E!! The True Conservative Story™

If you can stomach it, Americans for Tax Reform has a recap of all the major fiscal and tax-related events since Inauguration Day.

Title:  Obama’s First 100 Days:  Higher Spending. More Debt. New Taxes. Broken Promises.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just a snippet:

Day 1 — January 20: In his Inaugural address, President Obama makes a noteworthy commitment to the American taxpayer:
 
“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Or two:

Day 41 — March 1: The Obama administration foreshadows another broken promise when Peter Orszag, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, claims the 8,000 earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 are “last year’s business. We just need to move on.” The statement by Orszag in not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise made in the first presidential debate:
 
“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (Sept. 26, 2008. First Presidential Debate, Oxford, Miss.)

RTWT.

To read this NYT piece on the estate tax, you’d think its biggest problems are that conservative spin-meisters dubbed it “the death tax” as it came out of the gate – and that they “portray [it] as the Internal Revenue Service reaching beyond on the grave.”  (How dare they tell the truth like that?!)  The article’s obviously biased author, Carl Hulse, argues:  “Studies show that the tax hits merely a sliver of wealthy American families.”  Well, ok then.  As long as we are only raking a few people over the proverbial coals, why should we get excited?

Because the tax is unfair and ought to be illegal.  It amounts to double-taxation since those who have accumulated wealth have already paid taxes on their income throughout their lifetime.  The sums of money are not the issue.  Whether you are worth $10 million or $1 million or a nickel ninety-eight, you should not have to stop off for a last visit to the tax man on your way to the grave.

Harry Reid doesn’t think so, though.  Evidenced by the bulging of his veins during a recent Senate floor debate.  The issue?  A proposed amendment to permanently cut the death tax rate to 35% and to exempt estates worth less than $10 million per couple and $5 million for a single taxpayer.  (Obama and his minions want a 45% rate with a $7 million exemption.)

Every Republican voted for the lower rate, as did 10 Democrats.  But according to this piece in the WSG, Harry Reid called the amendment by Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) “outrageous,” a “stunning act of hypocrisy,” and a tax cut for those “at the very top of the food chain.”  And then (quote and comment from the WSJ):

“We can only turn the page from recession to recovery if we watch every single taxpayer dollar the way families watch every dollar in their budget.”  We’d say Mr. Reid was being deliberately ironic, but Harry doesn’t do irony.  He’s an outrage man.  And speaking of which, he was at that very moment working to pass a 2010 budget outline that includes record spending and trillions of dollars in new debt.

Yeah, we all know Reid is on board with unprecendented federal spending and national debt.

But let me get this other part straight.  Harry Reid equates your family income and budget with the federal government’s.  This might seem like a reasonable comparison at first glance, but it’s faulty to the core. Your household income is likely fixed at its current rate.  You have to (or should) limit your spending to what you take in.  You cannot demand more income from your employer.  And you probably aren’t borrowing large sums of money in order to “invest” in questionable and unproven endeavors.

The federal government’s revenue stream, on the other hand, is not fixed.  Legislators can increase the government’s revenue anytime by voting to create or raise taxes. They don’t play by the same rules and live within the same limits we do; they make the rules and set the limits (or lack thereof).  They can – and do – vote to spend whatever they wish, for whichever “stimulus” effort they want.  Evidenced by the current budget and tax talk on The Hill.  In short, there is no valid comparison.  Harry Reid and friends know this, or should.

But back to the death tax.  Bottom line:  there shouldn’t be one.  At all.

And the bottom line on Harry Reid and all those who support fleecing “a small sliver” of America’s wealthy as they draw their last breath?  To quote that king of outrage himself, they are engaged in “a stunning act of hypocrisy.”

Hat tip for the WSJ/Reid portion:  Veronique de Rugy @ The Corner

UPDATE:  A reader emails, and another comments, on something I think a lot of people don’t realize:  the estate tax applies to the recipient of the inheritance no matter the size of the gift.  So, if a benefactor who exceeds the exempted limit leaves you, say, $100,000 in his will, it is you who will owe the IRS $35,000. 

So much for only a small “sliver” of Americans being subject to this tax.  The very wealthy often make numerous bequests of varying sizes to relatives and other people who are not particularly wealthy (otherwise the bequest wouldn’t mean much), and all these recipients, however poor, are subject to the 35% tax rate.  Imagine a single mother living at or near poverty level who pays no (or next-to-no) income tax.  She receives $50,000 from a rich auntie and must then write the IRS a check for $17,500.  To her, that sum could mean a down payment on a small house, or cash payment for a decent new car, or a good start on a college education for her child…but instead, it will go to the federal government, to redistribute as it sees fit. 

Does this seem just to to anyone?  A suspicious mind might wonder if there is a deliberate intent to make sure the money doesn’t go to the descendants and/or friends of productive and successful people.

And Obama wants to raise the tax rate to 45%.

From Chuck’s Muth’s News & Views:

Now here’s the sort of talk we like to hear from a Republican governor…

“Common sense dictates that when you’re in a hole it’s vital you stop digging. Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus moneys guarantees that (our state) will dig itself a $740 million financial hole. Who helps us then? Do we raise taxes, and thereby weaken our competitiveness relative to other states and countries — or do we just summarily end programs for some of the neediest of our state?
 
