E!!

Blog artist Jim Treacher launches the latest.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain boards his campaign plane to depart Philadelphia, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

With all due respect to the AP photographer (who probably couldn’t get any closer) and CNSNews (who needed a photo to go with their story), this tiny shot of McCain seems a little silly…

Here’s an interesting link-up/post on Obama and Yucca Mountain by Edward John Craig @ Planet Gore blog @ National Review Online.  After he quotes Max Schulz in the D.C. Examiner, Craig quips, “A northern liberal equating elite opinion with public opinion?  Nah . . . never happens.”

Obama on Yucca Mountain

[Edward John Craig writes] Max Schulz in the D.C. Examiner suggests that Obama has a bad read on Nevada voters’ position on Yucca Mountain.

Obama is gambling that his anti-Yucca stance will put Nevada in his column. Conventional wisdom holds that Obama has taken the safer bet. Yet it’s actually a risky strategy, based on the highly questionable assumption that Nevada voters oppose Yucca Mountain as fervently as do the state’s elected officials. The last two presidential elections suggest they don’t.

In 2000, Yucca supporter Bush took the state with more votes than opponents Gore and Ralph Nader combined. Those five electoral votes were the difference between victory and defeat.

Shortly after taking office, Bush pushed Yucca Mountain legislation through Congress, sparking fresh outrage from Nevada’s political leaders. It didn’t matter. In the 2004 presidential election, Bush again won the Silver State. Incredibly, he tallied nearly 39 percent more votes than four years before.

A big problem with Obama’s reflexive Democratic opposition to Yucca Mountain is that he proposes no viable alternatives at a time when Washington is on the hook for an answer to the nuclear waste question.

Failure to come up with a workable solution throws a wrench into plans to revive nuclear power’s fortunes just when voters are increasingly worried about climate change and over-reliance on foreign energy sources.

Without an alternative proposal, Obama’s pro-nuclear comments are merely lip service. That could have ramifications in states other than Nevada. All signs point to a public and an investment climate increasingly supportive of nuclear power.

Obama is a savvy politician who for two years has run a nearly flawless campaign for the White House. He is also known to be a pretty good poker player. But with his opposition to Yucca Mountain, as with his dissembling on offshore drilling, he looks to have played the energy card all wrong. It just might cost him a big pot on November 4.

Roger Hedgecock was broadcasting live from CLC today.  As media liason, I had the pleasure and honor of helping him coordinate his afternoon line-up:  Grover Norquist, Saul Anuzis, John Fund, Lt. Col. Allen West, the conference Blogger of the Year Michael Brodkorb, and Duane Lester of All American Blogger. 

Vis a vis CLC 2008, KNPR interviewed John Fund, Grover Norquist and Chuck Baldwin and you can find/download the interviews here.

(I’m now acquainted with both John and Grover and they are not only articulate and knowledgeable, but also gracious and accommodating - and at times, quite funny.  In a word (or two):  True Gentlemen.)  

E!! is going to be offline thru Sunday while I go have fun in my role as Media Liason for the Conservative Leadership Conference (and also try to catch a few panel discussions) here in fabulous Las Vegas.

I’m looking forward to meeting Michael Brodkorb, the mind behind “Minnesota Democrats Exposed” who has been chosen to receive the conference’s annual Blogger of the Year Award. 

Also will be very happy to finally shake hands with Blue Collar Muse and the Much Younger Trophy Wife I have heard so much about, as well as with Eric Odom.

A few other speakers/attendees I hope to catch a word with (there are too many to name them all): WSJ writer and author John Fund, Paul Seidler of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Steve Miller of NPRI, instructor Michael Tanner of The CATO Institute, Grover Norquist and Sandra Fabry of Americans for Tax Reform, Joel Mowbray, Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth, Roger Hedgecock, Lt. Col. Allen West, Bob Barr, Richard Viguerie, Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute, Rich Galen of Mullings.com, Chris Simcox of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, NV GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, and AZ Rep. John Shadegg.   

