James was officially appointed last Wednesday at a press conference in the governor’s Carson City office. I wrote about the appointment here in Nevada News & Views on Thursday. Later that day, former Nevada Republican Party Chairman John Mason read that report while attending a conference in Puerto Rico. At that’s when the spit hit the spam.

In the interest for full disclosure before we go any further, please not that I once worked for Chairman Mason as the party’s executive director, and later as a consultant to the Nevada GOP.

As most of you have probably already read, an incident allegedly occurred involving Mr. James and a member of Mr. Mason’s family in Washington, DC, about five years ago. I personally won’t get into the specifics of the incident unless or until Mr. Mason decides to go public with it. However, I can confirm that Mr. Mason called me at home from Puerto Rico immediately after sending an email about the incident to me, the governor and a third party. That email was sent to me in confidence, and at Mr. Mason’s request I have not released it to anyone but the governor’s press secretary.

For my part, I will only confirm at this point that Mr. Mason does not believe Mr. James should head up the SAGE Commission. He has reminded the governor of the Washington-incident and given him an opportunity to withdraw the nomination, to avoid what Mr. Mason believes will be another public embarrassment for the Gibbons administration - something this governor needs like the proverbial hole in the head.

As of late yesterday afternoon, my understanding is that Mr. James categorically denies the allegation and the governor is sticking with the nomination.

Mr. Mason has yet to make the full allegation public with supporting evidence. So what we have here at this point is a classic he said/he said. And in such a situation, the various parties’ credibility is called into question. In that regard, Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison wrote the following yesterday…

“I still remember how John Mason lied to me in 2000 when he said that as a 16-year-old he was a member of the Surfaris and recorded the hit ‘Wipe Out.’ And how he told the Wall Street Journal he remembered recording it. Except he didn’t record it. He was a member of a group of fake Surfaris. But that’s not the story he told for so many years, until the Wall Street Journal caught the lie in 2004 when Mason was running for the Nevada Supreme Court.”

In response to that column about a matter which occurred over 40 years ago, Mr. Mason forwarded to me a follow-up investigative report by Dennis Myers of Reno News & Review published on August 26, 2004.

I will note that Mr. Mason says he never talked to Mr. Myers about this column. I should also point out that the rather liberal Mr. Myers is usually anything but sympathetic to Republicans. With that in the back of your mind, here are some excerpts of what Mr. Myers discovered about allegations that Mr. Mason had lied about his involvement with a 1960s band called “The Surfaris”…

“For many years, Nevada Supreme Court candidate John Mason told a tale about how he once played guitar with the Surfaris, the 1960s two-hit-wonder rock ‘n’ roll band. In more recent years, Mason, an Incline Village attorney and former Republican state chairman, has been plagued by charges–most spectacularly in a front-page Wall Street Journal story in 2001–that he made it all up. . . . But a RN&R inquiry strongly suggests that Mason was a Surfari for a time, and he was telling the truth all along.”

Myers goes on to explain how the Wall Street Journal got the story wrong in 2001, concluding his investigation in the matter thusly:

“Whatever other faults the 1963 Surfaris tour may have had, every indication is that Mason signed on as a member of the group with a reputable producer who had the legal right to the Surfaris name, toured as a Surfari in good faith and has every right to assert the claim.”

So in reporting on the Mason/James he said/he said we now have a conflicting columnist said/columnist said situation which neither affirms nor discounts Mr. Mason’s credibility. So we’ll all just have to wait until he decides to speak publicly about the matter and/or provides some kind of proof or evidence of his allegations against Mr. James.

The only good news in this for the governor is that the Mason vs. James brouhaha has taken the spotlight off the Gibbons vs. Gibbons divorce. For now.

As you may recall, the gaming industry and the teachers union are reportedly close to a deal whereby the union will abandon its effort to gather enough signatures on a petition to hike the gaming tax some 44 percent (an indication that they might not be on target to get enough signatures by the May 20 deadline) in return for the Legislature putting an “advisory question” on the ballot asking the people if it’s OK for the Legislature to raise the hotel room tax instead - which would primarily hit out-of-state tourists who will have no vote on the tax hike.

