Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

Opinion
Sep. 17, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: More Sacramento silliness

These are the days that bring a spring to the step of the Nevada Development Authority's out-of-state business recruiters. Already armed with clever campaigns that emphasize Nevada's lack of inventory, corporate income and personal income taxes, these salesmen get all-new material for their pitch at the end of every summer, delivered in a gift basket with a bright bow, courtesy of the California Legislature.

Each year, the anti-industry Democrats who control both houses in Sacramento set new standards for hostility toward personal freedom, business and economic growth. This week, lawmakers wrapped up another regular session with more assaults on commerce, taxpayers and individual choice.

Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror
  • EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
  • LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well
  • LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans
  • EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'
  • LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?
  • LETTERS: America should try terrorists in open court
  • EDITORIAL: Religious freedom
  • GEOFF SCHUMACHER: UNLV needs new stadium




    • California businesses fed up with costly regulation already represent low-hanging fruit for the folks at the Nevada Development Authority, who've plucked plenty of companies from our neighbor to the west. But these legislators seemingly have redoubled their efforts to chase away industry and play nanny to their constituents.

    Here's an offensive sampling of bills sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this year:

    -- Lawmakers passed an expansion of state health care programs for lower-income families, giving taxpayer-paid medical coverage to kids in households that earn three times the federal poverty level and repealing citizenship as a requirement for benefits. Socialized medicine for illegals -- only in California.

    -- To help pay for this largess, and to make insurance available to residents who choose to forgo coverage, legislators imposed a 7.5 percent payroll tax on companies that don't offer health benefits to their employees. It's hard to imagine a harder kick to the groin of small business.

    -- They passed a tax on gas bills to subsidize the purchase of solar water heaters. Next year's mandate: cold showers for all!

    -- California juveniles can't wait for their first chance to vote. This year, lawmakers mandated that kids traveling in cars must remain in child safety seats until they're 8 years old or nearly 5 feet tall. Teen drivers can't talk on their cell phones while behind the wheel anymore, even with a hands-free headset. Children under 14 can't use tanning businesses, and children between 14 and 18 must obtain parental consent to bronze themselves indoors. Will sunburn victims soon face jail time?

    -- Lawmakers want California to join the growing list of states that have criminalized smoking in cars when children are passengers. Does it make any sense for state governments to ban smoking everywhere when they're so dependent on ever-increasing cigarette taxes?

    -- Chain restaurants must now post fat, carbohydrate and sodium content for their meals. The bill authorizes state menu cops to fine noncompliant businesses $500.

    Maybe one day Californians will wake up and elect a more centrist legislative branch. Until that day comes, it's mighty neighborly of their representatives to show industry the door -- and the road to Nevada.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 19 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Rick wrote on September 18, 2007 08:32 AM: The next step to "protect the children" after banning smoking in cars is to ban smoking in their homes. Creeping socialism on the march.


    John wrote on September 18, 2007 07:25 AM: Steve:

    Why should I or the workers in these establishments be exposed to second hand smoke? Why do your rights to smoke trump my rights and workers' rights to be in smoke free environments? I ask again, should you neighbor be allowed to burn cancer causing materials in your backyard and blow the smoke onto your property? Under your libertarian approach, this should be perfectly acceptable behavior. My guess however is that you would not take too kindly to this activity.

    I agree with you that I should not impose my beliefs on smoking on you. However your right, just like any other right, does not give you unfettered ability to engage in such activity whenever you choose. You clearly have the right to walk around naked in your home, but should that right extend to public areas?

    Finally this discussion originally had nothing to do with smoking in bars but with CA's law criminalizing smoking in cars when children are present. That is why I ask those questions. Would you like your children exposed to smoke in school, daycare centers or hospital nurseries?

    The bottom line is that your side is losing the political argument. It is just a matter of time that Nevada like most other jurisdications bans smoking in all public and private, which are open to the public, establishments including casinos.


    Harry Bollox wrote on September 17, 2007 08:39 PM: Mark,
    We'll be East Kalifornia. It's already leaning that way with the tree-hugging, gun-grabbing, tofu-farting health nazis that are moving here from the socialist state to the west. Keep them in their f'ed up state and leave us alone.


    Mark Wilson wrote on September 17, 2007 06:23 PM: Well, they're not called the People's Republic of California for nothing.

    If we don't fight this mental disorder called liberalism (ie this smoking ban in bar restraunts that would make Adolf Hitler proud), we will be the people's Republic of Nevada before long.

    Mark Wilson


    Steve wrote on September 17, 2007 04:25 PM: John said "Smelling the coffee is not my problem, it the is the smoke that I object to."

    Aren't you capable of going into another establishment if the one you're in is too smokey? I am. I don't believe I should stop someone from smoking just because I don't smoke. I'm intelligent enough to go somewhere else.

    "Why do smokers feel it is their right to export their habit to others?"

    Why do non-smokers feel it is their right to force their belifs on others? That is just as wrong.

    "Should teachers be allowed to smoke in classrooms? Should daycare workers be able to smoke in the presence of the children under their care? Should your neighbor be allowed to burn cancer causing materials in their back yard and blow the smoke on your property? If not, why not?"

    What does ANY of that have to do with banning smoking in bars? You are talking apples and oranges. That's the standard "smoke and mirrors" action of people who live their "lives" to be 100% PC?


    Ken Brown wrote on September 17, 2007 01:50 PM: My teacher smoked in class. All my classmates are alive and well except for those killed in car accidents.


    John wrote on September 17, 2007 01:04 PM: teekaycee:

    I fail to see the connection between the two. Maybe it is my lack of critical thinking ability that you have obviously mastered. In my simple mind, driving in today's society is a necessity whereas smoking in a confined area is not. Society recognizes that some activities contain risk (such as driving a car) and is willing to accept those risks because the benefits of such risks outweigh the burdens. The use of autos in this country falls into that category because such use provides much more social benefits than burdens. Can the same be said about smoking? I think not. Are smokers that selfish that they must smoke in the presence of children in a confined area? I ask again, should it be permissible for teachers to smoke in classrooms, daycare workers to smoke in daycare centers and healthcare workers to smoke in hospital nurseries? I am still waiting for one of the pro-smoking posters to answer those questions.


    teekaycee wrote on September 17, 2007 10:45 AM: Cars kill more kids every year than smoke of any kind. If You nanny-staters really cared about the children you would outlaw cars. Your leaders (and those who support them) lack critical thinking skills.


    patte wrote on September 17, 2007 10:04 AM: I am sooo sick of all the "for the children" c__p. It makes me want to
    puke!!!!


    patte wrote on September 17, 2007 10:03 AM: I am sooo sick of all the "for the children" c--p. It makes me want to
    puke!!!


    Read All Comments