How about a quick Sunday supper of Quick Hits? Here we go!

• So, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign said it would withdraw the Yucca Mountain licensing application if he won. He did. But the Obama administration is not withdrawing the licensing application. Yet, they assure us that Yucca is dead. So why don’t we feel reassured?
• Speaking of Obama, he promised to “call out” mayors who waste stimulus money. “The American people are watching,” Obama said. “They need this plan to work. They expect to see the money that they’ve earned, they’ve worked so hard to earn, spent it its intended purposes, without waste, without inefficiency, without fraud.” Mayor Oscar Goodman and the mob museum, we think he’s looking at you!
• Quotable: “I will put you out of business and you’ll never do another job in Clark County.” — Randy Walker, Clark County’s director of aviation, to Regional Justice Center builder Paul Faulker, owner of much-maligned AF Construction. (Walker denies making the comment, but it was overheard by respected consultant Terry Murphy, according to Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison.)
• Quotable 2: “I don’t believe that comment ever happened. Even if I thought it, I’m not dumb enough to say it that way. … That doesn’t even sound like me.” — Walker. Really? That’s your defense? To acknowledge that you may have thought it, but not said it? Yeah….
• At last, sweet revenge! Indicted Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki reminds the world that in his tenure managing the state’s investments, he never lost — gulp! — $50 million, as incumbent (and Krolicki nemisis) Kate Marshall may have done, thanks to the Lehman Bros. bankruptcy and some particularly ill-timed advice from Wachovia. Ouch, baby. Memo to Marshall: Never hand your enemy a loaded $50 million pistol…
• Everybody hates Gov. Jim Gibbons. Like, really. Hates. (And you thought we were tough on the guy!)

It’s official, people: Everybody in the world agrees Las Vegas Councilman Steve Ross is a serial violator of state ethics laws now that he’s voted aye on that new City Hall project that would benefit members of the trade union organization that employs him. Our colleague Jon Ralston penned a column about it Friday. The Las Vegas Sun wrote about it today. And of course we at Various Things & Stuff were among the first to point it out long ago.

So, that’s everybody, right?

Oh, wait, no. It turns out the state Ethics Commission gave Ross permission to serve as both a city councilman and as the secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council. (Read it here: EthicsCom-Ross.) Yes, members of the commission did strongly discourage Ross from inviting conflict by seeking both jobs, but in the end, they said it was OK, so long as he disclosed and abstained.

Oh, and then there’s Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic, who told Ross he could vote on the City Hall project. (Mark our words: If this matter ever ends up back before the state Ethics Commission, Ross will cite Jerbic’s advice as a so-called legal “safe harbor” that protects him from legal liability.)

But pretty much everybody else in the world thinks — no, knows — Ross is wrong. And how could you not?

Check out NRS 281A.020(b): “A public officer or employee must commit himself to avoid conflicts between his private interests and those of the general public whom he serves.”

Ross, by contrast, sought election to the post of secretary-treasurer of the building trades council after he’d been elected as a councilman, thus creating conflicts between his private interests and those of the general public whom he serves (on a part-time basis).

And then check out NRS 281A.400(2): “A public officer or employee shall not use his position in government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for himself, any business entity in which he has a significant pecuniary interest, or any person to whom he has a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of that person.”

Ross, by contrast, voted to move ahead with plans to build a new City Hall, the construction of which may very well benefit his union, to which he has a significant pecuniary interest (his salary) and to the membership thereof, to whom he has a commitment in a private capacity.

Jerbic said, quite correctly, that since contracts were let, no benefit was conferred by the procedural vote that took place Wednesday. But it was hard to miss the union’s preference in the vote, since members packed City Hall, cheered for Ross when he cast his vote and then declared they would hold a candlelight vigil at the City Hall site until the project broke ground. (Plus, when the time comes for the actual contracts to be let, what are the odds that Jerbic will cite the ethics law to say that, since the benefits accuring to the construction trades members are no greater than to anyone else — surprise! — Ross can vote on that, too?)

Now, Ross did disclose his union affiliation before the vote. He did seek Jerbic’s opinion about the vote. And he did go to the state Ethics Commission and seek its opinion long ago. But you know what? None of that matters, because. Ross created a conflict when he sought the union post and he consumated that conflict when he voted the union position on the new City Hall. His actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

And whether he’s ever held accountable (highly doubtful), it’s manifest that he’s an ethics lawbreaker. And (most) of the whole world knows it.

Hey, isn’t he up for election sometime soon?

So, the Legislature can’t seem to get a handle on how much the state would receive if it eliminated some of the many and varied sales tax exemptions in effect now, not unreasonably, since those those sales are not reported to the state.

Now, they call economics the “armchair science” for a reason, so let’s engage in a little economic thinking here. If the state does not currently charge sales tax on various goods — we’ll call them widgets, since real economists love to do that — it stands to reason that consumption of those widgets is higher than it would be if the widgets were taxed, and thus cost more, since the cost-benefit rationalization would change for at least some consumers. So let’s call X the current rate of consumption and Y the post-exemption elimination rate of consumption, where X is greater than Y.

But neither would consumption of widgets fall to zero, since for some consumers the marginal increase in price from X to Y would not be enough to overcome their desire (or need) for a widget. Some percentage of the public would continue to purchase widgets, even at the higher prize. So it stands to reason that the state will receive at least some additional revenue once the exemption is eliminated. It will not be 100 percent, because as we said, the cost difference between X and Y will discourage consumption for some.

Therefore, it seems the answer to the Legislature’s dilemma is this: If the state were to eliminate sales tax exemptions on widgets, it will most certainly get more revenue (given that it is currently getting nothing) but not 100 percent of the revenue it might hope to get, since some people will just stop buying widgets once they are taxed.

But the bottom line is, more money. Definitely more money. So what are we waiting for, people? Tax the damn widgets already.

Hey, this economics stuff is fun.

We’re pretty sure that we’re not the only person to open up a weekend newspaper and wonder if anybody in town could please explain what in the hell this ad is all about:

We get the