In other words, taxation without representation. But that’s another argument for another day.

But here’s the thing: Because of the system of checks and balances we enjoy in this state, the ultimate decision on whether or not to raise taxes lies with the Legislature, not the governor. Indeed, even uber-liberals such as Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) acknowledge, as she is quoted in this morning’s Reno Gazette-Journal as saying, that “we do not live in a monarchy and the legislative branch is equal to the executive branch.”

In reality, however, when it comes to raising taxes the legislative branch is actually MORE equal. You see, the Legislature, not the governor, gets the final word. The Legislature, by a 2/3 vote, can approve any tax hike, including one to jack up the taxes on our already beleaguered tourists. And the governor, honoring the promise he made to the people, could and should then veto any such bill. But the matter wouldn’t end there. The Legislature, you see, could then over-ride the governor’s veto by the same 2/3 vote it needed to pass the tax hike in the first place.

So those who want to raise taxes, rather than cut spending and lay off non-essential government workers, should really get off the governor’s back and instead hammer the Legislature. After all, Gov. Gibbons campaigned for office promising not to raise taxes; the same can’t be said for most legislators who steadfastly refuse to make such a bold fiscally conservative commitment to voters and then run on it.

And instead of buckling and trying to find “loopholes” to get around his pledge - like this ill-advised and pledge-breaking “advisory question” scheme - the governor should simply tell everyone over and over and over again that if it wants to, the Legislature should go ahead and pass a tax hike with a 2/3 majority, he’ll then veto it like he promised, and then they can over-ride his veto and impose yet higher taxes on Nevada’s “working families” (isn’t that the term the Left always uses?). The governor can then run for re-election in 2010 as having kept his word not to raise our taxes and campaign against the 2/3 of the Legislature who did.

And may the best protector of the taxpayer win.

“The Reno-Sparks NAACP has passed a resolution asking that RTC honor the King Holiday like the six others recognized every year,” writes Lucille Adin, president of the organization. The NAACP wants the public transportation outfit to reduce service to the residents of Reno by only running a holiday schedule of busses on MLK day instead of having all busses running like a normal weekday. Not operating on a limited holiday schedule “raises serious ethical questions” the NAACP says, being careful not to use the more incendiary word “racial” rather than “ethical.”

But we know what they mean. After all - as everyone knows, but few are willing to say publicly for fear of being called a “racist” - MLK day is generally considered a “black” holiday used by whites to ease their consciences for the original sin of slavery. Other ethnic or racial celebrations - such as St. Patrick’s Day (Irish), Cinco de Mayo (Mexican) and Octoberfest (German) - don’t get special government-sanctioned recognition, but Martin Luther King day ranks right up there with Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July and Christmas despite the fact that it is truly celebrated by only a small minority of Americans and the guilt-ridden mainstream press.

Nonetheless, the NAACP tried to force transportation officials to reduce its services on the holiday by inserting the provision into the collective bargaining agreement between the RTC and the Teamsters, claiming ridiculously that the current policy “deprives many employees from celebrating King Day with their families.”

The RTC disagreed and once again struck the provision in contract negotiations. So Reno area bus passengers apparently won’t be inconvenienced on the third Monday in January for at least another three years. We now return you to our regular bargaining…

“Gov. Jim Gibbons met Thursday with Steve Wynn to discuss negotiations between gamers and teachers to swap bump in room tax for gross gaming tax proposed in initiative. Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio also was on the meeting. Gubernatorial spokesman Ben Kieckhefer said ‘the Governor indicated that if this plan were to receive a vote of the people through an advisory question, he could support it, which is his policy.’”

Make no mistake. If the teachers gather enough signatures to put a tax hike on the ballot this year, the Governor is obligated by the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed in 2006 to oppose it.

Likewise, if the Legislature, rather than the people themselves through the signature-gathering process, attempts to put even an advisory question on the ballot in an effort to raise taxes, the Governor is obligated by the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose and veto any such effort should it reach his desk.