Whether you love or hate Bush policy, make sure you read Charles Krauthammer’s column re: Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin and the Bush Doctrine question. 

Krauthammer pointed out what most of us probably didn’t think about while we were figuring out whether Gibson’s glasses could slide any further down his condescending nose:  there have been at least four working definitions of the so-called “Bush doctrine” over the past eight years, none of them official.  

So, neither Palin nor Gibson nor Santa Clause could say for sure what it is without some sort of clarification.  Which is why Krauthammer called the NYT’s view that Gibson ”informed” Palin of the meaning of the Bush doctrine (anticapatory self-defense) “rubbish.”

Krauthammer knows a little something about this because (he points out) he was the one to first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” Krauthammer wrote that the Bush policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol (and others) amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called “the Bush doctrine.”

Then came 9/11.  In his address to Congress nine days after that event, Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This policy re: terror became the essence of “the Bush doctrine.”

Until Iraq. When Bush offered his major justification for the war vis a vis the necessity of a preemptive act. (This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks of as ”the Bush doctrine.”)

And then there’s the fourth (current) definition of “the Bush doctrine”:  as Krauthammer puts it, “the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.”  It was clearly enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

Near the end of his piece, Krauthammer wrote, “If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

So, ok, Sarah Palin doesn’t know what “the Bush doctrine” is.  But apparently neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least Palin didn’t pretend to know — while, as the New York Times noted, Gibson “looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher.” 

Seems Gibson is the one in need of a teacher - and I’d say Krauthammer schooled him real good.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from blogging and receiving tons of email, we all have our “pet” electoral issues and hot buttons – and they vary widely from person to person.  For me, it’s national security first; the economy (and tax policy) second; and energy policy (a closely related) third.

On the subject of the economy, Jack Kemp has a good op-ed on the presidential candidates and their proposed tax plans (thanks to Mike Davis at the NV RLC for bringing it to my attention).  I strongly encourage voters to read the whole thing, but here are some key points (summarized in my own words):

Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut in the form of a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers (except those in the top 5 percent of income earners, who will pay more taxes) “unless the economy remains weak.”  So…Obama does recognize that tax increases on the rich have a negative effect on the overall economy.  (But why does he think that matters only in “weak” economic times?)

Obama’s tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, so it won’t benefit the general economy because it provides no long term (additional) incentives for work, savings, investment or business expansion.  (People will get their $500 refund check, spend it, and that will be That.)

On the other hand, McCain wants to double the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000 for families regardless of income.  (For middle-class workers in the 25% tax bracket, the $3,500 exemption increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child.  Families with three children are thus looking at $2,600+ in tax savings.)

And McCain proposes marginal tax rate reductions – which is great news in country that pays the second highest corporate tax rates in the entire industrialized world.  McCain wants to reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – a boon for middle class workers in the form of new jobs, better pay, and a stronger dollar.

And all this will most likely raise rather than reduce tax revenues.  (Why?  Kemp cites a 2007 study by the Treasury Department which showed that Ireland — with a 12.5% corporate tax rate — raises just shy of 50 percent more revenue on a comparative basis than the U.S. does with a 35 percent rate!)

McCain would also keep the top capital gains tax rate and dividend tax at 15% which is needed in the stock world (stocks are now held by more than 2/3rds of all Americans).  McCain further wants to phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which burdens 25 million middle-class families with another $2,700 in taxes each year (on average).

Obama, by contrast, has proposed to raise marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax — the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the payroll tax, the death tax, etc. and he would increase corporate taxes where and when he could.

McCain’s plan is a good start, but I agree with Kemp:  we need to promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our “confusing, contradictory and confiscatory tax code.”

Kemp outlines a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system (which is also worth reading about, at the end of his op-ed). 

Had a good conversation with a conservative friend this weekend re: government spending and Republican Rep. Jon Porter’s apparent affinity for it (despite his claims to the contrary – especially, my friend noted, when he is looking for campaign contributions).

