E!! The True Conservative Story™

Apparently there’s a guy working at the Nevada Policy Research Institute who is smarter than the entire Nevada legislature combined.

How so?

He went through the state ledgers line by line and, applying some basic principles and setting a few reasonable priorities, came up with a proposed budget of $5.1 billion.  Which, unlike the budget proposed by the Nevada legislature, stays within our current revenue projections. 

Oh, wait, that’s right:  the state legislature still has not released their budget for public discussion.  Even though they’ve been meeting up in Carson City for months.

Said a legislator who asked not to be named, “I mean, come ON, guys.  This stuff is, like, really hard.”

Says Geoffrey Lawrence, the fiscal expert at NPRI who put the proposed budget together, ”The reason the legislature and governor haven’t been able to balance the budget is that they’ve been unable or unwilling to set priorities.”

Now we wait to hear what the Economic Forum has to say.  We expect they will project lower tax-revenue than previously anticipated.  And that lawmakers will then propose record or near-record tax increases.

If they do, remind them of the four basic principles that provided the basis for NPRI’s budget:  sensible prioritizing, consistent application of government rules and taxes, agency thrift, and “last in, first out” (the elimination of some programs created and funded by Nevada’s record 2003 tax increases – which never should have happened).

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

Whatever your political leanings, you should give yourself the gift of a quick education and read this 12-page report from Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  It is an excellent overview and contains many easy to understand charts, graphs, and summaries.

There is no denying that this budget contains enormous spending increases and will lead to unprecedented levels of national debt.  And Obama’s ”spending cuts” are nowhere to be found.  (Where is the promised scalpel, sir?!)  For example: 

– Obama proposes to move some items from the “discretionary” to “mandatory” spending category, but that is just re-arranging chairs.

– About half the total “savings” come from tax increases.

– Another large chunk of “savings” is really just money ($170 billion a year) that won’t be spent in Iraq after 2012.  But the Bush administration never planned to extend anything like the current levels of spending beyond 2012.  It’s not “saving” to not spend money that was NEVER going to be spent.

Fake savings and tax increases aside, this budget is scary because it is a permanent expansion of the federal government as a percent of GDP.  The simple chart on page 12 sums it up very nicely.  De Rugy, an expert in her field, predicts “slower growth rates, higher unemployment rates, lower standards of living, and higher levels of poverty.”

Change is definitely on the way, folks.  And you better hope your family is spared.

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.

Steve Forbes chimes in.

(That header’s a Transformers movie reference, for all you old folks.  And hermits.  And monks.)

(And I refuse to add a “Stimulus” subject category on my blog because this is NOT a stimulus bill.  I will not bow to the Label Lords of the Left!!)

…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.

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.

The Reckoner has an interesting little pie chart posted + a link to a website called USAspending.gov which says it exists because it has to (because of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act).

Browse around!

As an alternative to drinking yourself into a stupor and sobbing dejectedly as the D.C. Democrats embark on a major spendfest, how about this:

The Republican Study Committee has introduced the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Relief Act of 2009 as an alternative to the Democrats’ big-spending stimulus plan.  Click through for either the full text or highlights as well as letters of support from Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union.  It includes:

- A 5% across the board income tax cut (all six federal rates would be cut)

- An increase in the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000

- Permanently lowering capital gains tax to 15% (the rate cuts from 2003 expire in 2010)

- Repeal of the Alternate Minimium Tax on individuals

- Permanently repeal required distributions on retirement accounts (suspended for 2009, but goes back into effect in 2010)

- Making all withdrawals from IRAs tax and penalty free in 2009

- Increasing by 50% the tax deduction on student loans and qualified higher education costs

- Full, immediate expensing for businesses all costs of assets (uncaps and accelerates exepensing which will encourage capital spending)

- Reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% (for all you contintental types, that would align our rate with the average rate in the EU)

- End capital gains tax on inflation and simplify the capital gains rate structure

- Make the R&D tax credit permanent (originally enacted as part of Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981)

- Extend the carryback period for net operating losses to seven years

This bill contains NO NEW SPENDING, unlike the “stimulus” bill the Dems are pushing which will put us at an unprecedented peacetime deficit (about 8.3% of the GDP).  The bill also contains a one percent reduction to Fiscal Year 2009 discretionary spending, excepting Defense and Military Construction, which is a step toward further spending restraint.

All fiscal conservatives should contact their congressman and support this bill.  It is a no-brainer.

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

Apparently the peeps back in Massachusetts are considering getting rid of the state income tax.

Didn’t believe it myself until I read this (very biased) Globe piece which confirms that Question 1 is indeed on the ballot, that it would completely abolish the state income tax, and that the last time around (2002) the measure got 45% of the vote.

If approved, the state income tax would be cut from 5.3 to 2.65 percent on Jan. 1, 2009 and then be abolished a year later.

The usual suspects are opposed to the measure, citing concerns about the loss of tax revenue and the subsequent “catastrophic” cuts to “needed” services.  

Taxaholics always warn of the rapid decline of schools, roads, and public safety if voters dare to abolish taxes.  They paint a dire picture of social disintegration:  your kids will suddenly become uneducated boobs; you’ll have to drive a covered wagon to work on a dirt road; and your town will be plundered by Viking marauders.

Or, as supporters of the measure say, Beacon Hill will be forced to find more efficient ways to achieve what really matters and cut unnecessary spending. 

Currently, seven states manage to avoid sliding into total anarchy while imposing no income tax:  Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.  Additionally, New Hampshire and Tennessee limit their state income taxes to dividends and interest income only.

(Hat Tip on Question 1:  My friends at the Americans for Tax Reform blog)

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.”

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.) 

I am pleased to point my readers to a new website by the Nevada Policy Research Institute.  The site – www.TransparentNevada.com – will bring much needed oversight and transparency to our state and local governments.

If you want to see how your tax dollars are being spent, just go browse the site.  It’s easy to use and allows visitors to view and search public employee salaries and overtime (there are some real Doozies!) as well as state and county contracts and purchase orders, lobbying expenditures, budgets, and financial reports.

Since your blood will no doubt be boiling after a few minutes on the site – just the first page of government Salaries/Compensation in Clark County was enoughto raise my BP ten points - you’ll be glad to know the site also features a blog for citizen comments & reporting and links to government transparency resources around Nevada.

In the website’s press release, NPRI president Sharon Rossie said, “There is simply no subsitute for independent, non-governmental oversight of public financing.  NPRI is proud to provide this valuable service to Nevada citizens.”

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.)

Anne of Valley County, Idaho writes to inform me of a story in today’s Idaho Statesman re: legislation to compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves. 

A Senate committee on Thursday approved a bill sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming to approve federal matching money for state trust funds that pay ranchers for those losses.

The Bush administration has objected to the bill, saying the payments should be a state responsibility.

But Anne says Idaho didn’t have a say (vote to) have the wolves “re-introduced.” 

And she puts that in quotes because the Feds didn’t bring in their native little red wolf, but the larger grey – which never roamed those parts to begin with.

So, this was and is a federal program.

As an aside, Anne notes that two weeks ago, one of their ranchers lost three calves in one day, all of them senselessly slaughtered (i.e., not eaten). 

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.

One of my NV business owner pals just forwarded me her recent email exchange with Nevada State Senator Dennis Nolan.  It’s worth sharing especially since Nolan’s advice to her (and anyone who agrees with her) was to leave the state.  Way to persuade your critics and strengthen Nevada, Senator Nolan!

P:  The reason people don’t get Nevada plates is that they are the highest in the country. Hey, Earth to Nolan! You can CHOOSE your state of residency. You can set up an LLC or company in another state. All of these are perfectly legal ways to have plates from other states. Want people to register here? Cut the fees down and they will register!!! DUH!

Senator Nolan:  If they like paying to register in another state and let the rest of us pay for roads and highways, then they should live in the other state! DUH!

P:  Because people can have more than one house or an RV which is deductible as a house! DUH! Last time I looked half of it went to the overbloated worthless school system stuffed with illegals that you refuse to do anything about! DUH! WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ROADS? WITH THE WAY THIS STATE IS GETTING CALIFORNICATED THERE WILL BE LOTS OF PEOPLE LEAVING!  READ IT AND WEEP! http://wyomingcompany.com/ 

$500 to set up a Wyoming LLC, cheap plates, no business tax and no Nevada stigma! and no Rhinos! That single move alone would save me $3,800 a year in plates for a 1999 car ($500), a 2001 car ($650), and a 2003 motor home ($1,800) which is never there! And when it is, it’s parked!!!! Tell me, why should I keep paying license plate fees in Nevada?????? It’s a NO BRAINER!

Senator Nolan:  Your Right! and in your case I think the move would be a prudent and in the State’s best interest!

(E!! Note:  The word “your” is not the same as the contraction “you’re” meaning you are.  Dare I speculate that Nolan attended public school in Nevada?)

P:  I’m sure there are plenty more people that would rather see you go. Shall we make a list???

Senator Nolan:  You’re probably right! No, don’t worry,  I’ve already started a list.  Hey, I really do appreciate your concern and  involvement despite our differences.  Have a good week.

(Having calmed down, Nolan realizes that shouting “DUH!” and advising unhappy citizens to leave the state is probably not a good strategy…or very Senatorial, either.)

P:  Truce, for now. If you really want to do something to help the economy, support cutting the school fees out of the budget and allowing for licensing your cars based on what they are actually worth, not some inflated retail price.  We pay $1,800 a year for license plates for a 5 year old motorhome. We RV outside of Nevada 10 months a year. When it’s in Las Vegas it’s parked. Now tell me why I should pay that kind of money to the state?

I can license in Wyoming or Montana (no sales tax either) by purchasing an LLC. I haven’t yet, but I’m going to. You can be a citizen of anywhere now by buying an LLC or Corp. Why is Nevada driving business and fees out of Nevada? Wyoming is actively seeking what would be Nevada businesses. I would love to see some numbers on how much the LLC business has dropped in Nevada since 2003, and the big tax and fee hikes.

The threat of a business tax being espoused by Rogers and Buckley are forcing people to look elsewhere. It is perfectly legal and smart to lower your taxes legally. It would be in Nevada’s best interest to change these 2 anti-business, anti-consumer things that are patently unfair. It would cut the cost of plates in half, and I bet alot more people would buy their plates here.

By the way, I am also a small business owner, Internet. It would be very easy for me to move my business to Wyoming. In fact I’m setting up a second LLC in Wyoming this next week as a precaution against a potential business tax. How many other businesses are doing or will do the same thing?

It’s a world economy now. State governments should realize that. Make it attractive for small businesses to be here or they will stop coming. Have a nice evening.

Remember the movie Pay It Forward in which random acts of kindness are not paid back but instead are bestowed upon someone Else?   

Here in Nevada, we’re gearing up to shoot the sequel.  It’s called Tax it Backward and its about Nevadans imposing taxes on folks who don’t live here:  the hapless tourists standing behind us in whatever line for whatever show at whatever mega-resort.

The would-be producers of this very bad idea are the usual suspects:  the head honchos in the teachers union and many of the Dems in Carson City.  The extras are the voters in favor of fleecing Nevada’s tourists rather than pay for a tax increase on themselves.  Those against funding education spending increases with a room tax increase can be found on both the left and the right. 

CityLife editor Steve Sebelius thinks we need to raise taxes.  Me and the Muthster, we say no.  Where we three agree is thinking its wrong to fund the education department by taxing people who don’t live in Nevada (tourists) via higher lodging taxes.  Yesterday, Sebelius wrote…

“The Review-Journal published a poll in today’s editions, revealing that 60 percent favor increasing the room tax to pay for education, a move that will raise about $150 million to $185 million per year. ‘People will vote for tax increases that don’t affect them. I would be surprised if it did not pass given the numbers that are showing right now,’ said Brad Coker, managing partner of Mason-Dixon, the company that did the poll.

“Exactly. People don’t mind soaking others for things they ought to be paying for themselves. In this case it’s two easy targets: Casinos, and tourists. 

“How many of those people would walk into a 7-Eleven, fill up a Big Gulp, grab some Doritos and then tell the clerk to charge the guy who’s next in line? Sure they might want to do that, but how many would actually have the cojones to do it in person?

“Not very many. But they’ll do it at the ballot box.

“The point is, education benefits everybody in Nevada, and therefore, everybody in Nevada has an obligation to pay.”

Correct-a-mundo.  To raise taxes on tourists is not only taxation without representation – a no-no per the Founders of this great nation - it’s also bad for Tourism which, might I remind everyone, is a major source of revenue here in Nevada.  

If we’re going to raise taxes for education in Nevada - which I strongly oppose because I don’t think more money is the answer to our education problems – then Nevadans ought to be the ones to put their money where their ballot button is. 

And that’s a Wrap.

“When examined as a whole, I find it impossible to believe that there is simply no way to reduce spending within the system of higher education. . . . The system of higher education currently employs 1,328 people who are paid $100,000 or more annually.”

- Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, 8/20/08

“The top 452 (university system employees)…all make more than the governor, who receives $140,000 a year.  The highest paid university system employee is [Dr. William Zamboni, head of the School of Medicine's surgery department] who receives $1.4 million a year in compensation not counting health and retirement benefits.”

- Nevada Appeal, 8/21/08

The Muthster tells me that Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley did an interview last week in which she threatened to target any Republican candidate who signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. 

On the other side is Muth and Citizen Outreach, not-so-gently reminding candidates that there will be a barrage of pre-election phone calls and mail-outs into their districts if they don’t sign the Pledge.

