Economic Non Sequiturs

Mesquite Nevada Online News Source Mesquite Citizen Journal:

Economic Non Sequiturs - MISC Posting Date: 03/15/2012 Michael McGreer

A three member majority of the Mesquite City council voted Tuesday to spend funds to study the cost of building a multipurpose covered tent near the Mesquite Sports and Event Center site. Originally called the Mesquite Indoor Sports Complex, officials are now touting the site as a multiple events complex in order to better sell it to the community. Councilmen Allan Litman and Kraig Hafen voted against the expenditure on pragmatic grounds. Litman argued against spending money on a design without a comprehensive business plan and the availability of funds. Hafen objected to taking money from other accounts to pay for the project with only assumed benefits. Councilman George Rapson, arguing for the project, noted that spending money on projects that didn't make profits was a good thing. He pointed to spending on roads as projects that “don't make a dime.” The Rapson argument was typical of those who fail to understand that government expenditures must only go to projects that have a clear, measurable, social or economic benefit. Roads do make profits for the businesses that depend upon them to move goods and services from point A to B in an efficient and economical way. Councilman Geno Withelder argued that since his work companions are for the project, he is for the project. Councilman Karl Gustaveson said that they were only voting to spend money to determine the costs of building the complex. Litman and Hafen, correctly, were not necessarily arguing against the project, they were arguing for a better economic understanding before launching into projects. Panic is the best way to describe those supporting the complex. They seem to argue the economic non sequitur that: “if we build it, they will come.” Resident Robert Shively, a proponent of the “build it, they will come school of economics,” offered that opponents were naysayers without merit and made the illogical comparison between the value of sports complexes in Rochester, Minn., to the potential benefit of the same in the local area. The most flagrant polemic was seemingly directed at Councilman Hafen by Interim City Manager Kurt Sawyer. Sawyer attempted to argued that taking economic risks was partly responsible for moving the community from the days when diary cattle roamed the area to its present condition. The reference was an obvious slight to the Hafen family dairy business. Karen Fielding, President of the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce, argued for the project. Of all the organizations that should understand the need for solid economic planning, it should be the Chamber. Obviously they don't. Does the City need another indoor event center? Probably not, since one currently exists at the CasaBlanca and there are any number of vacant buildings that could be converted if the need did exist. This argument is not about the need for economic development. That need is obvious. The argument is about the lack of economic sense applied to decisions made by some of the city councilmen. But this is nothing new.

'via Blog this'

The argument over contraception

Mesquite Nevada Online News Source Mesquite Citizen Journal:

'via Blog this'
President Barack Obama did not overstepped the First Amendment when he originally proposed that religiously-affiliated organizations pay for contraceptive services.

There is no legal argument available under the contraceptive proposal since the two essential elements of the First Amendment are not in play. Specifically, the proposal does not interfere with 1) the right to establish a religion, nor does it 2) impede the free exercise of religion.

The current proposal requires religious institutions to cover contraception as part of any health care plan offered to their employees. However, they could also offer an opt-out clause if the offering violates their religious sensibilities. In those cases, an insurance company would cover the individual's choice of contraception, at no cost to the individual or the organization.

Further, insurers would likely see cost savings since contraception is far cheaper than the consequences of unprotected sex.

"If a woman's employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge," Obama said.

The real issue here is not an individual religious one, since a large proportion of Catholics and others already use contraceptives. The issue is the right of a woman to choose their health care independent of working environments, or due to a lack of funds.

The contraception issue is a continuation of women's continuing efforts to achieve equal, but sometimes different, rights with men. Specifically, this issue highlights the importance of separate health care provisions which are not necessarily covered by the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution.

Unlike race, real differences between the sexes (relating to pregnancy, nursing, life expectancy, etc) do justify different treatment under the law.

To some degree, The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, was proposed to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law which the Equal Protection Clause has failed to accomplish.

It's important to remember that equal, in the case of women, means their right to make their own health care decisions, taking into account their own unique needs and circumstances.

Some members of Congress have attempted to block the contraceptive proclamation by inventing “right of conscious legislation," whatever that means. The government is not in the business of protecting rights of conscience for individuals or organizations (religious or otherwise).

Indeed, as some have said, the only conscience that matters is that which ensures a woman's option to have affordable contraception in an environment dominated by religious zealots.

In the final analysis, the contraceptive proposal reinforces the drive of the Obama administration to correct the inefficiencies, inequities, and high costs currently existing in the health care environment.

The only constitutional question here is the right of women to be free from the cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon them by people preaching their own brand of righteousness.

Researchers find partial smoking ban makes economic sense: Nevada Today: University of Nevada, Reno

Researchers find partial smoking ban makes economic sense: Nevada Today: University of Nevada, Reno:

'via Blog this'

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