On the other hand, big gaming and the mining industry, both of which have been aggressively lobbying for a new corporate income tax in Nevada, are represented.

The union construction industry is represented, but not the non-union construction industry.

Government-school advocates and the teachers union are represented, but not home-schoolers or private schools or charter schools – except for that some-are-more-equal-than-others charter school which is named after a certain famous meth-head tennis player.

Social workers are represented. Government workers are represented. Government bureaucrats are represented. The left-leaning Brookings Institute is represented. The university system is represented. Hispanics are represented. Even the government-subsidized arts are represented.

But not taxpayers. Not working families. Not small business.

Not only is the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group one of the more stupidly named government committees in the history of stupidly named government committees, but it’s a joke. A sham. Its sole purpose is to support the notion that Nevada needs higher taxes on the groups not represented to pay for all of the government subsidies to the groups which are.

Any conservative who takes whatever this group recommends seriously ought to have his or her head examined.

Hardy, by the way, was about as liberal as they came in the 2009 legislative session, chalking up an embarrassing Conservative Rating of just 34 percent. He’s also the last remaining Republican member of the state Assembly who voted for the Mother of All Nevada Tax Hikes in 2003.

In other words, Joe Hardy is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Indeed, he might even be considered the poster child for RINOs in the Nevada Legislature.

Hardy is being opposed in the GOP primary by Las Vegas businessman Patrick McNaught – who, by the way, is hosting his first fundraiser at the M tonight.

Not necessarily surprising that Keystone didn’t endorse McNaught considering the odds against him vs. a good, old-fashioned establishment anointment. But that the organization didn’t fall in line and throw its support behind Hardy despite that being the easy and painless thing to do speaks well for the folks at Keystone – though I would have preferred it if they had endorsed the pro-business conservative Mr. McNaught outright.

But it’s still a significant slap in the face to Joe Hardy.

And it appears the acorn didn’t fall far from the tree.

Joni’s son, Philip, won his first campaign last week in Amherst, Ohio. There was a four-way race for three at-large city council seats. He was the top vote-getter, beating out three incumbents – two Democrats and one Republican.

The Republican candidate had previously been appointed to the seat when the incumbent resigned to take a position in the state capitol. Philip expressed an interest in being appointed at the time, but the party pooh-bahs wouldn’t support him – probably the same type of clods who thought picking DeDe Scuzzyfavabeans or whatever her name was, was a good idea in NY 23. Instead they chose someone who had run for the seat three times previously and lost.

So Phil did it the hard way. When the seat came up for an election by the people and not an anointment by the GOP party brass, he threw his hat in the ring. The party elders still wouldn’t support him. He won anyway. Revenge: A dish best served cold. Congratulations, Phil.

And you, too, Joni!

No…they…aren’t.

If I was to lose my mind, re-register as a Republican and decide to enter the U.S. Senate race as a tomorrow, I would NOT be running against Harry Reid. I’d be running against Sue Lowden, Danny Tarkanian, Sharron Angle, John Chachas, Mark Amodei, a bevy of lesser GOP candidates and at least two wingnut gadflies.

The fact is, NONE of these people can run against Harry Reid unless or until they win the Republican Party nomination next June. THEN they can honestly say they’re running against Harry Reid.

In the meantime, will you people PLEASE stop telling us how bad Harry Reid is. We get it. We know it. We agree. That’s not the point. Or what your campaign SHOULD be about right now.

What we want to know is why YOU are the candidate with the best chance to beat Harry Reid in November if, and only if, you win the Republican nomination in June. Why should we choose you to be “the one” to take on Harry? What makes you so special? And perhaps more importantly, what makes your opponents so weak by comparison.

Inquiring Republican minds wanna know.

The guy also possesses an internal Bullsh*t Meter which flushes out full-of-it politicians the way a Geiger counter picks up radiation. And it goes off regardless of party.

All of which is to preface what I’m about to say to my Republican and conservative friends: Go read Jon’s most recent column HERE

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/nov/13/more-evidence-broken-tax-system/

Jon believes Nevada’s tax structure – which relies heavily on gaming, tourism and sales taxes – is faulty. Others would disagree with him, noting that a number of other states which do not rely so heavily on such taxes are hurting just as badly. But the issue is decidedly legitimate and both points of view are arguable.

The problem is that Democrats such as Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley have disingenuously used this tax “structure” issue as a Trojan Horse to pursue revenue increases, aka tax hikes. And seeing through this political smokescreen and recognizing their true underlying purpose, many fiscal conservatives voice knee-jerk opposition to any such study.

Which leaves Jon to criticize our side AND their side for failing to address both the short-term and long-term budget challenges Nevada faces. “Neither side can assert the moral high ground until it presents details,” he writes, adding that what we’re really looking at are two separate issues which decidedly do not AND SHOULD NOT be addressed at the same time.

“It’s a two-step process,” Jon concludes in his column. “First, fix the system without raising taxes by broadening the tax structure but reducing noisome fees. (Anyone register a car lately?) Then, rigorously debate what services and at what levels government should be funding and tax accordingly. The action should be swift, the discussion robust.”

Amen and hallelujah!!

If that ain’t gubernatorial material, I don’t know what is. Let’s see if any of the current crop of candidates from either party embrace this common-sense campaign platform.

Now for the record and for the umpteenth time: Revenue-neutral tax reform legislation does NOT violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Pledge signers absolutely, positively CAN consider and vote for revenue-neutral tax reform packages which do not raise the overall amount of money going to the government. The operative phrase here is: revenue neutral.

To make this simple enough for even Nathan “Li’l Nate” Taylor to understand, let’s say the current sales tax rate on goods is 8 percent and is currently bringing in $2 million dollars a year. And let’s say it’s proposed that we “broaden” the sales tax to include services – such as auto repairs and dry cleaning. And let’s say, for arguments sake, that people cumulatively spend exactly as much money today buying goods and they do buying services every year.