What’s a Republican candidate to do?  Buckle when the leader of the opposition party points her canons his way, or stand up for fiscal conservatism and fight the Good Fight?

Here’s a third alternative for Nevada’s candidates:  if you’re billing yourself as a Republican but support raising taxes on an already over-taxed citizenry, do us all a favor and leave the party.  Buckley will be glad to have you, and we’ll be glad to see you go.

If you’re a voter who opposes new taxes, or are running for election and want to see and/or sign the Pledge, go here.  Candidates can fax it to Citizen Outreach at (775) 522-3925.

Well, I don’t relish raining on conservatives’ celebratory parade after Tuesday’s primary victories here in Nevada, but a commitment to fair analysis requires that I do just that.

This morning on the drive to work, I heard Heidi Harris say (on talk radio KXNT) that Obama will be opening four more campaign offices in Las Vegas this week.  Not surprising now that McCain has a slight edge in the polls.

The good news for the Dems is their voter registration edge of about 60,000, many of whom were signed up by the Obama campaign in recent months.  In addition, the Las Vegas Sun reports that the Dems have trained 600 new precinct leaders in addition to the 1,000+ who were trained for the caucuses.

The bad news for Obama is that he has to overcome the senate’s most liberal voting record in a state that is unwaveringly pro-gun and has a deep aversion to tax hikes.  He’s also got a problem in re: to energy because the majority of Nevadans – in both parties – support creating more energy (drill, drill, drill) vs. cutting consumption.

The question is:  will those extra voter registrations and the opening of these new campaign offices make a difference for Obama in November – and should the NV GOP follow suit?

Republicans tend to be more reliable voters, so the GOP doesn’t always have to work as hard to get their peeps to the polls.  With numbers this close, though, McCain’s people may want to take a page from the 2004 Bush-Cheney playbook.  The Republican ground operation in Nevada was huge and Kerry was defeated by 21,500 votes.

Not sure that’s going to happen, though.  The McCain campaign seems to be focusing more on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — states with larger numbers of electoral votes than Nevada – I guess thinking that if they can win 2 out of 3, they can win the whole enchilada.

Obama seems to be taking a different approach:  grabbing enough (other) Bush states such that losses in the big Midwestern states won’t mean as much.  Clearly, Nevada is one he wants in the bag.

Question:  How many years does it take a group of Clark County Commissioners to decide to open a finished beltway interchange for public use?

Answer:  Two.

Read about it here.  Hopefully common sense will win out at the August 19 meeting.  Contact your commissioner before then if you give a hoot.

This past Friday, Louis Dezseran @ the Nevada Policy Research Institute posted a disturbing commentary on excessive government pay and perks.  Here are some excerpts (emphasis mine):

Last year, 162 Washoe County employees each cost taxpayers more than $100,000, while 61 Clark County employees each cost taxpayers more than $200,000. One Clark County official made $266,562 – almost double the salary set by law for Nevada’s governor. 

An open records request found that the City of Las Vegas paid more than $21 million for overtime, the State of Nevada spent over $29 million, and Clark County paid the most at more than $32 million in one year.  One Vegas city employee made more in overtime than he made in base salary. Multiple Clark County fire officials made close to $100,000 each in overtime.

Further, state and county audits found that some public employees received overtime pay despite it not being approved in advance by supervisors, that several law enforcement personnel received more overtime than their contracts allow, that some law enforcement officials were paid for overtime they did not work, and that some Laughlin police officers received both regular salary and overtime pay for the same shifts.

Public employees in some counties receive extra holiday pay for working on such faux holidays as “Family Day,” “Nevada Day” or the employee’s birthday.  Some public employees enjoy inappropriate round-the-clock use of taxpayer-funded vehicles. 

Finally, some county employees taking college classes are fronted the entire cost of tuition and books, then are paid time-and-a-half for hours spent in class.

It is commonly argued that police and firefighters have jobs that are more dangerous than the average citizen’s, so higher pay is appropriate.  But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, law enforcement and firefighting actually do not rank in the country’s top ten most dangerous occupations. Lower-paying occupations in construction, mining, fishing, roofing, farming, trash collection, manufacturing and the military see more deaths and injuries on the job than do either law enforcement or fire fighting. 

Where is accountability to Nevada’s taxpayers?  Where is the fairness to our private sector employees who earn far less than our government workers for doing essentially the same jobs?  And where is the outrage that irresponsible payroll spending by our elected officials has helped create Nevada’s current economic situation?

I encourage Nevada residents to contact their state Senators and representatives in the Assembly and let them know we expect them to pass economic reforms that will limit government spending on the salaries, overtime, and perks of our public employees.  If you receive a response, please email me or post a Comment so we can track results.