That the Governor appears to going wobbly on this should be of considerable concern to fiscal conservatives and Republicans. A violation of his Tax Pledge would likely doom any and all thoughts of a second Gibbons gubernatorial term and kill the electoral chances of GOP candidates up and down the ballot. Apparently either the Governor or some people on his staff (where is the Chief Operating Officer on this?) are having difficulty reading and/or understanding the plain language of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge the Governor made to the people of Nevada when he ran for governor in 2006. So please allow me to reprint it verbatim so that there is no further confusion on this issue…

“I, Jim Gibbons, pledge to the taxpayers of Nevada, and all the people of this State, that I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

The deal some in the gaming industry are trying to cut with the teachers union to raise taxes through a legislatively created “advisory question” rather than gathering signatures from citizens to do such a thing is absolutely, positively, without question, no-doubt-about-it an effort to increase taxes. And Gov. Gibbons absolutely, positively, without question, no-doubt-about-it is obligated by the pledge he signed to oppose any such effort and veto any such bill should it come before him. If not, he will have absolutely, positively, without question, no-doubt-about-it broken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

Perhaps it might be helpful for you all to call and/or email the governor with a little friendly reminder of the promise he made to us in 2006, since it seems it might just be slipping his or his staff’s mind these days.

In Carson City call: (775) 684-5670

In Las Vegas call: (702) 486-2500

Or email the governor directly at: jgibbons@gov.nv.gov

1.) It has been stated that air travel costs were higher than normal last year because the Legislature was in session in Carson City from roughly January through June. But if that’s true, then why does the vast amount of travel originate in Reno and end in Las Vegas. You’d think people would be flying IN to Reno to get to Carson, not the other way around.

2.) It appears that for most departments, government employees are purchasing full-fare tickets. Why? I can certainly understand *some* last-minute trips, but you’d think most travel could be anticipated and 7-day advance purchase fares could be had. Why are Nevada taxpayers paying through the nose for full-fare tickets?

3.) In most cases, it appears these airline tickets are being purchased by one master credit card for each department. That would seem to indicate that the department is racking up a lot of frequent flyer passes. If so, who is getting them? Is there a master frequent flyer account for each department, or are employees entering their personal frequent flyer number when making reservations?

4.) I’m told that when the State of Nevada and Southwest Airlines had an agreement for government employees to fly at a discounted rate, part of the agreement was that no frequent flyer awards would be offered. OK, fine. But that agreement ended a few years ago. Now it appears Nevada taxpayers are paying full-price for air travel again. So if we’re NOT getting frequent flyer awards…why the heck not?

5.) And the biggest question of all is still: Why are government employees, in this day of email and teleconferencing, jetting around the state so much?

I feel more public records requests coming on…

Anarchism, Age of Consent Laws and the Dallas Accord
By Wayne Allyn Root, Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination

Recently a controversy has arisen over statements Mary Ruwart made in her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions regarding the rights children possess. The most salient quote on this subject is found on page 43 in her book:

“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.”

And when given an opportunity to clarify her beliefs, Ms. Ruwart recently made it clear that she continues to be opposed to all age-of-consent laws, even in the case of pre-pubescent children. In a May 1, 2008 prepared statement posted on her website she states:

“Dr. Ruwart did not elaborate on how predators would be prosecuted without legislation specifying age of consent. In other discussion, she explained to delegates that courts were likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred.”

One presumes that Ms. Ruwart is referring to a system of private courts in her quote, since she opposes having courts run by the state.

Ms. Ruwart readily admits to being an anarchist, and her beliefs lead her to take a position that is at odds with the vast majority of Americans, as well as with most members of the Libertarian Party.

Before I demonstrate with logic the fallacy of this position, bear with me for a moment while I speak from the heart.

I readily admit my beliefs are colored by my being the father of four young children, whom I love more than life itself. The nature of who I am and the underlying foundation of what I believe drives me to protect and nurture my children. As a parent, when I read Ms. Ruwart’s statements on child porn and the removal of all laws to protect the most innocent and helpless among us, I had a visceral reaction. I became physically ill. And I can guarantee you that my feelings on this topic are not unusual. I am certain that just about every other decent, caring parent in America would have the same gut-level reaction upon hearing this controversy.

From a purely emotional standpoint, which is the level at which most Americans make their voting decisions, having our party of freedom perceived as providing moral sanctuary to those who either produce child pornography or engage in adult-child sexual relationships is wrong and abhorrent. It is also the very definition of political suicide.

Of course, I realize that emotions alone are not the basis for public policy and Libertarian Party positions should not be based merely on popular sentiment. The purpose of this paper is to lay out the logical case for why age-of-consent laws are perfectly compatible with a libertarian society.

At the very core of libertarianism is the belief that individuals have the right to enter into voluntary agreements with others. It is not the role of government to interfere with voluntary agreements. It is the role of limited government in a free society to enforce those agreements.

And in the absence of a voluntary agreement, it is the role of government to unwind such an agreement (if possible), require that restitution be provided to the wronged party (when appropriate) and, in some cases, punish the wrong doer.

So, what makes an agreement voluntary?

For one, it requires a meeting of the minds. One person makes an offer; the other person accepts the offer. Each party needs to comprehend what is being offered by the other. In cases where one or both parties do not understand the consideration being offered, there has been either a mistake or possibly fraud.

If I offer to sell you a high-end name-brand watch for $1,000 and you accept such an offer, we have both improved our lives from this transaction because of our different subjective values. If I unknowingly sold you a counterfeit watch, you could rescind the agreement. If I knowingly sold you a counterfeit watch, I have engaged in fraud and should be required to void the agreement, return your money, pay any civil damages awarded and possibly be punished as well.

For there to be a meeting of the minds, both parties need to have sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction.

If your elderly parent suffers from dementia brought about by Alzheimer’s disease and he sells his $500,000 home for $1, the buyer’s participation in such a transaction is tantamount to defrauding the seller – and in a libertarian society it is a proper role of government to make and enforce laws against fraud. To protect those who are mentally incompetent, a court may even go so far as to appoint a guardian or conservator to care for the person’s estate.

While not every person as they age becomes incompetent, all individuals start out their lives in such a state. We begin life without the ability to reason and start out dependent on others for our safety and welfare. As we mature, our mental capacity improves and we slowly gain the ability to make competent decisions. No method is available today in the realm of science that enables us to objectively judge that an individual has become competent enough to consent to life-changing decisions. Until that day comes, we have little choice but to create a legal framework as a substitute.

Minors are allowed to enter into agreements with adults, but with some exceptions these agreements are voidable at the option of the minor. Exercising this power of avoidance is commonly referred to as “disaffirming” the contract.

The ability to disaffirm a contract provides enormous protection to minors who may otherwise be bound to uphold agreements detrimental to their well-being. The law protects minors from their immaturity, their inexperience and their tendency to engage in impulsive actions. Rational individuals understand that young minors do not understand the nature and consequences of contracts they enter into and that they are especially vulnerable to being the victims of unscrupulous adults. To allow otherwise is to give adults a license to defraud children.

So, how does this all relate to age-of-consent laws?

There are entire categories of activity where the ability to disaffirm an agreement is not a sufficient remedy to protect the welfare of children against adults who would act as predators toward them.

This is where age-of-consent laws become relevant – with laws prohibiting sex between adults and young children serving as a prime example.

Young children will do most anything to please adults they trust because it is a hard-wired survival mechanism. A young child does not understand the life-long consequences of sex – pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and the emotional damage this can bring about.

The enforcement of laws prohibiting adults from engaging in sex with children, facilitating underage drinking and drug use, and producing child pornography all act as disincentives against those considering the commission of such crimes. It is this deterrent that protects children against risks to their health, welfare and reputations – risks children cannot fully comprehend, especially when unscrupulous adult authority figures are manipulating the situation.

Now, reasonable people can argue as to where the line should be drawn.