Now if you simply extend the current 8 percent sales tax to include services, that would result in a doubling of the tax revenue generated and going to the state government. Such a proposal, therefore, would not be revenue neutral and would be a violation of the Tax Pledge.

However…

Should it be proposed that we extend the sales tax to include services BUT cut the tax rate in half to 4 percent on both sales and services, the net increase in tax revenue going to the government would be…zero. Such a tax reform proposal to change the “structure” of Nevada’s tax system would be revenue neutral and would not be a Pledge violation.

Ditto if you, say, impose a tax on prostitution which, say, would bring in a million dollars a year, but at the same time you reduced car registration fees by a million dollars a year.

Now, I’m not saying I’d be in favor of such proposals. I’m just letting everyone know that legislators could vote for such bills without me clamoring that they violated their Tax Pledge – which, by the way, eliminates yet another lame excuse often given by liberal Republicans for not signing it.

And because the economy is in the outhouse right now, THIS is EXACTLY the best time to enact such tax reforms, even if it’s done in a special session. Because, get this: The economy is going to improve. And when it does, tax REVENUES will automatically increase WITHOUT raising tax RATES.

Now let’s move to Jon’s second step.

Big-government legislators, such as Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, throw out the phrase “essential services” in budget debates the way Imelda Marcos used to throw out old shoes (ask your mom, kids). Problem is such legislators never define exactly what constitutes an “essential service.”

Indeed, Sen. Raggio indicated before the last session that he considered the Nevada Arts Council an “essential service.” Clearly limited-government conservatives and starving children would disagree.

And that’s exactly what Jon has called for: A rigorous and robust debate over the proper role of government, what services are essential, how and at what levels they should be funded…and THEN establish the level and means of taxation to fund such essential services.

Is the Office of Diversity at UNLV “essential”? Not. Bye-bye.

Department of Cultural Affairs? Not. Hasta la vista, baby.

$300 million for the class-size reduction program which has never worked as hyped? Not. Adios.

Full-day kindergarten? As Nancy Pelosi would say, “Are you serious?”

The completely unneeded Richard Perkins Memorial College in Henderson? Not. Sayonara.

Dental school at UNLV? Auf Wiedersehen.

Means testing for government programs such as the Guinn Millennium Scholarships. Absolutely

Give parents school vouchers to send kids in overcrowded schools to private schools rather than build new government schools? Yep. Do it.

Reduce the cost of public works projects by ending the prevailing wage welfare subsidy to labor unions, as well as prohibiting project labor agreements? As Sarah Palin would say, you betcha.

Have government workers pay a portion of their health care premiums instead of taxpayers subsidizing them 100 percent? Of course. So let it be written, so let it be done.

You see, “essential government services” are like “pornography.” Politicians will say they know it when they see it….but they never get around to actually defining it.

So AFTER dealing with the tax structure question in a revenue neutral fashion, and BEFORE we can set rates, the Legislature MUST be forced to have this debate and define exactly what constitutes essential services. And THAT’S what the 2010 state campaigns should be all about.

Candidate X says we absolutely, positively have to offer the Culture of Pizza course at UNLV. It’s “essential.” Candidate Y says no, it’s not.

Voters, fully armed with specific positions from the candidates on this spending issue – as specifically as Gov. Jim Gibbons was on the tax hike issue in 2006 – will then decide the direction the state should go. The losers will then get to decide if they want to stay in Nevada…or vote one more time with their feet.

Exactly the way it should be.

Ralston for Governor!

I think Hugh’s arguments are wrong, but at least we’re now debating whether legislation is constitutional in addition to debating whether it’s “needed.” Barry Goldwater would be pleased.

The New Anointed One: Jon Ralston reports an “anointment in progress,” noting that a high-powered fundraiser for GOP gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval took place in Reno on Tuesday featuring ex-Gov. Kenny Guinn, state Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, state Sen. Randolph Townsend, uber-business donors Norm Dianda, Blake Smith, Louie Damonte and Perry DiLoreto, as well as powerhouse lobbyists Mike Alonso, Pete Ernaut and Greg Ferraro.

Hey, wait a minute. Didn’t Ferraro write the inaugural address for Sandoval’s primary opponent, Gov. Jim Gibbons? I guess lobbyists such as Ferraro go where the money is, not where their principles are. Or do they even have principles? Another discussion for another day.

Budget Black-and-Blues: According to a Las Vegas Sun story yesterday, budget cutters need to cut more due to an expected $129 million budget deficit – and the average salary for Clark County government workers is $90,000.

Yikes! If the AVERAGE salary for local government employees is $90,000….I think we’ve found the problem.

Meanwhile, Nevada’s government is reportedly staring at a $2 billion budget hole next biennium, to which Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert (R-Reno) told the Las Vegas Review-Journal this week: “Last session we tried to contain the size of government.”

No she di’-in’t.

Gansert worked closely and secretly with Democrat leaders this last legislative session to come up with a general fund budget which was $800 million more than Gov. Jim Gibbons proposed! How does voting to increase the budget by $800 million in the middle of a recession equate to containing the size of government?

Heidi Gansert: Nice lady; lousy fiscal conservative. Republicans need a new leader. This one is leading them right off a cliff.

Stop, Thief! Army Military Police reservist and 3rd District congressional candidate Rob Lauer got called into civilian active duty late Wednesday night when he witnessed a guy trying to shoplift a case of beer from a Henderson-area Von’s with two clerks in hot pursuit. Lauer reportedly cut off the guy’s escape route with his car before apprehending the miscreant and holding him until the cops arrived.

Maybe Rob should run for sheriff instead?