Connect
To Top

It’s Time for a Truth-in-Labeling Law for Political Candidates!

So, there was a candidate forum in Las Vegas Tuesday night.  Three candidates showed up.  And according to Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Ramona Giwargis, here’s how attendee Cheryl Rosensweig characterized the presentations…

“They all said the same thing.  It was hard to distinguish between them, and I’m not really sure what the difference is.”

Now that might not seem all that unusual – until you learn who the three candidates were…

Democrat gubernatorial candidate Steve Sisolak.  Democrat gubernatorial candidate Chris Giunchigliani.  And (wait for it)…

REPUBLICAN gubernatorial candidate Dan Schwartz!

Schwartz laughably advertises himself as a “conservative” and an “outsider.”  He’s neither.  I’ll get to the “conservative” thing in a minute.  Let’s first address his absurd claim to being an “outsider.”

He’s the incumbent state Treasurer.  By definition, duh, that makes you an insider in the political system.  You’re in office.  You’re on the inside.  Just as Sisolak and Giunchigliani – incumbent Clark County commissioners – are insiders.

As for being a “conservative” – oh, please.  Get real.

Schwartz is running in the June 12 GOP primary against a real conservative, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt.  And since GOP primaries are dominated by conservative Republican voters, Schwartz – like Republican in Name Only (RINO) snake-oil candidates before him (hello, Gov. Brian Sandoval!) – is portraying himself as something he’s not.

Fortunately for Schwartz there’s no “truth-in-labeling” law against false advertising that applies to campaigns.

But don’t take my word for it.  Just consider the similarities he expressed with the two Democrat candidates in the above-referenced forum.

“On health care,” Giwargis reported, “all the candidates said they would maintain current Medicaid benefits in Nevada and fight efforts to roll back coverage.”

True conservatives know that Sandoval’s expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare was not only a bad idea from a policy perspective, but a monstrously dumb idea from a fiscal conservative standpoint.  It will, inevitably – and conveniently AFTER Sandoval mercifully leaves office – bankrupt the state.

And then there’s the tax issue.

Schwartz joined the two Democrats in voicing support for raising taxes on Nevada’s nascent marijuana industry – a move that would make legal marijuana more expensive and boost the desirability of buying black market pot from street drug dealers.

But it’s even worse than that…

Schwartz also supports the idea of taking the money from that tax hike and dumping it into the black hole that is our state’s government-run/union-managed public school failure factories.  What in the wide, wide world of sports is “conservative” about that?

But Schwartz wasn’t done.  He also voiced support for raising taxes for public transportation projects because, according to him, the state is “broke.”

Broke?  Are you kidding me?

The governor and the Nevada Legislature just passed the largest tax hike in Nevada history – a $1.4 BILLION mama-jamma – in 2015.  If the state is now “broke” we clearly have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  Any “conservative” should recognize that in a New York minute.

So-called “affordable housing”?  Once again “Schwartz suggested looking for new revenue sources.”

The truth is Schwartz has been looking for “new revenue sources” ever since he got himself on the inside.  He supported making the “temporary” “sunset” tax hikes from 2009 permanent, a new business income tax, and an unlawful $5 per passenger fee at Nevada’s two biggest airports.

What’s “conservative” about that?

Look, if Dan Schwartz wants to run on a platform of raising taxes, increasing regulations and growing government, fine.  But run as a Democrat.  Or at the very least, accurately portray yourself as a liberal Republican.

But stop trying to trick Republican primary voters by falsely claiming you’re a “conservative.”  You’re not.  You just aren’t. Even if it says so on your label.  There ought to be a law.

Disclaimer

This blog/website is written and paid for by…me, Chuck Muth, a United States citizen. I publish my opinions under the rights afforded me by the Creator and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as adopted by our Founding Fathers on September 17, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania without registering with any government agency or filling out any freaking reports. And anyone who doesn’t like it can take it up with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams the next time you run into each other.

Copyright © 2018 Chuck Muth