“Or are we to plan on yet another round of stimulus windfall from Washington in two years — again, with money we don’t have? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know the $740 million budget hole created would be the largest such hole in (our) state financial history.”

Unfortunately, that’s not Nevada’s tax-hiking Republican governor talking.  It’s a true conservative Republican governor talking:  South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. 

Wish there were more like him.  Wish he was our governor.

If  you can, call and urge these NV legislators to vote against the budget:

Sen. Reid       202-224-3542

Sen. Ensign     202-224-6244

Rep. Heller     202-225-6155

Numbers for the “Mod Squad” in the Senate:

Evan Bayh (IN): 202-224-5623
Mark Begich (AK): 202-224-3004
Michael Bennet (CO): 202-224-5852
Thomas Carper (DE): 202-224-2441
Kay Hagan (NC): 202-224-6342
Claire McCaskill (MO): 202-224-6154
Mary Landrieu (LA): 202-224-5824
Joe Lieberman (CT): 202-224-4041
Ben Nelson (NE): 202-224-6551
Jeanne Shaheen (NH): 202-224-2841

Also… these Republicans are on the fence:

Arlen Specter (PA): 202-224-4254
Olympia Snowe (ME): 202-224-5344

An online Colorado news source, Face the State, is now offering a monthly award for investigative reporting. 

Read the piece that won for March, written by citizen-journalist and Colorado resident Natalie Menten.  It is well-researched and obviously deserving.

Why is the existing “local media” so poor at investigating and reporting these kinds of stories?

Why is it left to private citizens to dig and delve (and spend their own money on FOIA requests) as they look for transparency in and accountablity from government?

We need transparency laws in every state.  The check registers of state and municipal agencies should be posted online for all to see.

Check out this web ad on Harry Reid’s back room dealings re: the protection of AIG bonuses.

Reid appointed himself to the Stimulus Conference Committee and masterminded the deal – and now refuses to talk about it.

Call Harry Reid and tell him you know what he did – and that you will be contributing money to defeat him in 2010:

1-866-SEN-REID

If you think – after the AIG/Bailout/Stimulus fiasco – that you can stomach listening to Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Frank, Dodd, and others pledging their faith in Obama’s commitment to restraint, accountability, and transparency, check out this video of compiled statements.

Hat Tip:  Ericka Andersen and www.GOP.gov

…because I will now praise Nevada Congresswoman Dina Titus for statements she made today in a Budget Committee meeting on The Hill:

“…I remain concerned about President Obama’s proposal to reduce the itemized deduction rate for families with incomes over $250,000.  I am particularly concerned with the impact this provision could have on housing and charitable giving.
 
“The Mortgage Interest Deduction (MID) is an important incentive that encourages Americans all over the country to buy homes.  Many consider the MID to be the single most important tax incentive facilitating home ownership in the United States.  I am concerned that reducing the value of this incentive would lead to the further deterioration of the housing market.  It has become evident over the past few years that the housing market is tied closely to the national economy as a whole.  With the economy in its current state, we simply cannot afford to make changes to the tax code that could lead to a further decline in home prices.  The housing market in Congressional District Three in Nevada – previously one of the fastest growing markets in the nation – is currently in shambles.  Today, nearly 58.2 percent of Las Vegas homes have negative equity.  We can’t afford to let prices drop any further by making it less attractive to buy a home.
 
“I am similarly concerned about the impact the proposal to reduce the itemized deduction rate could have on charitable giving.  The tax deduction for charitable giving encourages Americans to make contributions to philanthropic organizations, many of which have been hard hit by the economic crisis.  With so many people in need, the services many charities provide are in high demand.  I believe that it is the wrong time to make changes to the tax code that could make charitable contributions less attractive.”

Forthwith, let it not be said that I am unwilling to acknowledge sanity when it occasionally visits itself upon Congresswoman Titus.

Just when you thought your blood pressure couldn’t rise any higher over the ill-conceived, pork-stuffed stimulus bill on-which-the-ink-is-not-yet-dry, Nancy Pelosi says ANOTHER package may be needed.

(Note:  in Liberalspeak, “may” = “will”)

She cites “job growth” as the reason for “keeping the door open” in this extended season of stimulus.  And here I thought saving and creating jobs was the meat and potatoes of Stimulus ~ Part I.

No, silly!  That was just a teaser.  A mere morsel.  A yummy bite-sized bacon-wrapped appetizer.

Pelosi and Friends are now going to start cooking up the next course – the one that will really, Really fix everything – for your consumption.

If anyone feels the need to puke, the bathroom is that way —————->

David Brooks is suffering from buyer’s remorse re: his vote.  Says he,

“Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”

Meester Brooks:  Who eez thees “we” dat you speak uffh…?

Because Barack Obama is exactly who I thought he was.  As Mark Steyn put it on The Corner today:

a Big Government leftie with the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

At least my new blogger friend @ Gerbil Droppings makes me laugh about it.  (The graphic is worth the click-thru.)

Here’s a little two minute ditty I think you’ll all enjoy.  My complements to singer and song writer Kathleen Stewart and lyricist Steve Jones.

LOL

@ the Telegraph.

…is like giving whiskey, guns, and the car keys to your teenage son.”  — P.J. O’Rourke.

