The Liberty Pen:  It is reasonable to state that both Nevada's and California's economy contains a paralleled connectivity. The principals of tourism, gaming, construction, and to some extent warehousing (distribution), are dependent upon the economic health and stability of California. How can Nevada stifle such an imposing subordinacy, while procuring growth in other areas such as manufacturing and technology? While not completely dissolving our economic relationship, should the State Nevada focus on cultivating economic self-reliance?

Mr. Gino DiSimone: This is a multi-facetted question. Lets break it down a bit:

1. CA/NV paralleled connectivity:  To some degree yes, but not as much as most people believe.  The “principals of Tourism… …economic health and stability of California.”  Yes, and most States work these same principals – particularly the coastal states.
2. How can Nevada stifle… …while procuring growth in other areas..:  It is not healthy for Nevada to think of itself as in competition with another State.  While the principals are common to CA, indeed common to most States, Nevada has uniqueness (plural) that it should leverage.  
3. …growth in… …manufacturing and technology:  Emphatically the answer is YES! Nevada political leadership has been lazy and impotent in this regard.  I am a candidate for Governor and I am engaged with large (multi billion dollar) corporations to establish the framework of an MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) whereby Nevada can make it profitable for them to In-Source (some call it On-Shore) manufacturing. (I am doing this as a candidate!) As an update, in simple words, we have verbal agreements to bring manufacturing to Nevada from China, India, and Mexico.  Currently, on the table I have about 5000 jobs to bring to the state. My goal is 25000 jobs in about 2 years after we clear the Legislature with the necessary agreements.   
4. Item 3 addressed manufacturing and jobs growth. Regarding technology, this is an absolute must.  Five years ago, I presented a framework to the Republican Party Politicians to invest in R&D with Universities.  I recommended the State engage with Universities to identify products/technologies/services that could be developed in less than 3yrs and sold/licensed to companies world wide.  The State would grow its technology centers, invite private industry to participate and become well known as a technology development center in America.  At the time I recommended the State and University earmark a percentage of the proceeds to feed back into the higher education system to lower the cost of college/university education.  My suggestion was to cycle all the proceeds to this cause, if necessary, such that Nevada would be the greatest education opportunity (students doing high tech development), highest educational quality and the absolute lowest educational cost across America.   By achieving this, the university would be able to pull in substantially more grants (they have a grant request program) to further advance their causes and needs.  A growing student population will absolutely have a substantially positive impact to local economies because they work and spend in the local economy.  As a final comment, let me share that I wanted to build a State University in Elko using this plan.  The plan never got past the US mail.  It was received at the Party headquarters but quickly dismissed as “not in the purview of the State responsibilities.”

The Liberty Pen: "3.…growth in… …manufacturing and technology:  Emphatically the answer is YES! Nevada political leadership has been lazy and impotent in this regard.  I am a candidate for Governor and I am engaged with large (multi billion dollar) corporations to establish the framework of an MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) whereby Nevada can make it profitable for them to In-Source (some call it On-Shore) manufacturing. (I am doing this as a candidate!) As an update, in simple words, we have verbal agreements to bring manufacturing to Nevada from China, India, and Mexico.  Currently, on the table I have about 5000 jobs to bring to the state. My goal is 25000 jobs in about 2 years after we clear the Legislature with the necessary agreements."

Although being factually ignorant of the totality of your plan, which you cursorily outlined in section 3, I would nevertheless like to propose the following query. With respect to your verbal agreements to bring manufacturing to Nevada from China, India, and Mexico, all three countries are known for lower wages and this fact is reflected in the amount of American businesses moving to foreign countries. Does the lower wage variable create an impediment to the acquisition of foreign enterprises?

Mr. Gino DiSimone: I would not say we should acquire foreign enterprises. It is American enterprises that I want to bring home to Nevada and re-establish manufacturing excellence here (and indeed, within America but I am putting Nevada first).  Aside from economic needs of our people, there are security and sovereignty reasons to restore our manufacturing base.

To get manufacturing here, it will require incentives to American corporations.  Admittedly, lower labor cost in foreign countries is a key ingredient to overcome, but it is not the whole picture.  The successful engagement requires a total picture of the cost structure and how that affects the corporation’s financial performance. Further, it ultimately comes down to shareholder value. Shareholder value is the root of everything the corporation does.  My success in capturing the attention of CEOs is founded upon that principal. However, for this interview question, let’s just look at the cost structure issue. We can trade certain costs for lower labor costs and yield a lower cost structure to the corporation.

Your obvious next question is, “Can you tell us about the ‘certain costs’?”  …not at this juncture.  However, if you thought of living in central New York City and owning a car, you may easily understand the concepts.  That is, after considering all the cost of insurance, maintenance and hassles of getting around, fuel, parking… etc, you quickly come to realize it give you more value to use a cab and get rid of the car. So Nevada can look at the total cost structure and resolve it down to a lower one than they are getting in the cheap labor markets off shore; thereby breaching the low cost labor barrier while maintaining US labor cost standards.

The Liberty Pen: As a corollary to the previous question regarding economic connectivity: Tourism, gaming and mining have defined our State's industrial dynamic for some time. What reasons, if any, would you cite as the rationale for maintaining this mindset, and how do we prohibit this regressive mentality from effecting future economic debilitation?

Mr. Gino DiSimone: I would not inhibit these foundations of industrial dynamic.  It would be to our citizen’s advantage to actually grow them, particularly the mining and tourism (which I will do).  However the criticality, which you mention, is the historical “rational” to maintain these as our State income source with no effort towards other industry attraction.  As I answered previously, Nevada political leadership has been lazy and impotent in evaluating, architecting and expanding opportunities in other industries.  Politicians are typically impotent when it comes to business savvy.  To directly answer the question:

1. I would not maintain the mindset – to do so is utter folly.
2. To prohibit the regressive mentality requires putting businessmen in the political seats.  That is one of the biggest reasons I am running for Governor.  I know many corporate CEOs and I know what it takes to bring them into Nevada.  Politics is of no interest to them.  It is all about returns to their shareholders.   Moreover, we must openly show citizens the deals we will make with corporations.  Yes, corporations will make money from being in Nevada. True, the State will not make much money from them because the State as other Revenue Plans (a critical topic!). However, the citizens will greatly benefit.  When the citizens see the deals we make with the corporations and how the corporations will love Nevada, the citizens will compel the Legislature to agree to the deals.  So it will be pressure from the citizenry that will make it all happen.

The Liberty Pen: How would you grade our State Legislature as a fiscally responsible entity?

Mr. Gino DiSimone: If the scale is 1 to 10 where 10 is perfect and 1 is the antithesis of perfection, I would grade them between 1 and 4, inclusive, depending on the specifics.

The Liberty Pen: A 2009 Nevada Legislative Session report card has been compiled by the Nevada Policy Research Institute. A composite score has been tabulated and it is predicated upon an objective overview of “overall performance,” as it specifically relates to fiscal issues. Please consider the undermentioned results and then answer the following question. Members of our legislature continuously illustrate their inability to display even a modicum of fiscal reform. It appears, quite obviously, that the minority cannot induce significant reform while confronting such antagonistic attitudes towards reduced spending. How will you handle this if elected Governor? Will you be able to re-materialize true fiscal responsibility?