For some activities, setting the age of legal consent to, say, seventeen rather than eighteen might be very appropriate. There are laws on the books where parents can give permission for an older child to engage in an activity (e.g. getting married), because it is assumed that for children above a certain age, parents are in the best position to judge the maturity of their children and have a keen interest in promoting their children’s best interests. And there are some statutes in place allowing for judicial emancipation of minors, when an exceptional minor can clearly demonstrate his or her ability to make decisions with the same understanding as an adult.

And fully informed juries should always have the option of deciding whether a law should be applied in a case where its enforcement would cause some grave injustice.

But for one to advocate for the complete elimination of age-of-consent laws goes beyond rational thought.

The overwhelming majority of Americans, and the overwhelming majority of Libertarian Party members, understand the need for these laws. Consider the following situations where “consent” was given.

• Imagine a priest or minister molesting a six year old boy who consents to this religious father-figure’s authority after being told “God approves.”
• Imagine a twelve year old girl who consents to sex for the promise of money and a ride in a pimp’s fancy car.
• Imagine a father or uncle molesting a daughter or niece, who consents after being told this is a natural and normal relationship.
• Imagine an obviously drunk sixteen year old girl who consents to sex with six adult men who know she is inebriated.

In each of these cases, I sincerely believe, and my sense is that most libertarians would agree, that these are crimes deserving of state prosecution against the adult perpetrators.

I’m sure that Ms. Ruwart will state she would never endorse such heinous acts – and I’m certain that is actually the case. And I’m sure that she and I would agree that in a free society, parents often serve as the first line of defense against those who would act as predators against children.

But if she is going to remain consistent with her anarchist beliefs, Ms. Ruwart would have little choice but to conclude that the government should have no role in countering those who would engage in fraud, including those adults who would prey upon and effectively defraud minors due to their lack of maturity and experience.

Moreover, in Ruwart’s utopia of private courts, only the victim (not the state) could press charges. Children would often be too ignorant, frightened or intimidated to press charges against the authority figures violating them.

People form governments to protect the majority against a small criminal minority. In a “perfect world” loving, caring parents would always be the perfect guardians. But we do not live in a utopia. Unfortunately, many criminals also have children of their own. And these innocent children are often abused by criminal parents. In the real world that we live in, some parents either fail to protect their children, or are the predators and child abusers themselves.

Anarchists may be fellow travelers with us libertarians in the sense that they want to cooperate with our efforts to dramatically reduce the size of government, but where we part company is in their desire to eliminate the state altogether.

When our party adopted its first platform in Denver in 1972 it was clear that we supported a limited government. But that changed in 1974 when anarchists lead by Murray Rothbard entered the picture at the Dallas convention. At the 1974 Libertarian convention in Dallas, libertarians and anarchists struck an informal agreement known as the Dallas Accord.

According to anarchist Carl Watner, in the Dallas Accord of 1974 the anarchists were asked to overlook their differences with the Libertarian Party and basically put off any debate they may have as to whether the ultimate goal should be less government or “no” government. In this agreement, anarchists agreed that as a political party the topic of anarchism would not even be on the table for discussion until we have achieved a limited government, libertarian country.

Whether your philosophical position is closer to Ms. Ruwart’s vision of anarchy or my position of limited government, ask yourself this practical question:

No matter how one might attempt to present the position, do you believe we will grow the Libertarian Party, or damage it, by promoting the removal of age-of-consent laws or any other laws that the vast majority of Americans believe protect innocent children from adults who would sexually exploit them?

There are a number of “Politicker” e-newspapers in a number of states. And at each of them, I believe, there is a reporter dubbed “Wally Edge” who reports anonymously on the state’s political scene. In this report, Wally Edge quotes a GOP insider describing what transpired at the convention, noting that it started off great. However, this person notes that “a small minority of Ron Paul delegates somehow thought this was a UFC match rather than a state convention.”

“They fed off of Mike Weber who always tries to rile things up but this time had a group of people willing to follow blindly,” the insider continued. “The whole process is a shame because it unfairly lumps normal Ron Paul supporters in with a small few who fail to bathe, treat others with respect, follow rules, understand politics or care about the results of their actions. What should have been a great day…turned into an embarrassment for anyone who can complete a sentence and supports Ron Paul. What a shame.”

Took the words right out of my mouth. Heck, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

In any event, Wally Edge continued to investigate the convention fiasco and came across the brouhaha that has developed between myself and Ron Paul operative Jeff Greenspan. Regarding the exchanges the Arizona Agitator and I have had on my Muth’s Truths blog, Wally Edge writes that he “honestly did not believe that any political operative would be so stupid as to actually put the things into an e-mail that” Greenspan has posted on my blog.

So he contacted Greenspan directly.

Wally Edge reports that he and Greenspan “had exchanged lengthy and civil e-mails until I asked him about the dust-up with Muth. All of a sudden Mr. Greenspan turned from passionate defender of Dr. Paul and the Constitution into the green-pea soup spewing demon from The Exorcist.”

Yep, that’s Jeff Greenspan all right. But it gets worse. Get a load of what Greenspan actually wrote to Wally Edge shortly thereafter:

“By the way. Wally Edge = Chuck Muth. Hi Chuck. Only you can come up with ‘this is taking on a life of its own.’ You did it on your blog. What a coward going ‘undercover.’ Nice try.”

Yep, you read that correctly. Apparently the tin-foil antenna on Greenspan’s headgear went off and this paranoid conspiracy fruitcake suddenly came to the conclusion that *I* am the anonymous “Wally Edge” and was trying to set him up. Talk about a wingnut.

Then again, maybe I AM Wally Edge. Only The Shadow knows for sure (cue the Twilight Zone theme music: do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do…).

Wally Edge (or I) concludes that Greenspan’s response “erased any doubt in my mind as to whether Mr. Greenspan is capable of putting stupid, paranoid, conspiracy-crazy things in writing. His open and unabashed megalomania is amazing…”

You may remember a few days ago I reprinted an email from someone who worked with Jeff Greenspan in the past. And that person said ol’ Jeff was “a total conspiranoid. If there is a whacked-out idea, he believes it.” That person also said Greenspan “has acceptable people skills only as long as you agree with him. But if you disagree, you become the devil incarnate.”

Based on my experience with Greenspan, and now Wally Edge’s experience with Greenspan (unless he and I ARE one and the same), I’d say that initial assessment is, in the immortal words of Mona Lisa Vito in My Cousin Vinny, “dead-on balls accurate.”

Oh, and there’s more coming. A LOT more. If you think Greenspan came unglued on me at Muth’s Truths, wait’ll you read more of what he wrote to Wally Edge. Which, of course, raises the question of how I know what Jeff wrote to Wally. AM I really Wally…or did Wally share with me Jeff’s on-the-record email rantings? Good Lord, that’s enough to make a paranoid’s head explode!

But that’s it for today. The ol’ home-school school bell is ringing and today’s lesson for my kids is “The Use of Spies” from Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” - with particular focus on “covert operations.” Shhhhh.

Vunderbar! However, maybe we should cut taxes FIRST and THEN find ways to force government to operate with the lower revenue. As my friend Grover Norquist at Americans for Tax Reform would say, “starve the beast.” Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Meanwhile, on Planet Taxus…

While Gov. Jim Gibbons and Bruce James were meeting in Carson City yesterday to launch a new private commission to reduce government, representatives of the gaming industry and the teachers union were meeting to figure out a mutually agreeable scheme to raise taxes for more money for higher teacher salaries. After all, just look at the bang-up job our public schools are doing!

The proposal under discussion would raise the hotel room tax rate by some 3 percentage points, jacking up the room tax to around 12 to 16 percent in various parts of the state. This tax hike is seen as politically painless since it will be born primarily by tourists.

Make no mistake, this compromise proposal should be DOA - Dead On Arrival. Regardless of whose taxes are being increased, it’s still a tax increase. And it would have to be approved by the Legislature. Which means even if passed it would be vetoed by Gov. Gibbons who has clearly and steadfastly told everybody who will listen and understands plain English: “NO NEW TAXES.”