Apparently it’s also like giving him a whole fleet of new cars.  After he spends way more than needed – and then LOSES – the one you helped him get last year.

Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson @ NRO list and detail the 50 most outrageous items in the stimulus package.  This is the best, most comprehensive sum-up I’ve seen.  Read it and weep call your senator today.

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

It is now the eve of the 75th convening of the Nevada Legislature.  But don’t get too excited, kids!  Tomorrow will be a day of glad-handing and back-slapping and silly grinning.

Anyone waiting for actual state business to be done will have to wait (at least) until Tuesday.  Longer, probably, since the the Dems still have not put forth a comprehensive budget proposal, and it’s going to be more than a 5 minute job to solve our $600 million budget shortfall.

Even then, with the Dem super-majority in the Assembly, the best that minority leader Heidi Gansert will be able to do is convince her team that supporting tax-and-spend policies is bad for their electoral futures.  And if they don’t believe her and choose to join the Dems in a “bi-partisan” action, I’m guessing it’ll be D-Day for them in 2010.

Update: Steve Sebellius has the Democrat “plan” – all two vague-sounding, double-spaced, extra large font pages of it – here.

RedState lists a few things the Senate plans to add to the Stimulus anti-Stimulus bill.

Because Americans are calling for “More pork, please!”

Leslie Carbone, on tomorrow’s Stimulus anti-Stimulus vote in the House, that is.

I was recently encouraged, by the executives of an organization that shall go unnamed so I can keep my day job, to write a letter to my Congressman touting the benefits of the Fix Housing First Proposal.

Here’s my letter.

Dear Congressman (or woman)(or Dina Titus):

Rumor has it that you are considering additional action in re: to the housing market.  As I understand it, the Fix Housing First proposal consists of the following:

1.        The federal government will offer a gi-normous and historically unprecedented supercalifrajalistic tax credit to anyone buying a house in 2009, and anyone who took last year’s lesser tax credit or bought their house prior that can bite the proverbial Big One because they aren’t getting doodleley squat.  In essence, those retards who had the poor sense to purchase a domicile before you and your Wall Street pals f***cked the economy into a coma are SOL:  too bad, so sad, cry me a Hudson River, etc.

2.   In addition – and again, this is only for those bless’d and priveleged few who choose to buy homes in 2009 – the federal government will guarantee a super-sweet taxpayer-subsidized loan at a low, Low market rate of 2.99 or 3.99.  Those who were short-sighted enough to finance their homes at 5, 6, or 7% – what a bunch of losers!! – will just have to continue at those rates and hope that sometime in this millenium, they or their unfortunate descendants can break even…or at least not have to file bankruptcy and sell special personal favors out behind the local WalMart.

Naturally, as someone who enjoys being regularly screwed over by my elected officials, I support the Fix Housing First proposal.  In addition to priveleging a few citizens over the vast majority and attempting to artificially stimulate an entire industry with the taxpayer dollars OF that majority, it will effectively grind into dust my last vestiges of faith in fairness, equity, and the American Way. 

I now realize that virtues such as these are for fools and idealists, and I thank you for freeing me from the naïve weltanschauung that has enslaved me for the better part of my life.  Now instead of wasting my time aspiring to liberty and justice for all – what crack-smoking maniac thought up THAT ridiculous concept? – I can now embark on a life filled with bitterness, vitriol and rage and go to my grave cursing both man and God, as is only befitting of an enlightened person of the twenty-first century.

Congratulations on your confirmation into Congress, and if you pass the Fix Housing First bill, may your earthly blessings be exceeded only by super-special surprises stored up for you in the Seventh Circle of Hell.

Sincerely,

Citizen Sue

An open letter to the newspapers of America by Orson Scott Card.  A little long but full of facts and well worth the read.

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

Here is a graphical depiction of the connection(s) – and dollar amounts that passed – between: 

George Soros, MoveOn.org, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) project, the Woods Fund, Bill Ayers, ACORN (its housing division as well as voter registration group), Project Vote, Barack Obama, Fannie and Freddie, Johnson, Raines, and various senators and congressmen including Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and others.

All of this information is on record and verifiable. 

Even if you look at each connection in the most positive light possible, the thing as a whole is an eye opener.  If you’ve never understood or believed in the the possibility of a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy – or, if you prefer a nicer couching of things:  the possibility that activists on the Left have tremendous Power and wield it in ways that are often overlooked – now may be the time to reconsider.

If you want to Do Something, pass this on!

In re: to Sen. Dodd’s claim that he thought his Countrywide VIP status was a “courtesy” and didn’t mean he was getting anything that special, check out this WSJ piece. 

A former Countrywide Financial loan officer, Robert Feinberg, has come forward saying Dodd knowingly saved thousands on his 2003 re-fi’s as “part of a special program the California mortgage company had for the influential.” 

He says he’s in possession of internal company docs proving Dodd knew full well he was getting very preferential treatment as a “Friend of Angelo” Mozilo, Countrywide’s then-CEO. 

From the WSJ piece:

“People are referred into that department as ‘very important people.’ You’re told that your loan is priced from Angelo. As the ‘Friends of Angelo department,’ [the department] has to give them a sense of importance and explain the reduction of fees and the rate as a result of being a ‘Friend of Angelo,’” [Feinberg] says. According to a report by Dan Golden in Condé Nast Portfolio in August, other VIPs included Senator Kent Conrad. Mr. Golden reported that “Countrywide also offered special discounts to congressional staffers involved in housing issues.”

