Thursday, July 17, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: Keep it simple

Did the Nevada Supreme Court do the right thing last week by suspending the state constitution's two-thirds requirement to increase taxes? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me the Legislature's repeated failure to do its duty put the high court in the unenviable position of having to come up with a helpful resolution to this constitutional crisis over the state budget.

The court's ruling to require only a simple majority to increase taxes has raised the ire of the archconservative lawmakers who purposely and aggressively sabotaged the legislative process by manipulating the two-thirds requirement. But their hyperbolic rhetoric about the court "usurping the will of the people" doesn't hold water. This is the three-branch American political system at work. The right-wingers are the ones who created this constitutional crisis and forced the Supreme Court to get involved.

What was the court's alternative? It could have taken the milquetoast route and simply ordered the Legislature back to work to try to resolve its differences. But that wouldn't have worked. The gleefully tyrannical minority showed quite clearly it was not going to budge. Attempts to compromise with the obstructionists proved fruitless. The Legislature was hopelessly deadlocked. The court would not have been doing its job if it had merely sent the issue back to the legislative branch and hoped for the best.

Unfortunately, while the Supreme Court's ruling may resolve the current budget impasse--and thank God for that--it surely leaves questions about how future constitutional conflicts may be handled. The interests of public education are well-served by this ruling, but whose ox will be gored next time around?

Ideally, an initiative campaign should be launched to repeal the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes. A large majority of Nevada voters passed this amendment in the 1990s, but recent events have exposed its dire flaws. A statewide vote now might have a different result.

Unrealistic expectations

When the Paris hotel-casino took down its French flags during the Iraq war, some people were upset. After all, the act was nothing less than pandering to the lowest common denominator of wartime patriotism.

The Paris recently raised its French flags again, in response to the lessening of American hostility toward the European ally. But for those who were never particularly incensed by France's position on the Iraq war, the move only breeds cynicism.

But the fact is, our expectations are too high if we think a Las Vegas casino should show political mettle in the face of public sentiment. Las Vegas casinos represent the epitome of the mantra "the customer is always right." They exist to serve. The Paris was created to entertain tourists and make money, not as a monument to the accomplishments of France. The Paris has never suggested it has any obligation to defend, protect or represent French interests. Its theme is merely a prop. And if tourists don't like something, the resort stands ready to change it. That's reality in a tourist-dependent city, and expecting a higher standard is a waste of angst.

No surprise

Remember back in 1996 when Congress deregulated the cable television industry? Remember how the cable companies insisted this would lead to lower rates?

Well, guess what, cable rates have been going up ever since. A Federal Communications Commission report last week shows the average customer's bill rose 8.2 percent last year. The same report noted that over the past five years cable rates have increased 7.1 percent annually.

The cable industry spinmeisters insist customers have been getting more channels and technical improvements for those higher rates. We customers shouldn't be satisfied with that answer. Cable companies that operate in monopolistic environments need to be regulated to ensure customers are paying fair prices based on thorough examination of those companies' operations.

Gene Kimmelman of the Consumers Union makes a great point: "Clearly, Congress needs to step into the cable morass and help protect consumers from cable price gouging. Consumers should have the chance to pay for only the channels they want to watch. If Congress won't put a lid on cable rates, at least such a la carte pricing should allow consumers to save money."

Savage hate

It was inevitable that cable news network MSNBC would fire commentator Michael Savage. He's a disgraceful, hate-mongering buffoon, and the only reason MSNBC hired him was to try to keep up with the right-wing bombast of Fox News during the ratings war in Iraq.

Savage, in typical fashion for him, recently denigrated gays on his television show, telling a caller that he should "get AIDS and die, you pig." This is one sick guy who ought to be dumped by his talk radio employers as well (a local AM station still carries his daily spew).

Not surprisingly, Savage's reaction to his television termination was to whine and claim victimhood. This from a conservative who's constantly slamming liberals for their "coddling" of victims.

But here's the main point: The MSNBC executives who showed the horrible judgment to hire Savage in the first place should be fired along with him.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER