Elizabeth Crum

 Just received a press release (statement) from the Titus campaign.  Here are some excerpts:

Titus: Bailout Package Is One More Example of How Washington Is Broken

1.  Titus fails to mention that the government policies which birthed the Fannie/Freddie financial crisis were enacted in the Carter and Clinton administrations with the approval of both Ds and Rs in Congress, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately dishonest.

2.  Titus says Bush and Porter are to blame for the lack of oversight when nearly everyone including the present Democratic leadership was complicit in looking the other way, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately partisan.

3.  Titus rips Porter for being in favor of the imperfect bailout bill, but then says “with so many critical tax breaks” for Nevada she would have “reluctantly” voted for the inadequate bill also, so she’s either very confused…or being hypocritical.

Porter voted for the bill.  Titus bloviates at length – and then says she would have voted for the bill.  When all the ranting and raving is done, what in Sam Hill is the difference?!

Neither the guy who’s in, nor the gal who wants to BE in, has the gumption to stand on principle and fight for good policy when there are special tax credits to be had.  Of course:  how else could they ingratiate themselves to the voters?  Just look at all they’ve done for you!!

That’s a REAL example of how Washington is broken – and Nevada, too. 

E!! sends enthusiastic kudos to Nevada Congressman Dean Heller.  He voted against the bailout bill earlier this week AND voted against the dressed-up version again today. 

Two thumbs down to Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley who switched her earlier “no” to a “yes.”  Ditto downers to NV Senator Ensign and Rep. Porter who also voted “yes.”

See this post at Politico for a list of vote switchers in other states.  The vote was 263-171.

It sickens me to think this bill was the best Congress could manage to give us after working on nothing else for over a week.

Economic expert John Lewis (D-GA) said about his ‘yes’ vote, “I have decided that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something.”

So comforting to know we have geniuses like Lewis looking out for us in Washington.

“I understand the impulse to obsess over the pain and potential catastrophe staring us in the face, but what if the wages of drastically altering the capitalist system that has been our engine of freedom are decidedly worse?” — Andy McCarthy

NOTE:  There is nearly NO commentary about this on conservative/libertarian blogs yet.  I surmise everyone has logged off and is headed to their favorite bar to drown their sorrow (and disgust).

Double Ketel One and cran, please.

Well I guess it’s also Harry Reid Day here on E!!

Here’s the text of an automated phone message Chuck Muth received last week…

The LVRJ is reporting that Bob Loux has finally resigned.  (Go here for a refresher on Loux.)

Loux, age 59, apologized to the commission (and the public) for giving himself and other agency staffers unauthorized pay increases.

Gov. Gibbons has ordered that the salaries in question be corrected to the approved amounts and has asked that the Department of Personnel obtain repayment of the excess.

“This action will ensure that the general fund is reimbursed…and will also ensure that any retirement benefits to employees of the Agency for Nuclear Projects are based on the correct salary levels,” the LVRU reports Gibbons to have said.

Loux’s salary has been rolled back to the 2006 budgeted amount of $104,497 and his retirement will be based on a percentage of his three highest pay years, excluding the unauthorized ones.

Still a pretty good deal for a guy who, according to Stuart Waymire, holds a bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Nevada, Reno, did not have credentials for the job, and has done more than anyone to get in the way of a civil, intelligent discussion about Yucca Mountain.  (I’ve got excerpts from a book Waymire wrote here.)

Anyway, Loux is out. 

As the flight attendants cheerfully say at the end of long, tedious flights, “Buh-Bye now.”

Here’s some more corruption reporting at the Las Vegas Sun.

Clark County is holding back federal funds from the Urban League because a recent review of the non-profit’s books found double billing, problems with receipts, and lack of evidence that the group was actually helping people (a stipulation of the $67,000 grant that was supposed to help people who couldn’t pay rent and/or utilities).

The county found that the Urban League paid only part of what clients owed on their bills and then asked those folks to pay back 60 percent – and billed the county for the same cases.

If the money is cut off, it will be the third time in the past four months that a local government entity has taken back federal dollars from the Urban League (see the Sun piece for more details).

A county rep said the problems with the program are serious, adding there are “concerns about whether the organization can manage the money.”

Ya’ think?

On the subject of lining one’s own pockets under the pretense of helping needy kids:

The Las Vegas Sun reports that Willa Chaney, a candidate for the State Board of Education, owes the Nevada Education Department more than half a million bucks for funds she misused while running a program to provide aid to needy students.

The NV Education Dept. sued Willia Chaney’s company and in August a District Court judge ordered Chaney to pay back the money.  The Sun reports:

“From 1993 to 1999 Chaney operated a federally funded program to provide meals to poor children during summer vacations and other school breaks. The state shut down the Smart Start Summer Food Service Program in 1999 after the inspector general identified $1.01 million in questionable expenses.”

Apparently investigators found that Smart Start was serving far fewer children than it claimed in its reports of meals delivered to 13 apartment buildings in Las Vegas and North Las Vegas.  Also among the investigator’s audit findings (quoted from the Sun):

• More than $250,000 in salaries was paid to 15 Smart Start employees, “even though they apparently did little or no work” and no time cards were maintained. Chaney’s husband, James, served as the program’s director and her son and daughter were on the payroll.

• Federal money was used to purchase five vehicles. The titles were in the Chaneys’ names rather than in the name of the Smart Start program.

• The program’s costs included $2,000 a month paid to Chaney’s day-care center, Smart Start Daycare, for use of its kitchen and parking spaces. Investigators determined the food program’s facility had ample parking, and the child-care center was paying $1 a year to lease its entire location.

Chaney is running for the District 3 seat on the State Board of Education, which sets policy for the Nevada Education Department and the state’s school districts.  She denies any wrongdoing.

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.