricted Congressional seats

Nevada State Senator John J. Lee, D., District 1 and State Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, District 4, will go head-to-head during the Democratic primary race for the 4th Congressional District, members of the Mesquite Democrat Club were told Tuesday, Oct. 18.

Currently, District 4 is held by Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, who has announced that she is running for the U.S. Senate. This district covers much of North Las Vegas and the northern urbanized Clark County. It also covers half of the rural counties in the state.

However, every ten years, following the Federal Census, the Nevada State Legislature is responsible for reapportioning and redistricting Congressional districts in addition to other local, state, federal, and educational districts.

While it is certain that Nevada will gain a fourth seat in Congress, plans developed by the State legislature were rejected by the Governor during the last legislative session. The issue now awaits further action by the state or federal courts. Nonetheless, individuals are placing themselves in contention for the four congressional districts.

Lee told the members that he grew up in a working-class environment, and learned early about the value of education and hard-work. Lee said he worked in the potato fields and felt a kinship with the rural residents in Nevada.

Lee, 56, a Las Vegas businessman, has lived in North Las Vegas since he was 5. He served four years in the Assembly before winning his first of two terms in the state Senate in 2004.

Lee, who has served in the state legislature for 14-years, also said that, if elected to the Congressional seat, he would work to diversify the economy, create jobs, and work to resolve the foreclosure problems that have plagued Nevadans.

Lee joined other Democrats in backing Gov. Brian Sandoval's proposal to extend more than $600 million in taxes that were scheduled to expire.

Horsford, the current Senate Majority Leader, is a life-long resident of Las Vegas. In 2001, he went to work at the Culinary Academy of Las Vegas, a labor/management partnership between major Nevada employer and the unions that represent their workers. He was elected to the Nevada State Senate in 2004 and wrote and passed the "Clean Energy Jobs Initiative." He is an advocate of renewable energy technology, and authored legislation providing tax incentives to businesses that create higher paying jobs in Nevada.

Horsford, joined with Republican state senator Joe Hardy in passing SB-278 which streamlines contracting and rationalizes reporting between insurers and providers of health care.

Both Horsford and Lee, joined with other legislators to pass SB 440 which establishes a health insurance exchange. Both bills are necessary in order to enact the provisions of the nation's Affordable Care Act (ACA,) which will be phased in over time.

Horsford, told the group that although certain provisions of the ACA do not become effective immediately, some 26 provisions of the act are already law including the establishment of a high-risk insurance pool for people with pre-existing medical conditions. These pools end on January 1, 2014, when government-regulated insurance exchanges start operating. By then insurance companies will be unable to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Both Lee and Horsford, during the last session, voted to amend the states Clean Air Act to allow smoking in certain restaurants. Lee pointed out that he voted for the amendment out of concern for potential business loss if the ban was enforced.

In other legislative action, Lee opposed a tax increase proposal developed by Horsford and other Democrats. No vote was taken on that plan.

Democrats Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, and Sen. Ruben Kihuen have also announced their candidacies for a congressional seat. In addition, former Democratic Rep. Dina Titus is also vying for a seat. Among the Republicans, Reps. Joe Heck and Mark Amodei will likely seek re-election for their seats.