This convo occured before I read Jon Ralston’s column in the Las Vegas Sun yesterday, in which he noted that although Porter has a new ad slamming Democrat challenger and former state senator Dina Titus for voting for the largest tax hike in Nevada’s history back in 2003 - which she did – Porter likely would have voted for it, too.

In light of Jon Porter’s record of voting for pork bills in Congress, including this year’s scandalous Farm Bill, Ralston’s assumption is fair.

Does Jon Porter really think he can sell himself as a fiscal conservative at this point?  And even if he tries, why on earth would we believe him?

Here’s Andy McCarthy today:

The mainstream press mindlessly repeats the mantra that Fan and Fred perform a “vital” role in making the dream of home ownership a reality for the lower middle class — increasing market liquidity and thus keeping mortgage rates low. In fact, these quasi-government entities have what is at best a marginally depressive effect on mortgage rates. To create such an artificial effect — however imperceptible — is not a good idea at all; but even if you think it is arguably beneficial, the benefit is palpably not worth $5 trillion in liabilities. And if the mortgage crisis has taught us anything, it is that: without any government intervention, lenders and borrowers will innovate mortgage arrangements; borrowers shouldn’t be encouraged to buy homes they can’t afford; and private/public entities are apt to pour gasoline on a fire.

 

If you’re a Nevada resident who cares, the RGJ has a poll up about Yucca Mountain.  The poll question is: 

As of my own vote (#2 – Yes, there are benefits) the results were:

Yes, it is coming whether Nevada likes it or not. 11% (29 votes)

Yes, there are good benefits that could be negotiated for Nevada. 50% (126 votes)

No, it will discourage tourism in Southern Nevada. 0% (0 votes)

No, transporting nuclear waste to Nevada is too dangerous. 10% (26 votes)

No, states that generate the waste should take care of it. 28% (72 votes)

Total Votes: 253

So…61% of those who responded to the poll say “Yes” to Yucca.

Chuck Muth has a funny/interesting little blurb in today’s Nevada News & Views.

Over the weekend, someone faxed him some old copies of the Bullfrog County Times newsletter (circa the late 80s).  Apparently this publication tried to tell ”the other side” of the Yucca Mountain issue – which Nevadans weren’t getting from Bob Loux and the Nuclear Waste Project Office (NWPO).

One Bullfrog newsletter mentioned a letter-to-the-editor written by a man from Carson City who had suggested that “Nevada should be receiving financial compensation for the study of Yucca Mountain.”

According to the Bullfrog, Bob Loux of the NWPO “mobilized his office, cranked up the typewriters and copy machines, called in all of his envelope stuffers, and fired off [a]…news release to every newspaper in the state, large and small…”  In his missive, Loux insinuated that the original letter-to-the-editor was written by the Department of Energy or someone in the nuke industry, “implying that no right-thinking Nevadan could possibly conclude on his own that our state should be compensated for what’s happening at Yucca Mountain.”

The Bullfrog concluded: “The poor guy in Carson City must be wondering what he did to incur the wrath of an entire agency.  We’ll tell you what you did, sir.  You dared to think for yourself.  You dared to speak the unspeakable.  That’s the way it is in Nevada these days.  And it appears that no one in any higher position cares what Loux does with his power or budget.”

Twenty years later, it looks the ghosts of Bullfrog’s past can croak with joy as they finally get to see Lady Justice comin’ ’round the proverbial Mountain for Mr. Bob Loux.

My friend Mike Connell, owner of Connell Outdoor Advertising Co., would like to let all Nevada’s candidates know he has billboard space available between now and the November elections. With tight races in a number of districts, it sure wouldn’t hurt to have some extra signage in some highly visible places around Nevada.

Email him at connellco@cox.net or give him a call at (702)795-0555 — and mention that E!! sent you!

Well, with Nevada’s state senate head count sitting at 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that this campaign season is becoming increasingly unscrupulous.  The Dems want that majority so they can rule supreme in the next legislative session.  And apparently they are willing to lie, cheat, smear, and steal the victory if necessary.

Earlier this week we read about attempts to smear Senator Bob Beers via malicious and misleading bright yellow billboards.  Now the Las Vegas Sun reports that we have a flurry of expensive glossy mail pieces snowing down on District 5’s Republican state Senator Joe Heck.

The colorful mailers feature a series of vivid images of suffering cancer patients and say that Heck, a Nevada doctor, voted against requiring insurance companies to include cervical cancer screenings in their basic coverage, while simultaneously accepting campaign donations from those very insurance companies.

That claim is false.

Insurance companies have been required by the state of Nevada to cover screenings for cervical cancer since 1989.

The mailers don’t include any citations (of course!) but are reported to refer to legislation from 2007. 

Heck did vote against a 2007 bill that required some insurance companies to cover Gardasil, the vaccine for the human papilloma virus, which has been proven in clinical studies to be a precursor to cervical cancer…and was criticized by some for doing so, but Heck says he opposes new mandates on insurance companies because they increase the cost of coverage.

Interestingly, the multi-colored mailings don’t say a peep about Heck’s opponent, retired Clark County School District administrator Shirley Breeden, who had little to say about the mailers.  She told the Sun, “The tone, to me, is exactly how he voted. Times are tough and people want a change.”

The TONE [of the mailers]…is exactly how Heck voted?  What does that mean? 

Heck either voted Yes or No on this bill, and these mailers either Lie or do not Lie.  Talking about their “tone” is meaningless and has no bearing on the facts.  I am so tired of this kind of verbal sidestepping from some of these Dems as they speak loftily of the “tone,” “mood,” “feeling,” and “nuance” of issues.

These touchy-feely terms evade the stark truth and help candidates wiggle out of calling a spade a Spade:  these shiny, brightly colored mailers are lying about Heck’s voting record!! 

Shirley Breeden’s comment about how well their “tone” goes with the pitch, timbre, and tint of (this darkly dishonest campaign against) Heck should tell Nevada’s voters all they need to know about her. 

And let’s not overlook this little political tidbit:  Not only are the Dems champing at the bit to control the state Senate, they are also Quite concerned because (it is rumored that) Heck, a well respected doctor and colonel in the Army Reserve, may challenge Harry Reid in 2010.

AND Heck’s name has been thrown in the hat as a possible candidate for future governor. And in that case, he could wind up facing off against another Reid — Harry’s son Rory, current chairman of the Clark County Commission.

Is the shade, hue, and color of these Democratic paint-by-numbers smear projects starting to look like something to voters now…?

UPDATE:  A reader rightly points out that campaign seasons cannot be unscrupulous (see my first sentence).  Political seasons aren’t unprincipled, and the age is not corrupt.  It’s people who are dishonest, dodgy, and devious.

I am pleased to point my readers to a new website by the Nevada Policy Research Institute.  The site – www.TransparentNevada.com – will bring much needed oversight and transparency to our state and local governments.

If you want to see how your tax dollars are being spent, just go browse the site.  It’s easy to use and allows visitors to view and search public employee salaries and overtime (there are some real Doozies!) as well as state and county contracts and purchase orders, lobbying expenditures, budgets, and financial reports.

Since your blood will no doubt be boiling after a few minutes on the site – just the first page of government Salaries/Compensation in Clark County was enoughto raise my BP ten points - you’ll be glad to know the site also features a blog for citizen comments & reporting and links to government transparency resources around Nevada.

In the website’s press release, NPRI president Sharon Rossie said, “There is simply no subsitute for independent, non-governmental oversight of public financing.  NPRI is proud to provide this valuable service to Nevada citizens.”

Whoa, I almost missed this part of the story!  Check it out:

Bob Loux, Grand Propaganda Poobah for Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Policy Office, didn’t just redistribute funds in the form of unauthorized 2008 raises.  Apparently he’s been over-paying himself and his staff for years.

According to figures released by the governor’s office yesterday, Loux over-paid himself and his staff (i.e. exceeded his budgeted salary amount) for fiscal year 2007 by 6.69 percent.  This year, he exceeded his budget by 12.06 percent. And for next year, he was planning to exceed by 18.99 percent.

As for his personal salary, Loux was budgeted to be paid $114,088 this year but jacked up his salary more than 27 percent to $145,718.  He was budgeted to be paid $114,088 again next year (due to the statewide salary freeze) but set himself up to rake in $151,542 instead. 

Here’s the kicker:  These raises look to be about more than just the immediate extra cash.  Turns out Loux is eligible to retire on October 8, 2008.  And his already generous retirement package will/would reported be based on his ending salaries for his final three years of service. So it sure appears as if Loux was jacking up his salary in an effort to rip off taxpayers for higher retirement benefit over the next twenty or thirty years.

Assemblyman Morse Arberry was right on Tuesday.  Bob Loux shouldn’t just be fired; he ought to be prosecuted and thrown in jail.  AND stripped of his inflated retirement benefit.

(Hat Tip to Chuck Muth’s News and Views.)

Thanks to all who have sent in questions.  (There are a lot.  Be careful what you wish for, as they say…)  I will get to researching them as I can and will post when I have facts and blogworthy things to say.

Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach has filed a complaint with the District Court of Carson City asking for the removal of Bob Loux – executive director for the Nuclear Waste Project Office of the Agency for Nuclear Projects for the State of Nevada – from office for malfeasance as provided for in NRS 283.440.

According to NRS 283.440, “Any person now holding…any office in this State…who is guilty of any malpractice or malfeasance in office, may be removed therefrom as hereinafter prescribed in this section.” 

According to a September 9, 2008, story by Cy Ryan of the Las Vegas Sun, Mr. Loux gave “himself and his staff an unauthorized 16 percent pay raise,” well above levels set by the Legislature for his office. 

On September 10, 2008, Brendan Riley of the Associated Press reported that Mr. Loux “apologized to the lawmakers’ Interim Finance Committee” (IFC) at the hearing on September 9, 2008, “for giving himself and other agency staffers unauthorized pay increases of up to 16 percent.” 

According to the AP report, Mr. Loux’s agency falls under the governor’s office, but Mr. Loux ”didn’t report the pay increases to the governor and instead signed the paperwork needed to authorize the higher pay.”

The raises came to light at the IFC meeting because Mr. Loux had overspent his budget – which in itself is malfeasance in office per NRS 353.260 (copy attached).

According to the statute, “It is unlawful for any state officer, commissioner, head of any state department or other employee, whether elected or appointed, to expend more money than the sum specifically appropriated by law for any such office, commission or department.”

Mr. Loux admitted to the IFC that he both overspent his budget and personally approved the unauthorized pay increases. “I take full responsibility for all of these errors,” Mr. Loux said.  “They were done by me.”

In an official letter to Mr. Bob Loux calling for his resignation, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons noted that a review by the Budget Office discovered that “there has been a history of salaries in (Mr. Loux’s) office paid well over the amounts budgeted” and that “increases have been made without my approval and in violation of NRS 223.085.”

According to a report by Ed Vogel in the September 11, 2008, edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mr. Loux’s “salary manipulation” resulted in Mr. Loux receiving a salary of $151,542 per year – well in excess of his authorized, approved and budgeted salary of $114,088.

In addition, the Budget Office review referenced by Gov. Gibbons shows that Mr. Loux’s willful and unauthorized actions resulted in salary increases for every member of his staff in excess of 27 percent higher than budgeted for Fiscal Year 2008, and in excess of 32 percent higher than budgeted for Fiscal Year 2009.  In one case, one employee was scheduled by Mr. Loux to receive a salary increase next year which would have been more than 50 percent higher than budgeted.