As to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feinberg says he spoke to the Senator once or twice and mostly to his wife and that like other FOAs Mr. Dodd got “a float down,” which means that even after he had a preferred rate, when the prevailing rate dropped just before the closing, his rate was reduced again. Regular borrowers would pay extra for a last-minute adjustment, but not FOAs. “They were aware of it because they were notified and when they went to the closing they would see it,” Mr. Feinberg says, adding that he “always let people in the program know that they were getting a very good deal because they were ‘Friends of Angelo.’”

And:

One indicator of [Dodd's] influence is the $165,400 in campaign contributions — more than to any other politician — that Fan and Fred have given him since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These contributions are legal.

But favors like those Mr. Dodd is alleged to have received may not be.

Mr. Feinberg says he went public with his story because when he heard Senator Dodd on TV talking about predatory lending, he felt it was “hypocritical” and he says, “I just thought, ‘This is wrong.’”

Well, we now have proof positive that hanging out at the New York Times will muddle up anyone’s brain.  David Brooks, once a semi reliable conservative thinker, has penned a lamentation (”Revolt of the Nihilists”) so full of hand-wringing angst that, as Laura Ingraham quipped this morning, “it makes my hair hurt.”

Brooks says the failure of the “rescue package” (that’s an Obama-ism, BTW, and does nothing to endear me to the concept since I abhor victim mentalities of all kinds) means our political leaders have ”failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed.”

Apparently for Brooks, defeat of this bill equals de facto anarchy in America.

Brooks then makes a few apt remarks (ok, so he has not completely lost it), but quickly disappoints again:

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

No:  they showed the world that they were willing to listen to the people who elected them, the constituents in their own districts, who bombarded their offices with variations of “vote no” via email and telephone because they (we) don’t trust the “leaders,” and the “experts” at the Treasury and the Fed.  And why the heck should we, after a colossal failure of social engineering the likes of which this nation has never seen…?!

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Good freaking grief, Mr. Brooks!  These House Republicans (and the 95 Democrats who voted with them) are the ONLY people standing up for proper conservative principles, including taking a careful, pragmatic approach to complex problems rather than giving people like Paulson a blank check. 

And nobody on the right led an “anti-immigration crusade”:  they just asked the U.S. government to enforce its own laws (what nerve, ay?!)  As for your take on the ”complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds,” stick with the op-eds because a gifted psychoanalyst you’re not.  The only anxiety we’re having is over whether this bill will really fix what’s wrong, and whether anyone in D.C. is willing to do the hard work of making sure it does.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century.

So now we’re all just mindless sheep who totter zombie-like after Rush and Laura who are themselves out of touch with real life?  Do you have any idea how elitist and left wing that sounds?  Perhaps you’d like to come out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine also so we can get a dose of “reality” and not be hypnotized by the likes of the evil Limbaugh?

I can’t quote the rest of your op-ed, because frankly, my hair hurts.  My advice to you is stop wringing your pretty little hands and give it some time.  A bill will be passed; the markets will not collapse; and all will be well, if a little dicey for a time. 

And please stop calling it a “rescue” because that’s one of the words that is turning us off out here in Sheepville.

I’m borrowing my post header from P.J. O’Rourke.  (VERY funny book if you have never enjoyed it.)

I do wish names would be Named, no matter the party affiliation:  who started and voted for all of the federal legislation, who harassed the lenders to conform, which lenders not only conformed but went above and beyond the call, and who made big bucks.

It won’t happen, of course, because they are all in bed together to some degree.

As Anne of Idaho quipped, “Someone needs to go to Washington and Wall Street and close down the whorehouses.”

After supporting a huge sales tax hike in Cali and quashing the last vestiges of conservative hope for him, Governator Schwarzenegger has slightly redeemed himself.

Prior to signing the new budget into law, Arnold used his line-item veto to totally eliminate the U of California Institute for Labor and Employment. Conservatives in the state say the institute was being used to push pro-union, anti-worker propaganda using taxpayer dollars.

All gone!

(H/T:  Friends of ATR blog)

The following letter was sent yesterday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson:

September 24, 2008

The Honorable Henry Paulson
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

As you continue to craft a financial stabilization plan with Congressional policymakers, I wanted to once again urge you to consider a move that could be executed unilaterally by the Treasury Department: indexing the basis of capital assets to inflation for purposes of calculating gain or loss.

There is a body of legal opinion which holds that the Treasury Department has the power to define “cost basis” when taxpayers calculate capital gain or loss. To date, Treasury secretaries of both parties have chosen to define “cost” as nominal purchase price.

This creates a situation whereby an asset held for many years and later sold may generate a capital gains tax liability when much or all of that gain is purely from inflation. For example, a stock purchased in 1990 for $1000 and sold today for $1676 would face a capital gains tax liability on the $676 “profit.” But in reality, 100% of that “gain” is attributable to inflation.

If the Treasury Department were to re-define “basis” to discount the effects of inflation, it would have a timely and pertinent effect on the current financial challenges. Households and businesses would be able to sell assets, unlock liquidity, and pay a much lower level of taxes. This liquidity is badly needed by capital markets. Best of all, this can be done by you unilaterally, substituting Congressional permission in favor of mere consultation.