Obamacare

State Senator Joe Hardy (R), who represents Mesquite in the State Legislature, was factually incorrect when he recently told a group of local citizens that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was interfering with job creation.
Hardy and other Republicans demagogue PPACA as Obamacare but, in fact, it was legislation passed by a 60 to 39 vote in the U.S. Senate and a 219 to 212 vote in the House of Representatives. If they wish to engage in polarizing propaganda then they should call the expansion of Medicare and Social Security in 1969 as Nixoncare.
According to press reports Hardy told local residents, during a September town hall meeting, that: "small businesses are waiting to hire people because they don’t know what’s happening to healthcare. Other businesses are letting their insurance programs go because they felt health care was being taken over by the federal government.” In fact, non-partisan experts have constantly predicted that the law will have little effect on employment.
Republicans constantly repeat the job reduction claim by pointing to a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report which they say analysts projected job losses for the U.S. economy. In fact, CBO analysts did not predict a job loss. CBO authors actually said that the economy will use less labor primarily because many people will choose to work less, or retire early, as a result of the new law. What CBO projects is mostly a reduction in the supply of labor, which is not the same as a reduction in the supply of jobs.
CBO said one reason fewer people will choose to work is that many low-income people will have more money in their pockets as a result of the law expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies for many who buy insurance privately. "The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources," CBO said. "Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."
Another reason that people might work less is that the new law requires insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, and also limits their ability to charge higher rates for older persons who buy policies for themselves.
Further, small businesses, those with 50 or fewer employees, are likely to benefit under the law. According to the Lewin Group, a subsidiary of United Health Group, small business activities actually could come out ahead since they don’t face the employee mandate and they get a tax credit for their health benefit programs. This gives them an advantage in the marketplace especially if they’re competing against larger firms.
According to the Web site FactCheck.org, the GOP also misrepresents a report by the National Federation of Independent Business, projecting a 1.6 million job loss from the Act. But the NFIB did not study the new law. Its report was based on a hypothetical employer mandate that bears little resemblance to what was actually passed — and it also projects a gain of hundreds of thousands of health care and insurance industry jobs.
FactCheck points out that the GOP report refers to the NFIB’s analysis as "independent," but it’s hardly a neutral source. The federation is currently backing repeal of the new law, and has historically been opposed to any requirement that businesses provide coverage for their workers. NFIB also co-sponsored with the Chamber of Commerce an ad criticizing health care legislation.
House Republicans also claim that the Act is a "budget-busting" piece of legislation. The CBO officially scored the new law as self-financing, projecting that it would actually reduce the deficit over the first 10 years — and beyond. Repealing the new law, as Republicans propose, would increase the deficit. CBO’s latest figures project that repealing the new law will increase the deficit by a total of $230 billion over the next 10 years (through fiscal year 2021). So keeping it in place would help the budget, not bust it.
Michael M. McGreer writes on public policy. His books: No Harm, No Foul, Bioterrorism in the 21st century, and All Rivers Flow West, are both available in the MesquiteCitizen Journal book store. Click here to see his blog

Market Oriented Mesquite, Nevada

Mesquite Citizen Journal:

The interim City Manager, the Recreation and Parks Director and the Economic Development Director want to sink an estimated $3.7 million into an indoor sports complex and cover it with a used 215' by 400' fabric covered, metal structure and potentially pump 150 tons of air conditioning into the unit to support uncertain sports events in the desert. To pay for the complex, city administrators propose spending approximately $1 million generated from a land deal with Nevada Community Solutions (NCS).The additional money is projected to come from more land sales or by using Rural Development Authority (RDA) funds. At some future date, NCS would further develop 500 acres near the sports complex. This issue goes back to 2004 when then-city officials entered into an agreement with NCS whereby NCS would develop land west of Mesquite. NCS gave the City a $6 million down payment. In March 2010, NCS offered to terminate the agreement if the $6 million was returned. City officials opted to look at new ways to spend the money. The policy issue before the Mayor and city council remains essentially the same. Return the money to NCS or do something. It's the "do something" problem that eventually generated the desire to build the indoor sporting complex. This project highlights the major problem with city economic planning and development. They approach these deals with a “build it and they will come,” philosophy. This philosophy is an economic fallacy. They also approach projects with a “sunk cost,” mentality. That is, we have invested time and money into this project and can't stand to see it go to waste. That is another economic fallacy. Mayor Mark Weir and some members of the city council appear uncomfortable with the situation, as well they should. Weir and councilman Kraig Hafen come from the private sector and probably, and instinctively, feel uncomfortable with spending based upon economic fallacies. Councilman Allan Litman, comes from a government background, but is well aware of the need to conserve taxpayer money and avoid questionable spending. Clearly, appointed city administrators have forgotten, if they ever knew, that markets exist in both the private and public sectors and even government economic planning must be built upon classic market strategies. The same laws of supply and demand that govern business success also work in the delivery of government services and projects. It's up to the elected Mayor and the city council to steer these appointed administrators in more thoughtful economic direction. In this deal with NCS, if it should continue, the two parties should quantify the exact nature of the market for increasing recreational opportunities in a desert setting this close to the well-established opportunities in both St. George and Las Vegas. If none exists, engage in some “out-of-the-box,” thinking as alternatives. If nothing fits into a marketable strategy, return the funds and move on. Consider, for example, the market that exists for smoke free gaming as an alternative to the current gambling environments. Instead of indoor recreation, the city-NCS and gaming investors could potentially re-open the convention center or the Oasis and offer quality dining in addition to smoke-free gaming. Elected officials, among other things, could offer substantial tax credits for the business venture and possibly set-aside a portion of the complex for artists, writers, and a history museum with artifacts that exemplify the western life. In the future, elected officials should consider a smoke-free city ordinance, based upon the economic success of this investment, and existing research by Richard Roesler (2006) and Eriksenand F. Chaloupka (2007)which shows that the fear of losing business if smoking is banned in casinos, bars and restaurants, is unfounded. In marketable terms, Mesquite's true assets are not its smoke-filled casinos, seasonal golf courses and sports fields. Its true value is it's atmosphere of individual freedom, opportunity and a sense of well-being that comes from healthy, peaceful, desert living. Michael M. McGreer writes on public policy. His books: No Harm, No Foul, Bioterrorism in the 21st century, and All Rivers Flow West, are both available on Amazon. Click here to see his blog

'via Blog this'

9-11 then and now

Mesquite Citizen Journal:

At 8:19 A.M. On September 11, 2001, Bonnie LaJeunese McGreer was settling in to work at the Pentagon Federal Credit Union, on the east side of the Pentagon. At the same time, Betty Ong, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11 called the Airlines office from an air-phone. “The cockpit is not answering,” Ong said continuing with, “somebody’s stabbed in business class and I think there’s Mace. We can’t breathe. I don’t know, I think we’re getting hijacked.” She then tells American Airlines of the stabbings of two flight attendants. A few minutes later, at 8:20 A.M., American Airlines Flight 77, with 58 passengers and six crew members, departed from Washington Dulles International Airport for Los Angeles. Five hijackers were aboard. Ultimately, Flight 77 would crash into the West side of the Pentagon. Separating the five sides of the Pentagon is a five-acre central plaza known as "ground zero." The nickname originated during the Cold War and based on the presumption that the Soviet Union would target one or more nuclear missiles at this central location in the outbreak of a nuclear war. It was this separation that would spare the life of my wife and hundreds more. Twenty-six minutes later, at 8:46 A.M., Flight 11 carrying Ms. Ong, and 96 others along with the hijackers crashed into the north face of the North Tower (1WTC) of the World Trade Center between floors 93 and 99. Six minutes later, a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175 called his father and told him, I think they've taken over the cockpit. An attendant has been stabbed. And someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves.” It was 8:52 A.M. Just before 9 A.M., my colleague, Paul C., stood in the doorway of my office. “A plane just crashed into the World Trade Center”, he said. As Paul and I discussed airplane crashes in New York, Bonnie called, our morning ritual. “A plane has crashed into the Trade Center”, I told her. I was only moderately concerned about the crash. There was nothing new about airplane crashes in the New York area. Planes have crashed into the Empire State Building, the Hudson river, a Riker's Island monument, a Brooklyn apartment, onto Rockaway Blvd, into Cove Neck, Long Island, a home in Shinnecock, Long Island, the East river and helicopters have crashed into the Hudson bay and onto 60th street. As we were discussing the various plane crashes, Mike K., another colleague, entered the office. “A plane has crashed into the World Trade Center”, he announced. “We know”, I said. “No a second plane”, he answered. After Bonnie hung up the phone, she went into a kitchen area to watch CNN just as Flight 175 crashed into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 77 and 85. It was 9:02:59 A.M. About the same time, Flight 77 had altered its course and headed directly towards the Pentagon. I picked up the phone to call my wife to see if she knew anything about the second plane crashing into the Trade Center. No answer. I called again. No answer. I was now extremely concerned. “I'm going to the Command Center,” I told Paul and Mike. When I entered the Command Center, CNN was broadcasting the crashes of Flight 11 and Flight 175 into the towers. Between 9:39 and 9:40 all the television stations in the Command Center, CNN, Fox News Channel, NBC and MSNBC, came alive with breaking news bulletins reporting fires and explosions at the Pentagon. At 9:53: CNN confirmed that a plane (later identified as Flight 77) had crashed into the western side of the Pentagon and started a violent fire. All 64 people on board are killed, as were 125 Pentagon personnel. To me, there was nothing unusual about the idea that terrorists might use a fully fueled airliner as a target against high valued targets. Before moving to the U.S. Geological Survey, I had worked in the Department of Defense on a variety of intelligence and counter-intelligence activities where such an idea had been tossed around on a routine basis. I had just returned to the Survey from a year long tour establishing the Chief Information Office (CIO) for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). As the CIO, I was the highest ranking technology executive responsible for the Agency global information technology and computer systems that support DTRA in its mission of reducing the global threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD). During that tour, the bombing of the USS Cole occurred while it was harbored and refueled in the port of Aden. Seventeen American sailors were killed, and 39 were injured. None of us were surprised when Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attack. I had been in the Pentagon numerous times while working in