Surprise, surprise, surprise! Come on guys (Greespun & Co.), you could only find 2 Legislative candidates who are not Democrats? Out of 40 local offices and 44 overall you endorsed only 2 Republicans. This works out to 5% local and 4.5% overall. We all know you lean (way) left, but this is a little much. By contrast your Judicial endorsements are 40% conservative. To be fair, some of your Judicial endorsements are for seats where only liberals (I am choosing to define liberal as being listed on the Clark County Democratic Party's website as 'candidates') are running; removing those endorsements changes your conservative endorsements to 55.6%.
Your only competitor seems to be a little more realistic. The RJ's Legislative endorsements stand at 61.8% conservative (as of this post the RJ has not published County Commission endorsements). On the Judicial side the RJ stands at 44% conservative. After removing seats where only liberals are running it changes to 57.9%. Somewhat more consistent, don't you think?
What this tells me is you want liberals making the law but you don't trust them enough to enforce and possibly interpret the law. I just find this to be very odd. Hopefully someone can provide some guidance here.
Dan Wollam
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Health Care Mailers From the Nevada Democrats
Please, will those in charge at the Democratic Party of Nevada (DPN) get your facts straight? Or, at the very least, be fair and present all of the facts.
The two issues that seem to be occupying almost every mailer from the DPN seems to be the following:
1) "McCain says he gives you a tax credit for health care, but his own website says the credit goes directly to your insurance company, not to you, leaving you to pay the McCain health care tax on your own."
2) "McCain's plan would make it more expensive for business to offer health care - putting employees at risk of losing their coverage."
ISSUE #1
The DPN is using John McCain's website: www.johnmccain.com as it's source. I would consider this a cowardly citation. When I visit the site they cite, it is merely the home page. I must click through to find the item that most closely matches the claim of the DNP (http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspx?guid=9b94f39b-1650-4a3a-89ef-fba8cba4c868). Come on my friends, why not pinpoint where your source comes from? The reality of this issue is that it is basically a wash. Yes, it seems as if we may be taxed on a health benefit received from our employers; but that is what the tax credit is meant to cover. Using the chart at the above address as an example, the lowest bracket would have a net tax benefit of $3,800; while the highest bracket would be $800. Please explain how this is a bad thing. AS for the credit going directly to the health insurance company, the AP says,"Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer." It seems like this would be a great convenience for the taxpayer as they would not have to spend time making sure health insurance premiums would be paid on time, in the right amount and to the correct insurer. Thus, leaving more time to enjoy the refundable tax credit!!!
ISSUE #2
Again, be specific! As best I can tell, this address provides links to three articles from the date in the DPN's citation (http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexclusives/index.dtl?year=2008). After reading all three articles I could find no pasage even closely resembling the claim in the mailer. But I did fond that McCain's plan would give a greater tax benefit to the less well-off than a 'tax cut for the rich" as is so often spouted in the media. This is a direct quote from the article: "Senator McCain uses a combination of uniform gross subsidies (for example, $5,000 per family) and removal of the insurance tax subsidy that leads to reduced net subsidies to the well-off and larger net subsidies for the less-well-off".
My last question the DPN is this: Why are you not quoting what the other article from that date states about Obama's Plan? Again, this is a direct quote: "The health reform plan put forth by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) focuses on expanding insurance coverage and provides new subsidies to individuals, small businesses, and businesses experiencing catastrophic expenses. It greatly increases the federal regulation of private insurance but does not address the core economic incentives that drive health care spending. This omission along with the very substantial short-term savings claimed raise serious questions about its fiscal sustainability. Heavy regulation coupled with a fallback National Health Plan and a play-or-pay financing choice also raise questions about the future of the employer insurance market." Wow, it doesn't seem like Health Affairs is fond of Obama's Plan either.
I have called the DPN to discuss these claims; they took my name, phone number and address and said someone would call me. I have yet to hear from them. How shocking!
Come on DPN, explain!!!
Dan Wollam
The two issues that seem to be occupying almost every mailer from the DPN seems to be the following:
1) "McCain says he gives you a tax credit for health care, but his own website says the credit goes directly to your insurance company, not to you, leaving you to pay the McCain health care tax on your own."
2) "McCain's plan would make it more expensive for business to offer health care - putting employees at risk of losing their coverage."
ISSUE #1
The DPN is using John McCain's website: www.johnmccain.com as it's source. I would consider this a cowardly citation. When I visit the site they cite, it is merely the home page. I must click through to find the item that most closely matches the claim of the DNP (http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspx?guid=9b94f39b-1650-4a3a-89ef-fba8cba4c868). Come on my friends, why not pinpoint where your source comes from? The reality of this issue is that it is basically a wash. Yes, it seems as if we may be taxed on a health benefit received from our employers; but that is what the tax credit is meant to cover. Using the chart at the above address as an example, the lowest bracket would have a net tax benefit of $3,800; while the highest bracket would be $800. Please explain how this is a bad thing. AS for the credit going directly to the health insurance company, the AP says,"Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer." It seems like this would be a great convenience for the taxpayer as they would not have to spend time making sure health insurance premiums would be paid on time, in the right amount and to the correct insurer. Thus, leaving more time to enjoy the refundable tax credit!!!
ISSUE #2
Again, be specific! As best I can tell, this address provides links to three articles from the date in the DPN's citation (http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexclusives/index.dtl?year=2008). After reading all three articles I could find no pasage even closely resembling the claim in the mailer. But I did fond that McCain's plan would give a greater tax benefit to the less well-off than a 'tax cut for the rich" as is so often spouted in the media. This is a direct quote from the article: "Senator McCain uses a combination of uniform gross subsidies (for example, $5,000 per family) and removal of the insurance tax subsidy that leads to reduced net subsidies to the well-off and larger net subsidies for the less-well-off".
My last question the DPN is this: Why are you not quoting what the other article from that date states about Obama's Plan? Again, this is a direct quote: "The health reform plan put forth by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) focuses on expanding insurance coverage and provides new subsidies to individuals, small businesses, and businesses experiencing catastrophic expenses. It greatly increases the federal regulation of private insurance but does not address the core economic incentives that drive health care spending. This omission along with the very substantial short-term savings claimed raise serious questions about its fiscal sustainability. Heavy regulation coupled with a fallback National Health Plan and a play-or-pay financing choice also raise questions about the future of the employer insurance market." Wow, it doesn't seem like Health Affairs is fond of Obama's Plan either.
I have called the DPN to discuss these claims; they took my name, phone number and address and said someone would call me. I have yet to hear from them. How shocking!
Come on DPN, explain!!!
Dan Wollam
It Has Been Too Long And I Apologize
While there has been no shortage of topics and issues to blog about, family concerns, vacations, etc. have kept me from fresh posts.
With the monumental election less than three weeks away I will be expanding my posts to include more than Nevada Politics.
Thank you to all who have or will read and/or post, I look forward to much colorful discussion.
Dan Wollam
With the monumental election less than three weeks away I will be expanding my posts to include more than Nevada Politics.
Thank you to all who have or will read and/or post, I look forward to much colorful discussion.
Dan Wollam
Friday, May 9, 2008
Gasoline Tax........HOLIDAY!?!?
Really!?!? Is this any kind of ‘tax holiday’ at all? Sad to say, but Obama is dead on with this one. A few easy calculations: if you were lucky(?) enough to own AND drive a 2008 Lamborghini Murcielago from your home in Boulder City to your job at Mt. Charleston (43.74 miles according to Mapquest), your total savings would be a whopping $140.84; if you drive an average car like a 1999 Saturn SL, your total savings would be even less at $45.07. If Hillary and McCain think an extra $40.24/month will change our lives, then they are playing standard politics: tell the people something, anything, to make the news of the day go down a little better.
Even thought the plan will change our prices here in
Thursday, May 1, 2008
More Truth Regarding Convention Comments
First, let me make myself clear. I do not post merely to argue or dispute. It is just very irritating to see people posting more than an opinion without backing up their statements. That being said, I have a few comments for the following posters on my blog:
http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/
Kenn j (4-27, 1:37p)
I am not sure if I agree with your resolution for part 2 of the Convention, but for the most part you are dead on.
Pat Kerby (4-27, 10:42p)
“…Ron Paul probably averaged closer to 40 percent, where McCain got about 2 percent”
Please explain your math. RP could not have had 40% with JM having 2% and MR having 51%. This would leave approximately 7% for the remaining candidates, yet Huck and Fred had 8% each ( http://www.nvgopcaucus.com/results ). I don’t have a copy of the Republican Party Rules, where can I find them and what section should read.
Carl Bunce (4-27, 11:35p)
“…I am a elected National delegate for the 3rd Congressional”
How do we know you are a National Delegate for the 3rd District? Results were NOT announced for ANY district, regarding the “3 Congressional District” or the 22 at-large delegates. Even if you are a National Delegate, why would you ‘leak’ privileged information? Are you trying to dissuade those
Sarah K (4-28, 1:09a)
“…This would not have taken more than 2 hours, from the nominations all the way to the vote count”
There is absolutely NO WAY to determine how long the nomination/voting process would have taken. Had we selected only 5 National Delegates, 2 hours may be accurate. However, if we had selected 31 National Delegates, as suggested by RP supporters, it would have easily taken 3-4 hours or possibly longer.
“…Also, in order to adjourn a meeting, there must be a MOTION from the FLOOR which must then be VOTED UPON”
I am not 100% certain of Robert’s Rules of Order, and am therefore unable to dispute them. Unfortunately the rules for ADJOURNMENT, I am certain, DO NOT apply to RECESS. Adjournment and recess are two completely different items.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
First Response to Selected RJ Comments
My first round of responses directed at Las Vegas Review Journal comments/posters are as follows:
Liberty or Death (4-27, 4:05a)
“…Paul should have the delagates from Nevada, Romney dropped out and that leaves him next in line”
What if Romney supporters’ second choice was McCain?
Jim Davidson (4-27, 4:11a)
“…Stealing elections is something the GOP has gotten comfortable with”
The results of the election of the nine Congressional District delegates were not announced, and the election of the 22 at-large delegates was not held. Please explain your basis for the election being stolen.
Ray (4-27, 10:06 a)
“…Bob Beers was handed a note the hastily dropped the gavel and said, "Recess!”
From the RJ, “State Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, the convention chairman, announced that the convention would recess indefinitely about 6 p.m., saying the party's contract with the Peppermill Hotel Casino had expired and the gathering would reconvene at a later date.” Sen. Beers did not, out of nowhere, call for a recess.
“…Then McCain supporters were running around asking the others to leave, thus the quorum was broken”
I was there as well. As the remaining delegates attempted to establish a quorum, Paul supporters shouted for the McCain supporters to leave. This was followed by the McCain supporters shouting for the Paul supporters to leave. Childlike behavior from both sides, wouldn’t you agree?
Liberty or Death (4-27, 4:05a)
“…Paul should have the delagates from Nevada, Romney dropped out and that leaves him next in line”
What if Romney supporters’ second choice was McCain?
Jim Davidson (4-27, 4:11a)
“…Stealing elections is something the GOP has gotten comfortable with”
The results of the election of the nine Congressional District delegates were not announced, and the election of the 22 at-large delegates was not held. Please explain your basis for the election being stolen.
Ray (4-27, 10:06 a)
“…Bob Beers was handed a note the hastily dropped the gavel and said, "Recess!”
From the RJ, “State Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, the convention chairman, announced that the convention would recess indefinitely about 6 p.m., saying the party's contract with the Peppermill Hotel Casino had expired and the gathering would reconvene at a later date.” Sen. Beers did not, out of nowhere, call for a recess.
“…Then McCain supporters were running around asking the others to leave, thus the quorum was broken”
I was there as well. As the remaining delegates attempted to establish a quorum, Paul supporters shouted for the McCain supporters to leave. This was followed by the McCain supporters shouting for the Paul supporters to leave. Childlike behavior from both sides, wouldn’t you agree?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
NV STATE CONVENTION
This is the opening post to this blog, enjoy!!!
What is wrong with all of you? Everyone is missing the underlying point to the fiasco in Reno Saturday night: yes, Ron Paul “beat” John McCain in the Nevada caucus, by one percentage point (http://www.nvgopcaucus.com/results, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_republican_caucus-235.html); hold the caucus today and I am certain we would have a much different result. To think that because RP beat JM in January he would automatically beat him today is ludicrous.
How many Republicans honestly believe all Romney and other candidates’ supporters, now that they are out of the race, back Paul? The RP supporters complain about the party leaders ‘forcing’ us to back McCain, yet you want to force the supporters of Romney and other candidates’ to back RP. We all learned as children a long time ago, “two wrongs do not make a right”. Yes, some other candidates’ supporters I am sure would back RP now that their man is out of the race, but to think it would be fair to allot all other delegates to RP would be the epitome of unfair tactics. The fact that delegates to the national convention are not obligated to any one candidate should put RP supporters at ease; that is, assuming RP is such a phenomenal choice.
If RP is such a great choice, why did he, and others, fail so miserably against Romney in the caucus. In several states no one candidate won by a majority in their respective caucus/primary. Yet, here in
The bottom line is this: yes, RP beat JM. However, hold the caucus today and the best you could possibly hope to achieve would be a 50/50 split. How could that possibly benefit either candidate at his point in the race?
My next comments are replies to the several comments in response to Sen. Beers’ blog and articles in the Las Vegas Review Journal and the Reno-Gazette Journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)