Sincerely,
Grover Norquist

– E!! says:  This is better than nothing, but I’d like it much more if we eliminated the capital gains tax altogether.  (Yes, I realize that is probably a pipe dream.  That being the case, Grover’s suggestion is excellent.)

On the subject of lining one’s own pockets under the pretense of helping needy kids:

The Las Vegas Sun reports that Willa Chaney, a candidate for the State Board of Education, owes the Nevada Education Department more than half a million bucks for funds she misused while running a program to provide aid to needy students.

The NV Education Dept. sued Willia Chaney’s company and in August a District Court judge ordered Chaney to pay back the money.  The Sun reports:

“From 1993 to 1999 Chaney operated a federally funded program to provide meals to poor children during summer vacations and other school breaks. The state shut down the Smart Start Summer Food Service Program in 1999 after the inspector general identified $1.01 million in questionable expenses.”

Apparently investigators found that Smart Start was serving far fewer children than it claimed in its reports of meals delivered to 13 apartment buildings in Las Vegas and North Las Vegas.  Also among the investigator’s audit findings (quoted from the Sun):

• More than $250,000 in salaries was paid to 15 Smart Start employees, “even though they apparently did little or no work” and no time cards were maintained. Chaney’s husband, James, served as the program’s director and her son and daughter were on the payroll.

• Federal money was used to purchase five vehicles. The titles were in the Chaneys’ names rather than in the name of the Smart Start program.

• The program’s costs included $2,000 a month paid to Chaney’s day-care center, Smart Start Daycare, for use of its kitchen and parking spaces. Investigators determined the food program’s facility had ample parking, and the child-care center was paying $1 a year to lease its entire location.

Chaney is running for the District 3 seat on the State Board of Education, which sets policy for the Nevada Education Department and the state’s school districts.  She denies any wrongdoing.

I had the honor of meeting and assisting Pat Toomey last week at the Conservative Leadership Conference here in Las Vegas.  This morning, Club for Growth says/releases the following (excerpted):

Eighteen months into the credit crunch, many largely capitalized financial services firms are experiencing serious difficulties but the overall economy continues to grow.  GDP growth over the past 12 months was 2.25 percent and 3.5 percent when excluding the drag imposed by the housing sector.  Even within the financial sector, many banks are doing well.  Regional bank indices had risen significantly since the lows of last July—prior to the bailout announcement—and thousands of community banks are thriving.  It is extraordinary that a massive government intervention in the economy is considered inevitable when the economy is not even in a recession.

Indeed it is.  On what is the panic of Wall Street types based?  Could it be fear that lack of liquidity and credit in the market will affect their own bank accounts?

At the same time, socializing economic risks come at a great cost to the American economy by misallocating capital, inviting political manipulation, and putting taxpayers on the hook for possibly a trillion dollars.  Such a large takeover by the government will surely be accompanied by adverse, unintended consequences.  Already, other companies and industries are lining up at government’s door asking for their own bailout.  And if the government incurs $700 billion in debt to finance the purchase of bad bank assets, the danger that it will eventually monetize that debt and trigger dramatic inflation is very worrisome.

“Unintended consequences.”  This concept is one of the great underlying tenets of conservative thought.  The idea is that when one makes broad, sweeping changes there are always unplanned effects, and they are often worse than the problem with which you began.

Our Do Nothing Congress should, in this case, do nothing (other than what Newt said yesterday).  We ought to free things up where we can, allow the market to self-correct, and let those who must (and should) take their proverbial Lumps. 

Access to unlimited cash and credit is not a “human right,” and we should stop behaving as if it is.

Well, as a writer/journalist/blogger, there is nothing like reading something you strongly disagree with to wake you up and get your day started right.  Such is the case with Treasury Secretary Paulson’s statement before the Senate Banking Committee.

Since hearing word of widespread support (Paulson, Congress and the President) for the latest, greatest Bailout I’ve been feeling increasingly dejected.  And concerned.  And angry.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a “plan” which will “shift” $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the American taxpayer.  Apparently he sees this as the only Way and has 9,000 wizards on stand-by to make it so.  (The same Wall Street wizards that got us into this mess, no doubt?)

And evidently most members of Congress are spellbound and preparing to waft more money New York’s way.

One can only imagine what Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (the largest beneficiary of political funds from Fannie & Freddie) will dream up as he joins hands and sings Tra La La La La with Reid and Pelosi.  I’m not sure how it ends, but I’m pretty sure the working title is Nightmare on Wall Street and that we are barely ten minutes in.

Setting the typically wrong-headed Paulson aside for a moment, how is it that Bush and Congress care so little about protecting the American taxpayer?

And why all the insistence on a quick solution?  This mess was not created in a week, yet Paulson and our illustrious Congressional geniuses think they can solve it by this Thursday?  Does it not occur to anyone that we need to take a deep breath, wade in, and calmly and pragmatically work our way through our many economic and financial problems in a careful and measured manner?

As Newt blogged today (thank God for Mr. Gingrich), between the crisis of liquidity on Wall Street, the crisis of bad energy policy that transfers $700 billion a year to foreign nations, the crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley that cripples entrepreneurs/start ups and drives banks and businesses from New York to London, and the crisis of a high corporate tax rate…we are in some very deep Doo Doo.

Newt proposes a ”non-bureaucratic solution that would stop the liquidity crisis almost overnight and do it using private capital rather than taxpayer money.”  He suggests four reforms that would do the trick without the bureaucracy and additional tax burden.  I suggest you read his blog post as it is well worth the time, but in summation they are:

#1  Stop the mark-to-market rule which is forcing companies into unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks, the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market. 

#2  Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy, Fannie, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. One San Jose firm told Newt they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. It’s Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.

#3  Go to a zero capital gains tax like China and Singapore.  Private capital will flood into Wall Street (at no cost to Joe Taxpayer) and lead to an increase in federal revenue through a larger, more prosperous economy.

#4  Pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income, our economy would boom.

E!! endorses these proposals (a fact I’m sure Newt is happy to hear) and strongly advises against implementation of the Paulson plan which by all reasoned accounts is going to be a total Mess.

In closing, I’ll be waiting to see what McCain says and does about all this.  If he doesn’t reject the Paulson/Bush/Congressional plan and closely align himself with much of what Newt said here, I may not be able to vote for him after all.

(Note:  To those who have heard me joke that I am going to “get drunk and vote for McCain,” consider this my semi-official back-peddle…pending the outcome of this mess and McCain’s stand on things.  Let’s see how Maverick-y the self-proclaimed maverick is when it really counts.) 

With the takeover of AIG, the federal government has wangled its fourth major bailout and taken control of its very first insurance company.  

Both McCain and Obama have called the bailouts of AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns “necessary measures.” McCain blames greedy Wall Street tycoons while Obama blames failed GOP policies.
 
Most sensible folks agree that the government’s implicit guarantee to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a license to lenders to run rampant.  Fannie and Freddie were able to buy bundles of home mortgages and/or mortgage-backed securities in massive quantities without contemplation of the financial risks.

  
Some economists blame the regulators/regulations.  I disagree.  The financial industry is heavily regulated.  It was the government’s guarantee of Fannie and Freddie that emboldened lenders to put together dicey loans and encouraged undisciplined financial endeavors.

Government policy laid the foundation of the mortgage crisis more than three decades ago when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The law forced banks to loan money to low-income borrowers in order to meet the “needs” of the local community.

No worries, though.  The banks knew they could sell off those loans to Fannie or Freddie, and F & F knew they could buy those loans with little regard for the risk.

I’m reminded of the past weekend here in Las Vegas when a few enthusiastic friends (first time visitors) went out and hit the blackjack tables. 

A young man playing two hands was dealt four sevens.  A friend advised him to split and play four hands.  Pondering the risks, he hesitated – but the helpful friend offered to cover his losses and let him keep all the chips if he won. 

What do you suppose that young man did?

He behaved as anyone would:  he played all four sevens.  And, unfortunately, lost on all.

So it goes on the tables of Sin City.  So too, in Congressional corridors and bank board rooms. 

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from blogging and receiving tons of email, we all have our “pet” electoral issues and hot buttons – and they vary widely from person to person.  For me, it’s national security first; the economy (and tax policy) second; and energy policy (a closely related) third.

On the subject of the economy, Jack Kemp has a good op-ed on the presidential candidates and their proposed tax plans (thanks to Mike Davis at the NV RLC for bringing it to my attention).  I strongly encourage voters to read the whole thing, but here are some key points (summarized in my own words):

Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut in the form of a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers (except those in the top 5 percent of income earners, who will pay more taxes) “unless the economy remains weak.”  So…Obama does recognize that tax increases on the rich have a negative effect on the overall economy.  (But why does he think that matters only in “weak” economic times?)

Obama’s tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, so it won’t benefit the general economy because it provides no long term (additional) incentives for work, savings, investment or business expansion.  (People will get their $500 refund check, spend it, and that will be That.)

On the other hand, McCain wants to double the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000 for families regardless of income.  (For middle-class workers in the 25% tax bracket, the $3,500 exemption increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child.  Families with three children are thus looking at $2,600+ in tax savings.)

And McCain proposes marginal tax rate reductions – which is great news in country that pays the second highest corporate tax rates in the entire industrialized world.  McCain wants to reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – a boon for middle class workers in the form of new jobs, better pay, and a stronger dollar.

And all this will most likely raise rather than reduce tax revenues.  (Why?  Kemp cites a 2007 study by the Treasury Department which showed that Ireland — with a 12.5% corporate tax rate — raises just shy of 50 percent more revenue on a comparative basis than the U.S. does with a 35 percent rate!)

McCain would also keep the top capital gains tax rate and dividend tax at 15% which is needed in the stock world (stocks are now held by more than 2/3rds of all Americans).  McCain further wants to phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which burdens 25 million middle-class families with another $2,700 in taxes each year (on average).

Obama, by contrast, has proposed to raise marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax — the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the payroll tax, the death tax, etc. and he would increase corporate taxes where and when he could.

McCain’s plan is a good start, but I agree with Kemp:  we need to promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our “confusing, contradictory and confiscatory tax code.”

Kemp outlines a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system (which is also worth reading about, at the end of his op-ed). 