This proposal itself is just plain foolish. You simply cannot keep raising the cost for visitors to come to Nevada endlessly. Sooner or later visitors will find less expensive places to go. We will take our tourism industry to death…literally. And a tax hike on people who don’t live here is absolutely “taxation without representation.” And that…dare I say it…un-American.

I’m against any and all tax hikes, but if the gaming industry is going to keep playing this “don’t tax me, tax the guy behind the tree” game I might just have to reconsider. The problem in Nevada isn’t that taxes aren’t already high enough…

It’s the spending. Bring on the James Commission!

And then the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Barack Obama’s former pastor - comes along and picks the scab once again, forcing race into the presidential campaign where it truly wasn’t for the vast majority of Americans (other than Bill Clinton and David Duke).

So its extremely unfortunate and regrettable to see Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) trot out the race card here in Nevada yesterday, demanding to see, according to the Associated Press, “a breakdown of the ethnic composition of the Nevada state Board of Medical Examiners over the last two decades.”

Leslie made the request after Dr. James Tate of the Association of Black Physicians, again according to the AP, “accused the medical board of disciplining black physicians more often and severely than their white counterparts.”

Now what if someone responded to Tate’s and Leslie’s race-baiting by raising this question:

“Is it possible that the medical board has disciplined black physicians more often than white physicians because many under-qualified black physicians attained their medical credentials due to affirmative action programs and simply aren’t as good as their white counterparts who didn’t enjoy such preferential treatment?”

I’m pretty sure anyone - well, any white person - who dared to ask such a question, as legitimate as it is in response to the accusation Tate made this week, would immediately be labeled by the likes of Leslie and Tate a “racist.” And that would only further inflame the racial tensions they already stirred up. So thank goodness no sane white person would ever dare pose such a question in writing.

Oops.

In his EO, the governor states that “a careful examination of state expenditures by an objective, neutral and bi-partisan body will help provide increased government efficiency and accountability and ensure that state government operates within its means and in a responsible manner.”

Now, who other than a big-government liberal or Assemblywoman Francis Allen (but I repeat myself) could argue with that?

The commission’s mission as spelled out in the EO will be as follows:

“The SAGE Commission shall make recommendations that will: identify areas of government spending where savings can be found; identify areas where increased efficiencies in state government operations can be found; and identify means to improve state governmental services to citizens. The specific areas of state government reviewed shall be within the discretion of the SAGE Commission.”

The criteria for being selected to serve on the 12-member commission is also spelled out in the EO: “The members of the SAGE Commission shall be recognized, established business leaders, either active or retired, with expertise or experience required to carry out the mission of the SAGE Commission.” That would certainly seem to rule out anyone from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada or the teachers union.

Additionally, members will serve at the pleasure of the governor and will be asked to put in about 20-30 hours a month over a two-year period. The commission will be privately funded - no tax dollars will be harmed in the process - and commission members will receive absolutely no compensation whatsoever and will pay for their own expenses. And although this will be a private commission funded with private money, the governor has decreed that it will comply with Nevada’s open meeting law.

I’m going to support this commission and its mission. I believe Bruce James was an inspired choice to head it up. And I think a lot of good will come from it. Recall that a similar effort was undertaken by Gov. Kenny Guinn in his first term which resulted in the privatization of the workers’ comp system and a commensurate savings for both taxpayers and businesses.

That being said, I also have some reservations. The stated mission of the commission is to look for ways to make government more efficient. It does not indicate whether or not the commission will look at various government departments, services and functions and determine if they are something the government should be doing in the first place. Or as the late great Barry Goldwater famously put it, “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”

Personally, I want to reduce the size of Nevada’s government. But even if this is not the overriding objective of the James Commission, I believe it can still find ways reform state government so that Nevadans a bigger bang for their tax buck without asking them for more tax bucks. So we congratulate and applaud the governor for taking this important step toward more fiscal responsibility and wish Mr. James the greatest of success in his new endeavor.