According to Mr. Vogel’s story today, Mr. Loux has rejected Gov. Gibbons’ request for his resignation, saying “I am not going away.”

We’ll soon see!!

Anne of Valley County, Idaho writes to inform me of a story in today’s Idaho Statesman re: legislation to compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves. 

A Senate committee on Thursday approved a bill sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming to approve federal matching money for state trust funds that pay ranchers for those losses.

The Bush administration has objected to the bill, saying the payments should be a state responsibility.

But Anne says Idaho didn’t have a say (vote to) have the wolves “re-introduced.” 

And she puts that in quotes because the Feds didn’t bring in their native little red wolf, but the larger grey – which never roamed those parts to begin with.

So, this was and is a federal program.

As an aside, Anne notes that two weeks ago, one of their ranchers lost three calves in one day, all of them senselessly slaughtered (i.e., not eaten). 

 (NOTE:  The word count for this post is greater than usual, but I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, forward the link to people you know, and contact your assemblymen, senators, and congressmen – both state and federal – in order to make your voice heard.)

Most Nevadans probably don’t even know the NWPO exists (see my post below on Bob Loux), let alone how it came about or what it does.  For a little tutorial, here are some excerpts from a history written over ten years ago by author/researcher Stuart D. Waymire (emphasis mine; non-italicized sarcastic comments also mine):

“Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Project Office was created using money set aside from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Under its director, Bob Loux, NWPO has consumed nearly fifty million dollars over the last decade, much of it employed in opposition to nuclear energy…”

So, the Waste Project Office wasted Money from the Waste Fund.  Seems logical to me.

“…Robert Loux…has become as notorious in Nevada as a one-man anti-nuclear wrecking ball. A high school teacher with a major in history and minor in psychology from the University of Nevada, Reno, Loux had been involved in state energy and nuclear waste programming since 1976. In fact, except for a few years of teaching high school, this appears to have been the only career he has ever pursued.”

A high school history teacher was obviously the best choice to head up an agency overseeing the largest proposed nuclear project in our nation’s history.  “Duh”

“Since becoming executive director of NWPO, Loux’s lack of scientific expertise and technical credentials has become a raw wound in the Nevada technical community which sees him as a political manipulator and engineering dilettante. This hasn’t stopped Loux from gaining carte blanche over what has now grown to more than $5 million dollars per year in funds, in large part distributed to foes of the nuclear industry.”

I think $13,698.63 per day is a very reasonable rate for all the non-expert misinformation we’ve gotten from Loux and his staff.  

“As a result of action by the 1985 Nevada Legislature, NWPO became, officially, the Agency for Nuclear Projects – a statutorily established entity responsible for monitoring and overseeing U.S. Department of Energy activities related to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. In the hands of then-Governor Richard Bryan, it also became part of a political strategy designed to bludgeon political opposition into submission – notably former Senator Chic Hecht in the 1988 senatorial campaign eventually won by Bryan.

 “Under the troika of Senator Bryan, director Robert Loux and former governor Grant Sawyer (who was enlisted to head the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects), the Nuclear Waste Project Office became an anti-nuclear propaganda machine.

“Oversight by the Sawyer Commission transformed into show trials masquerading as fact finding. Science conducted by NWPO’s technical and planning division was corrupted by political considerations. The social scientists of the planning division, given lucrative contracts worth $15 million, used their expertise to generate anti-nuclear hysteria in Nevada. Less abusive but no less disturbing was that some of the technical studies were designed to support the party line rather than investigate real technical questions at Yucca Mountain.”

Kudos to ex- Nevada Governors Richard Bryan and Grant Sawyer for administrative efficiency:  they ordered skewed technical studies, effectively smeared the Yucca project, and defeated their political opponents using the same agency.

 “Nevada’s politicians, notably Senator Bryan and ex-governor Sawyer, looked the other way as Bob Loux awarded millions of dollars of contracts without Requests For Proposals and without competitive bids.