Whoa, I almost missed this part of the story!  Check it out:

Bob Loux, Grand Propaganda Poobah for Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Policy Office, didn’t just redistribute funds in the form of unauthorized 2008 raises.  Apparently he’s been over-paying himself and his staff for years.

According to figures released by the governor’s office yesterday, Loux over-paid himself and his staff (i.e. exceeded his budgeted salary amount) for fiscal year 2007 by 6.69 percent.  This year, he exceeded his budget by 12.06 percent. And for next year, he was planning to exceed by 18.99 percent.

As for his personal salary, Loux was budgeted to be paid $114,088 this year but jacked up his salary more than 27 percent to $145,718.  He was budgeted to be paid $114,088 again next year (due to the statewide salary freeze) but set himself up to rake in $151,542 instead. 

Here’s the kicker:  These raises look to be about more than just the immediate extra cash.  Turns out Loux is eligible to retire on October 8, 2008.  And his already generous retirement package will/would reported be based on his ending salaries for his final three years of service. So it sure appears as if Loux was jacking up his salary in an effort to rip off taxpayers for higher retirement benefit over the next twenty or thirty years.

Assemblyman Morse Arberry was right on Tuesday.  Bob Loux shouldn’t just be fired; he ought to be prosecuted and thrown in jail.  AND stripped of his inflated retirement benefit.

(Hat Tip to Chuck Muth’s News and Views.)

Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach has filed a complaint with the District Court of Carson City asking for the removal of Bob Loux – executive director for the Nuclear Waste Project Office of the Agency for Nuclear Projects for the State of Nevada – from office for malfeasance as provided for in NRS 283.440.

According to NRS 283.440, “Any person now holding…any office in this State…who is guilty of any malpractice or malfeasance in office, may be removed therefrom as hereinafter prescribed in this section.” 

According to a September 9, 2008, story by Cy Ryan of the Las Vegas Sun, Mr. Loux gave “himself and his staff an unauthorized 16 percent pay raise,” well above levels set by the Legislature for his office. 

On September 10, 2008, Brendan Riley of the Associated Press reported that Mr. Loux “apologized to the lawmakers’ Interim Finance Committee” (IFC) at the hearing on September 9, 2008, “for giving himself and other agency staffers unauthorized pay increases of up to 16 percent.” 

According to the AP report, Mr. Loux’s agency falls under the governor’s office, but Mr. Loux ”didn’t report the pay increases to the governor and instead signed the paperwork needed to authorize the higher pay.”

The raises came to light at the IFC meeting because Mr. Loux had overspent his budget – which in itself is malfeasance in office per NRS 353.260 (copy attached).

According to the statute, “It is unlawful for any state officer, commissioner, head of any state department or other employee, whether elected or appointed, to expend more money than the sum specifically appropriated by law for any such office, commission or department.”

Mr. Loux admitted to the IFC that he both overspent his budget and personally approved the unauthorized pay increases. “I take full responsibility for all of these errors,” Mr. Loux said.  “They were done by me.”

In an official letter to Mr. Bob Loux calling for his resignation, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons noted that a review by the Budget Office discovered that “there has been a history of salaries in (Mr. Loux’s) office paid well over the amounts budgeted” and that “increases have been made without my approval and in violation of NRS 223.085.”

According to a report by Ed Vogel in the September 11, 2008, edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mr. Loux’s “salary manipulation” resulted in Mr. Loux receiving a salary of $151,542 per year – well in excess of his authorized, approved and budgeted salary of $114,088.

In addition, the Budget Office review referenced by Gov. Gibbons shows that Mr. Loux’s willful and unauthorized actions resulted in salary increases for every member of his staff in excess of 27 percent higher than budgeted for Fiscal Year 2008, and in excess of 32 percent higher than budgeted for Fiscal Year 2009.  In one case, one employee was scheduled by Mr. Loux to receive a salary increase next year which would have been more than 50 percent higher than budgeted.

According to Mr. Vogel’s story today, Mr. Loux has rejected Gov. Gibbons’ request for his resignation, saying “I am not going away.”

We’ll soon see!!

 (NOTE:  The word count for this post is greater than usual, but I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, forward the link to people you know, and contact your assemblymen, senators, and congressmen – both state and federal – in order to make your voice heard.)

Most Nevadans probably don’t even know the NWPO exists (see my post below on Bob Loux), let alone how it came about or what it does.  For a little tutorial, here are some excerpts from a history written over ten years ago by author/researcher Stuart D. Waymire (emphasis mine; non-italicized sarcastic comments also mine):

“Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Project Office was created using money set aside from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Under its director, Bob Loux, NWPO has consumed nearly fifty million dollars over the last decade, much of it employed in opposition to nuclear energy…”

So, the Waste Project Office wasted Money from the Waste Fund.  Seems logical to me.

“…Robert Loux…has become as notorious in Nevada as a one-man anti-nuclear wrecking ball. A high school teacher with a major in history and minor in psychology from the University of Nevada, Reno, Loux had been involved in state energy and nuclear waste programming since 1976. In fact, except for a few years of teaching high school, this appears to have been the only career he has ever pursued.”