Defense and in addition to my wife, I had friends and former colleagues who worked in that building. The Pentagon is a complex building of five sides, several floors and a tangle of basement offices. But as hard as I tried to picture the location of my wife’s office and those of friends and colleagues, I could not get the layout straight in my mind. As I stood in the Command Center, I heard someone in the background saying, "No, No, No." Then I realized that the someone was me. I went back to my office and tried to again call my wife. No answer on the land-line. No answer on the cell phone. I told Paul that I was going home but before I was able to leave, both my daughter and son called asking about their mother. They were both clearly upset and I could not give them a satisfactory answer. I asked each to come to our townhouse when they could. It was only a few miles from my Reston office to our townhouse in Centreville but, no matter the time of day or night, traffic is always heavy.The car radio was alive with news of the crashes and breaking news that another airliner, United Airlines Flight 93, had also been hijacked and crashed into a field 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. My son arrived at the townhouse shortly after me. My daughter, who worked in a law office a few blocks from the White House, was essentially trapped in the city because of traffic jams and emergency procedures. It was now impossible to make phone calls. All lines, including cell phones were busy. It was about 2:30 P.M. When the phone finally rang. It was my wife. A wave of relief caused me to shutter as I heard her voice. She had been watching the planes crash into the Trade Center, when she heard or felt something. The Pentagon, is the size of a small city with approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees and about 3,000 non-defense support personnel. It's busy 24-hours a day, with people rushing from one place to another as the echoes of footsteps and a multitude of voices bounce off the walls and through the hallways. But at that moment, on that day, “it suddenly became silent,” Bonnie said. Then screams. Panic and more screams. She was out of the building and engulfed into an unorganized, chaotic crowd. Then another explosion. They thought it was bombs. As she was leaving the Pentagon, employees were told to take off their badges to avoid being targeted if it were a terrorist attack. Bonnie and her colleagues walked to the Ritz hotel in Pentagon City. The phone lines were all busy and she could not call out. “We went directly to the bar,” she said. Eventually, she was able to get through to me on a pay phone. Then she was picked up by the Credit Union and taken to an office in Alexandria where employees were asked to speak with clinical personnel and later taken home. It was about 6:30 P.M. when she arrived home. Aftermath: Nineteen Islamic militants, with box cutters, took the lives of 2,877 individuals from 70 countries on September 11, 2001. In the aftermath of the attack, two wars have been declared, which, to date, have required the deployment of some 2 million soldiers, sailors, airman and an equal number of civilians to the Middle east. Six thousand, five hundred military personnel have been killed. Ten times the number killed have been wounded. An unknown number of military personnel currently, or in the future, will suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome (PTS). An estimated 655,000 Iraqi civilian and combatants have died. Between 10,960 and 49,600 Afghans have been killed during the Wars, and in Pakistan between 1,467 and 2, 334 were killed in U.S. drone attacks as of May 6, 2011. Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) have spent $1.3 trillion dollars and currently continue to spend about $120 billion each year on the wars. For the first time in history, while at war, Congress passed the tax cuts, cutting revenue by an additional $1.7 trillion dollars. In the final analysis, 9-11 was a terrible, frightening, and bloody day in American history, but political reaction over the past ten years has been even more frightening. Additional notes: 1. "Complete 911 Time-line", minute by minute, provided by the Center for Cooperative Research. 2. “Final Report of the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers”, published by the U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology in September 2005, pp. 83-84 3. “The 9-11 Commission Report.” U.S. Government Printing Office. July 22, 2004. p.45. Retrieved 2010-08-15. 4. Iraq death toll: Iraqi civilian and combatant, according to the second Lancet survey of mortality. 5. Afghanistan death toll, numerous sources. 6. Pakistan deaths: Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.

'via Blog this'

Mesquite Citizen Journal

Mesquite Citizen Journal:

The Marshall Plan Posting Date: 09/05/2011 Michael McGreer

The race between Democrat Nevada State Treasurer Kate Marshall and Republican Mark Amodei for Nevada 2nd Congressional District seat means more to Mesquite voters than typical Democrat vs. Republican ideology position taking. Those voting for Amodei are endorsing a Tea Party aligned candidate. It is the current batch of elected Tea Partiers who pose a huge threat to traditional Republicans by slowing any chance for collaborative solutions to existing economic and international problems. When the Tea Party Republicans held out for the balanced-budget amendment during the recent deficit debacle an editorial in the conservative Wall Street Journal mocked them as hobbits battling Mordor.“This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees,” the Journal wrote. John McCain, R., Ariz., frivolously quoted the editorial on the Senate floor. Amodei's has expressed his allegiance to the Tea Party by supporting the “Ryan Budget Plan.” For those unfamiliar with this plan, it was proposed by Tea-Party Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, who argued, incorrectly, that his plan would reduce the national debt. As Jonathan Chait writes, Ryan's plan includes "a huge tax cut for people who don't really need it." Those supporting Ryan argue that giving more money to rich will trickle down. This, Reagan era trickle-down economics underlies the Ryan plan and has been discredited by virtually every economist over the past 30-years. Nevada Senator Republican Dean Heller, Amodei's mentor, has voted twice in support of the plan. He supported it as the Congressman for District 2, and again as Senator. Heller was appointed by Governor Brian Sandoval to the Senate seat vacated by John Ensign. It is Heller's congressional seat that is contested in the Sept. 13th special election. Amodei and Heller are both out of the Republican mainstream. Conservative Republicans Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Scott Brown (R-MA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), actually joined Democrats in opposing the Ryan Plan, when it came to the Senate. Said Snowe: "I am going to vote no on the budget because I have deep and abiding concerns about the approach on Medicare, which is essentially to privatize it." Amodei's opponent for the 2nd Congressional seat is Democrat Kate Marshall. Marshall is endorsed by several groups including the national Alliance for Retired Americans. They endorsed Marshall for her "leadership on issues such as fighting Social Security and Medicare privatization." Seniors attending the endorsement event dubbed Amodei "Calamity Amodei" as they expressed their outrage for Amodei's plan to end Medicare while rallying in support of Marshall's pledge to protect Nevada seniors. In accepting the endorsement, Marshall pledged to “work together to combat Mr. Amodei's reckless plan to turn over our Medicare to private insurance companies, give seniors vouchers and double their out of pocket costs." In discussing both Medicare and Social Security, she said that: “You have paid into it all your lives and you have earned it, plain and simple." Mesquite veterans stand to benefit from Marshall. As Treasurer, she was successful in safeguarding military artifacts that come into Nevada's Unclaimed Property division until the rightful owners or surviving family members are able to claim them. She also created a college savings matching funds program with USAA to help make obtaining a college degree for returning veterans easier and more affordable. Marshall is progressive, but not fiscally irresponsible. As Treasurer, she registered a large net gain for Nevada and says she would argue, if elected to Congress, for pay as you go rules, and demand benchmarks and milestones to lower our federal deficit. She is against pay raises until the federal budget is balanced, and argues for cuts in subsidies to the big oil companies and banking conglomerates which she hopes would force Congress to focus on Main Street, not Wall Street. In contrast, Amodei, as a state legislator, in a moment of anti Tea-Party action, supported a billion dollar tax increase package that taxed everything from car repairs to movie tickets. The bill also taxed job creation initiatives. In addition, he voted for a pay raise for himself and other state legislators. Marshall approaches legislation in a collaborative manner. In doing so, she was able to gain bi-partisan support in the last session of the Nevada legislature for SB75. This bill creates a private equity investment fund for Nevada. The bill was signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval to take effect on October 1, 2011. The fund, a first for Nevada, provides that non-tax dollars from the Permanent School Fund may be invested in new businesses in Nevada, including a possible alternative energy non-profit incubation site for Mesquite. Environmentalists, such as The Toiyabe chapter of the Sierra Club have endorsed Marshall for her advocacy of the use of Nevada's natural resources (wind, solar, and geothermal) to improve the states economic position. Amodei, The Sierra Club noted, served in the Nevada Legislature while working as head of the Nevada Mining Association. Those wishing to vote for American Party candidate Tim Fasano or independent Helmuth Lehmann would be throwing a vote away since neither, if elected, would have the political clout to get anything done. Doing nothing is no way to improve the economic condition of the state and its citizens. Both progressive Democrats and traditional conservative Republicans will gain if Marshall is elected to Congress. Unlike Amodei, she has a fiscally conservative history, and has outlined a plan to potentially create jobs in Mesquite. She also would protect social security and fight against increasing the costs of health-care, through privatization. Michael M. McGreer writes on public policy. His books: No Harm, No Foul, Bioterrorism in the 21st Century, and All Rivers Flow West, are both available on Amazon. Click here to see his blog

'via Blog this'