We don’t need no stinking bids.

“Even more problematic was that the Department of Energy, which was supposed to oversee the spending of NWPO, caved in to the political pressure and allowed the state to violate federal laws rather than risk making political waves…

Given a choice between upholding federal law and being called a bunch of Big Meanies, the DOE made the obvious choice.

“For example, NWPO openly violated the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) against using funds to run public relations and lobbying campaigns. Whenever questioned about the legality of these public relations activities, Bob Loux simply claimed the regulations didn’t apply, or that his agency was in compliance because its activities were strictly ‘informational’. The pertinent regulation regarding limits on public relations and lobbying by agencies accepting Federal grants is FAR 31.205-22.”

Loux’ activites were actually MIS-informational, but let’s not split hairs – or atoms, as the case may be.

Twenty-three years later, Loux, Richard Bryan, the NWPO, most of Nevada’s elected officials, and many of Nevada’s citizens are still rabidly anti-Yucca Mountain.  And, unfortunately, many well-intentioned people remain completely uninformed about the facts and benefits.

What a shame.

(I’ll collect and post assorted contact info for the appropriate persons and agencies later today, so please stand by.)

According to the AP, Bob Loux – head of Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Projects Office (NWPO) – took an ex-employee’s salary and gave it to himself and the rest of his staff in the form of double-digit pay increases. In doing so, Loux exceeded his approved budget and raised his own six-figure salary to over $132,000 a year – significantly more than the earnings of many state department heads.

Assemblyman Morse Arberry said Loux could be thrown in jail because “it’s unlawful for any state officer to do what he’s done.” Speaker Barbara Buckley noted that other state employees have received raises of just 2 percent while pulling double and even triple-duty because of a hiring freeze.

With this attempted swindle by Loux, the NWPO’s days of unsupervised slush-funding may finally be coming to an end. A full agency audit is now to take place.

It has been suggested by some that Loux should “pay back” the money. I agree – but first, he should do the other honorable thing and resign.

You can help by contacting the NWPO directly and urging Mr. Loux to quit, or by demanding that the seven members of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects (Dick Bryan, Susan Brager, Larry Brown, Joan Lambert, Steve Molasky, William Roberts and Paul Workman) give him his walking papers.

Here’s the contact information: nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us or call toll-free: (800) 366-0990.

After debunking a couple of rumors and lies on E!! this week, I’ve decided to spread the word that I am a bit of a Research Geek – and encourage readers to email me with “Is It True?” questions/links.

If you read or hear something that makes you go “Hmmmm….?” or are lacking information on a person, place, or thing and you’d like to find out Just The Facts, Jack…

Please email me the info and I’ll do some digging and post any/all discoveries (along with a big Thank You to the reader who asked) on E!!

Please note that my fact-finding is guarantEEd to be non-partisan.  In other words, no matter who it benefits, I will find out the truth – and Tell It like it is.

You may have heard the rumors that Reid banned Lieberman from all future Democratic caucus lunches and Tupperware parties?  Apparently not true:

Washington, DC—Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, made the following statement today regarding false reports that Senator Joe Lieberman is excluded from Democrats’ future weekly caucus lunches:

 “While it is no secret that the Democratic caucus is disappointed in Senator Lieberman’s attacks on Senator Obama, the irresponsible report that Senator Lieberman has been excluded from caucus meetings is completely untrue.  Senator Lieberman has chosen to not attend Democratic caucus lunches, and that is his choice.”

Truly a shocker that Lieberman would want to avoid bruncheons with his BFF Harry Reid…

Last night in his interview with Bill O’Reilly, Obama said:

“If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t — what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness.”

Well, Senator Obama, it WOULD BE neighborliness if you were doing it VOLUNTARILY, i.e. if free will were involved.

However, if the amount you pay is decided by the federal government, collected by the federal government, and distributed where and whence the federal government sees fit, and if you resent the hell out of it (as I do), then the act is NOT neighborliness but state-mandated SOCIALISM, otherwise known as the forcible redistribution of wealth, otherwise known as highway robbery by the Nanny State bandits of the world.

