How dare you on the left tell Americans to "stop talking", or "get out of the way". Is not Free Speech a basic Constitutional right? Obama, the Dems and much of the citizenry on the left seem to be unhappy with those on the right speaking out about something they do not agree with. Please, someone explain to me why this is wrong. Obama says to stop talking; should we then just lie down and let his administration run its course? Joe Beltran of North Las Vegas would like the anti-health care contingent to "get out of the way"; should we then just step aside and wait for the results of this monstrosity to take the U.S. deeper into economic turmoil?
I, FOR ONE, WILL NEVER BE QUIET OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!
Mr. seems to think the RNC is in the pocket of the HMO lobby; where is the proof? Why not try Opensecrets for a dose of reality. Here you will find that: during the 2008 election cycle in the Senate Dems received $3.2M from HMO's while Reps received $1.4M (Obama himself received $1.4M). I also have the figures for the House in 2008, and both chambers for the upcoming 2010 election cycle. Or maybe this site, geared toward use in a classroom discussion.
Mr. Beltran, I realize it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but please try to base your comments on facts.
Lastly, I will always speak out against issues I disagree with; that type of behavior is what makes this country as great as it is. But while 'talking' and 'getting in the way', I will also call you, and anyone else, out on facts.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
MISINFORMATION?!?! Only from the Left!!!
In response to Edith Lifschultz's letter in the Tuesday Las Vegas Review Journal, I just want to urge the public (Left, Right and everything in between): take the time to read what Obama's Health Plan is about. At the very least, ask your representatives in Washington to read the bill before they vote on it. I mean really, do you honestly want any politician to vote on something they have not read?
Edith, Please, I urge you, go to the plan and read it. Misinformation is being fed to the public by the White House and their lapdog, the left-wing media. I challenge you to take a look at page 16 of the Health Care bill. Obama says we can keep our current plan/provider if we so choose. However, his bill states that is the case, ONLY if you stay with the employer you had, and the plan they provided, at the time the bill goes into effect. If the smallest detail of the plan you have in effect at the time of the bill's passage, you can no longer keep that plan. This is just one glaring instance of the MISINFORMATION being fed from those who wish to blindside the public into thinking they need this horrendous plan.
Now that I have said I do not like Obama's horrendous Health Plan, who is going to report me to the White House for voicing my opinion?
Edith, Please, I urge you, go to the plan and read it. Misinformation is being fed to the public by the White House and their lapdog, the left-wing media. I challenge you to take a look at page 16 of the Health Care bill. Obama says we can keep our current plan/provider if we so choose. However, his bill states that is the case, ONLY if you stay with the employer you had, and the plan they provided, at the time the bill goes into effect. If the smallest detail of the plan you have in effect at the time of the bill's passage, you can no longer keep that plan. This is just one glaring instance of the MISINFORMATION being fed from those who wish to blindside the public into thinking they need this horrendous plan.
Now that I have said I do not like Obama's horrendous Health Plan, who is going to report me to the White House for voicing my opinion?
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Support Obama?!?! WHY???
This is a very late response to Mike Lombardi in the Las Vegas Sun, Thursday, July 30, 2009. Please explain why I should support something I do not agree with? Let's turn the tables, where was all of the support from the left regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Gee, it wasn't President Bush's fault that planes were flown into buildings. It may have been his idea to go to war, but he did so with the approval of both Houses of Congress. Where was the support from the left, in the media and the public? Exactly! How about another example. Mike, if your Dr. said the best way to cure your migraines was to jump off the top of the Stratosphere, what would you do? I am guessing you would not support his idea, and instead opt for a plan you had a little more faith in: an aspirin.
The bottom line is this: If I do not like his plans, why should I support them?
So, Mr. Lombardi, enough with this "We need to support President Obama's efforts to bring this country back from the destruction of the last 8 years." Listen Liberals, it's getting old, time to come up with another excuse or scapegoat. You see, part of the problem for the displeasure with Obama is that you, and almost ALL of those on the left anointed him as the savior of all mankind. Gimme a break. If he really is the end of all that ails the US, why are we still mired in unemployment? If his health plan is so incredibly good for this country, why is it not passed already? If the Obama economic team is so brilliant, how is it that they have made two major miscalculations already (effect of the stimulus and the 'Cash For Clunkers')? But you want us to simply support him for no reason. Explain why we should support him, instead of complaining that we don't.
The bottom line is this: If I do not like his plans, why should I support them?
So, Mr. Lombardi, enough with this "We need to support President Obama's efforts to bring this country back from the destruction of the last 8 years." Listen Liberals, it's getting old, time to come up with another excuse or scapegoat. You see, part of the problem for the displeasure with Obama is that you, and almost ALL of those on the left anointed him as the savior of all mankind. Gimme a break. If he really is the end of all that ails the US, why are we still mired in unemployment? If his health plan is so incredibly good for this country, why is it not passed already? If the Obama economic team is so brilliant, how is it that they have made two major miscalculations already (effect of the stimulus and the 'Cash For Clunkers')? But you want us to simply support him for no reason. Explain why we should support him, instead of complaining that we don't.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Tax Plan to Help Others
This is a very rough outline of a potential plan to cover charitable giving, taxes, health care and any other enterprise or people in need. (In trillions, please allow for rounding)
Total Personal US Income 12.1
Federal Expenditures (Less 10 % = 2.9-.29) 2.6
Remaining Personal Income 9.5
5% Tax of Remaining Income for Giving Purposes .475
That’s $475M to be given away. To cut federal expenditures 10%, I think we can all agree, would be easily done. Now, allow that $475M to be dispersed as the taxpayer(s) sees fit, and designate the recipient on their tax return. The total tax bite to all taxpayers would decrease approximately 5%, and we the taxpayers would decide the most worthy cause(s) to receive our assistance. This would also allow the federal government to maintain its current level of funding for entitlements it deems worthy. Also, there would be no need for a bureaucracy to handle the transfer of monies from taxpayers to recipient. By entering the appropriate code for your designated beneficiary, your form 1040 would then generate an ETF to the intended recipient.
It is a bit simplistic, yes, but you get the idea.
Total Personal US Income 12.1
Federal Expenditures (Less 10 % = 2.9-.29) 2.6
Remaining Personal Income 9.5
5% Tax of Remaining Income for Giving Purposes .475
That’s $475M to be given away. To cut federal expenditures 10%, I think we can all agree, would be easily done. Now, allow that $475M to be dispersed as the taxpayer(s) sees fit, and designate the recipient on their tax return. The total tax bite to all taxpayers would decrease approximately 5%, and we the taxpayers would decide the most worthy cause(s) to receive our assistance. This would also allow the federal government to maintain its current level of funding for entitlements it deems worthy. Also, there would be no need for a bureaucracy to handle the transfer of monies from taxpayers to recipient. By entering the appropriate code for your designated beneficiary, your form 1040 would then generate an ETF to the intended recipient.
It is a bit simplistic, yes, but you get the idea.
Further Discussion of the Health Care Debate
My latest contribution to the discussion at the Las Vegas Sun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JahReb-
Welcome to the discussion. However, I find it utterly incredible how much you miss my point. I am not denying the need to help one another. What I am saying is, do not tell me who, when and how much to help. Instead of helping a fellow citizen with some genetic difficulty they were born with; maybe I would rather help children with AIDS. Another 'someone' born with an ailment not of their choosing. By choosing a child born with AIDS, I know where my resources are going. By giving health care to those who choose not purchase it is not how I want my resources spent.
Additionally, when I give of my resources, I DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING IN RETURN! Mine is not a 'me first' attitude. Mine is a 'I choose who is first' to receive my resources attitude. When I choose to make my contribution to society, it is the freedom that this country was founded on that says it is my right I choose where to contribute.
Once a month I drive over 400 miles, round trip, to spend a weekend in the Arizona desert to clean, feed and shelter exotic animals. I am not paid to do this. In fact, I spend my own time and money for tools, travel, food and lodging. Please explain what benefit I could possibly gain from this endeavor.
JohnF-
You are absolutely correct when you say "we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, do your rights include diminishing mine? I would think not. And no, I would not rather see you die. But my tax dollars are already being used to pay for health care for those in need. Now you want more. When will it end? I have in fact faced medical difficulty without insurance. I paid for the surgery; not government or anyone else. It was not fun, which is why I choose a path in life which minimizes health care needed and the cost thereof.
Again, for families similar to yours, I am all for providing all the government (or other) assistance necessary. But you have not addressed my concerns with regards to those who choose not to buy insurance or lead less-than-optimal lifestyles. Is this not, albeit indirectly, a 'me first' attitude? Are you a proponent of providing health for those people?
Lastly, I believe you make my argument with your closing remarks to Gordon. Yes, it very unfortunate for anyone to experience the plight that he, his family and others endure. "Thankfully the MS Society was there to help you" is my point exactly. If I choose to donate to MS, cancer, or children with AIDS, it is my choice as to how much and when. By having the government provide the assistance you needed you are denying my 'right to liberty and happiness': the liberty of choosing who, what, when and where, and the happiness of having done so. Would I be morally bankrupt for choosing cancer to receive my resources over MS? I hope not, but it is my choice. Further, it is not your place to determine who is morally bankrupt. That decision rests with the Creator. lazyfaire will answer to his Creator at the appropriate time; it is then he will suffer the consequences or benefits of his choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JahReb-
Welcome to the discussion. However, I find it utterly incredible how much you miss my point. I am not denying the need to help one another. What I am saying is, do not tell me who, when and how much to help. Instead of helping a fellow citizen with some genetic difficulty they were born with; maybe I would rather help children with AIDS. Another 'someone' born with an ailment not of their choosing. By choosing a child born with AIDS, I know where my resources are going. By giving health care to those who choose not purchase it is not how I want my resources spent.
Additionally, when I give of my resources, I DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING IN RETURN! Mine is not a 'me first' attitude. Mine is a 'I choose who is first' to receive my resources attitude. When I choose to make my contribution to society, it is the freedom that this country was founded on that says it is my right I choose where to contribute.
Once a month I drive over 400 miles, round trip, to spend a weekend in the Arizona desert to clean, feed and shelter exotic animals. I am not paid to do this. In fact, I spend my own time and money for tools, travel, food and lodging. Please explain what benefit I could possibly gain from this endeavor.
JohnF-
You are absolutely correct when you say "we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, do your rights include diminishing mine? I would think not. And no, I would not rather see you die. But my tax dollars are already being used to pay for health care for those in need. Now you want more. When will it end? I have in fact faced medical difficulty without insurance. I paid for the surgery; not government or anyone else. It was not fun, which is why I choose a path in life which minimizes health care needed and the cost thereof.
Again, for families similar to yours, I am all for providing all the government (or other) assistance necessary. But you have not addressed my concerns with regards to those who choose not to buy insurance or lead less-than-optimal lifestyles. Is this not, albeit indirectly, a 'me first' attitude? Are you a proponent of providing health for those people?
Lastly, I believe you make my argument with your closing remarks to Gordon. Yes, it very unfortunate for anyone to experience the plight that he, his family and others endure. "Thankfully the MS Society was there to help you" is my point exactly. If I choose to donate to MS, cancer, or children with AIDS, it is my choice as to how much and when. By having the government provide the assistance you needed you are denying my 'right to liberty and happiness': the liberty of choosing who, what, when and where, and the happiness of having done so. Would I be morally bankrupt for choosing cancer to receive my resources over MS? I hope not, but it is my choice. Further, it is not your place to determine who is morally bankrupt. That decision rests with the Creator. lazyfaire will answer to his Creator at the appropriate time; it is then he will suffer the consequences or benefits of his choices.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Left-Wing Control of the Media?
The following is an email sent to "letters to the editor" of both the Las Vegas Sun & Las Vegas Review-Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Sunday edition of the Las Vegas Sun, editor Brian Greenspun states he enjoys the “modern-day letter to the editor’ section that comes at the end of stories and opinions called ‘comments’”. Apparently he doesn’t really enjoy it all that much: his are the only stories or opinions that do not allow the aforementioned ‘comments’. I have not checked every other story or op-ed piece, but between the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun, editor Brian Greenspun is the ONLY PERSON WHO DOES NOT ALLOW COMMENTS TO WHAT HE WRITES.
Brian Greenspun, please tell Las Vegas why you do not allow comments to what you write?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Sunday edition of the Las Vegas Sun, editor Brian Greenspun states he enjoys the “modern-day letter to the editor’ section that comes at the end of stories and opinions called ‘comments’”. Apparently he doesn’t really enjoy it all that much: his are the only stories or opinions that do not allow the aforementioned ‘comments’. I have not checked every other story or op-ed piece, but between the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun, editor Brian Greenspun is the ONLY PERSON WHO DOES NOT ALLOW COMMENTS TO WHAT HE WRITES.
Brian Greenspun, please tell Las Vegas why you do not allow comments to what you write?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Letter to Brian Greenspun, editor Las Vegas Sun
This letter was emailed to Brian Greenspun, editor of the Las Vegas Sun, Monday, July 13, 2009. As I am somewhat calling him to the carpet, it will be interesting to see if he publishes any portion of my letter. It is in response to his op-ed piece of Sunday, July 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Greenspun,
I thoroughly enjoy, appreciate and respect your opinion(s). While I generally disagree with you on most points, you tend to stay away from the far left lunacy that could be the demise of this great country. Rest assured opinions from the far right would do just as much harm.
First, why do you not allow readers to comment on your opinion? Thomas Mitchell does at the RJ.
In yesterday’s Sun you state that the ‘GOVERNMENT CAN DELIVER GOOD HEALTH CARE’. While that may in fact be possible, I disagree wholeheartedly on basis for that conclusion.
Now, my neighbors are not complete strangers. That is not to say I know all of the households within one mile of my home, but I know who my neighbors are. Further, to assume that my neighbor is indigent is foolish by definition; they are not lacking a roof over their head.
To begin, I agree completely that the health care debate does not have to be Constitutional. If it is not however Constitutional, who will pay for the plan laid out by the Obama administration? To use my own interpretation of a George Will article that ran in your paper, a more accurate number of citizens needing health care/coverage would be 7 million, not 40+ million. Based on an estimated $1 trillion in cost, this equates to approximately $142k per person, to cover the 7 million. How can this possibly be OK when, for example, the homes of quite a few gainfully employed citizens of this valley are not worth that much?
Now, what you describe as “the biggest lie so far – that government can’t run a good health care delivery system”. Let me start by saying that I am one of those that think the government would be unable to run health care. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it. You imply the phenomenal work at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center as being run by government. I beg to differ. Simply because the Center is part of the UT system does not make it government run. The original funding was split $500k each from the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the state legislature. For fiscal year 2008 we have the following: research is 44.6% government funded, 78.3% of operating revenue is from patient (fees). Hardly government run. To further my example one need only look at the funding for the building located at Maryland Pkwy and University Rd. As a graduate of UNLV (sorry, but I spent most of my time at Beam Hall as an accounting student, before Greenspun was erected) I am very appreciative of all your family does for UNLV; with good fortune I hope to do the same. My point is this: universities may be under the guise of state/government control, but without the generosity (direction) of benefactors such as the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the Greenspun family, there would be few, if any, institutions as revered as the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center or the Greenspun College of Urban Affairs.
Thank you for the Las Vegas Sun.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Wollam
http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Greenspun,
I thoroughly enjoy, appreciate and respect your opinion(s). While I generally disagree with you on most points, you tend to stay away from the far left lunacy that could be the demise of this great country. Rest assured opinions from the far right would do just as much harm.
First, why do you not allow readers to comment on your opinion? Thomas Mitchell does at the RJ.
In yesterday’s Sun you state that the ‘GOVERNMENT CAN DELIVER GOOD HEALTH CARE’. While that may in fact be possible, I disagree wholeheartedly on basis for that conclusion.
Now, my neighbors are not complete strangers. That is not to say I know all of the households within one mile of my home, but I know who my neighbors are. Further, to assume that my neighbor is indigent is foolish by definition; they are not lacking a roof over their head.
To begin, I agree completely that the health care debate does not have to be Constitutional. If it is not however Constitutional, who will pay for the plan laid out by the Obama administration? To use my own interpretation of a George Will article that ran in your paper, a more accurate number of citizens needing health care/coverage would be 7 million, not 40+ million. Based on an estimated $1 trillion in cost, this equates to approximately $142k per person, to cover the 7 million. How can this possibly be OK when, for example, the homes of quite a few gainfully employed citizens of this valley are not worth that much?
Now, what you describe as “the biggest lie so far – that government can’t run a good health care delivery system”. Let me start by saying that I am one of those that think the government would be unable to run health care. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it. You imply the phenomenal work at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center as being run by government. I beg to differ. Simply because the Center is part of the UT system does not make it government run. The original funding was split $500k each from the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the state legislature. For fiscal year 2008 we have the following: research is 44.6% government funded, 78.3% of operating revenue is from patient (fees). Hardly government run. To further my example one need only look at the funding for the building located at Maryland Pkwy and University Rd. As a graduate of UNLV (sorry, but I spent most of my time at Beam Hall as an accounting student, before Greenspun was erected) I am very appreciative of all your family does for UNLV; with good fortune I hope to do the same. My point is this: universities may be under the guise of state/government control, but without the generosity (direction) of benefactors such as the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the Greenspun family, there would be few, if any, institutions as revered as the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center or the Greenspun College of Urban Affairs.
Thank you for the Las Vegas Sun.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Wollam
http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Brian Greenspun
This post is in response to the op-ed piece Las Vegas Sun's editor, Brian Greenspun in the July 12th Las Vegas Sun. I find it funny and controlling/restrictive that he comments on the 'comments' posted in response to articles all over the internet yet, Brian Greenspun does not allow readers to comment online to his opinion(s). Mr. Greenspun, please explain. Thomas Mitchell at the RJ allows comments.
1) This country was founded on FREEDOM. Most importantly, freedom of choice: where to live, which religion to follow (if any at all), which to car drive, where to work, who to work for, who date/marry, where to educate your kids, whether or not to live a healthy lifestyle, and the list goes on. By taxing the citizens to pay for something that is a choice (method, amount and quality of health care) is akin to taking from the citizens(see ‘takings clause’ of the 5th Amendment); it also reeks of Socialism/Communism. I choose to live a healthy lifestyle, to only bring those into the world which I can support, avoid danger, etc. If I make a poor choice, I pay the price, not you. I don’t expect you to pay for my bad choices.
2) What you are saying is that we have a moral obligation to help our neighbor, our fellow man. Is it an obligation? Maybe. But it is my choice to complete my obligation(s). If I choose an immoral path, my God will deal with me accordingly. But what about those who do not share in your beliefs? If they do not believe in your God, or any other, are they immoral? By taxing the citizens to pay for example, health care, you are forcing your morals on the citizens. Those who society deem as immoral will pay the price, the cosmos will be sure of that. The universe we live in is precariously balanced: the universe has a way of taking care of those who attempt to change that balance.
3) If it is my moral duty to behave a certain way and take of my fellow man, it is MY MORAL DUTY, not yours. It is in fact your duty to espouse the virtues/benefits of your beliefs, and why I should want to share those beliefs. It is not, however your duty to force your beliefs upon me (i.e. Stalin, King George, fanatical Islam, etc.). Again, the universe has a way of taking care of those who force anything upon another.
1) This country was founded on FREEDOM. Most importantly, freedom of choice: where to live, which religion to follow (if any at all), which to car drive, where to work, who to work for, who date/marry, where to educate your kids, whether or not to live a healthy lifestyle, and the list goes on. By taxing the citizens to pay for something that is a choice (method, amount and quality of health care) is akin to taking from the citizens(see ‘takings clause’ of the 5th Amendment); it also reeks of Socialism/Communism. I choose to live a healthy lifestyle, to only bring those into the world which I can support, avoid danger, etc. If I make a poor choice, I pay the price, not you. I don’t expect you to pay for my bad choices.
2) What you are saying is that we have a moral obligation to help our neighbor, our fellow man. Is it an obligation? Maybe. But it is my choice to complete my obligation(s). If I choose an immoral path, my God will deal with me accordingly. But what about those who do not share in your beliefs? If they do not believe in your God, or any other, are they immoral? By taxing the citizens to pay for example, health care, you are forcing your morals on the citizens. Those who society deem as immoral will pay the price, the cosmos will be sure of that. The universe we live in is precariously balanced: the universe has a way of taking care of those who attempt to change that balance.
3) If it is my moral duty to behave a certain way and take of my fellow man, it is MY MORAL DUTY, not yours. It is in fact your duty to espouse the virtues/benefits of your beliefs, and why I should want to share those beliefs. It is not, however your duty to force your beliefs upon me (i.e. Stalin, King George, fanatical Islam, etc.). Again, the universe has a way of taking care of those who force anything upon another.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Health Care Reform
According to Mr. Mundy in today's RJ all we need to do for health care reform is bow down to the plan put forth by Obama and the Dems. The very rough math is as follows:
Non-citizens 16 million
Wealthy 9 million
Children not enrolled 11 million
Citizens choosing No 5 million (my own estimate at 1.7% of population)
TOTAL 41 million
Remaining Un-Insured 7 million (2.3% of the population, based on 300 million)
To go a step further, read George Will's piece on this topic. Give those in need a debit card to use at the health care provider of their choice. If they are forced to spend wisely, they will choose the provider with the best service/product for the money. THAT will bring down the cost of health care.
Non-citizens 16 million
Wealthy 9 million
Children not enrolled 11 million
Citizens choosing No 5 million (my own estimate at 1.7% of population)
TOTAL 41 million
Remaining Un-Insured 7 million (2.3% of the population, based on 300 million)
To go a step further, read George Will's piece on this topic. Give those in need a debit card to use at the health care provider of their choice. If they are forced to spend wisely, they will choose the provider with the best service/product for the money. THAT will bring down the cost of health care.
Dear John (Oceguera).......
OK, so I don't read the paper first thing in the morning, but I do read it. Thank you Glenn Cook for your commentary on the hardship Clark County Firefighters face upon retirement.
While my outrage is not with the firefighters directly, I take issue with those who stand by and watch (Nevada State Assembly District 16, John Oceguera) the County slip further into despair. This situation is similar to what I stated a previous post concerning contracts: the County entered into this contract and have only themselves to blame. However, Mr. Cook, you are dead on in requesting that the firefighters willingly give up some of their pay/benefit increases. Do not the firefighters understand it is their neighbors who are paying their salaries? The very same neighbors who are struggling to not just to pay bills, but to put food on their tables.
Mr. Oceguera, your own Union accepted concessions in North Las Vegas to help in keeping that jurisdiction from feeling the pains of the economic crunch. Now, I do not like it when anyone, much less a politician, or anyone in a position of power, to strongarm another entity or person into doing something they are not comfortable with. But, Mr. Oceguera, I would think that with your status in the legislature, and your rank in the North Las Vegas Fire Department, you could "assist" the Clark County Fire Department in finding a method of pay/benefit decreases satisfactory for all. Come on John, show District 16, part of Clark County, why we should maintain your services in Carson City.
Maybe you do not belong to the Firefighters Union, and thus do not care about the pay in NLV, or Clark County. In the Culinary world, as you move up the ladder into management you are no longer a member of the Union. Is that the case with Firefighters?
I guess the bottom line is twofold:
1) Clark County Firefighters needs to get a grip. Yes, you deserve considerable pay for your job, but why are you so special so as to not to feel the effects of the economy?
2) John Oceguera, the voters of AD 16 put you in office for a reason...show us why!
While my outrage is not with the firefighters directly, I take issue with those who stand by and watch (Nevada State Assembly District 16, John Oceguera) the County slip further into despair. This situation is similar to what I stated a previous post concerning contracts: the County entered into this contract and have only themselves to blame. However, Mr. Cook, you are dead on in requesting that the firefighters willingly give up some of their pay/benefit increases. Do not the firefighters understand it is their neighbors who are paying their salaries? The very same neighbors who are struggling to not just to pay bills, but to put food on their tables.
Mr. Oceguera, your own Union accepted concessions in North Las Vegas to help in keeping that jurisdiction from feeling the pains of the economic crunch. Now, I do not like it when anyone, much less a politician, or anyone in a position of power, to strongarm another entity or person into doing something they are not comfortable with. But, Mr. Oceguera, I would think that with your status in the legislature, and your rank in the North Las Vegas Fire Department, you could "assist" the Clark County Fire Department in finding a method of pay/benefit decreases satisfactory for all. Come on John, show District 16, part of Clark County, why we should maintain your services in Carson City.
Maybe you do not belong to the Firefighters Union, and thus do not care about the pay in NLV, or Clark County. In the Culinary world, as you move up the ladder into management you are no longer a member of the Union. Is that the case with Firefighters?
I guess the bottom line is twofold:
1) Clark County Firefighters needs to get a grip. Yes, you deserve considerable pay for your job, but why are you so special so as to not to feel the effects of the economy?
2) John Oceguera, the voters of AD 16 put you in office for a reason...show us why!
Friday, July 10, 2009
True Customer Service???
Whoa! Shocking news from the business world. According to the WSJ, "Mr. Henderson (CEO of the new GM) said Friday that "true customer service" represented a "new frontier" for the industry." So, basically they are saying customer service has been non-existent for over 100 years. Is it any wonder GM is where there are today? How did Saturn come about? My 1999 SL has hadone issue that was quickly resolved by the dealer at less than $500 to me. The dealer picked up the tab for over $1,000. Most businesses will fail with poor customer service regardless of the quality of the product. Really? It took you over 100 years to figure that out? I am so very happy Saturn will no longer be controlled by GM.
Dealers are Right --- Wynn is Wrong
WOW! So many comments, so many people way off base.
First, let me say this: I do side with the dealers on this. Tips are given to the dealers and no one else. As the statute states: without an agreement by/with the dealers, Wynn’s action(s) are illegal. If Wynn wins, it will be up to the current and future dealers to decide if they want to work at Wynn Resorts.
Former Casino Boss – Dealers are not the only employees working on holidays, working odd hours of the day/night, health problems, or dealing with the public in s stressful environment. I am a banquet food server: have you had to deal with a bride or bride’s mother when they show up with 20 more guests than they have contracted for? It is not a fun situation, but I choose to work in this environment. It is not uncommon for me to work on holidays, or to end my shift at 11pm, only to return at 5am. These, and all, dealers choose to work where they do.
Fight! – As a banquet food server, I already split some of my tip with management. It is in the Culinary Union contract. Yet, for some reason, I have chosen to work with policy in place for 13 years.
LVdlr1 – Name calling and foul language is a great way to get your point across. Look forward to your next comments.
roger – You nailed it with the customer choosing who gets the tip. Anywhere I have ever been in the world, gambling, dining or other, I have always given a tip to the person I wanted to have it; the exception being the full knowledge that in some casinos dealers pool their tips with other dealers only. I put it to you Mr. Wynn, put a drop box at the table with two slots: Dealers and Management (or Floor, Lead, Supervisors, etc., whatever). Then we will see who is meant to receive them.
Rob L. – You (and others) really need to get over the “amount of pay” issue. Pay for anyone is, and should be, based on what the market will bear. CEO’s sign a contract, based on what a Board of Directors is offering them. If a Board is dumb enough to offer an absurd package, to the detriment of shareholders and employees alike, blame the Board not the CEO. Does a pro athlete deserve the millions they are paid every year? Probably not, when teachers are overwhelmingly paid under $100k; yet, we as fans continue to attend events at exorbitant ticket, concession and parking prices. By doing so, we are confirming that athletes are in fact worth a significant portion of our disposable income. No one forced you to earn your degrees or accept a job, with such horrible pay and work conditions; you chose your path.
As I stated earlier, I am banquet food server. Before the economic downturn I earned $50k working, on average just over 30 hours a week. That 30 hours is skewed however as banquets are usually very slow in the summers months to the point I would be lucky if I were to work 12 hours in a week. I choose the day/shifts I work. Unlike other Culinary employees I do not get paid double-time on my birthday, nor do I get paid OT if I work over 40 hours in a week or 80 hours in a 2-week pay period. If I do not work the required number of hours in a 2-month period, I pay the difference for my health insurance. The Union contributes less than $1 per hour worked to my pension. And yet, I STILL CHOOSE TO WORK THERE AFTER 12 YEARS!!! Oh, did I forget to mention that I have a degree in Accounting with a minor in Business Law? Yeah, I worked as a Casino Accounting Supervisor for over 2 years here in Las Vegas. I CHOSE TO RETURN TO THE FOODSERVICE INDUSTRY!
The original item that really bothered me is something that I feel has repercussions in business, government and all of society. If Tanchek hears all testimony by Thursday (yesterday), why would it take until October to decide? My entire post would have been about the foot-dragging standards in all of government, but as a tipped employee I felt the need to opine. I sincerely challenge you, Commissioner Tanchek, to explain why it would take 2+ months to decide.
First, let me say this: I do side with the dealers on this. Tips are given to the dealers and no one else. As the statute states: without an agreement by/with the dealers, Wynn’s action(s) are illegal. If Wynn wins, it will be up to the current and future dealers to decide if they want to work at Wynn Resorts.
Former Casino Boss – Dealers are not the only employees working on holidays, working odd hours of the day/night, health problems, or dealing with the public in s stressful environment. I am a banquet food server: have you had to deal with a bride or bride’s mother when they show up with 20 more guests than they have contracted for? It is not a fun situation, but I choose to work in this environment. It is not uncommon for me to work on holidays, or to end my shift at 11pm, only to return at 5am. These, and all, dealers choose to work where they do.
Fight! – As a banquet food server, I already split some of my tip with management. It is in the Culinary Union contract. Yet, for some reason, I have chosen to work with policy in place for 13 years.
LVdlr1 – Name calling and foul language is a great way to get your point across. Look forward to your next comments.
roger – You nailed it with the customer choosing who gets the tip. Anywhere I have ever been in the world, gambling, dining or other, I have always given a tip to the person I wanted to have it; the exception being the full knowledge that in some casinos dealers pool their tips with other dealers only. I put it to you Mr. Wynn, put a drop box at the table with two slots: Dealers and Management (or Floor, Lead, Supervisors, etc., whatever). Then we will see who is meant to receive them.
Rob L. – You (and others) really need to get over the “amount of pay” issue. Pay for anyone is, and should be, based on what the market will bear. CEO’s sign a contract, based on what a Board of Directors is offering them. If a Board is dumb enough to offer an absurd package, to the detriment of shareholders and employees alike, blame the Board not the CEO. Does a pro athlete deserve the millions they are paid every year? Probably not, when teachers are overwhelmingly paid under $100k; yet, we as fans continue to attend events at exorbitant ticket, concession and parking prices. By doing so, we are confirming that athletes are in fact worth a significant portion of our disposable income. No one forced you to earn your degrees or accept a job, with such horrible pay and work conditions; you chose your path.
As I stated earlier, I am banquet food server. Before the economic downturn I earned $50k working, on average just over 30 hours a week. That 30 hours is skewed however as banquets are usually very slow in the summers months to the point I would be lucky if I were to work 12 hours in a week. I choose the day/shifts I work. Unlike other Culinary employees I do not get paid double-time on my birthday, nor do I get paid OT if I work over 40 hours in a week or 80 hours in a 2-week pay period. If I do not work the required number of hours in a 2-month period, I pay the difference for my health insurance. The Union contributes less than $1 per hour worked to my pension. And yet, I STILL CHOOSE TO WORK THERE AFTER 12 YEARS!!! Oh, did I forget to mention that I have a degree in Accounting with a minor in Business Law? Yeah, I worked as a Casino Accounting Supervisor for over 2 years here in Las Vegas. I CHOSE TO RETURN TO THE FOODSERVICE INDUSTRY!
The original item that really bothered me is something that I feel has repercussions in business, government and all of society. If Tanchek hears all testimony by Thursday (yesterday), why would it take until October to decide? My entire post would have been about the foot-dragging standards in all of government, but as a tipped employee I felt the need to opine. I sincerely challenge you, Commissioner Tanchek, to explain why it would take 2+ months to decide.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
"Embrace Black Solidarity"? REALLY???
After watching Dr. Marc Lamont Hill recently on O'Reilly a short time ago, the race/black issue finally pushed me to write something. Dr. Hill and another commentator were discussing the media's coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. You can find a video clip here at Dr. Hill's website:
Below is the text of an email I sent to Dr. Hill a few days ago:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hill,
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I understand you are extremely busy and may not have the time to respond however, I look forward to the possibility.
In the essence of full disclosure, I provide the following information: I am 44 years old, white, college graduate (Accounting, Business Law), Republican and conservative. I always enjoy your appearances on O'Reilly. You are one of the few who can provide a clear concise view from the other side, both racially and politically, without using extremism to get your point across.
I have just viewed your appearance on O'Reilly concerning the 'racial dimensions of the media coverage of Michael Jackson's death'. What got my attention was when you used the words "embrace black solidarity". This concerns me in that while this great nation still has race issues to resolve, many of us have no time or energy to devote to the idea of race issues, because we do not any. Now, in 'my world', and because of my accounting nature, I prefer to see things as black or white, on or off, yes or no. Thankfully I have paid attention to society and learned that is not always the case. Thus, we all have some level of race issues. For some of us though, our issues are so minuscule, in essence they do not exist. It is my feeling, in that race does not concern me, that embracing black solidarity promotes divisiveness and increases racial tensions. I do not however believe that we, as a nation, need to become one people. We need some level of identity, some individuality.
Michael Jackson did much to break racial barriers. Jamie Foxx and Sean (P. Diddy) Combs did much to put those back in place. Yes, Michael Jackson was black, but he transcended his race and nationality. He belonged to the world, and just happened to be black. This leads to my reason for writing to you. Please explain to me how "embracing black solidarity" promotes the destruction of racial barriers, and increases unity as a nation on a common path.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am tired of it (race being an issue). It is not an issue to me, my wife (I would not have married her otherwise), my family or friends. Again, it is not to say it (race issues) does not exist, I am just tired of it coming up when it is not the real issue at hand. One of my favorite, recent, examples of it being a non-issue was during the campaign, and after the election of Barack Obama. People would ask what I thought about the possibility of or the successful election of a black President. My response was, and still is, quite simply, "I could not care less about the color of his skin, it is the policies of his administration that scare me".
This brings me to a point few, if any, have discussed, anywhere, or in any forum. A black President? Really, you think he is black? Yes, he has a black father; but he has a white mother. A very dear and close friend has a child with a black man. On the very rare occasion she discusses her child's race, she merely state "his father is black". Is it not more impressive that we have elected a President of mixed heritage? Is this not the best example of why America is The Great Melting Pot?
Does your race, sexual preference, religious beliefs, ethnicity or any other descriptor really matter? NO!! Just don't be an asshole, don't hurt people and don't hurt animals.
Below is the text of an email I sent to Dr. Hill a few days ago:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hill,
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I understand you are extremely busy and may not have the time to respond however, I look forward to the possibility.
In the essence of full disclosure, I provide the following information: I am 44 years old, white, college graduate (Accounting, Business Law), Republican and conservative. I always enjoy your appearances on O'Reilly. You are one of the few who can provide a clear concise view from the other side, both racially and politically, without using extremism to get your point across.
I have just viewed your appearance on O'Reilly concerning the 'racial dimensions of the media coverage of Michael Jackson's death'. What got my attention was when you used the words "embrace black solidarity". This concerns me in that while this great nation still has race issues to resolve, many of us have no time or energy to devote to the idea of race issues, because we do not any. Now, in 'my world', and because of my accounting nature, I prefer to see things as black or white, on or off, yes or no. Thankfully I have paid attention to society and learned that is not always the case. Thus, we all have some level of race issues. For some of us though, our issues are so minuscule, in essence they do not exist. It is my feeling, in that race does not concern me, that embracing black solidarity promotes divisiveness and increases racial tensions. I do not however believe that we, as a nation, need to become one people. We need some level of identity, some individuality.
Michael Jackson did much to break racial barriers. Jamie Foxx and Sean (P. Diddy) Combs did much to put those back in place. Yes, Michael Jackson was black, but he transcended his race and nationality. He belonged to the world, and just happened to be black. This leads to my reason for writing to you. Please explain to me how "embracing black solidarity" promotes the destruction of racial barriers, and increases unity as a nation on a common path.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am tired of it (race being an issue). It is not an issue to me, my wife (I would not have married her otherwise), my family or friends. Again, it is not to say it (race issues) does not exist, I am just tired of it coming up when it is not the real issue at hand. One of my favorite, recent, examples of it being a non-issue was during the campaign, and after the election of Barack Obama. People would ask what I thought about the possibility of or the successful election of a black President. My response was, and still is, quite simply, "I could not care less about the color of his skin, it is the policies of his administration that scare me".
This brings me to a point few, if any, have discussed, anywhere, or in any forum. A black President? Really, you think he is black? Yes, he has a black father; but he has a white mother. A very dear and close friend has a child with a black man. On the very rare occasion she discusses her child's race, she merely state "his father is black". Is it not more impressive that we have elected a President of mixed heritage? Is this not the best example of why America is The Great Melting Pot?
Does your race, sexual preference, religious beliefs, ethnicity or any other descriptor really matter? NO!! Just don't be an asshole, don't hurt people and don't hurt animals.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Allan Tucker --- Please Leave
More for Allan Tucker – While I agree in part with Democrat_Culture_Of_Co in that I don’t care what side of the fence you are on, please, at least take a side. You say you are ‘quasi-conservative’, what is that? Either you are or you are not a conservative, liberal, Dem or Rep. There may be distinctions on the right or left, but, as I am not a far-right conservative, I stand decidedly on the right.
“…shouting from the rooftops…”, please tell me what is was that that the left (Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Franks, et al) was doing during “the last eight years”?
“…stupid mess Republicans have created…”, please see my post below directed at mschaffer.
If Obama is in fact trying to fix something, give the stimulus to the people who really need, the US citizen, not the woefully managed corporations of Wall St. By a rough estimate, if the $787B were given to the citizens: approximately 75,515,104 outstanding mortgages = $10,422 per mortgage holder; approximately 127,895,430 dwelling units = $6,153 per household; approximately 305,967,646 population of the US = $2,572 per person. That would stimulate the economy. Obama's plan of $13/week (down to $8/week next January) will barely buy enough gas, if you have a job. Obama is like every politician before him, in that they do not directly help those who voted them into in the first place.
Please remember that the ‘Bush bailout’ was approved by a Democrat held Congress.
Lastly, part of the solution is allowing dissent; there is no other way Obama, or anyone else from any party would ever be elected if it were not. By not allowing dissent we might as well be a monarchy or a communist state.
American tradition of dissent…Love It or Leave It!
Allan Tucker…please leave.
“…shouting from the rooftops…”, please tell me what is was that that the left (Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Franks, et al) was doing during “the last eight years”?
“…stupid mess Republicans have created…”, please see my post below directed at mschaffer.
If Obama is in fact trying to fix something, give the stimulus to the people who really need, the US citizen, not the woefully managed corporations of Wall St. By a rough estimate, if the $787B were given to the citizens: approximately 75,515,104 outstanding mortgages = $10,422 per mortgage holder; approximately 127,895,430 dwelling units = $6,153 per household; approximately 305,967,646 population of the US = $2,572 per person. That would stimulate the economy. Obama's plan of $13/week (down to $8/week next January) will barely buy enough gas, if you have a job. Obama is like every politician before him, in that they do not directly help those who voted them into in the first place.
Please remember that the ‘Bush bailout’ was approved by a Democrat held Congress.
Lastly, part of the solution is allowing dissent; there is no other way Obama, or anyone else from any party would ever be elected if it were not. By not allowing dissent we might as well be a monarchy or a communist state.
American tradition of dissent…Love It or Leave It!
Allan Tucker…please leave.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Filipino WWII Vets & the Stimulus Bill
Have you seen this? It was in the RJ Tuesday but since I am late I can only link to the Chicago Tribune: Filipino veterans in line to earn WWII benefits. Now, I am all for vets of any conflict getting their due. Ethnicity should have NOTHING to do with it. These benefits should have never been promised to them, they should have been given to them. The problem here is the shining example of what is wrong with Capitol Hill (and probably most other legislatures around the country). Filipino WWII Vets receiving benefits, I feel, would be able to stand on it's own as a bill. There is no need to lump it in with the stimulus package. How many times have we heard or seen in the news that xyz was passed as part of H.R.1234? If only one vote was cast in favor of the stimulus because a Senator or Representative did not want to vote against Filipino WWII Vets, that is one too many. The stimulus bill is the stimulus bill. A Filipino Vets Bill is a Filipino Vets Bill.
Seriously, find me one person on Capitol Hill that would vote against Filipino Vets if the bill were to stand on it's own.
Seriously, find me one person on Capitol Hill that would vote against Filipino Vets if the bill were to stand on it's own.
Citation For mschaffer Posting in the Las Vegas Sun
The following is posted for the benefit of mschaffer, a poster to a letter-to-the-editor in the Las Vegas Sun.
This is an excerpt from his post:
"Your claim of lenders being forced to lend to high risk borrowers needs citations as others claiming this have been found to be poorly informed by conservative propaganda."
This is an excerpt from his post:
"Your claim of lenders being forced to lend to high risk borrowers needs citations as others claiming this have been found to be poorly informed by conservative propaganda."
1990's
Initially the GSEs (government sponsored enterprises) resisted purchasing these risky mortgages but eventually the Clinton Administration instructed (para.3) them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios.
October 1992
Congress, enacting the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act (para.12)of 1992, allowed legislation to "amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community development." It also "established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas."
November 1994
President Clinton addresses homeownership (para.4): "I think we all agree that more Americans should own their own homes...I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community lenders and Government to recommit our Nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before."
June 1995
June 1995
The administration announced (para.24) the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas.
May 1999
The LA Times reports that African Americans homeownership is increasing three times as fast as that of whites, with Latino homeowners is growing five times as fast, attributing to the growth to breathing "the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act." This breath of "life" mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages with deviant down-payments and debt-to-income rations which allowed lenders to approve mortgages for lower-income families that would have been denied otherwise.
September 1999
With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that "there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market," reported the New York Times (para.5).
...warned Peter Wallison. "If they (Fannie & Freddie) fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry" (para.8).
(According to Wallison's bio on Wikipedia, "1999-present American Enterprise Institute, codirector of AEI's financial markets deregulation project." I used Wiki simply to provide a broad stroke to describe him)
(According to Wallison's bio on Wikipedia, "1999-present American Enterprise Institute, codirector of AEI's financial markets deregulation project." I used Wiki simply to provide a broad stroke to describe him)
March 2000
Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets. Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever." (para.4)
June 2000
Fred L. Smith Jr., writing in Investor's Business Daily (para.4), recalls testifying before the House Financial Services Committee that GSE "special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers [and] to the economy." These new debt portfolios "will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default."
April 2001
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget (p142, 'Uncertainties') declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity," says a White House release.
February 2003
OFHEO (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) reports that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations...the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them," warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release. (p.5, para.2)
June 2003
Freddie Mac reported it had understated it's profits by $6.9 billion. OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. requested that the White House audit Fannie Mae.
September 2003
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "I do not think we are facing any kind of crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis...I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury...I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals.
October 2003
November 2003
Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned (p.7), "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter of the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system,' from a White House release.
October 2004
In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)(p.10): "Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, 'Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.' I don't see anything in your report at raises safety and soundness problems."
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)(p.10): "But I have seen nothing in here that suggest that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as king of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue."
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut) (p.182): "And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below 4%, they are in deep trouble. So, I just want you to explain to me why I shouldn't be satisfied with 3%?"
Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO (p.182): "These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%."
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
SB114 Alternative Energy Bill
OK, let's give credit where credit is due. I will not always take the side of the GOP, but I will always tell it like I see it. Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, nailed it. HOA's have a purpose, but since I do not live in one I am unable to determine what that purpose is. In today's society if a resident chooses to make their home more energy efficient by installing a solar energy system, most would agree that home now becomes more desirable. If a prospective buyer comes along, they may be more interested in purchasing a home that already has the system installed; now the buyer will not have to install it. Bravo to you Sen. Schneider. I have a question for anyone currently sitting on the board of an HOA: What is the downside of having such a system installed? How about this idea: an HOA could require (although we all dislike being forced into anything) all residents to install a solar energy system. By negotiating a group rate for the residents the cost of installation will be easier to bear. Now all home will have the unsightly solar panels and look the same. If enough residents are in the HOA, it might even be possible to negotiate a better rate with NV Energy. Then, this particular neighborhood could become the model HOA for the nation. Please, How is this not a good idea?
Atkinson's AB175
WOW! Way too much time away. With the new session in progress I will do my best to stay on top of the action in Carson City. With that said, let's look at AB175, presented by Assemblyman Atkinson.
While no one wants the economy in Nevada to get worse, should not the state still conduct business in a business manner? By forcing companies that bid on state contracts to provide certain benefits AB175 dictates the profit a company can earn on a given project. Requiring these benefits also excludes some companies from being able to bid on these projects. Proper business practice dictates that a given project go to the lowest bidder, thus saving the state much needed funds for other spending. The winning bidder would of course have to meet the requirements of the project itself, but so long as the winning company does not participate in any fraudulent activity, they should get the contract.
Let's examine a few points as spelled out in the article in today's Sun. What exactly is a 'living wage'? Who actually determines that wage? The wage should be determined by the market, as current law dictates. "Employer-paid health insurance"? Really? You would require this? Basic economics show that a company that does not provide what employees want/need, will not be able to obtain/keep employees. With no employees they will not have the staffing to accomplish even the most minimal of tax-payer funded projects. If the company wants to stay in business and stay competitive, they are forced by the market to provide what employees want. Why not force all companies to provide a pension plan for all employees? Oh wait, wasn't the intention of Social Security to provide some sort of pension for all of us? It is not really a good plan to force any entity to provide for someone else's retirement. Again, if an employer does not provide what an employee (pension, health plan, reasonable wage & other benefits) they will not have employees. State-approved training? Shouldn't the employees and/or the company itself already have the experience to complete the project at hand? This idea basically tells me that experience is not required because we will pay for you to gain experience on the job; thus increasing the cost of said project. All of these requirementswould force those companies bidding on a project to raise their minimum bid, thus forcing the state to pay more than is necessary. I may be wrong, but one of the most basic tenets of conducting good business is to reduce costs. It seems to me this is a sure-fire way to increase costs.
The bottom line is this: the winning bid should go to the most qualified company with the lowest cost to taxpayers.
While no one wants the economy in Nevada to get worse, should not the state still conduct business in a business manner? By forcing companies that bid on state contracts to provide certain benefits AB175 dictates the profit a company can earn on a given project. Requiring these benefits also excludes some companies from being able to bid on these projects. Proper business practice dictates that a given project go to the lowest bidder, thus saving the state much needed funds for other spending. The winning bidder would of course have to meet the requirements of the project itself, but so long as the winning company does not participate in any fraudulent activity, they should get the contract.
Let's examine a few points as spelled out in the article in today's Sun. What exactly is a 'living wage'? Who actually determines that wage? The wage should be determined by the market, as current law dictates. "Employer-paid health insurance"? Really? You would require this? Basic economics show that a company that does not provide what employees want/need, will not be able to obtain/keep employees. With no employees they will not have the staffing to accomplish even the most minimal of tax-payer funded projects. If the company wants to stay in business and stay competitive, they are forced by the market to provide what employees want. Why not force all companies to provide a pension plan for all employees? Oh wait, wasn't the intention of Social Security to provide some sort of pension for all of us? It is not really a good plan to force any entity to provide for someone else's retirement. Again, if an employer does not provide what an employee (pension, health plan, reasonable wage & other benefits) they will not have employees. State-approved training? Shouldn't the employees and/or the company itself already have the experience to complete the project at hand? This idea basically tells me that experience is not required because we will pay for you to gain experience on the job; thus increasing the cost of said project. All of these requirementswould force those companies bidding on a project to raise their minimum bid, thus forcing the state to pay more than is necessary. I may be wrong, but one of the most basic tenets of conducting good business is to reduce costs. It seems to me this is a sure-fire way to increase costs.
The bottom line is this: the winning bid should go to the most qualified company with the lowest cost to taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)