A high school history teacher was obviously the best choice to head up an agency overseeing the largest proposed nuclear project in our nation’s history.  “Duh”

“Since becoming executive director of NWPO, Loux’s lack of scientific expertise and technical credentials has become a raw wound in the Nevada technical community which sees him as a political manipulator and engineering dilettante. This hasn’t stopped Loux from gaining carte blanche over what has now grown to more than $5 million dollars per year in funds, in large part distributed to foes of the nuclear industry.”

I think $13,698.63 per day is a very reasonable rate for all the non-expert misinformation we’ve gotten from Loux and his staff.  

“As a result of action by the 1985 Nevada Legislature, NWPO became, officially, the Agency for Nuclear Projects – a statutorily established entity responsible for monitoring and overseeing U.S. Department of Energy activities related to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. In the hands of then-Governor Richard Bryan, it also became part of a political strategy designed to bludgeon political opposition into submission – notably former Senator Chic Hecht in the 1988 senatorial campaign eventually won by Bryan.

 “Under the troika of Senator Bryan, director Robert Loux and former governor Grant Sawyer (who was enlisted to head the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects), the Nuclear Waste Project Office became an anti-nuclear propaganda machine.

“Oversight by the Sawyer Commission transformed into show trials masquerading as fact finding. Science conducted by NWPO’s technical and planning division was corrupted by political considerations. The social scientists of the planning division, given lucrative contracts worth $15 million, used their expertise to generate anti-nuclear hysteria in Nevada. Less abusive but no less disturbing was that some of the technical studies were designed to support the party line rather than investigate real technical questions at Yucca Mountain.”

Kudos to ex- Nevada Governors Richard Bryan and Grant Sawyer for administrative efficiency:  they ordered skewed technical studies, effectively smeared the Yucca project, and defeated their political opponents using the same agency.

 “Nevada’s politicians, notably Senator Bryan and ex-governor Sawyer, looked the other way as Bob Loux awarded millions of dollars of contracts without Requests For Proposals and without competitive bids.

We don’t need no stinking bids.

“Even more problematic was that the Department of Energy, which was supposed to oversee the spending of NWPO, caved in to the political pressure and allowed the state to violate federal laws rather than risk making political waves…

Given a choice between upholding federal law and being called a bunch of Big Meanies, the DOE made the obvious choice.

“For example, NWPO openly violated the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) against using funds to run public relations and lobbying campaigns. Whenever questioned about the legality of these public relations activities, Bob Loux simply claimed the regulations didn’t apply, or that his agency was in compliance because its activities were strictly ‘informational’. The pertinent regulation regarding limits on public relations and lobbying by agencies accepting Federal grants is FAR 31.205-22.”

Loux’ activites were actually MIS-informational, but let’s not split hairs – or atoms, as the case may be.

Twenty-three years later, Loux, Richard Bryan, the NWPO, most of Nevada’s elected officials, and many of Nevada’s citizens are still rabidly anti-Yucca Mountain.  And, unfortunately, many well-intentioned people remain completely uninformed about the facts and benefits.

What a shame.

(I’ll collect and post assorted contact info for the appropriate persons and agencies later today, so please stand by.)

According to the AP, Bob Loux – head of Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Projects Office (NWPO) – took an ex-employee’s salary and gave it to himself and the rest of his staff in the form of double-digit pay increases. In doing so, Loux exceeded his approved budget and raised his own six-figure salary to over $132,000 a year – significantly more than the earnings of many state department heads.

Assemblyman Morse Arberry said Loux could be thrown in jail because “it’s unlawful for any state officer to do what he’s done.” Speaker Barbara Buckley noted that other state employees have received raises of just 2 percent while pulling double and even triple-duty because of a hiring freeze.

With this attempted swindle by Loux, the NWPO’s days of unsupervised slush-funding may finally be coming to an end. A full agency audit is now to take place.

It has been suggested by some that Loux should “pay back” the money. I agree – but first, he should do the other honorable thing and resign.

You can help by contacting the NWPO directly and urging Mr. Loux to quit, or by demanding that the seven members of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects (Dick Bryan, Susan Brager, Larry Brown, Joan Lambert, Steve Molasky, William Roberts and Paul Workman) give him his walking papers.

Here’s the contact information: nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us or call toll-free: (800) 366-0990.

Last night in his interview with Bill O’Reilly, Obama said:

“If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t — what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness.”

Well, Senator Obama, it WOULD BE neighborliness if you were doing it VOLUNTARILY, i.e. if free will were involved.

However, if the amount you pay is decided by the federal government, collected by the federal government, and distributed where and whence the federal government sees fit, and if you resent the hell out of it (as I do), then the act is NOT neighborliness but state-mandated SOCIALISM, otherwise known as the forcible redistribution of wealth, otherwise known as highway robbery by the Nanny State bandits of the world.

(I was pleased when O’Reilly called him “Robin Hood Obama.”)

This Eric O’Keefe blog/op-ed is for my Michigan readers (of whom there are a few).  It’s also worthy of note for anyone concerned with combatting massive tax hikes, the freedom of citizens in recall processes/petitions, and blatant media bias. 

The Free Press’s position is passing strange considering it’s been 25 years since the last legislative recall in Michigan.  And I agree with O’Keefe’s closing:

The Free Press is good at covering the Tigers and Red Wings. It should stick to covering sports, the weather, and the continuing decline of Michigan’s over-taxed economy.