Political Nevada

The Tea Baggers are screaming how patriotic they are and how unpatriotic is anyone who disagrees with them, especially the Democrats.
These self-professed patriots speak about protecting the constitution and freedoms, but want to deny anyone who doesn’t agree with them those same rights of the constitution that they so firmly attest to believe in.
These screamers don’t want big government, don’t want the government in their lives, and they definitely don’t want taxes, but it’s a good bet that most, if not all are taking Unemployment, or Social Security, or Medicare, or a Pension, and probably taking more than just one of those government issued, government secured, entitlements. Where do these geniuses think the money for all the programs that they want to continue to receive comes from, donations from the rich? They listen to people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck and seem to believe that those people care for them; wake up, the Rushes of the world care only for themselves. For the millions that lost their retirements in the stock market, there definitely was a recession, but not according to Rush and Ann and the rest of the “heros”. They’re making fortunes and don’t care for anyone but themselves and the money their rants and ravings bring in.
For some reason the anti-government people don’t seem to get the fact that the Government involvement that they so much detest is the reason they are able to get a living wage and as well as a retirement that allows them the security to rant and rave. There are Federal regulations enforcing rules to keep retirements from dissolving. For those that are on military retirements, who do they think is securing the money to pay for their retirement? For those that use the VA, who do they think makes sure that they get their “benefits”? These are the same people that complain that the Unions are ruining the country as well as complaining that the Government(that they so detest) is “in bed” with the Unions. Where there are unions, the non-union companies will match the union benefits to keep the unions out of their industry, so the unions are indirectly responsible for keeping the overall wages in our country at livable levels. When non-union companies decide to reduce wages, those same antiunionists are the first to call for unionization.
It seems that these “patriots” who don’t want government intervention mean that they don’t want government intervention that they can’t take advantage of.
One additional question; What makes them, the “Tea Baggers”, think that the rest of the country wants what they want? They complain about the “Nanny State” while trying to tell others that they, and only they, are the ones who know what is right and wrong with Our country.

The Health Care Bill passed and the President is about to sign the bill into law, but the Republicans in both the Senate and the House have stated that they will continue to fight the bill and cause it to take more time to be implemented. This is from a group of people who have guaranteed medical coverage from the same government that they don’t want the average American to have. Worse, is the idea that these people in power have convinced many an average citizen that having a universal health system is not in the best interest of this country. How easy are the American people to not think of their own health? Those that oppose, seem to care nothing for the people who cannot get medical care; telling the world that as long as 75% of the American people are insured that this country is doing well. Read the paper and the critics complain that there will be a great financial burden on the American people because of this Health System. What of the burden on the American worker who can’t pay his doctor’s visit, can’t pay for a serious health problem? Don’t those opposed realize that if the American worker is less worried about how they will pay for a cancer treatment, a broken bone operation, or a CAT scan to find out what is wrong with their health, that the worker will produce more and take less time off for medical issues.
People must stay at jobs they are unhappy with because of insurance and the very great possibility that they are uninsurable because of “pre-existing” conditions. When pre-existing conditions becomes something that the insurance companies are not allowed to use against the consumer, that consumer (employee) has an opportunity to find work where they will be happier(and probably healthier), including opening their own businesses, creating more wealth for themselves and for their City, State and our Country.
Reading the anti-health care comments shows that for many, money is more important than people. Republicans say that they are concerned that the Health program will cost more and reduce the quality of health care, for whom will health care go down? Will it become less because some doctor won’t be able to purchase his Lamborghini before his thirty-fifth birthday? Why does the average person care how much their doctor makes? Does the phrase, “you get what you pay for” really apply to the medical practice? If a doctor is incompetent and charges more than other doctors in his speciality, does that make him more competent?
Forget about the Congress or the Senate, every one of those politicians will have medical coverage even after they retire or are removed from office. What of the average American? Those that oppose are forgetting that they could be in the situation that their uninsured neighbor is in right now. What will they do if they find themselves in that situation? They would scream that the government failed them, that they should be allowed to have the cancer therapy, even if their insurance dropped them, and they are uninsurable.
I’ve seen strong Non-unionists fighting against unions who turn and want to form their own union as soon as the non-union company they were working for decided to reduce their pay. As long as it was the other guy, they were totally Non-union
The same philosophy applies to the health care issue.Those that oppose, are comfortable in their own isolated world and don’t understand that they will be next.

Danny Tarkanian is one of the front runners in the Republican’s desire to remove Senator Reid from office.
According to Mr. Tarkanian’s web site he was a fantastic athelete and a genius in the world of acadamia, who went on to forge a successuful law practice as well as a successful realestate business
The first question that anyone should ask Mr. Tarkanian is why does he want to injure the state that he has called home since he was 12 years old.
Why would someone who is still relitively young and supposedly so successful want to enter the world of politics? I am sure that if asked Mr. Tarkanian would tell us that it is to help his fellow man. In fact, on one of the sites supporting his election against Senator Reid, he stated that as a young man he has always believed in public service. According to his biography he was born in 1961 making him almost 49 years old. By that cronology he was almost 43 years old when he decided to actualy get involved. If public service has alwas been his goal why did he wait until only 6 years ago to enter the political field?
In 2004 he ran for a state senate seat and was defeated, in 2006 he ran for Secretary of State and was defeated, and once again, in 2008 he lost when he ran for a state senate seat. So far that is a three-time looser. If he is such a giver and has wanted to be a public servant since he was a young man, why hasn’t he run more often for offices that are more local where we, the people, can see what type of person, what type of politician, he really is?
To enter a major Senate race takes a lot of ego, which is what he obviously has, just read his biography; but his ego doesn’t equate into being the best for Nevada, it simply places him in the path of doing the best for himself and those that he deems important.
What has he to offer Nevada, if he were to get elected? He claims that he has a plan to reduce the National debt, but where is the rational behind his ideas? There doesn’t seem to be much substance behind his plan, and even if there was any true value to his ideas does he really think that a Freshman Senator will have anyone listening to him,especially from a state as small as Nevada?
If he were truly concerned about the welfare of Nevada, he should have been involved in Nevada’s welfare way before 2004, his first election try, and should have been involved, vocally, as well as politically, in protecting those who live and work in Nevada from the financial preditors who came and destroyed the living conditions of our state.
Mr. Tarkanian seems to be like the high school dropout who is “willing” to work as long as he is hired as the CEO of the company that just offered him a job as a busboy, because he knows that he is such a great asset to the world around him.
Could Mr. Tarkanian be a good choice as a Senator for Nevada? Anything is possible, but is it worth Nevada’s future to take a chance on someone whose experience is as limited as Mr. Tarkanian’s experience?

The State of Nevada Education

Everytime the results come back in a comparison study concerning the quality of education in Nevada, someone will defend the poor quality of education by saying that the lack of money for reducing the amount of students by hiring more teachers is the reason. That is not the reason, that is an excuse.
There is only one reason for our poor quality schools, that is the poor quality teachers. Paying more to a poor or mediocre teacher will not improve their teaching skills, only more education and the true desire to teach is what will improve our schools.
When the teaching profession feels an attack on their profession, they immediately respond by displaying a teacher who is known for sacrificing their time and their money to help their students. The trouble with that defense is that those that are serious, hard working, who care for their students, are a minute percentage of the total teaching-staff of this state.
If the powers in this state want to have true top quality education they have to start with the current teaching staff and weed out any and all who are not quality teachers. Having a teacher who is teaching because they need to make a living is not the type of teacher who will agressively propel their students toward the future, they are the type of teacher that we have now, the teacher who accepts what the minimum requirements are for their students and is happy when the week is over so they can get away from the classroom and away from their students.
Will paying more money to teachers improve those that are already teaching? Definetly not; because if they have been allowed to teach during these past years at one salary, why would increasing that salary cause them to improve their teaching when they’re getting paid no matter how poorly their students perform! If teachers were paid according to the quality of their teaching, many would loose their jobs, many would be paid a living salary and only a few would be paid a good wage. However, in that scenario, if the incentive to improve is available in the form of increased pay, the smart ones who are basically good teachers might increase their knowledge and might improve their concern for the students. The operative word is might. But to get to that point in time it would be necessary to place all teachers in the state of Nevada in a holding pattern where they would be judged by an annual proficency exam and then by actual results. If they can’t pass a proficiency exam, why would you or I want them teaching our children or grandchildren? If they can’t get their students to succeed, why would you or I want them to teach our children or grandchildren?

Whenever school adminiatrators speak or write about the need for more funding the first items they list are for more schools and more school buildings. These schools cost in the millions of dollars, from 8 million to 18 million dollars. Money that could be spent for text books, for library books, for standard school supplies. Items that are usually third or fourth on their list after teacher’s salaries increases.

Since when is true education about the beauty of a school building? If more money for salaries is the answer, then less money for new schools should be the response. Why less money for new schools, because education is about the quality of the teacher and the teaching, not about the astetic beauty of a building. It should never matter where a teacher teaches, if they are incompetant, their teachings will be incompetantly taught and the student will remain under-educated.

The teacher’s union protects the teachers no matter what quality of teacher they might be. The union fights for their members and that is what they are supposed to do. so how can we improve the quality of those who was teaching our children. Stop listening to teh excuses and demand that a poor wuality be removed from their position. With enough aggitation the union will advise that teacher to improve or leave the profession that they obviously don’t enjoy.

There is a downside to what we might have to do, we might have to get involved, so maybe having poor quality teachers is better than making an effort to change the situation; after all it’s only the children that are being abused! Abused ? Any time our children are not getting the best possible treatment (education) that is a form of abuse!

Want better education for your children and your grandchildren? Get up, get involved and get rid of the poor quality teachers and replace them with teachers that care to be teaching.

Our Leaders in Nevada failed us.

Where were Nevada’s State politicians before this state’s financial collapse? The majority of Nevada’s State Senators and State Assembly politicians, both Republican and Democratic, who have been supposedly representing our interests for years were sleeping on the job. The majority of our Nevada Legislators have been in Carson City long enough that they are the people who can be blamed for having steered the State of Nevada into our current financial mess. They could have guided our State away for any financial mishaps, but they failed us.

The main reason for any politicians to be elected is to protect us, the electorate, from social or financial bad times; this is what they failed to do, they failed in their main job.

If there were always good times ahead we wouldn’t need political leaders, we would simply set up a society with general rules and live the same lives that our grandparents and their grandparents lived; but that isn’t the real world.

In the real world events fluctuate up and down, from good to bad, from high to low. Our elected officials failed to protect us because they didn’t have the foresight to plan for the future of Nevada. Instead of creating a financial savings fund to protect this state from any financial downfalls they continually created budgets to spend as much as was brought into this state while times were running high. It isn’t a matter of what was budgetted, everything and anything can be acceptable as long as there is money to support it, but to spend as fast as it is earned is not in the best interest of anyone, whether government or family.

Everyone with any financial sense knew that the rapid growth, the insessant building, the high prices of homes and the “flipping of the properties” (especially in the southern part of our state), would end in a nose-dive. Everyone but these people who were elected to protect our state and the citizens of this state.

Why didn’t they set the budgets for the enevidable! They didn’t prepare for the future because they are incapable of preparing for anything. Now these same people who couldn’t see past their morning-breakfast claim that they are ready to fix our finances. Instead of admitting that they erred in their fiscal responsibility, they are all pointing fingers at the “other guy”. Guess what, they are the “other guy”, and they failed!

Their idea of fixing our state’s financial troubles is to find enough money, from cutbacks, taxes, the Federal Government, etc. to pay all the existing debts until the economy recovers. That means that when the economy is back the same mentality that brought Nevada to this nine hundred million dollar debt will be back; and the cycle will be ready to repeat.

They recently announced that the almost nine hundred million short fall has been solved, until 2011. In other words, they put a bandage on the wound instead of healing it. These politicians will attack each other, blame someone else and continue making the same lack of judgement calls that got us in this financial hole in the first place.

Budgets, whether household or government, should be created with a built-in savings plan. For our state government the savings should not be placed in the Stock Market, where everyday is a gamble, and not in a vault, where the money would loose value, but in a fund that can withstand the fluxuating cycles of the everyday world. Should the state’s legislators be cautious on where the savings account is placed, definitely; it’s our finances with which they are playing. Are there experts that could guide the politicians toward proper planning ? The answer is that there are experts, but that the legislators are too worried about their own egos to listen to anyone who might be smarter than them or who might have different political ideals.