(I was pleased when O’Reilly called him “Robin Hood Obama.”)

Andrew Klavan and Queen Victoria   – posted by [Peter Robinson] @ The Corner @ NRO

Today on Uncommon Knowledge, novelist and screenwriter Andrew Klavan, author of the new thriller, Empire of Lies, explains why he’s no longer a liberal:

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine.

Leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.

To watch that Victorian contsruct of social delicacy being utterly demolished — brilliantly and merrily  — click here. 

(How’s that for a headline?!)

This past Saturday I did a double take upon glimpsing a bright yellow billboard (on the corner of Ann and Durango) adorned with large radiation danger symbols and accusing Nevada State Senator Bob Beers of being “In Bed with the Southern Nevada Porn King,” a quote the billboard attributed to the LV Mercury.  I was so doubtful about the billboard’s credibility and so curious to find out the “real story,” I spent this morning doing some digging.

FACT #1:  The Bob Beers campaign team did accept a $10,000 contribution from one Raymond Pistol, owner of one of Las Vegas’ many topless bars, in Beers’ 2006 run for governor.  He returned half the contribution after losing in the primary.  According to Beers, “Suggesting that campaign contributions from a legal business (licensed by elected officials of both parties) come with “obligations” is an erroneous conclusion at best.”

FACT #2:  The Mercury, which is no longer in print, never linked Bob Beers and Raymond Pistol in any way, shape, or form.  So says Geoff Schumacher, publisher of the alternative newsweekly Las Vegas CityLife and former editor of the Las Vegas Mercury, in his LVRJ piece yesterday. 

Schumacher wrote (the following quotes are excerpts from his column), “I’m no fan of Beers’ conservative views, but as a journalist taught in the old school, I’m even less enamored of misleading and blatantly false campaign charges.

“I just so happen to have been the first and only editor of the Las Vegas Mercury during its existence from 2001 to 2005, and when I saw the billboard, I could not recall publishing an article describing Beers as being “in bed with the ‘Southern Nevada Porn King.’ “

FACT #3:  That billboard is shameful and ought to be taken down.

Every now and then an E!! reader-commenter deserves front-and-center for noting some aspect of a story I overlooked…or for seeing it in a new way.  Here’s Mike Davis quoting and commenting on a LV Sun story about the four Nevada Ron Paul delegates who ended up voting for McCain:

“Carl Bunce claims Gestapo tactics were used to coerce him into voting for McCain, but I found Lisa Mascaro’s article in yesterday’s Sun to be particularly revealing:

“Dyer said he and Bunce, who ran recently failed in congressional primary elections, want to run for office again. So they had motivation to play nice.

“When the roll call vote came, Bunce and Dyer forfeited their seats so two McCain supporters could fill the slots.

“Not all of Paul’s supporters are pleased. Wayne Terhune, the Sparks dentist who had helped lead the fight, said ‘they should have at least abstained’

“As party Chairwoman Sue Lowden announced Nevada’s 34 unanimous votes for McCain, Bunce and Dyer were at a concert a few blocks away.

“They were listening to Rage Against the Machine, the 1990s rock band that once offered a soundtrack for a generation of politically disaffected young fans.”

After all of the nonsense over the last 4 months to get these guys there, and when the vote finally goes down, two of the four delegates weren’t even in the building.

That’s frigging sad.”

(Mike Davis is the state chair of the Nevada Republican Liberty Caucus, a grassroots org for libertarian-leaning members of the NV Republican Party who are committed to advancing the Republican majority by recruiting and electing candidates dedicated to constitutional government, economic opportunity, and individual liberty.)

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

If we wished to ensure that a bright, ambitious, and capable woman would not make it in contemporary national politics, as practiced by most successful contemporary office-holders and adjudicated by the New York-Washington media, then we would insist on the following ten requisites: